Philanthropisms
Philanthropisms is the podcast that puts philanthropy in context. Through conversations with expert guests and deep dives into topics, host Rhodri Davies explores giving throughout history, the key trends shaping generosity around the world today and what the future might hold for philanthropy. Contact: rhodri@whyphilanthropymatters.com.
Philanthropisms
Philippa Charles: Foundations and Grantmaking
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
On this episode of the Philanthropisms podcast we speak to Philippa Charles OBE, Chief Executive of the DFN Foundation, about the role of foundations and what it means to be a good grantmaker. Including:
- What is required to make core cost funding work from the funder’s point of view?
- What challenges do current grant application processes present for charities? How can we minimise or overcome these challenges?
- The relationship between fundraisers and funders (or donors) is often portrayed as somewhat antagonistic. How do we reframe it as a partnership in which both sides are benefitting?
- How do you say no to funding requests in a constructive way?
- How can fundraisers build longer-term relationships with funders and donors?
- What else can donors/funders bring to the table beyond money?
- How useful is access to a donor/funder’s networks for grantees?
- Is there too much competition and not enough collaboration in the philanthropy sector? Why is this?
- It is often argued that a key part of the role of philanthropy is to drive society forward by taking risks and funding things that the state and market cannot – but has philanthropy become too risk-averse?
- Do we need a better narrative about what it means to “fail” and to “succeed” in philanthropy?
- Do foundations in general currently give enough each year as a percentage of their overall assets? Is there an argument for encouraging/pushing them to give more?
- Are their arguments in favour of at least some foundations existing for the long term (or in perpetuity)?
Further Resources:
- https://dfnfoundation.org/
- Philanthropisms podcast episodes with Sonal Patel, Sally Vivyan & Oli French, and Kate Symondson.
- WPM articles: “Why Isn’t All Philanthropy Trust-Based Philanthropy?” and “What’s The Point of Philanthropic Foundations? Part 3: Current Issues”
You're listening to the Philanthropisms podcast with Roger Davis.
SPEAKER_03Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, Rodri Davis, and this week I am in conversation with Philipper Charles. Now, Philipper is the chief executive of the DFN Foundation here in the UK. That is a foundation set up by philanthropist David Forbes Nixon. And prior to that, for a long time, Philipper was the chief executive of the Garfield Western Foundation, which is a well-known funder here in the UK. So I sat down with Philipper a couple of weeks ago now to have a conversation about all things grant making and foundations, really. We talked a bit about DFN, what DFN's core mission is, how the organization had sort of arrived at its areas of focus and what its approach to grant making and funding is. Particularly talked about relationship or trust-based grant making, kind of how you make that work in practice. We talked about the relationship between funders and fundraisers, which is sometimes presented as if it's a bit antagonistic, but we talked about how actually, in reality, that can be an extremely productive relationship and how we kind of reframe it as a partnership in which both sides are benefiting. You know, the fundraiser from getting the resources they need, but also the funder or the donor from finding things that they're actually able to fund and therefore achieve their ambition. We also talked about how fundraisers can therefore build long-term relationships with funders and donors in an effective way. We also talked from the donor side about what they can potentially bring to the table beyond just the money. Can funders also play a role in kind of joining the dots between some of their grantee organizations or taking a kind of helicopter view? We also talked about uh how collaboration works in the sector and why often there's sort of more competition than you might think, and how we kind of potentially shift that from uh competition towards collaboration. We also talked about risk and what risk means when it comes to funding and philanthropy, and what uh a good risk looks like and what kinds of risks philanthropy should be taking, and also whether we need better narratives uh as a result about what it means to fail or succeed when it comes to philanthropy. Um, and then we also talked a bit about the whole question of perpetuity and spend downs and what the the balance uh ideally would be within the sector as a whole between uh foundations that uh have a very long-term view and uh exist uh for the long term, if not in perpetuity, and those that exist for a shorter period of time or take a decision to spend down. Um so without further ado, let's get into the conversation. Uh, I think it's a really interesting one. Hope you enjoy it, and I will be back at the end uh for the usual little bit of housekeeping. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Philippa Charles. Hi there, Philippa. Hello. Great, uh, and Philipper, as you'll have heard from the intro, is the CEO of DFN Foundation. Um, and we're here to talk about all things grant making and foundations. So, really looking forward to this. Um, I guess the best place to start is just if you're able to tell people a little bit uh about yourself and about DFN Foundation, what the organisation is and what it does.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, thanks, uh Rodri. Um, so uh the DFN Foundation and DFN uh standing for David Forbes Nixon is a it's a family foundation, um, and we aim to combine funding and strategic support to uh create positive change across four key areas. Uh and those areas are uh disability education, disability employment, uh myeloma cancer research and um uh conservation. And the reason for those four are they're based around sort of three core kind of uh areas of focus. First of all, it's around what we know about, and those areas are things that the family have lived experience, knowledge, and a track record in. The second thing is where we can see an identifiable need, uh, and I suspect people will recognise that there is definitely need in those four areas. And then the third area is where we feel we can actually add value to uh you know that agenda. Um, so that gives us a kind of fairly clear strategic focus so that we can put our kind of efforts and resources into where we hope uh we'll will make a difference.
SPEAKER_03Great. Yeah, and and in terms of the balance between those, is it sort of roughly evenly apportioned or is it kind of dictated by the opportunities for funding that you find?
SPEAKER_00Uh well it ebbs and flows a bit actually, because it does depend on what's happening. And as you'd imagine, with disability education and disability employment, those two are very, very closely aligned anyway. So, you know, our inclusion agenda, uh, which is you know a significant portion of our time, encompasses different aspects to try and make you know great change happen. And you know, we're we're so proud to be part of such a significant movement in this area and lend our voice and resources to this. And there is fantastic work going on all over the country. Um, but um, yeah, what we're aiming to do is on the education side, it's recognising that you know young people need the best start in life, but also that education is not you know the only uh end game, it should lead somewhere, and it's those transitions into employment that are really important. So um David brought uh the the DFN project search to the UK. It's it it was beginning, it began in the US, um, but what he did was he brought the ideas and the concepts over to the UK and adapted them and has built this amazing, now fully independent charity. Um, so that's on the employment side. We also look at this from a policy perspective, too, because you know, those things don't exist in isolation. We we all exist in a wider world. Um, and then we also are brewing some uh really exciting new partnerships to create and support amazing role models in this area because it's all very well looking at the supply chain of how do we educate people, help them get great jobs, ensure that the you know the policies support that to happen. But we also need to ensure that brilliant people are championed and that they're recognised so that they can do their bit to help those behind them. So we have partnerships with uh the Snowden Trust and Cambridge University, and that's kind of quite fresh. That's something we've launched this year. Um, so we have multiple strands to our inclusion work, for example. So it's not quite as simple as to look at our pillars in total isolation, some of them very much work in concert with each other.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. Um and I guess one of the things that's always interesting about talking to people in foundations, anyone working in the foundation world will know that sort of famous saying that once you've seen one foundation, you've seen one foundation, they're all very different. And and particularly when we're sort of talking about family foundations, because there's that additional element of kind of involvement in the family, and it sort of reflects you know their priorities and the way they want to do things. In terms of uh DFN Foundation, how would you kind of characterize how you work? Just, I mean, what does it look like in terms of how you engage with the organizations that you're supporting? Is it a sort of relationship-based funding? Do you have kind of open calls for applications, or do you go out looking for organizations to fund?
SPEAKER_00So I would say we are probably best described as venture philanthropy in a way, because uh we do have clear things we are trying or aiming to do. We are very fortunate we have the most amazing board where we have some family involvement, but actually, what we also have is a series of utterly brilliant expert, independent uh board members, too, who bring that knowledge and expertise and that challenge. So our board meetings are really great. So, yeah, we have the clear strategic focus, but I think it's about, you know, in the inclusion area, I would say a lot of our work looks through the lens of trying to address the disability employment gap, for example. So that stands right now at a very stubborn and long-term 28%. And yet we know that disabled people can and want to work. And so, you know, the work that we're doing is trying to ensure that school leavers have that opportunity early. You know, the sooner that transition is made seamlessly from education into work, the better for everybody, all of us in society. Um, and that is clearly a hot topic for the government right now as well, as we all know from the news. So, you know, we are trying to capitalise on that. You know, we you know, I was listening to Radio 4 this morning, and we clearly hear that you know the uh uh the economy is is is sort of pretty stalled at the moment. Um so yeah, it's it's really about focusing our resources, using the best of partnerships uh to make a difference. So, yeah, we do we do like to partner wherever we can because there's no point reinventing wheels. When people are doing great work, why wouldn't we work alongside them or with them or help fund them to amplify that work and make the change happen? But that said, if through the work we're doing we see a gap and we can't find anyone doing something, then we will initiate things ourselves. Uh, and I guess a simple example of that was uh in the beginning with the initiation of DFN Project Search. Um, what that does rather brilliantly is provide a scale opportunity for employment uh transitions for young people. So we know that there are fabulous charities all over the country, and I've funded many of them in the past, um doing great work uh providing employment. Um, but what DFN Project Search does is complement that by also working with large-scale employers. So organisations like ASDA, Amazon, uh, Marriott Hotels, the NHS, who have such a vast array of different jobs available to them. And I think that complements the world of workers, we all experience it, because not all of us want to work for a small organisation or a local one. Some of us want to go and work for a big company. Um, and I think that choice available is important. So DFM Project Search is a good example of where uh we've spotted a problem and kind of built something. Uh, another example would be uh with our very current partnership with um Cambridge University, where uh we are building a really incredible uh leadership uh summer school for talented disabled leaders uh to help them launch their careers and be successful. And I just assumed that there would be something like that out there. You know, there are brilliant courses for women, for early career leaders, you name it, you can look at most of our top class institutions and find something. But try as I might, I couldn't find anything. So that was the point at which we said, okay, well, if we can't find it, we'll build it. But what we want to do is partner with an organization that really knows how to run great leadership programs, great academic input. So uh we, you know, we looked at brilliant organizations, LSE, LBS, Oxford, and we are partnering actually with Cambridge, who uh are doing a fabulous job. We're loving working with them actually and that first summer school. So we're in pilot mode on that one. Um but I'm I'm confident we're gonna both deliver something good, but we'll learn as we go. That's the point of a pilot. Um so we will start things uh if we can't find what we want.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, that's really interesting. And and you you mentioned before uh in passing about the kind of funding policy work as well as sort of direct services or projects. Um and obviously for any funder, there's this sort of choice somewhere on a spectrum of upstream to downstream where you can focus on kind of addressing the actual problem and the symptoms of it through services, or you can go further upstream and try and do research and policy work. How do you kind of decide on that balance? Again, is it kind of dependent on what presents itself, or do you sort of think actually about how to maintain a portfolio?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, we we do. I mean, you know, like every organization, you know, we can't do everything at once. Um, and I think, you know, our our policy piece, you know, we are not a solely advocacy-based organization, but I think what we feel confidently is that our knowledge and track record and the work of our partners who are the real experts can speak for itself. And that's the evidence base to be able to give it practical examples to government and policy makers to say, look, here's something that works. Look at that and build it into the policies you're developing. So, you know, we're not trying to get involved in a nitty-gritty, but what we are trying to do is make sure that really good practice has a spotlight shone on it when it makes sense. Um, because you know, if stuff works again, why why start again? Why reinvent a wheel? Rather than find a way to amplify that. Um, so so that's how we we we we take quite a practical approach, really. Again, it's that venture philanthropy piece. Our our task, I think, is to support our brilliant partners to do their best work and then to use the voice we do have to ensure that those who are making the policy decisions can see the impact of that work and how it makes a difference.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and I guess the other bit of that is that choice between sort of upstream and downstream is sometimes presented as if each individual funder by itself has to kind of have a perfect spread. Whereas the reality is there's an ecosystem of funders out there doing all sorts of different things, and as long as there's kind of a balance overall. In terms of that, what's your experience of sort of working within that ecosystem? Have you found that you kind of are able to collaborate and work alongside other funders and to kind of make sure that your work aligns with theirs? Or do you think the world of foundations is still quite isolated because each organization is sort of ploughing its own furrow?
SPEAKER_00I think there's a mix, um, but my experience is it's actually a lot more collaborative than perhaps people see. And I think that's almost inevitable when you've got groups of people, you know, peers who, you know, talk to each other all the time. Um, and I think it's it's really healthy to collaborate and share information, and we do do that a lot. Um, so my experience has always been a very, very positive one. Um, a very simple live example for me last night, I went to the Celebration of the Foyle Foundation, which is it's has now spent out, it's it's kind of closing down, they've made their wonderful legacy gifts, and after 25 years, you know, they've made £185 million worth of grants all over the country. And it was wonderful because I walk around the room, and after nearly two decades in the philanthropy sector, everywhere I looked, I saw fabulous people who are all dedicated to making a difference in in various fields. So uh I think perhaps sometimes the collaboration and connection between foundations is just less visible than than people um you know actually see.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. And do do you as a funder find benefit in that? Because again, I guess the flip side of it being, you know, uh these organizations sometimes sort of working by themselves is it can be a relatively sort of lonely place. So actually, those connections between funders and being able to compare notes, is that important to you?
SPEAKER_00Hugely valuable. You know, the more brains on a problem, the more eyes looking out for opportunities, the better. So what I find is that you know, people alert you to maybe a great piece of research or actually an organization that you hadn't come across. So, yeah, it's those conversations that can lead you into some really, you know, interesting directions. So, yeah, my my experience is that diversity in the sector and that collaboration really works. I think it takes uh a desire and some effort to maintain. So I'm constantly kind of talking to people and trying to keep those networks alive. I found social media, to my surprise, quite helpful in that respect. Uh, I wouldn't say I'm naturally a huge fan of social media. I wouldn't kind of post anything about my personal life really. That's never occurred to me. But actually, the LinkedIn tool, for example, I find tremendously helpful. And it, you know, those connections are um, you know, really enlightening.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. And within the world of foundations, obviously, I mean, there's been quite a lot of discussion about the way in which funding is done over the last few years. Um, and certainly, you know, coming out of the pandemic, there was quite a lot of emphasis on the idea of core funding or sort of shifting towards unrestricted models of funding. So, sort of not so much programmatic, but just kind of funding organizations and their core costs. Where do you sit in terms of the work that you do on that? Because I know there's still, again, a sort of spectrum of approaches out there.
SPEAKER_00There there is. I mean, the DFN Foundation absolutely is more than you know, very happy to make core core funding. That is kind of the point. And I believe that you know, if you do great due diligence and you've really built a degree of great relationship and confidence in an organisation, why wouldn't you allow that organisation to make decisions about its, you know, its funding priorities, where it's going to spend its time? And likewise, in my previous role, you know, I I've had the privilege over the last sort of 18 years of giving over a billion pounds uh to charities across the UK, over probably more than around 20,000 grants. So, and and so many, the majority of those have been for core costs. So, I guess for me, that is already baked into the way I've already worked. That said, it depends on what an organization needs. So, if I take one of our current partners, the Wonderful Pangolin Project, where we're you know aiming to save 10,000 hectares of absolutely critical biodiverse area, of forest area in in Kenya, which is where the giant pangolin lives. Uh, the giant pangolin, for anyone who's less familiar, is um the most beautiful, gentle creature, scaly anteater for want of another name, um, that is very endangered through trafficking, through land use, etc. Um, but what we have with them, we have a you know a multi-year uh core cost grant to allow them flexibility, but we are also funding a uh a fairly significant piece of feasibility work for them. So that's a project funding, but that's specific to that need as well. So, kind of to address your question, I think it's about what an organization needs. I think you know, core funding is the holy grail for so many organizations as we know. It gives them flexibility and choice, and I think that's so important to allow them to adapt. But equally, if there's a key project that needs doing, uh, and like that, those can range from anything from you know a new building or a refurbishment, you know, capital investment to particular projects or pieces of research, then a funder that is flexible enough to be able to do those things too, I think can be really helpful. Uh so I'm an advocate of flexibility really and just listening to what your partners need.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. And and you mentioned there that one of the key elements if you're going to fund core costs, or or I guess more broadly in a sort of trust-based way, is the due diligence up front to make sure you're kind of you know what the organization is doing and that it's sort of it's in good good order. I guess the the other bit is sort of after the event, how do you check that the money did have an impact or was well used? And that that then brings in the question of sort of measurement and impact. What's your approach to that at DFN? I mean, how do you go kind of getting a sense of just making sure that the money is doing what you were hoping?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, so I was really fortunate. We had a board meeting when I joined uh a year ago very early on, where we made some fairly sizable commitments. And one of the first things I did was actually work with our partners to develop what are the measures. And so we have a dashboard where the actual uh the construction of it is identical across all our partners, and that's for our board. So our board can at a glance look at each of our partners and they know exactly what information they're looking for, it's always in the same place. But of course, the actual content and the metrics we're looking at is bespoke and individual to each partner, and our partners gave input to that, so they helped us create that dashboard in the first place. So again, I think this isn't about doing things in isolation, this is about developing a, you know, and this goes for communication too. It's not just about metrics, it's also about keeping the conversation alive to the extent that it's practical. You know, we want to try and balance, and and I, you know, I don't know whether we achieve this, we certainly aim to, but we want to balance keeping informed and being responsible funders, knowing where the money's going, but not burdening those organizations. They have so much to do. You know, they really don't need to be, you know, micromanaged or have people breathing down. Their neck. So the dashboard was a good way of agreeing with them. What are the critical things you measure? So actually, when they input to each of our board board meetings, this is stuff they're capturing already because we've already talked to them about well, what are the important ways you know you're making a difference? Now that doesn't mean we haven't had suggestions and a conversation, but ultimately we're now asking only the questions that they're already asking themselves. So when they provide their updates to us, it's pretty quick, pretty low-key, because we know and they know that the things we all want to know are the same things. So we I found that quite a practical way of doing it. And it's it's really great to be able to have that sort of standard format but with bespoke content, uh, which also then helps our board keep keep on top of you know what we're doing as well.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and I guess in there it's not then just about what the funder wants to know, it's about what's actually of use to the grantees themselves to know, because surely you do want to have a sense that the work you're doing is is having an impact and that it's kind of achieving. So it's it's about sort of knowledge and learning that is a value to them as well.
SPEAKER_00Totally. But this this is again, this is where partnership comes in, because we as a funder can't achieve anything without the partners. And of course, the partners do need funding in order to be able to do it. So immediately you have this symbiotic relationship where neither can be successful without the other, and that is a really good basis for you know a good trusted relationship because you both need each other to succeed. Um, and that allows us to have good conversations about what are we measuring, why, how often should we measure it. You know, some things can only be measured once a year. So, for example, with DFN Project Search, when we look at the employment outcomes, well, that's obviously a once-a-year thing when these young people um you know graduate from the program and they finish their education, that's a once-a-year thing. Whereas on a more ongoing basis, we can measure, you know, the attendance and and you know how young people are doing individually. So that's a more ongoing thing. And so the organisation has ways to track all of those things. Um, and then we've picked the most critical because the other thing I am a fan of is keeping it as simple as we can. You know, I think we can, because we're a pragmatic organization, analysis paralysis is not our not our bag. You know, we want to just focus on the things that make the most difference, and our partners know what those things are because they do it every day. I mean, they're really good at what they do. In fact, I was lucky enough to go on a course uh at Harvard this year, which was the most amazing experience. Um, 160 utterly brilliant uh social entrepreneurs and leaders from all over the world. And I think one of the very simple but overriding things that came out of that was that the stuff we are all doing in this sector is hard. It's complex. And frankly, if it was really easy, somebody would have done it already.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely.
SPEAKER_00And that that sounds such a simple and obvious thing to say, but I think I did find it quite affirming because sometimes this stuff is hard and it takes time and it is complicated. Uh, and you make progress in one area and then something kind of comes along and disrupts it in another, and that is life, which is messy and complicated. Um, but it was very affirming to meet other people who have retained that sense of positivity and hope that better is possible, uh, but equally that we shouldn't get bogged down with the fact that sometimes it's tough and we don't always achieve everything we want in the timescales we'd like.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, I think that is really important to remember as you as you say, it's uh exactly that. If if this stuff was easy, we probably would have solved it all.
SPEAKER_00I yeah, I mean, there's a lot of bright people in the world, right? You know, so so we are tackling the this is not the low-hanging fruit we're picking here. This is this is the stuff that needs a wobbly ladder to reach.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. Um, you mentioned um there in when you were talking about partnership, about the fact that that idea that kind of you need those partners as much as uh as as they need you in a sense. And that made me think about something we discussed when we had a pre-call, which is about the relationship that between sort of fundraisers and funders or donors, which is I think really interesting because there's sometimes this sort of stereotype almost that it's an antagonistic relationship of kind of fundraisers going out there and trying to pry money out of kind of unwilling donors or funders, but that that seems to me entirely the wrong way of thinking about it. What's your experience been as a funder of interacting with fundraisers over the years?
SPEAKER_00That's not, yeah, that's that and the idea of antagonism that's never been my experience. I have the greatest respect for fundraisers for all kinds of reasons. I think one of the critical things that people totally underestimate about fundraisers, because they're often not necessarily the ones in the spotlight, is they do a very complex job. This isn't just about the money. The things they have to do in order to build the relationship, build the understanding of that organization is complex. It's relationship building, but they have to be financially literate, they have to be strategic, they have to be able to balance donors with one set of priorities and an organization that has a clear focus that may or may not completely match that. Um, you know, they really do have to, and they have to be the champion of the donor in their organization, and yet they also have to be the champion of their organization to donors. So they have to be intensely adaptable. So my experience of fundraisers uh is that they are uh often exceptional individuals, actually. And uh I I say that with absolute confidence because I deliberately set out to hire them when I began my philanthropy career. Uh, so when I needed team members, uh and because I came from a business background, I was very much aware that I, you know, it's a good balance to have different experience in a team. And I learned a tremendous amount from the fundraisers I hired. And with them being able to kind of do the poacher-turned gamekeeper, it meant that they had a very good understanding of you know what to look for in an organization, you know, how to elicit great quality information, but really get under the skin of things. So um, yeah, I haven't found antagonism at all. And I think one of the things I admire about fundraising is that it's a really tough role. You have to be very resilient. You know, these people get a lot of knockbacks. You know, no is a huge part of their daily and weekly lives, and yet every morning they still have to get up, dust themselves off, and start again. And the good ones have learned how to do that without losing hope, uh, retaining their courage, because you've got to be brave. I mean, asking for money is not easy. Uh, as a lot of board members who get tasked with doing that will know suddenly they they realise it's quite a scary prospect. So, no, my experience of fundraisers is that they have to be persistent and brave and uh brilliant communicators. Um, and I've learned a huge amount from them, and I would carry on hiring people with that background uh till the cows come home.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a ringing endorsement, and I definitely agree. I mean, it strikes me as an incredibly difficult job to do well, and when you see people do it well, as you say, it's often you know very impressive. And of all the jobs in the philanthropy world, it isn't the one I'm currently doing, it's the one I'm quite confident I'm least capable of doing myself. So I kind of I really admire people who found it. Yeah, it's really hard. Um, it it's interesting you mentioned there obviously one of the things that's required is resilience because the reality is you're gonna get a lot of rejections. I suppose from the other side, as someone who is kind of in control of the money as a funder, or if you're a donor, the reality is also you're gonna have to give out a lot of rejections because you just can't, you know, fund anywhere near the number of things that are probably going to be presented to you. So, what's your kind of experience of how you do that well? How do you say no in a way that remains constructive?
SPEAKER_00Well, I think the that point it starts way earlier, actually, than just the no. Because I think sometimes you can be clear about what your priorities are and whether an organization fits way before anyone's gone to the trouble of applying or spending time. So I do think funders have a degree of responsibility to be kind of honest and straightforward and clear earlier, or as early as is possible. You don't always know what the outcome will be, of course. I think a degree of empathy too. I mean, let's face it, in life, we we all I think have experienced being turned down for something that it was important to us and that we know, you know, in one way or another, we all know what disappointment feels like. And it's not nice. And so I think if we're going to give somebody news that we know is going to disappoint them, that's going to be hard to hear, that they, you know, that they don't want to hear, trying to do it in a way that is as fast as possible. I think that's the key thing. So people aren't feeling like they're wasting time, as clear as possible, because if you've got genuinely no intention of funding something any further, trying to be too kind but leaving it a little bit open actually isn't helpful because they're going to waste time. So I think clarity is important. But alongside that, the empathy to know that how you say, I'm sorry, this just doesn't fit what we do, you know, I wish you the very best of luck for the future, but you know, I want you to use your resources where you're going to have more chance of success. Uh, I, you know, that that's the aim I have always tried to take. I don't know whether that succeeds or not. I I suspect mostly it does because people tell me that. But equally, as a funder, there is always a fear that people will possibly tell you what they think you'd like to hear. Um, I think people are extraordinarily nice to funders, but but I think when you have a really good relationship with your partners, you you just sit down and you have great quality conversations and they tell you if they think that you're wrong or that they've got a better idea, and you know, why wouldn't you hear that? Um so yeah, saying no isn't is the worst bit of the job because you know that that work is needed, it's important. I think it's just trying to be mindful that how you do it matters as much as when and where you do it.
SPEAKER_03I think that's absolutely right. I think as you it's that point you made there, it's not actually a kindness to give people false hope, even if it's done with the best of intentions. Um and and also, I guess there's that bit that um when you say no to something as a funder, it usually isn't because that project isn't worthwhile or good. It's just, you know, it probably is something that you could fund or somebody else could fund in most cases.
SPEAKER_00Um and actually what I would say, and and this was my point about maybe no begins earlier. If when I've been talking to organizations about their plans, I can see that there's a flaw in it or that there's a big question that they would really need to answer in order to have the best chance, then actually it's in everyone's interest for me to be honest about that. Because if they can address it, fantastic. Um, you know, I always loved all the visits I did where I would go in with a series of questions, and in my head I would be thinking, I'm really not quite sure about this one. And they would blow me away, they would deal with all the questions that I had kind of prompted to them, and I would walk out thinking, wow, that was great. I'd probably on the way out have a conversation about making sure they make those answers more visible because they're perhaps missing an opportunity to really put the strength of what they do forward. Um, but I loved it, always love it when an organization changes your mind. I think that's one of the most um exhilarating things actually uh about what we do.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. Um I just wanted to circle back to something you mentioned before when you were talking about the board that you've got at DFN and saying, you know, they're they're really kind of valuable and you've got some great individuals on there. It made me think that there's this question about beyond the the money as a funder or as a donor, what's the additional value that a funder or a donor can bring to the table? I mean, in terms of skills, expertise, or or networks and connections, and and how do you kind of put that to use for the organizations that you're supporting?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, well, I I think every funder is different. And I think the first thing is about being very straightforward about who you are and what you do. So in my previous role, it was it was actually more about making sure the money got to good organisations, and then it was very, very light touch with a more venture philanthropy approach. The organizations we work with know that you know we're there to support them in a more you know in-depth way. And I think you've mentioned many of the you know the key things that I think we can add, you know, in some cases it's networks and introductions, and I love being able to do that. It's it's amazing how just a simple introduction to uh an expert or some pro bono support can lead to really you know great outcomes. Um, but equally it's the advocacy. Sometimes as well, I think organisations really value the fact that we can celebrate and talk about their work in a way it's quite hard for them to do themselves. You know, they they can be seen to be blowing their own trumpet. Whereas if we can say, well, look, we've taken a pretty rigorous and independent look at this organisation and they're really good, then that fosters kind of confidence in others. Um, so another part of that is bringing other, you know, other funders into the to the mix. So it's not just the advocacy, it's shining a spotlight on the work and helping other uh organizations who may fund them, you know, see what they do. Um, I guess it's flexibility. And there's also operational support, you know, getting involved in other committees, um, or uh, you know, maybe being on the board, but also perhaps being involved in some of their operating committees, finance, staffing, you name it. Um, you know, I'm involved in a number of committees with our partners to allow me not just the insight into their brilliant work, but also the opportunity to help them make connections and um, you know, help them find additional resources.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, and have you found also that because I've sort of this question of what's the particular value of foundations or or funders beyond again the money, have you found that because you have this sort of overview in the the issue areas that you're working with in, that you you've been able to kind of point some of the organizations you support towards links and connections they otherwise might not have been aware of?
SPEAKER_00Definitely, definitely. So uh one of the uh on the disability education side of things recently, I've been able to introduce uh the school that we're involved with. Uh it's a wonderful uh school for special needs young people in in Surrey to uh financing opportunities from uh Charity Bank, for example. So, you know, that even something like that, it's it's basically an introduction, but it can be a game changer. Um, so that's just one that's what's sort of uppermost in my mind because it's very recent. But I think you know, there's so many examples like that where a funder can uh use the connections that they have to amplify their work. And as you say, that's beyond the money, but but can have a you know really significant impact.
SPEAKER_03Yeah. Another thing I wanted to ask about, because again, it's part of this sort of wider conversation about the role of foundations in particular and and sort of philanthropy more broadly at the moment, is what what is the approach to taking risks? Because it's sort of often argued that you know a key part of where philanthropy's legitimacy comes from is that it's able to do things maybe that the government can't do and that the private sector can't do and take different kinds of risks. But then on the flip side, people sometimes say, well, but is enough philanthropy actually doing that and kind of taking the right kinds of risks? How do you think about risk taking at DFN Foundation in terms of sort of making sure you're not just doing things that that could have been done otherwise and sort of actually testing boundaries a little bit?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, it's a really good question. And I think I think we we think about risk all the time. Partly perhaps our chairman, you know, he is a former banker, that's where the you know he made the money. So so his job was risk in in so many ways. So um, and I can definitely tell you we're not doing the easy stuff. Uh so I think it's probably fair to say we do feel we are taking, yes, risk, but it is calculated in the sense that we are very conscious of those risks. So, and perhaps if I use our conservation example uh in Kenya, as you might imagine, that has a whole range of issues associated with working in what can be a complex part of the world, uh, trying to address a very tricky problem. Um, but what we're also trying to do is build a long-term future whereby we're not needed at all because actually, you know, that land is owned by the local community, and what we're trying to do is help find structures that can be sustained by that local community without the need for any external funding and support. Um, but it's a complex part of the world. Um, and there are, you know, there are you know, the illegal wildlife trade, there are so many issues entangled in what ultimately is a really simple piece of work to try and preserve a critical habitat, but it's of course not that simple. So, you know, we have very real conversations about those things, and that extends to safeguarding, you know, the employees of the uh of the work going on on the ground. You know, this is not easy stuff. Um, so risk comes in many shapes and forms, and we we take that seriously, but it doesn't mean we shy away from funding it just because it's difficult and just because there are issues that are you know hard to solve and frankly outside of our scope to solve. Um, and where they're outside of our scope, we just try to you know reassure ourselves as much as possible that we are doing what is possible to mitigate that. Um, but you can't allow for every possible eventuality, and you certainly can't control every variable, at which point you also have to take, you know, a degree of leap of faith that you are doing all you can, but that the objective is important enough and critical and urgent enough to make that worthwhile.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. And I guess the bit that links to that is that if you genuinely are kind of taking those calculated risks, and particularly if you're working on issues that are complex by their nature or in places that that bring their own difficulties, there are going to be failures because you can't pretend if you're taking those risks that everything is going to pan out perfectly. Do you think we have a bit of a an issue still in the world of philanthropy in in talking about failure in a positive way or in kind of framing things not working out in a way that people are willing to talk about? Because it feels as though it's still difficult and people sort of want to downplay those rather than being able to present them in a way that they and others can learn from in some cases.
SPEAKER_00Well, I think it's it's interesting. I think it's changing actually. I think the whole point is we're learning. You know, uh and a good example perhaps is this pilot we're doing with with the Snowden Trust and with Cambridge University. This is our first year. I'm confident we're going to deliver something that will be good, but I'm equally confident that next year's version won't be exactly the same because we are going to learn something along the way, and we can't make instant decisions about how we might change and tweak things until we've really evaluated and looked at well, what things worked that we really should keep and what things haven't been as good as we want them to be, and what do we think the right solutions are. So, yeah, it's I think the learning is is important, and I think that narrative is definitely shifting. I think people are um, you know, very, very good. You know, some of some of the other foundations I can think of, uh, you know, my my peers and friends are very good at you know sharing that. Uh in my previous role, um, one of the things that I found very insightful was we we asked uh NFP Synergy to do a very extensive piece of uh sort of feedback evaluation, and it was anonymous. Uh, and the reason we asked an external organisation to do it was because, frankly, if we'd asked people what do you think about us, the chances are they might have said nice things and we actually didn't want them. Well, it was nice that they did, but what we wanted was, you know, to to know what they, you know, what they thought and what ideas they had and how they thought uh, you know, we and philanthropists could could improve. So I think your your question about learning, I think actually, if you look at the amount of reflection and evaluation that takes place, I think it perhaps it's less visible than it could be. But I think if we want to really make a difference, which we do, we'd be mad not to take a look at how could it be better each time and be alive to that as we go along, because that's a live thing. But it makes it interesting.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. Um I just wanted to zoom out to one of the other kind of big debates about certainly about the foundation sector at the moment more broadly, is about the the amounts that organizations are giving and particularly also the sort of timescales that they're doing it over. So there's this whole kind of question of whether organizations existing in perpetuity, so pretty much forever, which has for a long time been the default when it comes to foundations, is the right thing, or whether actually we should look to limit that and for organizations either to be set up with limited lifespans or to switch from being perpetual to spending down over a set period of time. What's your take on that debate and kind of how do you think it it is influencing the way that foundations think in the UK?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think I mean it's a it's a good question and it is a live debate, isn't it? I think personally I'm a big advocate of a of multiple models being really important. Actually, I don't think one size fits all. You know, it's anyone who's been shopping and sees a label on a piece of clothing that says one size knows that that just doesn't work. And I think it's actually very important that there are funders or funding out there that might be time limited for a very particular purpose that can do very, very powerful things. I mean, even simple examples like the big give that happens every December, you know, creating a time-limited, energetic opportunity galvanizes action. That absolutely has a purpose. But if that was the only thing available to us all as a society, then we would be missing something at the other end of the spectrum. The long-term in perpetuity endowments also perform, you know, an important role too. Um, you know, they can do things that you know that others can't, and certainly the government can't, coming back to your point about risk. You know, I think philanthropy can certainly play a role in that early stage, test and learn, initiate things. And then, of course, you've got organisations somewhere in the middle, and I've mentioned the FOR Foundation, and we've had our other foundations that are there for a specified period of time to do an enormous amount of good, but they don't have to exist forever. And I think those organizations that have that focus, you know, they they add a lot too. So I guess the very simple answer to your question is my view is that one size doesn't fit all, that it's important for our sector, that we have different models and different approaches. Each of them individually have pros and cons associated with them. But by having all of those in our funding ecosystem, if you like, that kind of mitigates that a little. Um, and we still have you know new, new generous people entering, you know, entering into the philanthropic ring. So, you know, the uh the previous foundation I I managed was, you know, it's now about 68 years old. The one I'm doing now is 10 years old. Uh actually, no, 11 now, but um uh, you know, and there's room for all of those. And frankly, the more the merrier. I mean, I think anything existing philanthropy can do to encourage others is also powerful. I think people underestimate the tremendous, you know, it isn't just fascinating learning and a lot of fun, but it is the most magic and purposeful thing to see things improving and where you can make a difference. It's it, you know, it's been it is the privilege of of my life to be involved in the sector I'm in. Uh, I'd love to say that I began my career all those years ago wanting to do this because I didn't even know this sort of thing existed. Uh I kind of fell into it, but oh my gosh, I love it.
SPEAKER_03Which lead leads me really neatly to one of the questions I wanted to ask, which is you're exactly right. I think that work in the world of philanthropy, and particularly, I think the kind of the job in foundations, the sort of, I mean, what gets called, you know, the philanthropoid role, sort of the not the owner of the wealth, but the one who takes a big part in kind of deciding and making sure it's distributed. It it is it is from the outside, I think, quite an odd world, and one that a lot of people don't know about. So you've you've worked in it for for quite a while now and have a lot of experience sort of working uh in in that role. What would you say um is kind of if you were talking to somebody who who was at the start of their career and sort of became aware of this, what would you say is kind of the best thing about working in in that kind of uh position? And and on the uh the flip side, what do you think is the biggest challenge?
SPEAKER_00Wow, um, I think there's so many best things. I think the opportunity to learn all the time. I love the fact that I have, you know, my assumptions challenged and my mind changed, and then I meet extraordinary people doing really interesting things. That so there's there's a variety aspect that I personally really love. I think there's an affirmative part of it, which is I feel like I'm part of something much, much bigger than me, that we are trying to make things better, and that is a that's a wonderful thing. Um I would say though that I was fortunate to come into this, you know, after the first half of my career being in, you know, in business in other things, and I think all of that experience has been tremendously useful. So I think, you know, and again, it's to my point about brilliant fundraisers. I think you to be in philanthropy, it's very helpful to have done something else before. I don't think it necessarily matters entirely what, because I think all of that experience is valid. Um, you know, it's wonderful, for example, David Forbes next, you know, he was in a completely different industry, and now he's spending huge amounts of his both talent and time to improve things in society. And he's using all that knowledge and experience for good. And it isn't just the money by any means. He spends um, you know, he's hugely involved in the foundation to really kind of roll sleeves up hands-on way, uh, which I love uh because that's fun to be working as a real team with that clear strategic direction. But I think that's it's fun too. And and I think it's okay for it to be fun. You know, we it's okay to take what we do really seriously, but ourselves not too seriously.
SPEAKER_03That sounds exactly right. And I guess what then would you say is the the challenge? I mean, not to get too downbeat about it, but what do you say, you know, is a thing that you constantly have to kind of work to overcome?
SPEAKER_00I think in very simple terms, it's making sure we remain focused, actually, because I think it's human nature to see a problem and want to solve it and want to get stuck in and to apply one's enthusiasm and empathy. And then one, you know, I I find it sometimes quite hard to kind of pause and go, I can really see that there's a problem there, but it isn't quite what we do. Um, so making sure that we do remain focused because actually, if we water ourselves down, we spread ourselves too thin, we're not going to actually do anyone any favours. Um, but that's not saying that that's easy, but then it comes back to trying to be clear about what we do, and I think we are, which means we can be clear with others about whether there's a role or a partnership to be had. Um, if I can't get involved, I do try to be helpful. You know, it might be make suggestions of where else they can go for a conversation, for a partnership. But yeah, it's hard not getting involved sometimes, actually, I think, and saying no um and knowing that you're disappointing people, that's always, you know, uh always difficult. Um, but I also think it's necessary.
SPEAKER_03Yeah, absolutely. Philippu, it's been absolutely great having you on the podcast. Really great to have a chance to talk and kind of hear um your perspective on on lots of these issues around foundations of Flant B. And just Rauen, say wish you all the best with all the work in the future. Uh, and maybe you know, somewhere further down the line, I could twist your arm and get you to come back on and we could uh pick up the conversation.
SPEAKER_00Love to, and thank you. It's been um fantastic fun to have the conversation. And um, I'd just like to say thank you to all of those who are, you know, in our voluntary sector. They work so hard doing an utterly brilliant job, and without them it wouldn't be so special.
SPEAKER_03Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to you, Philippa, for coming on the podcast. It was great to have a chance to talk and to hear uh all about her work and her uh thoughts about grant making based on her many years of experience in the sector. I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find out more about some of the things we talked about and uh things you might be interested in reading that kind of follow on from those. Uh as ever, if you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters.com. You can find all the back episodes of this podcast, you can find all the back issues of the newsletter that I do once a month, you can sign up for that newsletter. You can read lots of long reads I've written about uh all kinds of aspects of philanthropy. There's some guest articles in there as well, and lots of shorter guides and news updates, so plenty to keep you busy uh over the Christmas period and well into new year. Uh if you want to follow me on social media, please do that. You can find me on LinkedIn and Blue Sky. Uh, if you like the podcast, please leave us a nice review wherever you get your podcasts. Uh, it'll certainly help bump us up the algorithm, or do it the old-fashioned way. And if you know somebody that you think might like the podcast uh or be interested in it, please do uh tell them in person. I think word of mouth goes a long way towards spreading the word. Uh, other than that, it just remains to say uh thanks ever so much for listening. Uh I hope you have a great end of the year and a uh good start to 2026, and I will be back soon. Bye.