Hands Up Anyone Who Knows How To Double Philanthropy (Part 2)
In the previous blog I introduced some exciting new ideas on how to grow philanthropy in the United Kingdom, from the Beacon Collaborative.
In this blog I outline some of my own for how giving might be doubled.
Facilitation of Fundraising
There are also a plethora of things that we might do facilitate a better quality of fundraising.
Compel (larger) charities to publish the percentage of fundraisers who are professionally qualified or Chartered (once such status becomes available).
Broaden the Code of Fundraising Practice for accountability and transparency to deal with common public misconceptions and ensure that the profession as a whole does nothing that might reinforce these beliefs.
Invest in the development of fundraising and philanthropy research. I’m aware this sounds rather self-serving, but it is important because the vast majority of charities are small and well below the threshold where a Research and Development (R&D) budget could be set aside to generate new fundraising ideas and practices. Government could thus fund fundraising/giving research in the same way that it funds business research. But more significantly it can also exercise its convening power and create partnerships to drive innovation. There is precedent for this in the work that the Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team did in partnership with Remember A Charity in 2013. The findings were profoundly helpful for the sector. And there are many other elements of fundraising that would benefit from a similar investment of talent and energy.
Seismic shifts in patterns of philanthropy can only happen if the field reflects the diversity of communities in which it operates and serves. Are such communities adequately represented and reflected in staff, Board and of course, fundraiser and donor, profiles? And critically, how are we articulating and fostering love for these communities.
Related to (4) build regional and place based identities. There is a good deal of interest right now in encouraging “place based” giving, not least on the part of government. The idea is that individuals can be encouraged to give to others who share a common identity (e.g. a city or regional identity). What I am suggesting though is subtly difference. For a place based idenity to be successful one has to understand what it means to be that kind of person and why it should feel good to be that kind of person. Merely making an identity salient, does not influence identity clarity or identity importance and all are necessary to build giving.
Develop a Culture of Philanthropy in every charity. Peter Drucker is credited with suggesting that “culture eats strategy for breakfast.” It is one thing for an organization to have a plan for fundraising/philanthropy, but quite another for it to survive the first few hours of its operationalization. Organizations need to become more welcoming of philanthropy and those who might offer it. That means celebrating philanthropy, understanding the psychological needs of donors (and responding to them), investing in fundraising training/education, focusing on philanthropic innovation and building genuine Board engagement.
Require (or strongly suggest as best practice) that all new Board members, appointed in the UK have some formal training in fundraising. It is troubling that whose who ultimately take decisions about their organization’s fundraising practice can do so, having no knowledge or experience on which to base those decisions. A basic understanding of fundraising ethics, an introduction to the code of fundraising practice and some sense of the economics of different forms of fundraising could make a big difference, as could an understanding of the role that Boards should play in supporting fundraising.
Fundamentally Re-Orienting Fundraising Practice
So far I have been tinkering on the edges. I believe that the biggest transformation would be changing the way fundraising operates by redefining what fundraising is and what it can deliver for society.
Many professionals see their role as raising money for a good cause and there is obviously nothing wrong with that perspective. It is a commonly articulated definition and there is a detailed body of knowledge that can help fundraisers to deliver exactly that. Yet there is also a world of difference between defining fundraising as the acquisition of money and defining it as we do, namely “stewarding the human capacity to love.” Our approach too has its own body of knowledge to support it and inform how it should be practiced. If more fundraisers began to see their role in that way and switched their emphasis, it could truly revolutionize the donor experience. But doing so would require a change to fundraising curricula, the content of CPD and a fundamental rethink of who we are. Is it worth it, well perhaps so. Our love based science (PhilPsych) can deliver a doubling of giving.
Similarly fundraising language needs to change to reflect emerging perspectives on the philanthropic experience. Historically, since we have been focused on money we have defaulted to talk of donations or other words that imply money, such as “gift” or “support.” This frames philanthropy within a quite a narrow psychological niche. Our capacity to give money is usually rather less than our capacity to offer love. The latter can be boundless and of course it is love by definition that is at the core of philanthropy.
Our sector is now laser focused on impact, with organizations putting into place reporting mechanisms to communicate impact and deliver data in seemingly real time. Philanthropic advisers have a particularly important role in this space, helping their clients to manage the inevitable complexity and guiding them through the requisite choices. That is all to the good. Of course community impact is deserving of so much of our collective focus and attention. But we would argue for a concomitant focus to be developed accounting for the impact on the donor. 20th century notions of altruism are exactly that – 20th century and dated. We now know that it is the presence of self, not its absence, that is the key to meaningful sustained philanthropy. So we need to understand what that self-experiences as meaningful so we can better steward the person behind the gift, cater for their wellbeing and maximize opportunities for additional meaning to emerge as the relationship progresses.
Growing philanthropy could make an enormous difference to the functioning of UK society. Philanthropy saves lives, enriches lives and frees the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It is hugely important. Yet growing it as a percentage of GDP is no easy task. That percentage has held firm for decades despite all the changes we have seen in our society, new forms of giving, the growth of the internet and new digital channels, etc. If we are serious about growing it now, our approach needs to do more than tinker on the edges. We need bigger and bolder ideas for how the future of philanthropy could be experienced. And we need them now.
Adrian Sargeant - July 2025