SPEAKER_00 0:12

You're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast with Roger Davis. Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rodri Davis, and this week we have a conversation with Kate Simonson. Now, Kate could be described as a next generation philanthropist, although, as you'll hear in the interview, Kate would take issue with pretty much every aspect of that and would probably say that the next gen distinction is not helpful and that she doesn't consider herself a philanthropist but rather a funder. But she is involved in managing her family foundation, the Simonson Family Foundation. And so I sat down with Kate to talk to her about her experience of philanthropy, her experience of doing philanthropy as a family, and her experience as a next gen, if you know that is the right terminology. So we had a really fascinating conversation. I've talked to Kate a few times about these things, and it was great to have a chance to sit down again and to sort of capture that for the podcast. So we talked a bit about how the family foundation came about and to what extent that uh represented an extension of a sort of existing interest in charity and how that had kind of evolved over time. Um we talked about how decisions are made about what to fund in terms of cause areas and organizations and how that sort of works in practice. Um we talked about the uh the challenges that come with accepting that as a funder or a philanthropist you have to say no to some things or not to fund them. We talked about how uh as a funder, the Simon Sun Foundation um and Kate in particular tries to manage the tension between making sure that they are open to as wide a range of causes and organizations as possible and aren't getting kind of locked within their own echo chamber or subject to their own biases, but then also at the same time not placing too much of a burden on uh potential grantees by asking them to make sort of onerous applications and how you do that in practical terms. We also talked about some of the issues around power dynamics once you've decided who to fund and how you kind of manage the relationship between funders and grantees. We also talked about the question of the rewards of giving and whether the fact that it's you know often argued that giving uh brings a warm glow to the donor or kind of offers them rewards in other ways, whether that's something to embrace or whether it's actually something that brings a level of discomfort sometimes. We talked uh a bit about the context of family philanthropy and what it is that Kate had found most rewarding about doing uh philanthropy as a family and what perhaps had presented more of a challenge and some obstacles to be overcome. We talked about the whole question of next gen philanthropy, we talked about whether that's actually a helpful terminology at all and whether trying to distinguish next generation philanthropists as some kind of different species from other philanthropists is is actually counterproductive and you know potentially doesn't make sense because it presents them as a sort of homogeneous mass that all thinks alike, and also maybe does a disservice to philanthropists who aren't counted as next gen who actually have been doing philanthropy in interesting ways for for a long time. Um and then we talked a bit about what it was that Kate sort of is most positive about in the world of philanthropy and what makes her most enthused, and also what she thinks are some of the the biggest challenges and what are potentially sort of the biggest causes for concern. So without further ado, let's go into the conversation. I really, really enjoyed this one. It's great to talk to Kate, and I'm I hope you'll enjoy it too. Uh, and then I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Kate Simonson. Hi there, Kate.

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_00 4:30

Um, well, it's great to have a chance to talk to you on the podcast. I know we've talked at various points, you know, at length about some really interesting things to do with philanthropy, but it's great to sort of capture that in a way that other people can get a chance to listen in as well. Um, so I guess the best place to start is just for you to say a little bit about what your interest in philanthropy is. You're obviously involved in your own family foundation, but maybe you could kind of explain a bit about that foundation, how it came about, what it is and what it does.

SPEAKER_01 4:59

Yeah, absolutely. Um, so my family foundation is um about three and a half years into its life of operating on a more strategic, purposeful basis. It was about three and a half years ago that we started calling it a foundation, and that's when I came on as head of philanthropy. Um, which at the time I thought, wow, what a cool job title. But little did I know it's going to be quite a um a fascinating learning journey, and I'm still very much on that journey. My background is in academia, and I'm passionate about research, as well as having written a lot of communications for people working in the social impact sector. So, in some ways, those two interests have aligned in this particular role. Uh, the um the foundation is fed by an investment office in a kind of waterfall agreement. Um, so they uh they move a percentage of um annual of their net worth on an annual basis. So the positive money is ever replenishing. Um so there's not a kind of fear of it running out, um, which I think was one of the things that held back the family from granting in a more structured and well-thought-out way. It was much more responsive than proactive before. But with the dawn of COVID, and my goodness, everything else since, uh, the perma crisis, I think we're now living. And uh it became abundantly clear that it was that we had a moral and ethical responsibility to really engage with that money and grant in a way that was meeting the uh range of issues that we're presenting. Um so we focus on the UK, we focus on um social issues, uh, but we're actually sector agnostic and and we grant in a much more aims-driven way. So, largely speaking, we focus on issues of inequity, and that can be expressed through organisations working to create opportunity where there wasn't opportunity before, um, to give fairer starts or fresh starts. Um, and then we focus on um well-being in all of the senses of the word. Um, and really having that broad focus gives us uh a wonderful flexibility. It means that unlike quite a lot of funders who have much more clunkier systems and have a lot more red tape surrounding where their funds can go, we can fund in a very intersectional way. I heard someone on a podcast the other day point out that no single person has one single issue. And I do think that when you are a funder who really narrows down to a particular issue, that can really be at the cost of people working in very complex spaces. Um, so that I think is uh a real um advantage of being quite a lean, nimble machine and having very few barriers to what it is we can grant to. Um but yeah, that's a rough adambration. And I and then the other thing I would add is that we uh aim to fund in underfunded spaces and underfunded communities. Again, because so many of the issues in the sector are getting the funding to the brilliant ideas and the brilliant people. Um, that's something that I'm quite passionate about finding crafty ways of doing that. Um, because there are, as I'm sure you understand, a lot of barriers to people getting funding, particularly if they're minoritized-led groups, community groups, uh women and girls, woefully underfunded, smaller organisations, organisations in the early days of their journey. Um, all of these things, I think that's where, as a small foundation ourselves, we can have the most profound impact.

SPEAKER_00 9:22

Yeah, it's really interesting to hear. And there's there's lots I want to kind of pick up on about how this works in process in practice and sort of what the process is for identifying causes and organizations and decision making and how and how that happens. I guess just before I do that, one of the things I wanted to ask, you sort of said there it's you know, three and a half years, I think you said, since you you've started doing philanthropy in a kind of structured and strategic way and self-identifying as a foundation. Because obviously, you know, to some extent the vehicle is a reflection of your own of your own family, and it's partially a sort of family foundational. I know there are kind of other individuals who are also involved. But before you had that structure, was there still any sense of kind of philanthropy being an important part of what your family did, or was it something that you were aware of as you were growing up, even if it wasn't necessarily as structured and formal?

SPEAKER_01 10:13

Yes, I think that's an interesting question because what I would the ex-English lit academic in me pick up on is somewhat more semantic. We were charitable as a collective, as uh individuals. But I would say here's where the departure from charity and philanthropy happens. I think my parents can rightfully call themselves philanthropists now because of the um organizational quality of the work. Whereas before it was much more to do with coming across something uh serendipitously and feeling good about giving to, or feeling that it was the right thing to give to it, or perhaps if something personal has struck you, then you uh often an emotional response is to is to give. Uh whereas this iteration is much more uh driven by sure, shared values, that's the underpinning of the charity as well, the charitable giving. Uh, but it's much more, I suppose, in investment style in its in its iteration.

SPEAKER_00 11:28

Yeah, and that's I I I want to to follow up, but I can't resist at this point because this question of the the relationship or the distinction between charity and philanthropy, I find absolutely fascinating. And I wondered as you have developed more of that sort of strategic approach and something that you can think of as philanthropy as opposed to charity, to what extent has that entirely replaced charity? And to what extent is there still, you know, is there still some charity going on? And then I know when I've spoken to other philanthropists, they often say, well, yes, we have all the programs and the strategy and the structures, but we also have, you know, this discretionary pot that we keep because it's important still to have the ability to do the charitable bit and to be reactive and responsive and to focus on human connection as well. Is that something that's still a part of of your overall giving?

SPEAKER_01 12:14

Yes, and I and I really love that distinction because I love it for a whole host of reasons. Yes, there are discretionary funds that we give to our wider family uh network. Um, we also have a donor matching scheme that we extend to, we we have a family farm as well in Lancashire, so we extend to employees there and also the investment office that that feeds the um the foundation. And one of the reasons that we have those two avenues, uh and it's a much more ad hoc style of giving, and there are no parameters at all to what you can give to, is that I really find it so important to never narrow my vision so much that great, I'm an expert in the particular uh area that we're funding in, but then blind to other issues. So I think it's I think it's vital that I have a sense of the charitable landscape that extends beyond the ways in which I grant. But also I agree, I think maintaining that personable human aspect is such an important check because hopefully that is always woven into the ways in which we give uh strategically and philanthropically. Um you know, we we would describe ourselves as trust-based grantmakers, but I've actually spent a lot of time recently really hammering out uh what it is that that means, because it can be a very woolly term, right? And it can be used to mislead people, I think. And understandably, a lot of charitable organizations are pretty cynical about funders that are saying, yeah, yeah, we're we're trust-based funders. And uh, you know, they've had such terrible experiences with honestly saying expressing what they need or what's been uh struggled and so on, that that it's understandable you would then live in fear of a punitive culture between funder and grantee. So I think it's important that I am very open about the values that underpin our funding, the pragmatics surrounding how we fund, and really demonstrating what an organization can expect from having a partnership with us. Uh so hopefully that will be. I'm I'm in the process of creating a new website and that will be up there, out there. Yeah, because I think I think having uh everyone goes into a partnership with mutual expectations, but it's not very often that people talk about them from the fore.

SPEAKER_00 15:10

No, absolutely. And I and I want to to get into some of that detail on on the how of how you go about grant making and how you sort of take into account all those considerations and what what that looks like beyond the initial uh decision to give over the money and what the relationship with grantees is like. But I guess sort of taking the bit before that, I'm really interested in the question of how as an as a family and as an organization you identify opportunities to give, both in terms of cause areas and organizations. You know, you said that from your academic background, you're very keen to make sure that it's evidence-based. What does it look like in practice for an idea to go from you know, first becoming aware of something through to the foundation funding it?

SPEAKER_01 15:54

Yes, that's a good question. And it's one that new philanthropists that I speak to, it's the one question that comes up every single time, particularly the question of how do you find these organizations, especially when you're funding in underfunded spaces. The reason they're underfunded is because of the um relative invisibility. Um and um to be frank, I do not have the resources because I am essentially a one-person show that meets with my uh parents on a now a two-monthly basis, actually. Um and that's for a few hours to discuss strategy and potential granting. So I don't have the resources to accept applications, um, nor do I want an organization to speculatively potentially waste time and money and resources in applying. But I am uh painfully aware of the barrier that that then creates uh to be seen. Uh so there are a number of things that I do to try and circumvent that. Uh one idea wonderfully came from uh a peer and a friend, uh Becky from the Hell Velen Foundation, and they have on their website, and I now have the same, a Tell Us About You page. And it's a simple form, and in my case, it populates directly into a spreadsheet that I have access to. And it would take an organization cost 30 seconds to fill out a little bit about themselves, and a little bit about uh I suppose perhaps how they found us, because that might be helpful in understanding their network, um, and also just what their their core aims, their values are. And I I consult that spreadsheet on a semi-regular basis. Uh, so that's one way. Another way is granting through grant-making charities. Um, it's very important to me that those grant-making charities' values and application processes are akin to mine. Um, so there was one I looked at who had a diabolically complicated application process. Um, so difficult, in fact, that they gave, I think, three-hour-long training sessions on how to fill it out. Um, that really doesn't align with how it is I go about granting and beginning a relationship with an organization. Um, whereas the likes of the four or Rosa, they have a gorgeously nurturing application process where actually conversations that potential grantees have with the mentors that help them along with the process offer brilliant feedback, constructive feedback, so that even if they don't get through the process, they have this takeaway that will strengthen their application process for the much knottier uh funders. Um funding through them is great because I have a much better sense of the uh universe of charities that they fund. I may then choose, in addition to uh granting to these grant-making charities, um, and I do so in an unrestricted way. So I'm very happy that they spend that on their own core costs. Um I that I then readily see all these wonderful, much, much smaller organizations that I would have otherwise potentially been blind to. Uh, another thing that I've recently started doing that someone I met at a summit in New York recently has devised, is rather than asking your fellow funders who are you funding, and of course that can be helpful, but you do risk perpetuating one another's blind spots, um, you know, narrowing of a vision rather than expanding, uh you should ask your grantees. Well, who else should I buy should I be funding? Not at the expense of the people that you're currently supporting, but as a value added. And you know, of course they know the landscape of people doing wonderful, interesting, and possibly even new things out there. Uh, so that's just a handful of things that I do. Um, and of course, I go to a lot of conferences and a lot of events, and there's yeah, there's that's that can be a fabulous way of discovering even ideas that hadn't even occurred to you, issues that hadn't occurred to you. Um but yeah, it it's it's something that I ruminate on a lot is how to be better at finding an organization. And then once you asked about our process, well, once I found someone, it is quite rare I'll invite someone to apply because I unless I really have faith that they do have the time and the resources to do so, um I I would much rather do high-level due diligence myself, have conversations with them, maybe witness an activity uh where appropriate, than um then have them wrangle with an application process that may not be successful. Often when I'm having a conversation with an organization, um I'm pretty much at the point of funding them anyway. So it would be very, very rare that I would let someone down at the last minute. Um, if I do invite someone to apply, it's four questions. And really that's just to get a better sense, you know, speaking about expectations of what would be helpful for them. Um, you know, do they need to employ someone new? Um, is there a growth strategy? In which case would incremental funding be helpful? You know, it's all of these things, it's getting to the nitty gritty. Um And yeah, then I fund on a multi-year unrestricted basis. Sometimes capital grants, if that's more helpful, but again, it's always in line with what works best for that organization. I like to bear witness to activities, as I say, where appropriate. Sometimes it's really inappropriate, in which case I get to know the team better and to understand what challenges they face. And that means I can be a better champion because I've borne witness to bear witness to an organization in action. And that way you can be a real celebrator of their work. You know, I've seen it. I went to a a young person's debating final the other day, and there were about 200 teenagers in the room. And all my days, I could have been in a Taylor Swift concert. They were so engaged and so excited. It was a really beautiful thing to see. Um, and a wonderfully robust uh contention of the tired lambasting of teenagers that I hear all too often. They are utterly engaged, they are utterly galvanized, and I'm excited that they're the inheritors of this incredibly difficult planet.

SPEAKER_00 23:20

Um I mean that yeah, that does sound hugely uplifting, I have to say. So um I was just thinking as you were speaking, it made it made me think um of some of the debate at the moment around um what's happened with the trajectory of Mackenzie Scott's giving. So I know it's sort of at first she's absolutely lauded for adopting you know trust-based approach, core cost funding, not having grant application process for precisely the sort of reasons that you talk about. But then I think the really interesting thing latterly has been a recognition that she and and the people around her have had that there are dangers in that as well, in that, as you say, you're then subject to your own blind spots and you know you you don't know what you don't know. And so she's also added in an element of a grant application process. But then that has the challenge of you say there's a huge responsibility not to then just put a burden on organisations if they may not end up getting funding. So I think what you were saying there about trying to find ways of squaring that circle by broadening your perspective by asking other people, grantees or other funders, but then still trying not to place the burden on potential recipients is yeah, is really, really interesting.

SPEAKER_01 24:32

Can I just add to that, there is no perfect way of funding, it has to be, to my mind, on a case-by-case basis, because one thing does not suit everyone. So I think that's one of the great advantages of um heading up a found a family foundation is that we don't have to have these burdensome systems. We're not we're not beholden to, you know, we don't have public money, for example, so we don't have that layer of responsibility and accountability. We can and we ought to take risks because actually that's a learning experience for us. And all too often some things have to fail or perhaps go on a different path in order to be the more successful version of itself. I mean, God knows you all know this. No PhD ends up ends up resembling what the proposal was.

SPEAKER_03 25:32

No.

SPEAKER_01 25:34

And I feel I feel genuinely privileged to be in this uh flexible position. And I do recognise that not everyone's able to do that. But I had a very refreshing conversation with a new philanthropist the other day who's starting out uh setting up and running her own family foundation, and I had a delightful email afterwards saying it is such a relief to learn that it doesn't have to be overly complicated, that that I can do this in a flexible way, in a way that suits an organization, you know, act in a light touch way. But but at the same time, my heart sank a bit because it was very clear to me that a lot of the advice she was getting from, for example, wealth managers was to the contrary.

SPEAKER_00 26:19

That's something I think is really interesting. I'm sure when we've talked previously, it's something you said that to some extent, yeah, absolutely, you know, do have a strategic approach, think this through, have a process, but don't get so caught up in that that you you become subject to sort of analysis paralysis and don't do anything. Because at the end of the day, the most important thing, particularly when there are some pretty pressing needs out there, and you know, the economic situation for lots of organizations is not good to say the least. The most important thing as a philanthropist is just to get on and do something and then probably iterate and learn as as you go along.

SPEAKER_01 26:52

Yeah, so it's much better to understand why, to give an example, a charity has no reserves than have an approach whereby you say, Oh, they don't have enough reserves, so therefore that doesn't fall into our criteria. Um, because my God, there are really sound reasons why a charity in this particular moment will not have a glass of reserves.

SPEAKER_00 27:12

Absolutely, yeah. And one of the things is, well, I wanted to ask, because I mean, there's there's lots of things, and I'm I'm gonna apologize at this point that I'm gonna start skating all over the place because there's there's a bunch of things I want to pick up on. But one is you can make very sort of conscientious, well-informed decisions about giving as a philanthropist and as a sort of family foundation, but the reality is that if you have limited resources, and at the end of the day, all philanthropists, you know, regardless of what level, have limited resources in relation to the scale of the challenges they're trying to address. You do have to make choices, and those choices involve not funding some things. And the reality is it's not that those things are not good and not worthy and not fundable. You could probably fund almost any of the organizations that apply to you or that you come across. How do you do you find that, you know, is that something that you struggle with in a way, the idea that you can't do everything, and that at some point as a philanthropist, you have to make peace with that fact and the fact that you have to make choices, and those choices, you know, have kind of opportunity costs in terms of the things that you can't fund.

SPEAKER_01 28:15

Yes, I I think you do. Um, I would say to be an effective philanthropist, or in my case a funder, I wouldn't call myself a philanthropist because it's not my money. Um, but to be an effective funder, you have to sit with discomfort. And I think it's really important that you do. So that involves uh everything from interrogating where the wealth came from and how it's benefited you or me in my case. Um, but also that discomfort applies to the difficult decisions, to the saying no to perfectly good organizations. And I completely understand why a lot of funders will start out much more broad church, a bit like our sector agnostic approach, but will then say, actually, we are only going to focus on education, because then that automatically allows them to say an easy no. Um, but it does, as I as I mentioned earlier, also mean that you're less able to fund in complicated spaces. So I think the parameters can help funders more or can risk helping funders more. Um, but there are obviously very sound arguments for, well, actually, if you become really expert in the uh area of funding education, that there can be a strength to that. So I don't I don't dismiss it out of hand, but I I do sometimes um yearn slightly for a simpler form of funding because it would make those no's a lot easier. I was looking at a charity for about two hours the other day that had approached me uh uh out of the blue. And I had a, I suppose, an informed instinct for why it wasn't a good marriage. Um, and I won't I won't go into the details because I don't want to reveal too much about the charity, but the wrestling that has to take place between heart and head and reminding yourself of strategy and the underpinning values and our drive to fund the underfunded or funding complicated spaces, you have to keep that in check. You have to hold that in order to know that you are making decision, a decision in accordance with that, and not just in a whimsical way, and not just in a sort of in a heartbeat-like response. Um, and that that is challenging. And as I say, it means sitting with a lot of discomfort.

SPEAKER_00 30:52

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and uh I'm gonna come back to to some of the stuff around around grantmaking in a moment. I think one thing I wanted to pick up on, um, just I think it's fascinating, was when you you mentioned you know that you'd been to that event with those young people involved in debating, and I thought there's a really great example of the fact that as a philanthropist or as a funder who is involved in distributing philanthropic resources, that there is a degree of reward. You know, this stuff, you know, I hear it time and time again from donors, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't fulfilling, and it you know, often there ends up being the thing that they find most fulfilling and gives them the greatest sense of well-being and purpose. I wondered whether, you know, I think because we've talked about this before, and think you were sort of saying something interesting about it, is that is that something that you kind of embrace about philanthropy, or is there almost a degree of discomfort in a way about the fact that it you know it is actually quite nice and rewarding as a donor? And does, you know, is there something as a sort of cognitive dissonance when often you're sort of dealing with issues that are themselves, you know, uh concerning or problematic, or you know, that you're aware of need out there, and that then you know the act of of distributing resources to address those, you know, brings with it a sort of warm glow or a reward. And and actually sometimes maybe that feels a bit peculiar.

SPEAKER_01 32:11

Yeah, it's a it's a good question. So in the in the list of values and the ways in which we fund that I wrote recently, one of the things that I expressed very clearly in it was we do not fund things where there is an expectation that the funder receives something in return. Um I really hope that gone are the days of the sort of drunken balls where you have to pay £10,000 for a table and then buy completely unnecessary things that auction have gone. Actually, I saw a charity the other day. They work with um issues of domestic violence against women, and they were selling a shooting day for a host of men for fundraising, and I just thought, oh gosh, okay, that still happens. Um, so that's that's the sort of the extreme end of the reward spectrum with the the softer, warm glow, the joy, it's not something that motivates me. It is it's it's a fulfilling aspect, but I actually find the exchange of ideas, the commitment to achieving profound and systemic change much more galvanizing and motivational. And I was on a course recently with Forward Global, who were previously the philanthropy workshop. And one of the things that you do a deep dive into is what motivates you as a funder. And there's no kind of um, there's no judgment in the room for if you said, well, it is the feeling of um doing good. Um but that uh given a list of things that motivated me, it was it ranked very, very low on the list for me, which in some ways comes as a relief because I'm very conscientious about the power imbalance of uh historic granting, present-day granting. And I will continue to reflect on the ways in which I can work to ameliorate that, to correct that. And again, that's another that's another part of the fabric of discomfort of the role, but one to sit with and engage with, not one to run away from.

SPEAKER_00 34:34

And and that brings us, I think, neatly on to um, you know, we talked about the process in the of identifying causes and organizations and trying to make sure that, you know, the power imbalances that are potentially there in that aspect of philanthropy are kind of minimized. I guess at the point where you begin a funding relationship with an organization, there are then all, as you say, kind of all sorts of other challenges because there is that natural power imbalance between being the one that has the resources and the one that's in need of those resources. I wondered what you do in terms of trying to address those those potential sort of power issues in your funding. And particularly I was thinking, you know, what approach do you take to managing that balance between just placing trust in an organization and having some need to measure the outcomes or the effectiveness of the funding that you're giving to them?

SPEAKER_01 35:26

Yes, and that really comes down to a number of things. Obviously, impact assessment is uh relates to the last part of your question. But I would say the whole funding journey has to uh has to actively correct those imbalances. So every single uh engagement that you have with that organization needs to be an expression of decentering yourself as a funder. Um, so in part that's through a far less complicated application system. For example, uh, we recently agreed that if an organization would prefer, very happy for them to submit a video application if that if that suits them better. Um we don't only fund charities, we fund um organisations working broadly speaking in in impact. So CICs, for example. They won't necessarily have a dedicated fundraiser, so it's not a language that um you're necessarily speaking. Um and frankly, we don't need to have all the I's and T's cross and dotted. Um that's not what we're looking for. We look for potential passion, good governance, great ideas, people. And so that that's a part of relaxing that um formalistic expectation. And then it's the nature of the relationship that I established from the start. So a lot, I think, of trust is achieved through conversation, frank conversation. Um, you know, what have the challenges been and how can I help? Not what have the challenges been? Oh dear. Um it's creating a culture of support, not of punishment. Um, and then when it comes to assessing impact, well, NPC are doing excellent work at the moment in trying to establish a system for trust-based granters uh whereby you are measuring impact, but you are doing so in a way that is not onerous or imposing um you know overly difficult and overly specific systems. Um, so I would say to any funders wanting to interrogate that, do look into the work that NPC are doing. Um, what I'm currently doing in-house, unfortunately, I'm able to um for a period of time employ someone who is able to create uh sophisticated databased models. Um, not something I'm good at at all. Um and together we're creating a an inputting model that is looking at a whole load of criteria across the organizations that we've granted to date. So, including looking at our um diversity, uh, equality and inclusion credentials, uh looking at areas that perhaps we have concentrated particularly in, areas that we might have neglected, um, that can be geographical, that can be thematic, um, and really assessing whether we as funders are being impactful. So it's turning the question on yourself: what does our impact bean? Not throwing it out onto the a grantee. And I'm I'm hopeful that that is again just going to ever so slightly shift that balance back. Because I think as soon as you start holding yourself accountable, that's where the attention and the focus and the energy should be, rather than asking someone else to do that for you.

SPEAKER_00 39:06

Yeah. And and that's really interesting. And it made me think actually, one thing I wanted to ask is um, you know, there's a lot of sort of critical narrative around philanthropy and particularly around the role of foundations. And I think, you know, a lot of good self-questioning and analysis. And some, you know, a lot of that focuses on the need to shift power and resources, not you know, not to attach conditions to it, to um kind of more give more involvement to lived experience and emphasize participation and those sorts of things, which all of which I think is absolutely admirable. I guess one of the things that strikes me sometimes is it it the logical end conclusion of that sometimes feels as though it's it's uh the idea that you know essentially the desirable thing would be to de-center funders to the point where they they basically didn't exist. And and it it almost implies that they're a kind of necessary evil because that's where the resources are at the moment, but it'd be better if the resources just you know were got straight to the organizations on the front line doing the work. I guess my question is: is that true, or do you have any sense as a funder that there is some value to funders kind of above and beyond their ability just to distribute financial resources? Do you feel as though you bring something to the table that isn't just the money due to the position that you hold?

SPEAKER_01 40:22

I think you can hold that cynicism, but you can be proactive with it. So, what I mean by that is um, yes, there is an inherent power imbalance there, um, because you are the wealth holder, you are the person giving away funds that you have made probably through a completely inequitable capitalistic system. Um so therefore, I think that should be galvanizing. If you all if you're operating with a consciousness of that, you can you say, well, what other value do I have beyond my wealth? Do I have a particular talent that is relevant to this organization? Not just I think I'm great and I should be running a show. Um do I have connections? Uh could I put them in touch with a trustee who happens to be a lawyer that will help them with X, Y, and Z? Could I uh become a landlord, for example? Could I be an investor in a property that they uh in addition to granting, could I help them buy this property and call that an investment? You know, there are so many things that you can do once you acknowledge that you do hold a degree of power and privilege that is not necessarily held by the grantee or the community that they're supporting. So I think to run away from it actually is potentially wasteful of an opportunity. But you know, you you have to do this in a case-by-case um situation. Uh, and I would say that um, and I'm a real champion of Forward Global, they're an excellent community. And what I would say is they are wonderful at helping people recognize that they might have value beyond just the grant, but also they are great at helping people recognize how that might um exacerbate a power imbalance and therefore how to leverage that value in a sympathetic way.

SPEAKER_00 42:23

Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a really good point. Um, I just wanted to circle back a bit. There's a few different topics here that I'm I'm aware of time already because there's a huge amount of stuff that I wanted to ask you still, but I'm gonna try and keep it brief. I guess one that I'm I'm really interested in is just coming back to the sort of specific context around family philanthropy. I guess it I always find it fascinating because obviously we all have families and we're all sort of you know aware. I try and put myself in the position of thinking if I, you know, if I was in the position to have resources and have to make these sorts of decisions and not just you know pontificate about them, what would it be like? Um, and I guess it's fascinating. So I guess what I wanted to ask is there must be aspects of it that you've found work really well and kind of you know are really rewarding, and actually, you know, as an activity to share as a family, you know, it's a philanthropy is a wonderful thing. And inevitably there will be bits of it that present challenges. I guess what have you found so far in terms of the bits that that have taken surprised you and you've thought, wow, this is you know, I wouldn't have thought this, but this has been hugely positive. And where have you found that you've had to kind of navigate a few bits and pieces, which inevitably will be the case?

SPEAKER_01 43:28

Yeah, and and of course it will be the case because we're all very different personalities, we all have um very different professional experiences. In many ways, both of those things are a real strength because it's very helpful to have um an antagonist, a challenger in the room. Um, because it, well, for one, it allows you to really hone your understanding of a situation, um, and also find a language to express um perception. Persuade in a robust way. And to also acknowledge that at times you may well need that separate perspective. You may need that check and that balance. I have been absolutely delighted with the open-hearted ways in which particularly my parents who I work with most closely on this have embraced the trust-based model. They utterly get that granting to core costs is essential. They've never questioned it on a multi-year basis, ongoing basis. And and I really love say I feel such pride when I see them championing that form of grant making to other people. That yeah, that's a very that's a very special thing that we share together. I suppose one of the things that I have found challenging, but I have a new strategy for overcoming is um is leveraging the foundation's funds for investment for impact alongside of granting. Now I really respect why it is there's a suspicion surrounding that. Um, you know, my family are a family of investors and it investors in quite a traditional sense. Um impact investment for many is is new. There is also a real tendency, and I see this everywhere, to conflate it with ESG. And I think ESG has for many uh become somewhat of a crowded space. It's also a term that's bandied around in ways that are wholly inaccurate of where the money is actually held. It was shocking to me how many ESG investors invested in oil directly after Ukraine was invaded, uh, similarly with Ukraine. Impact investing is not ESG. Impact investing is is one step further. It is um an expression of the fact that whilst charities are utterly necessary, they are a flawed model. To endlessly have to fundraise is a serious problem. And so an issue of sustainability is embedded in the structure of charity. So to invest for impact is to work with the capitalistic systems that have caused so many problems and hopefully achieve some sort of systemic correction. I myself I intimated that I have a new strategy, and that is whilst we are not currently treading that path with the foundation, but I hope very much that we will down the line. And to be clear, any investments that have been made on the investment side uh are thoroughly interrogated on an ethical basis. But I, with my much, much, much more modest funds, have joined an investment impact, um investment for impact syndicate and direct investing in that in that way um with personal funds, um, partly to learn, um partly to be a part of that community. And I also hold funds with um with a wealth manager that uh invests for impact. So I'm trying to put my money where my mouth is, and I think it's important to align one's personal life with one's um grant-making professional life. Uh, for me, anyway, there are too many instances that are readily citable of uh grant-making practices really not aligning with investment practices and vice versa, or worse still, one being used to be a salve for the ills of the other one. Um so that that is one of the tensions I've come up against. Um, but again, I I respect the fact that they are investors, and I'm not, I've got it, I've got degrees in English literature. That's not my language, but I do love learning.

SPEAKER_00 48:10

One one thing I really wanted to ask you, actually, is you are obviously um a an example, and at this point I'm gonna make you a representative uh of uh a phenomenon in philanthropy that a lot of people are talking about all the time, which is next-gen philanthropy. I think particularly because there is this sense that there's we're on the cusp of this enormous intergenerational wealth transfer. And so there's a huge amount of um extemporizing about who these people are, you know, what what interests them, what drives them, are they gonna be totally different in their approach? Do you, I mean, first of all, do you think it's helpful to talk about next-gen philanthropy as if it's some sort of distinct phenomena? And do you have a sense, you know, from uh your your own experience and from kind of uh your experience of talking to other uh sort of younger philanthropists in a similar uh position, whether they do hold slightly different or distinct attitudes toward towards philanthropy and whether they're doing things in in different ways from from previous generations of philanthropists.

SPEAKER_01 49:08

No, I don't think it's a helpful distinction at all. I think it's one of the many, the many wicked ways in which we're just creating two camps, which we just seem to be interminably in the habit of doing across all issues. For one, it's hugely disrespectful to an older generation that are being utterly pioneering in this in the sphere of trust-based grantmaking and impact investment, and frankly, are inspirational to me and to many of my peers. It also creates friction where there needn't be. As I say, there can be very helpful challenges. I was actually speaking with some uh grant-making peers about this very thing last night, and I think what I what we all share is that yes, there are differences in ways of doing. I tend to speak about it more in terms of a traditional approach that leans a bit more towards a paternalistic approach versus a progressive and somewhat more radical approach, but it's not necessarily intergenerational. And uh and I think with this uh extraordinary situation of funds being moved between generations, there really needs to be uh collaboration and understanding and open-hearted conversations and not a sort of warring faction of two camps. Uh just to add to that, I heard an extraordinary thing last night. Apparently, people have started talking about G1s and G2s and apparently a system of ranking generations.

SPEAKER_02 50:54

Uh I don't think we need to move in that direction myself.

SPEAKER_00 50:58

No, I'm not, I'm not sure it's it's helpful. I mean, I I particularly, I guess, because it I have a sort of pathological aversion to this um sort of neophilia in in philanthropy, which is just, you know, X is entirely new. This is the new thing in philanthropy, this is a new trend, and I kind of constantly think, oh none, you know, I guess because I spend so much time boring people about the history of philanthropy, I'm always I find myself constantly saying, no, it's not new, it's interesting, but it's not new. Um, and I think that's very much you know the case with all of the different um characteristics that are put forward as sort of unique and distinctive about next-gen philanthropists. I sort of feel, well, no, they're you know, yes, there might be trends and you know, kind of uh differences of emphasis, but philanthropy is to some extent philanthropy, and it kind of it's quite cyclical. Um I there's there's a whole bunch of bigger picture questions that I had down, which I would absolutely love to talk to you about, but I think that would take us on an entire other hour of podcasts, so I won't do that. I guess just as a final you know, closer, I'm gonna try and lump some of those together in an open-ended way and say, when it comes to philanthropy, what is it at the moment that kind of gives you most optimism or makes you most positive about its potential as a force for in society? And what is it that gives you most sort of cause for concern or makes you think that there are particular critiques of it that are, you know, valid and important and challenging?

SPEAKER_01 52:23

I think the thing that has me most excited about it is that increasingly in the more radical progressive end of philanthropy, I'm seeing people really galvanizing and working together in ways that extend far beyond philanthropy. So creating a whole kaleidoscope of impact with the privilege and power that you hold, and recognizing that philanthropy is but an expression of a of a much more um holistic intention. So I think it's very important that we collectively move towards thinking about the big picture of how we can achieve systemic change and move towards um, well, a sustainable climate and also um overcome social inequities. So the joined up thinking is really exciting, and the communities that are being built in relation to that are an absolute joy to be a part of and a real salve for the dysfunctions of government and uh badly spent public money. I think one thing that has me somewhat worried is trying to marry that vision with the powers that be. How do we get to the point of collaboration when actually the powers that be stand to benefit more from the status quo remaining? So that that is a big question that I keep coming back to. Um, I actually run a course on the art of protest, and interestingly, for uh activism to be successful ultimately, yes, you have the disruptive action to begin with. That's part of making an issue visible, um, yet grabbing the attention of the authorities. But that's not largely what affects the change itself. The change tends to come with much more covert and quiet collaboration. And that is the point that I'm I'm more anxious about with the disruption is there, I see it, but I've not yet seen the hand holding. Um, not in the Western world anyway.

SPEAKER_00 54:39

That's yeah, it's really interesting. It makes me think of some of the things um Rebecca Solnit's written about kind of in praise of slow change and the fact that you get those moments of very fast change only because people have spent so long doing all of the hard legwork up to that point, and then suddenly you get a tipping point. Um, but it looks like it's just happened out of nowhere. Um again, that could be that could be the topic for an entire other hour's conversation. So maybe we should come back and talk about that at a different point.

SPEAKER_01 55:06

But to be a bit sycophantic for a moment, Rodri, this is why the work that you do is something that I absolutely love. Because as you say, that there are cycles in um philanthropic giving and the power it has to affect change, and it's understanding those that help provide a model for the present day. So I do, I genuinely love reading your work.

SPEAKER_00 55:29

Oh well, thank you, Kate. That's very kind of you, although I may well choose to edit that out because it's sort of I'm too British to accept that sort of praise. Um, but it just remains to say thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast. It's absolutely uh delight to get a chance to talk, as ever. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find all sorts of stuff that's relevant to what we've talked about. Um, I should say I've left an enormous amount in the locker in terms of other things that we could talk about. So at some point, I will almost certainly nag you again to come on and have another conversation where we can do part two of this.

SPEAKER_01 55:59

That sounds great.

SPEAKER_00 56:01

Great. Okay, well, Mike, thanks again to Kate for finding the time to come on the podcast. Um, as I said in the interview, there's absolutely loads that I could have asked uh Kate about, which I didn't get around to, so uh I absolutely will do my best to drag her back on the podcast uh at some point in the future so we can continue the conversation. In the meantime, I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find relevant bits of uh writing and other sort of content uh that touches on the issues that Kate and I uh discussed. If you're interested generally in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. You can find all the back issues of this podcast. You can find lots of articles, short guides to topics in philanthropy, updates on things I've been doing, and a whole bunch more. Uh if you want to follow me on link uh on social media, the best place probably these days is LinkedIn. Um I'm posting on there fairly regularly. If you've got ideas for topics we could talk about on the podcast or people I could interview, I genuinely do mean it that please get in touch. Uh that has led to quite a few of the episodes that you've heard. Um so you know it really does make a difference. Uh, if you know anybody that you think might like the podcast, uh please do uh let them know about it. I think you know personal recommendation goes a long way with these things. Other than that, just like, uh subscribe or follow, and I will see you next time. Bye.