"Philanthropy Past, Present and Future"
Charity Commission Chair gives Dame Shirley lecture at University of Kent
Introduction
Good afternoon, I am delighted to be here with you all today. I’d like to thank the University of Kent, and Dr Beth Breeze, for having me here.
Beth, as you will know, has made a tremendous impact in building a tradition of academic research and scholarly perspectives on philanthropy in the UK and as we come together this evening to discuss the future of philanthropy, I want to mark the role she and her team have played in putting philanthropy on the academic and social policy map in the UK.
And I am also particularly humbled to be speaking as part of a lecture series established in honour of Dame Stephanie Shirley.
Stephanie Shirley’s life and achievements are, by any standard, extraordinary and inspirational, and her example speaks more eloquently of the value and impact of philanthropy than any lecture or academic research – no disrespect to our hosts here this evening – possibly could.
Not only has the sheer scale of her philanthropy been astonishing – she has given away more than £67m of her personal fortune over the decades.
But she is also a compelling and passionate advocate for philanthropy - speaking out not only about what she gives, and to whom, but why, and how – about her motivations, thought processes, and about the relationship she nurtures with the projects and charities she supports.
Dame Stephanie’s approach, summarised in her own words, is that “giving is a social and cultural activity, not merely a financial transaction”.
I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment, though I would add that giving – certainly among the top 1% of earners in our society – is also a moral imperative and, increasingly, a societal necessity.
I would like to use this platform to set out why I, as Chair of the Charity Commission, am taking such a keen interest in philanthropy at this time, and what the Commission is doing, and intends to do, in this area.
And on that note, I am delighted to be joined here this evening by Rory Brooks, CBE, a Charity Commission Board Member. Rory is a great and committed philanthropist himself and has great insight into the practice and theory of philanthropy. He will be leading much of the Commission’s work in this area, as I will come on to.
A generous nation
When we discuss philanthropy, and why and how it should be promoted, it is important to remember that we are, overall, an incredibly generous nation – or group of nations.
The CAF World Giving Index – most recently published today – has the UK as the world’s 3rd most giving nation, with 71 percent of people regularly donating money to charitable causes, up from 5th last year. We can and should be proud of that ranking.
In its separate UK Giving Report, CAF estimates that Britons gave 12.7 billion pounds to charity in 2022 – making last year the British public’s most generous year on record.
Again and again, we see the difference this generosity makes, both practically and to a sense of societal cohesion.
The COVID pandemic was a national emergency and, for many, involved heartbreaking personal challenges and tragedies. But it also highlighted the extent to which charity and charitable acts are woven into every community across the UK, and into the very fabric of our society.
It demonstrated the innovation, ingenuity and generosity of the British public – expressed in countless acts of kindness towards neighbours and in the huge surge in charitable giving, with NHS Charities Together alone raising an incredible 150 million pounds in the year from March 2020.
That generosity is also felt around the world.
Within weeks of its launch last year, the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal for those impacted by the war in Ukraine raised an astonishing 300 million pounds, and has, to date, raised over 420 million.
Last year, I travelled to Romania to witness in person the work that UK aid charities are doing to support refugees from Ukraine – funded by money raised through that DEC appeal. I was humbled and moved by the expertise and compassion of those delivering the work on the ground, and proud to know that it was made possible thanks to the generosity of thousands of ordinary British citizens. I was also proud to see that the giving by the British public was far more evident than by most other countries.
More recently, the UK public donated over 150 million pounds to support those affected by the devastating earthquakes that hit Turkey and Syria earlier this year.
And nor is public generosity limited to crisis situations. It is part of our day-to-day way of life: committing to regular direct debit donations, dedicating time, talent and sheer bloody-mindedness to marathons, cake baking, mountain climbing, and submitting to such ravages and humiliations as ice bucket challenges and cold baths of baked beans – or sponsoring friends and neighbours to take the pain. All these activities are commonplace in this country.
In short – giving, sharing, and making sacrifices are part of our civic DNA.
The problem
But it appears that we have a challenge. And it relates specifically to the top one percent of earners and owners in the UK who the evidence suggests, at this time in our history, are not pulling their charitable weight.
The top one percent here seem to give less than their counterparts in comparable, equivalent societies, such as New Zealand and Canada.
And, perhaps more worryingly, giving among the very wealthy is apparently declining in value relative to their income.
In other words, by some metrics, philanthropy is on a downward trend.
In 2021, Pro Bono Economics noted that while incomes among the top one percent of earners had grown by around ten percent over the previous decade, their donations to charity fell by over twenty percent.
The report estimated that the average monthly sum donated by the very rich was 48 pounds.
A good deal less, I would venture, than many within this income bracket spend on take-away coffees each month.
I am concerned about this, for two principal reasons.
The first is immediate, and pragmatic: there is an urgent need for more monies to flow into the charity sector.
That need has, according to some measures, never been greater. The generational cost of living crisis is placing immense multiple pressures on many charities.
The NCVO’s most recent Civil Society Almanac, published a few weeks ago, using data from our register, reported that, for the first time in a decade, the overall income of the sector had declined on the previous year.
This is based on data for the financial year 2020-2021, and so the decline is almost certainly an effect of the pandemic. It remains to be seen what impact the cost-of-living crisis and the downward pressure on donations it entails, may have on the sector’s overall income.
NCVO’s research noted in particular that smaller charities – those with annual incomes of less than one million pounds – are especially vulnerable to income pressures, being more likely to rely on public donations than very large charitable institutions.
At the same time as charities’ income declines, demand for services is increasing.
Research undertaken in September by the Charities Aid Foundation, revealed that over half of charities surveyed are at full capacity, with over 40% saying they simply cannot help anyone else. A small but striking number – 12 % - are now turning people away.
The sample size for this survey was small – just over 600 charities compared to a sector of many tens of thousands of charities – but its findings echo what we hear and know from other sources.
The Commission’s own data and analysis suggests that charities providing care to vulnerable groups – including housing charities and those in the care sector, charities providing services to homeless people, foodbanks and debt advice charities – may be under the most intense pressure.
There are limited options for new injections of cash into the sector to plug these funding gaps.
Those on average incomes cannot be expected to shoulder the burden – we all know the impact inflationary pressures are having on ordinary households.
Nor can we expect government alone to make up the shortfall over the next few years.
Of course, I welcome the £100m the chancellor pledged for community organisations and local charities in the March budget. Not least as it followed the £750m in emergency funding charities received during the pandemic.
These decisions acknowledge the crucial role played by third sector organisations in keeping communities strong.
But we cannot bank on continued shots in the arm from government, given the wider economic situation our nations are in.
Unique benefits of philanthropy
And indeed, philanthropic giving offers many additional benefits for charities and the communities they serve, over and above other types or sources of income.
This goes to the efficient and effective use of charitable resources, which is of direct statutory interest to the Commission as regulator.
Philanthropic giving can facilitate innovation, allow charities to take calculated risks in trying out new ideas, ultimately smoothing the path for new ways of delivering for beneficiaries.
This is not least because philanthropic gifts often come with fewer strings attached than grants and contracts from government or institutional grant-makers.
Philanthropists – who after all are often entrepreneurs – understand that to make big changes, a charity may have to take a risk, or have to make long-term investments in people, systems, and in bricks and mortar in some cases.
For example, a £3.5 million philanthropic gift from the Moulding Foundation is supporting the construction of a pioneering new safe and secure community for the Manchester’s homeless and vulnerable men, to be known as Embassy Village. The project is innovative and – so it is intended – transformational in terms of the safety and support it will offer its residents.
Similarly, philanthropy has played a crucial role in allowing the charity West London Zone to test and develop a programme of early-years support for some of London’s most disadvantaged children. Evidence showed poor pupils were already nearly a year behind their peers at the very beginning of their schooling, at reception. Unrestricted philanthropic support allowed the charity to test and trial the interventions that worked best in addressing that need. The unrestricted, as it were speculative gift, helped generate evidence that the charity could make a tangible difference. Evidence, which for understandable reasons, is needed by commissioners of services in local government and elsewhere. The result? West London Zone have extended their everyday work to include early years support – with committed local authority funding. This is an excellent example of the unique impact philanthropic support can make. Not just in supporting charities, but in improving the impact and efficiency of government funded programmes.
Similarly, philanthropists can make a unique difference in supporting charities with core costs – what we might term ‘behind the scenes’ overhead expenditure that is vital to the safe and effective operation of a charity, but which charities can find difficult to support through contracts and other grants.
Many philanthropists will know that as organisations scale and grow, these costs increase – costs associated with staff, safeguarding, governance, energy, fraud protection and so on.
But our research tells us that the public, who are making significant sacrifices often in donating to a charity, want to see their gifts flow as directly to front-line activity as possible.
In that sense, I see a crucial role for larger-scale donations from philanthropists in helping to underwrite operating costs, allowing for monies raised through public fundraising to be prioritised for front-line service delivery.
Such arrangements, especially where they are celebrated and communicated by the charities involved, have the potential to provide crucial immediate cash injections for struggling charities, and, in the longer term, promote public trust and inspire continued, confident public giving.
A few weeks ago, IVAR, the Institute for Voluntary Action Research published a report on the support needed for charities during the cost-of-living crisis. The problems highlighted are serious, and echo the points made earlier – staff shortages, services at risk, stress and burnout at unprecedented levels. This is a time of deep challenge for the sector.
What I want to highlight here, however, is the solution the paper proposes: namely for charities to have greater stability of income, and greater control over their resources. More unrestricted funding.
This is where philanthropy can plug a vital efficiency gap. Philanthropic gifts or longer-term philanthropic pledges can give charities much needed planning and breathing space, allowing them to maintain crucial services at a time when these are so needed, and so at risk.
Finally, philanthropy can play a role in building the effectiveness and efficiency of networks of charities in specific geographical areas, helping to spark a hub of charitable activity that might not otherwise be possible or sustainable.
There are several great initiatives already – the Made in Stoke-on-Trent initiative encourages people with links to the area to give back in support of local communities.
Efforts like this have an ecological impact – where one charity thrives, another can learn to thrive and survive, building on expertise, skills, and the sense of community that successful charities build.
Diaspora philanthropy can help sow those kinds of seeds, and see them grow.
So there is both an urgent financial need for new monies to flow into the sector, and a huge opportunity for philanthropy to improve and strengthen the efficient use of charitable resources generally.
Philanthropy offers a virtuous circle of support for charities at a time when many are seriously concerned about a vicious cycle of increased demand and reducing resources.
My second reason for being passionate about the need for greater philanthropy is less immediate, but as important: I worry that, over time, an ongoing decline in charitable giving by the wealthy risks decaying a crucial aspect of our implicit, national social contract.
Beacon Collaborative, a group established to promote philanthropic giving, put this imperative in simple terms: “Our economy offers the freedom to create great wealth, but with reward must come responsibility.”
I couldn’t put it better myself, although I have been trying!
This imperative was once commonly understood – that with great privilege came great responsibility. The responsibility not only to do the minimum required by law through taxation, but to share voluntarily of one’s wealth, supporting those whose talent and industry may have been equal to their own, but whose opportunities were more limited or whose circumstances more constrained.
There was a recognition, among the very wealthy, that an element of good luck will have been involved along the way, whether their wealth was inherited or accumulated during their lifetime.
The word ‘fortune’ which was once so commonly used to describe the assets of the rich, echoes that understanding.
And you only need to look at the volume of churches in the square mile of the City of London to acknowledge commerce and associated wealth was once intimately linked to community and charity.
For many, generous giving remains a way of life. And there are many great role models among those with great wealth giving regularly, generously, and strategically.
Dame Stephanie is one such example.
The Rausings are similarly a family who have contributed millions to many charities. Last year, I met Julia and Hans Rausing, who had recently pledged a donation to the Trussell Trust group of food banks. I was fascinated to hear about the unique role they consider philanthropic giving can play – more on that in a moment.
The musician Stormzy has also given very generously to causes he cares about, and has spoken out about his passion for helping young people from backgrounds like his own to share in the power and advantage that education bestows.
There are many more such individuals in the arts, who give generously, and visibly, and I commend them.
But despite these shining examples both of giving and of the value that giving unlocks, overall, giving among the wealthy has, it seems, declined proportionally.
It may be impossible, ultimately, to determine for certain why giving patterns among those with means have changed over recent decades.
Dame Stephanie herself has suggested our underdeveloped culture of high net worth giving may be due in part to British reserve, and specifically the idea that we don’t talk about money. In her autobiography, she suggests that to “achieve American levels of generosity, we need American levels of openness” – a compelling idea, which I will come back to.
In any case, in an age of rising inequalities, I worry that the trend of declining social responsibility among the very wealthy may seriously undermine, over time, the sense of social cohesion, of community and togetherness. I also worry that a sense of unfairness, indeed potentially of futility, might place further pressures on giving by the population over all, which would have disastrous consequences for charities and those reliant on their work.
Those with the most challenging circumstances, and those struggling on average incomes, need to know that the people whom life has treated well are digging as deep – ideally a little deeper – than they are, in support of others.
The case for the Commission’s involvement and what we will do
I hope that I have explained why I consider greater philanthropic giving necessary.
I’d like now to explain why I consider it the Commission’s business to get involved in promoting philanthropy, and how we intend to do this.
For over a century and a half, the Commission has had the vital job of upholding and promoting the role of charity in society.
How we have fulfilled this mission has changed over time, adapting to changing expectations and needs.
When I was last on the board of the Commission, an urgent priority was to help restore public trust in charities by demonstrating that we were appropriately holding to account those who through negligence or abuse misused charities.
I’m delighted that, since then, and thanks to the work of successive boards and a determined executive, led for the past 6 years by Helen Stephenson, we have addressed that.
And indeed, levels of public trust, measured through our annual surveys, appear to be recovering.
Our work on compliance and enforcement will remain crucial.
But, at this time, there are other urgent calls on our attention.
One of our statutory objectives, set by Parliament is, to promote the effective use of charitable resources.
As I have set out, philanthropic giving is not just about plugging funding gaps, but has enormous potential to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of charities.
It has the potential to support and accelerate innovation, underwrite and encourage other forms of income into the sector, and make individual charities and charitable networks more effective and impactful.
Making philanthropy, very clearly, an area of direct regulatory interest.
So what are we doing, and what will we do more of?
Speaking personally, and as you will know, since arriving as Chair in April 2022, I have committed the Commission to the promotion of philanthropy over the past 18 months, which should be a long and rewarding journey.
One important step in this journey came, as I’ve mentioned, with the recruitment of Rory to our board.
As an experienced and prolific philanthropist, Rory is already making an important impact, providing a crucial philanthropic perspective on board decision making generally, and championing personally much of our work on philanthropy on my behalf in the months and years ahead.
Data
Rory is leading a number of workstreams, one of which revolves around data.
The Commission has access to a considerable quantity of data about charities, which we gather and use to exercise our regulatory functions.
This data is a potential goldmine for donors. But is it not yet easily accessible and manageable by high-net-worth donors or their advisers.
I want us to change that. We are therefore developing a programme to better promote our data on charity funding and impact, which can help philanthropists choose who to give to or see how their money is achieving impact, and which will provide better, concrete data on how philanthropic sources collectively are giving to the sector.
This may, in turn, help others to develop single direct metrics that measure philanthropic impact upon the sector – organisations such 360 Giving and Foundation Practice Rating have expertise in this area.
Next week, Rory is convening a data summit with key players in the world of philanthropy and the sector itself. I hope that will help us forge a path to ensuring our data is better understood, and better used by philanthropists.
Convenor
This brings me on to the second role I foresee for the Commission, namely as convenor of key interested parties, stakeholders, and experts.
As regulator, we are not, and never will be a world expert on philanthropy. Many others, notably Dr Beth Breeze, have undertaken world leading research on philanthropy – leading to seminal publications such as Dr Breeze’s In Defence of Philanthropy. We cannot and do not want to rival that work.
What we do have is have a unique authority and influence, often precisely because we are recognised as an honest broker – as fair, balanced and independent of special interests – whether they be commercial, political, or borne of commitment to a specific charitable cause or purpose.
The data summit will therefore, I hope, be the first of many such gatherings, designed to promote and facilitate philanthropic giving.
Meanwhile, the Commission’s unique position at the intersection of the public and charity sectors, allows us to exert benign, gentle influence over decision-makers in central government, ensuring philanthropy remains on their agenda.
As my colleagues will attest – both current and former – I am not prone to dilly-dallying. And this will remain a priority regardless of any political turbulence. It is our gift as an independent body to set long-term objectives that we see through in spite of an ever-changing environment.
And of course, we are engaging with charity regulators outside of England and Wales to learn lessons from them and coordinate on the international stage.
Philanthropy, of course, like charity itself, is not defined by borders – many, many individuals based overseas donate money to British charities each year, and likewise many of you will have given to foreign causes. I believe strongly that we are a global philanthropy capital precisely because we hold our charities to such a high standard.
Guidance
Last, though not least, we are working to develop and update our guidance for charities on Accepting or Refusing Donations.
I want to signal, quite clearly, that the law generally expects charities to accept monies where they are available, in order to deliver on their purposes for the public benefit, and not to refuse or return them without very good reason.
This is because the law recognises that additional funds increase the activities that can be undertaken to deliver charitable purposes, and the refusal or return of a donation inevitably involves a loss to the charity, and a reduction in those activities.
Accordingly, given the financial detriment to a charity from refusing or returning a donation, the counterweighing reasons justifying the refusal or return will need to be significant.
Such reasons will of course sometimes exist – trustees cannot accept illegal donations, and of course trustees may, on occasion, decide that accepting a lawful donation would, for reputational reasons, on balance cause more harm than good to their beneficiaries and their cause.
In this area, as in many others, largely speaking the Commission will respect the trustees’ exercise of their discretion, and thus will rarely intervene when trustees decide to accept, refuse or return a donation.
However, rarely is not never, and the Commission may well intervene if we consider that such intervention would be consistent with our Risk and Regulatory Framework, including if any decision-making is materially irrational.
One example of materially irrational decision-making would be when it is apparent that the motivations for a return or refusal are simply the personal worldviews or preferences of the relevant trustees, rather than the best interests of the charity.
Demonstrative personal squeamishness around sources of philanthropic funding may benefit the sense of righteous progressiveness of a trustee or charity executive, but it will most likely not serve the beneficiary reliant on the services a charity provides.
Such attitudes harm not just the beneficiaries of the individual charity, but risk undermining charitable giving by high-net-worth individuals overall.
I mentioned earlier Dame Stephanie’s view that we should develop greater openness about wealth, and about giving, in the UK. Making conversation about giving more common, more acceptable, less embarrassing.
I agree with this. And it starts with celebrating, rather than shaming, those who do give.
Remember, the immediate alternative to high-net-worth individuals giving generously to charity, is high-net-worth individuals not giving generously to charity, and keeping their wealth to themselves and their families.
If you care about the distribution of wealth, encourage those with wealth to distribute it a little more vigorously.
So our upcoming guidance will compel trustees to think more carefully about returning or refusing donations.
When we publish early next year, trustees with existing policies on returning or refusing donations may use the opportunity to review them, ensuring they are fundamentally in the best interests of the charity, rather than reflecting the opinions of those who wrote them.
It will prompt charities to examine their relationships with donors, to consider what – if any – improvements they could make to their engagement. I’ve mentioned unrestricted funding, a funding style I know many charities covet.
But it won’t happen spontaneously! My message to trustees is this: talk to your donors, both current and prospective. Tell stories of those whose lives are improved through your work. Invite supporters to meet staff and volunteers. Show them what your funding goes towards (warts and all if necessary!).
Message to donors
And to those donors considering providing financial support, I say this: there has rarely been a better time or a better place to give than in the UK, right now.
The UK’s professional and legal infrastructure provides enormous support and security to potential and existing philanthropists. We have charity conduct enshrined in law, professional legal expertise, an army of accountants familiar with philanthropic and charitable practice, 800,000 trustees familiar with charity management and governance, a diverse and strong adviser community…
And, most important in my view: a well-regulated charity sector. When you give to a charity registered with the Charity Commission, you give in the knowledge that it is overseen by a regulator with 170 years of experience. No other country on earth can offer a better tradition of good governance and regulatory oversight.
The UK is a “best of class” place for the conduct of philanthropy.
So, donors, please, look at our register, which is home to 170,000 charities. I guarantee there is one that speaks to the heart of all and any potential philanthropist out there.
All interests, values and passions are spoken to and reflected in the charities on our register.
And when you find those special causes, be they supporting homeless people, or injured veterans or recovering cancer patients, or young people, or geographic communities, or the arts, or heritage - give with confidence.
And trust that the charity you chose to support is better placed than anyone to determine how funding should be allocated. The greatest gift you can give is the freedom for a charity to grow its services in the communities it serves.
While large-scale one-off unrestricted gifts are hugely welcome, and hugely important, a new age of philanthropic giving does not require the wealthiest in our society to sign their fortunes away.
I truly believe that people with substantial incomes can and should be persuaded to give more – perhaps even just a little bit more.
On this point – I do share the view of some, that we will not move the dial by shaming those who have been fortunate in life.
Voluntary giving should not be coerced – in fact, it cannot, if it is to be sustainable.
Instead, we should work to encourage and inspire philanthropy as a good, satisfying, fulfilling habit, appealing to the innate potential for compassion, generosity and moral imagination that is no less present among the rich than any other group in society.
In conclusion – I am well aware that the Commission is a small cog in a complex system of culture, habit, policy, and data, all of which influence the level of philanthropic giving in our nations.
I do not, for a minute, believe that we alone can shift the dial, or change the world.
But I am determined that, under my leadership, the Commission will play its part.
We must do what is possible, within our remit and our resources, to ensure that more people with great wealth give more generously, and more often, to more charities.
I want to see a future in which we have a charity sector for all, by all, in which we all feel invested, proportionate to our means and circumstances.
Communities and societies do not grow strong and cohesive by default. That only happens where the majority of people feel that they are part of a system that supports them, and which they in turn contribute to. Society is about reciprocity and connection.
Those on the highest incomes cannot, must not, be excluded from this principle. We must ensure they are brought back into the fold of social responsibility, by digging a little deeper.
We have the opportunity here, and now, to breathe life into a new era of philanthropic ambition and impact in this country. To be remembered as the generation in which individuals with great wealth and great ambition, with big ideas and big hearts worked together to make communities stronger, and the lives of those within them more secure, and more meaningful.
This could be a golden moment in the history of UK philanthropy.
Please, let’s work together, each to our strengths and powers, to make this happen.
Rory and I look forward to working with many in this room and beyond, to that end.
Thank you.