Kate Symondson: Family Foundations, Grantmaking & Next Gen Philanthropy

[Music] You're listening to the philanthropism's podcast with Roger Davis. [Music] Hello, you're listening to the philanthropism's podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropic in context. I'm your host, as ever, Roger Davis. And this week we have a conversation with Kate Simonson. Now, Kate could be described as a next-generation philanthropist, although as you'll hear in the interview, Kate would take issue with pretty much every aspect of that and would probably say that the next-gen distinction is not helpful and that she doesn't consider herself a philanthropist, but rather a funder. But she is involved in managing her family foundation, the Simonson family foundation. And so I sat down with Kate to talk to her about her experience of philanthropy, her experience of doing philanthropy as a family, and her experience as a next-gen, if you know that is the right terminology. So we had a really fascinating conversation. I've talked to Kate a few times about these things and it was great to have a chance to sit down again and to sort of capture that for the podcast. And so we talked a bit about how the family foundation came about and to what extent that represented an extension of a sort of existing interest in charity and how that had kind of evolved over time. And we talked about how decisions are made about what to fund in terms of cause areas and organisations and how that sort of works in practice. We talked about the challenges that come with accepting that as a funder or a philanthropist, you have to say no to some things or not to fund them. We talked about how, as a funder, the Simonson Foundation and Kate in particular tries to manage the tension between making sure that they are open to as wide a range of causes and organisations as possible and aren't getting kind of locked within their own echo chamber or subject to their own biases. But then also at the same time not placing too much of a burden on potential grantees by asking them to make sort of own or as applications and how you do that in practical terms. We also talked about some of the issues around power dynamics once you've decided who to fund and how you kind of manage the relationship between funders and grantees. We also talked about the question of the rewards of giving and whether the fact that it's often argued that giving brings a warm glow to the donor or offers them rewards in other ways, whether that's something to embrace or whether it's actually something that brings a level of discomfort sometimes. We talked a bit about the context of family philanthropy and what it is that Kate had found most rewarding about doing philanthropy as a family and what perhaps had presented more a challenge and some obstacles to be overcome. We talked about the whole question of next-gen philanthropy. We talked about whether that's actually a helpful terminology at all and whether trying to distinguish next-generation philanthropists as some kind of different species from other philanthropists is actually counterproductive and potentially doesn't make sense because it presents them as a sort of homogeneous mass that it all thinks alike and also maybe does a disservice to philanthropists who aren't counted as next-gen who actually have been doing philanthropy in interesting ways for a long time. Then we talked a bit about what it was that Kate is sort of the most positive about in the world of philanthropy and what makes her most infused and also what she thinks are some of the biggest challenges and what are potentially some of the biggest causes for concern. So without further ado let's go into the conversation. I really really enjoyed this one. It's great to talk to Kate and I hope you'll enjoy it too and then I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Okay great well I'm here with Kate Simon-Surn. Hi there Kate. Hi Audrey. Well it's great to have a chance to talk to you on the podcast. I know we've talked at various points you know that length about some really interesting things to do with philanthropy but it's great to sort of capture that in a way that other people can get a chance to listen in as well. So I guess the best place to start is just for you to say a little bit about what your interest in philanthropy is. You're obviously involved in your own family foundation but maybe you could kind of explain a bit about that foundation, how it came about, what it is and what it does. Yeah absolutely. So my family foundation is about three and a half years into its life of operating on a more strategic purposeful basis. It was about three and a half years ago that we started calling it a foundation and that's when I came on as head of philanthropy which at the time I thought wow what a cool job title. I felt a little bit like no it's going to be quite a fascinating learning journey and I'm still very much on that journey. My background is in academia and I'm passionate about research as well as having written a lot of communications for people working in the social impact sector. So in some ways those two interests have aligned in this particular role. The foundation is fed by an investment office in a kind of waterfall agreement. So they move a percentage of their network on an annual basis. So the post of money is ever replenishing. So there's not a kind of fear of it running out which I think was one of the things that held back the family from granting and they more structured and well thought outweigh it was much more responsive than proactive before. But with the dawn of COVID and my goodness everything else since the permacrisis I think we're now living and it became abundantly clear that we had a moral and ethical responsibility to really engage with that money and grant in a way that was meeting the range of issues that were presenting. So we focus on the UK, we focus on social issues but we're actually sector agnostic and we grant in a much more aims driven way. So largely speaking we focus on issues of inequity and that can be expressed through organisations working to create opportunity where there wasn't opportunity before to give fairer starts or fresh starts and then we focus on well being in all of the senses of the word. And really having that broad focus gives us a wonderful flexibility. It means that unlike quite a lot of funders who have much more clunkier systems and have a lot more red tapes around where their funds can go we can fund in a very intersectional way. I heard someone on a podcast the other day point out that no single person has one single issue and I do think that when you are a funder who really narrows down to a particular issue that can really be at the cost of people working in very complex spaces. So that I think is a real advantage of being quite a lean nimble machine and having very few barriers to what it is we can grant to. But yeah that's a rough adembration and then the other thing I would add is that we aim to fund in underfunded spaces and underfunded communities again because so many of the issues in the sector are getting the funding to the brilliant ideas and the brilliant people. That's something that I'm quite passionate about finding crafty ways of doing that because there are as I'm sure you understand a lot of barriers to people getting funding particularly if they're much minoritised. Let groups, community groups, women and girls, hopefully underfunded, smaller organisations, organisations in the early days of their journey, all of these things I think that's where as a small foundation ourselves we can have the most profound impact. Yeah it's really interesting to hear and there's lots I want to kind of pick up on about how this works in process and practice and sort of what the process is for identifying causes and organisations and decision making and how that happens. I guess just before I do that one of the things I wanted to ask you sort of said there it's three and a half years I think you said since you started doing philanthropy in a kind of structured and strategic way and I self identifying as a foundation because obviously to some extent the vehicle is a reflection of your own family and it's partially a sort of family foundational. I know there are kind of other individuals who are also involved but before you you had that structure, was there still any sense of kind of philanthropy being an important part of what your family did, or was it something that you were aware of as you were growing up, even if it wasn't necessarily a structured and formal? Yes, I think that's an interesting question because what I would be ex-Englishly academic in me pick up on is somewhat more semantic. We were charitable as a collective, as individuals, but I would say here's where the departure from charity and philanthropy happens. I think my parents can rightfully call themselves philanthropists now because of the organisational quality of the work, whereas before it was much more to do with coming across something serendipitously and feeling good about giving to or feeling that it was the right thing to give to it, or perhaps if something personal has struck you, then you often, an emotional response, is to give. Whereas this iteration is much more driven by, sure, shared values, that's the underpinning of the charity as well, the charitable giving, but it's much more, I suppose, an investment style in its in its iteration. Yeah, and that's, I want to follow up, but I can't resist at this point because this question of the relationship or the distinction between charity and philanthropy, I find absolutely fascinating. And I wondered, as you have developed more of that sort of strategic approach and something that you can think of as philanthropy as opposed to charity, to what extent does that entirely replaced charity and to what extent is there still, is there still some charity going on in that I know when I've spoken to other philanthropists they often say, we, yes, we have all the programs and the strategy and the structures, but we also have this discretion report that we keep because it's important still to have the ability to do the charitable bit and to be reactive and responsive and to focus on human connection as well. Is that something that's still a part of your overall giving? Yes, and I really love that distinction because, I love it for a whole host of reasons, yes, there are discretionary funds that we give to our wider family network. We also have a donor matching scheme that we extend to, we have a family farm as well in Lancashire, so extend to employees there and also the investment office that feeds the foundation. And one of the reasons that we have those two avenues and it's a much more ad hoc style of giving and there are no parameters at all to what you can give to is that I really find it so important to never narrow my vision so much that great I'm an expert in the particular area that we're funding in but then blind to other issues. So I think it's, I think it's vital that I have a sense of the charitable landscape that extends beyond the ways in which I grant, but also I agree I think maintaining that personable human aspect is such an important check because hopefully that is always woven into the ways in which we give strategically and philanthropically. And you know we would describe ourselves as trust based grant makers but I've actually spent a lot of time recently really hammering out what it is that that means because it can be a very woolly term right and it can be used to mislead people I think and understandably a lot of charitable organisations are pretty cynical about funders that are saying yeah yeah we're trust based funders and you know they've had such terrible experiences with honestly saying expressing what they need or what's been struggled and so on that that it's understandable you would then live in fear of a punitive culture between funder and grantee so I I think it's important that I am very open about the values that underpin our funding the pragmatic surrounding how we fund and really demonstrating what an organisation can expect from having a partnership with us so hopefully that will be I'm in the process of creating a new website and that will be up there out there yeah because I think I think having everyone goes into a partnership with mutual expectations but it's not very often that people talk about them from the fore. No absolutely and I want to get into some of that detail on on the how of how you go about grant making and how sort of take into account all those considerations and what what that looks like beyond the initial decision to give over the money and what the relationship with grantees is like but I guess sort of taking a bit before that I'm really interested in the question of how was and as a family and as an organisation you identify opportunities to give both in terms of cause areas and organisations you know you said that from your academic background you're very keen to make sure that it's evidence based what does it look like in practice for an idea to go from you know first becoming aware of something through to the the foundation funding it. Yes it's a good question and it's one that new philanthropist that I speak to it's the one question that comes up every single time particularly the question of how do you find these organisations especially when you're funding an underfunded spaces the reason they're under fundators because of the relative invisibility and and to be frank I do not have the resources because I am essentially a one person show that meets with my parents on a now a two monthly basis actually and that's for a few hours to discuss strategy and potential grunting so I don't have the resources to accept applications nor do I want an organisation to speculatively potentially waste time and money and resources in applying but I am painfully aware of the barrier that that then creates to be seen so there are a number of things that I do to try and circumvent that one idea wonderfully came from a peer and a friend Becky from the Hellvellen Foundation and they have on their website and I now have the same a tell us about you page and it's a simple form and in my case it populates directly into a spreadsheet that I have access to and it would take an organisation costs 30 seconds to fill out a little bit about themselves and a little bit about I suppose perhaps how they found us because that might be helpful in underselling their network and also just what their core aims their values are and I consult that spreadsheet on a semi-regular basis so that's one way another way is granting through grant making charities it's very important to me that those grant making charities values and application processes are akin to mine so there was one I looked at who had a diabolically complicated application process so difficult in fact that they gave I think three hour long training sessions on how to fill it out that really doesn't align with how it is I go about granting and beginning a relationship with an organisation whereas the likes of the fore or Rosa they have a gorgeously nurturing application process where actually conversations that potential grantees have with the mentors that help them along with the process offer brilliant feedback constructive feedback so that even if they don't get through the process they have this takeaway that will strengthen their application process for the much notier funders so funding through them is great because I have a much better sense of the universal charities that they fund I may then choose in addition to granting to these grant making charities and I do so in an unrestricted way so I'm very happy that they spend that on their own core costs and I then readily see all these wonderful much much smaller organisations that I would have otherwise potentially been blind to another thing that I've recently started doing that someone I met at a summit in New York recently has devised is rather than asking your fellow funders who are you funding and of course that can be helpful but you do risk perpetuating one another's blind spot you know narrowing of provision rather than expanding you should ask your grantees well who else should I be funding? hunateb yn gydol nhw'n ddysg i sem ffin customer syddau'i wneud, dar farbyddio amvan y plageliw meddwl gan sy'n gydol. G third eye fly a ridyn gallu chi. A ddyllrauzioedd yn weldedd, cwlo sofydig yn cyngorlois nhw i possiblyi gan newd ar chi wrth 북한hopynaw, eu anedd nhw i dtle preyru gw interferingaethyrn. Berillulai rent y rh發 hon'ten fill où burtyf錊 » Lydia Bow significantó Wolg yn urце…… Mae gyfmoil o darol drwy CSY roedd yma I Lena Diamond Bone Mae'n sylfarf mewn o le白 i. Mae ffawr ar yn bod, yna. Maeemos yla fod yn fwyngwya feddwl a'r gyafó humour ar féstir gereff fel gydigat gallam, ddeţ Roir ro os wedi chi flyici a fynd o'r gyfer nodden sydd ar y start STEM … yn cyflwy cyflwy bwrch eun prot underscore o gyfer nodden sy'n gwybod. Mae'n gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod o gyfer nodden sy'n gwybod o gyfer cyflwy ffawr yma o gyfer cyflwy ffawr yma akír energio a thiemy gemens ' a le iusteuriad sy'n cigolis foffaf, mae'r olyddeddolae fdisplayi foffaf y muzytaen egg m gettygodnos package. Ch Withoutais wnaeth y mutwnt mfyn nhw i wedi'n broedddiad ac iaithi gwahanol graph oil o chwy'n fy ariesb wedynschau jobbar thwyr. I'rulleid eu MOSFET yn ymgyddfa fydd i fi, ac fel fan yn ymgyndró} einser rwy beth yn cofo, gyd capturedu gwloe gweddien docig wain fir o gy Crush Olaweddarle'i ool gwrs terws iarbiotd fel oedd Pan Cangressau Iwy'n siop y Cymru i'r் complicol ac mae'r cynt吃 honnau awdal fel oeddfa fyddionMusu fod yn ond fel g… yn doedfa fyddion � mae'r π severelaed { Jesus Lheart Sh君 } Braffle i gwy gofote yma endewedrau chi'r ein fyw a fy reb ihn ب uf yn parlak yn fe tomato'r trobouto, â etchydawllf yw i ddoedd hynni cyfülleteddfa callே yn y bywyd yr etchydulio fel hawfnod y geometricって aquilo doedd yn mynd y p Einstein llysubr ar yptyl sy'n cftyîn hynod y太ffellor o'r pladel implixfodydd digiは Also wyt nhw'n ddoedd nid ymwys heb ondol i eisiau o tutedwch yn ilyddai mynd ar ews fodullfions a y ddoddoedd ein rpers a ymwys heb ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd a ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol a ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol a ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol a ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol i ddoddoedd yn ymwys heb ondol аниbeמ eisiau�도e a gwelói na hwn o ddefnyddoen Żydneydd Fysl ramp提gen o 'mwysael panddோ fortableol fel i oernedigidol mo o'r cymtyged wedi bu efo ar y snipp dael, i Onds Ysgmaidd yn mo a cof arwn yn ac nw'r Comellisaeth ac gym neu'n vacais feth! As i zeg, cael chi wedi gwild arwi teud Bysdau ulidoedd'u tablet y go reconnectors a'r cymtydau yn y fflexibol posisio ac yn yw'r cymtydau yn yw'r cymtydau a'r cymtydau yn ymw'r cymtydau a'r cymtydau yn ymw'r cymtydau ac yn yw'r cymtydau yn yw'r cymtydau a'r cymtydau yn yw'r cymtydau a'r cymtydau yn yw'r cymtydau Mae cael tego unci fri'n creu eitコ outlined iawnyd am rhoedraill a'u nie sastian i plésen i'n diŷu. Fal peris geliadau itwood waith ar Clara Matthew, 'G tama roedd deau popovae fydd. Mae'r ffundr i'n gwybod i'n gwaithio. Mae'r ffundr i'n gwaithio. Iog yn amet Oscar Dynaeth, ac 'iddan gyfodod sylwyd yn gholwydd eu ddimyn. Mäwnwch roedd但go Egyptiansna Saint John Lodton系 Richard Newton yn yr fitésyn, bideg'ol o orgdim yn dod niטorol, o'rείi weldoli iawn ein gwneud ar sicFO'r cael ei charlaethio, o,ан yr y blind الawodd? Thwyd yn gweithio eisiau gifio o gweithio, o'r gweithio, i'n gweithio eisiau byddio'r cyfyrddio. Mae'r cyfyrddio a'r cyfyrddio. Mae'n gweithio i'n gweithio eisiau gweithio eisiau ymwyd i'n gweithio i'n gweithio. Mae'r cyfyrddio, mae'n gweithio eisiau ymwyd i'n gweithio. Mae'n gweithio eisiau ymwyd i'n gweithio eisiau ymwyd i'n gweithio eisiau yn gweithio eisiau ymwyd i'n gweithio. "I really hope gone have the days of the sort of drunken balls where you have to pay £10,000!" "Ris aeid, all of them buy completely unnecessary things at auction, have gone." "Ash, I saw a charity the other day". They work with issues of domestic violence against women and they were selling a shooting day for a host of men for fundraising and I just thought "Oh gosh, OK, that's that happens!" So that's just with the extreme end of the reward spectrum. With the softer warm glow, the joy, it's not something that motivates me. It's a fulfilling aspect, but I actually find the exchange of ideas, the commitment to achieving profound and systemic change, much more galvanising and motivational. I was on a course recently with Ford Global, who were previously the philanthropy workshop, and one of the things that you do a deep dive into is what motivates you as a funder. There's no judgement in the room for if you said, "Well, it is the feeling of doing good." But given a list of things that motivated me, it ranked very, very low on the list for me, which in some ways comes as a relief, because I'm very conscientious about the power imbalance of historic granting, present-day granting, and I will continue to reflect on the ways in which I can work to ameliorate that, to correct that. Again, that's another part of the fabric of discomfort of the role, but one to sit with and engage with, not one to run away from. That brings us something neatly on to, we talked about the process of identifying causes and organisations and trying to make sure that the power imbalances that are potentially there in that aspect of philanthropy are minimised. I guess at the point where you begin a funding relationship with an organisation, there are then, as you say, all sorts of other challenges, because there is that natural power imbalance between being the one that has the resources and the one that's in need of those resources. I wondered what you do in terms of trying to address those potential power issues in your funding, and particularly I was thinking, what approach do you take to managing that balance between just placing trust in an organisation and having some need to measure the outcomes or the effectiveness of the funding that you're giving to them? Yes, and that really comes down to a number of things. Obviously, impact assessment is, relates to the last part of your question. But I would say the whole funding journey has to actively correct those imbalances. So every single engagement that you have with that organisation needs to be an expression of de-centering yourself as a funder. So in part, that's through a far less complicated application system. For example, we recently agreed that if an organisation would prefer very happy for them to submit a video application, if that suits them better, we don't only fund charities, we fund organisations working broadly speaking in impact. So CICs, for example, they won't necessarily have a dedicated fund raiser. So it's not a language that you're necessarily speaking. And frankly, we don't need to have all the eyes and tees cross-and-dotted. That's not what we're looking for. We look for potential passion, good governance, great ideas, people. And so that's a part of relaxing that formalistic expectation. And then it's the nature of the relationship that I established from the start. So a lot, I think, of trust is achieved through conversation, frank conversation. You know, what have the challenges been? And how can I help? Not what have the challenges been? Oh dear. It's creating a culture of support, not of punishment. And then when it comes to assessing impact, well, NPC are doing excellent work at the moment in trying to establish a system for trust-based grantors. Whereby, you are measuring impact, but you are doing so in a way that is not onerous or imposing. You know, overly difficult and overly specific systems. So I would say to any funders wanting to interrogate that, do look into the work that NPC are doing. What I'm currently doing in-house. Unfortunately, I'm able to, for a period of time, employ someone who is able to create sophisticated database models. Not something I'm good at at all. And together we're creating a, an inputting model that is looking at a whole load of criteria across the organisations that we've granted today. So including looking at our diversity, equality, and inclusion, credentials, looking at areas that perhaps we have concentrated, particularly in our community. Particularly in areas that we might have neglected. That can be geographical, that can be thematic. And really assessing whether we as funders are being impactful. So it's turning the question on yourself. What does our impact been? Not throwing it out onto the grantee. And I'm hopeful that that is again, just going to ever so slightly shift that balance back. Because I think as soon as you start holding yourself accountable, that's where the attention and the focus and the energy should be, rather than asking someone else to do that for you. Yeah. And that's really interesting. And it made me think actually one thing I wanted to ask is, you know, there's a lot of critical narrative around philanthropy and particularly around the role of foundations. And I think you know, a lot of good self questioning and analysis. And some, you know, a lot of that focuses on the need to shift power and resources, not, you know, not to attach conditions to it to kind of give more involvement to lived experience and emphasize participation and those sorts of things, which all of which I think is absolutely admirable. I guess one of the things that strikes me sometimes is it the logical end conclusion of that sometimes feels as though it's it's the idea that, you know, essentially the desirable thing would be to desenter funders to the point where they basically didn't exist. And it almost implies that there are kind of necessary evil because that's where the resources are at the moment, but it'd be better if the resources just, you know, were got straight. to the organisations on the front line doing the work. I guess my question is, is that true? Or do you have any sense as a funder that there is some value to funders kind of above and beyond their ability just to distribute financial resources? Do you feel as though you bring something to the table that isn't just the money, you know, due to the position that you hold? I think you can hold that cynicism, but you can be proactive with it. So what I mean by that is, yes, there is an inherent power imbalance there, because you are the wealth holder. You are the person giving away funds that you have made probably through a completely inequitable, capitalistic system. So therefore, I think that should be galvanising. If you're operating with a consciousness of that, you say, well, what other value do I have beyond my wealth? Do I have a particular talent that is relevant to this organisation? Not just, I think I'm great. Do I have connections? Could I put them in touch with a trustee who happens to be a lawyer that will help them with X-WineZ? Could I become a landlord, for example? Could I be an investor in a property that they, in addition to granting, could I help them by this property and call that an investment? You know, there are so many things that you can do once you acknowledge that you do hold a degree of power and privilege that is not necessarily held by the grantee or the community that they're supporting. So I think to run away from it actually is potentially wasteful of an opportunity, but you know, you have to do this in a case-by-case situation. And I would say that, and I'm a real champion of Ford Global, they're an excellent community. And what I would say is they are wonderful at helping people recognise that they might have value beyond just the grant, but also they are great at helping people recognise how that might exhaust a power and balance, and therefore how to leverage that value in a sympathetic way. Yeah, absolutely, I think that's a really good point. And I just wanted to circle back a bit. There's a few different topics here, I'm aware of time already, because there's a huge amount of stuff that I wanted to ask you still, but I'm going to try and keep it brief. I guess one that I'm really interested in is just coming back to the sort of specific context around family philanthropy. I guess I always find it fascinating, because obviously we all have families and we're all aware. I try and put myself in the position of thinking, if I was in the position to have resources and have to make these sorts of decisions and not just pontificate about them, what would it be like? And I guess it's fascinating, so I guess what I wanted to ask is there must be aspects of it that you've found work really well and a really rewarding and actually as an activity to share as a family, it's a philanthropy wonderful thing. And inevitably there will be bits of it that present challenges. I guess what have you found so far in terms of the bits that have taken the surprise? Do you think, wow, this is, you know, I wouldn't have thought this, but this has been hugely positive. And where have you found that you've had to kind of navigate a few bits and pieces, which inevitably will be the case? Yeah, and of course, it will be the case, because we're all very different personalities. We all have very different professional experiences. In many ways, both of those things are a real strength, because it's very helpful to have an antagonist, a challenger in the room, because it, well, for one, it allows you to really hone your understanding of a situation and also find a language to express persuade in a robust way. And to also acknowledge that at times, you may well need that separate perspective. You may need that check and that balance. I've been absolutely delighted with the openhearted ways in which particularly my parents who I work with most closely on this have embraced the trust-based model. They utterly get that granting to core costs is essential they've never questioned it on a multi-year basis, ongoing basis. And I really love say I feel such pride when I see them championing that form of grant-making to other people. That, yeah, that's a very special thing that we share together. I suppose one of the things that I have found challenging, but I have a new strategy for overcoming. Is leveraging the foundation's funds for investment for impact alongside of granting? Now, I really respect why it is there's a suspicion surrounding that. My family are a family of investors and it invests in quite a traditional sense, impact investment for many is new. There is also a real tendency and I see this everywhere to conflate it with ESG. And I think ESG has for many become somewhat of a crowded space. It's also a term that's bandied around in ways that are wholly inaccurate of where the money is actually held. It was shocking to me how many ESG investors invested in oil directly after Ukraine was invaded similarly with grain. Impact investing is not ESG. Impact investing is one step further. It is an expression of the fact that whilst charities are utterly necessary, they are a flawed model to endlessly have two fund rays. It is a serious problem and so an issue of sustainability is embedded in the structure of charity. So, to invest for impact is to work with the capitalistic systems that have caused so many problems and hopefully achieve some sort of systemic correction. I myself, I intimated that I have a new strategy and that is whilst we are not currently treading that path with the foundation but I hope very much that we will down the line. And to be clear, any investments that have been made on the investment side are thoroughly interrogated on an ethical basis. But I with my much much much more modest funds have joined investment impact, investment for impact syndicate and direct investing in that way with personal funds partly to learn, partly to be a part of that community. And I also hold funds with a wealth manager that invests for impact. So, I'm trying to put my money where my mouth is and I think it's important to align one's personal life with one's grant making professional life for me anyway, there are too many instances that are readily suitable of grant making practices really not aligning with investment practices and vice versa or were still one being used to be a self or the ills of the other one. So, that is one of the tendons I've come up against. But again, I respect the fact that they are investors and I'm not, I've got to, I've got degrees in English literature. That's not my language but I do love learning. One thing I really wanted to ask you actually is you are obviously an example and at this point I'm going to make you a representative of a phenomenon in philanthropy that a lot of people are talking about all the time which is next gen philanthropy. I think particularly because there is this sense that there's we're on the cusp of this enormous intergenerational wealth transfer. So, there's a huge amount of extemporising about who these people are, what interests them, what drives them, are they going to be totally different in their approach. Do you, I mean, first of all, do you think it's helpful to talk about next gen philanthropy as if it's some sort of distinct phenomena? And do you have a sense from your own experience and from kind of your experience of talking to other sort of younger philanthropists in a similar position, whether they do hold slightly different or distinct attitudes towards philanthropy and whether they're doing things in different ways from previous generations of philanthropists? No, I don't think it's helpful to talk to you at all. I think it's one of the many wicked ways in which we're just creating two camps which we just seem to be interminably in the habit of doing across all issues. For one, it's hugely disrespectful to an older generation that are being utterly pioneering in this, in the sphere of trust-based grant-making and impact investment. And frankly, are inspirational to me and to many of my peers. It also creates friction where they're, where they're needn't be. As I say, there can be very helpful challenges. I was actually speaking with some grant-making peers about this very thing last night. And I think what we'll share is that yes, there are differences in ways of doing, I tend to speak about it more in terms of a traditional approach that leads a bit more towards a paternalistic approach versus a progressive and somewhat more radical approach. But it's not necessarily intergenerational. And I think with this extraordinary situation of funds being moved between generations, there really needs to be collaboration and understanding and open-hearted conversations and not a sort of warring faction of two camps. Just to add to that, I heard an extraordinary thing last night. Apparently people have started talking about G1s and G2s and the apparently a system of ranking generations. I don't think we need to move in that direction myself. No, I'm not sure it's helpful. I mean, I particularly, I guess, because I have a sort of pathological aversion to this sort of near-filia in philanthropy, which is just, you know, X is entirely new. This is the new thing in philanthropy. This is a new trend, and I kind of constantly think, oh, I guess because I spend so much time boring people about the history of philanthropy. I'm always, I find myself constantly saying, no, it's not new, it's interesting, but it's not new. And I think that's very much the case with all of the different characteristics that are put forward as sort of unique and distinctive about next-gen philanthropist. I feel well-know that, yes, there might be trends and differences of emphasis, but philanthropy is, to some extent, philanthropy, and it's quite cyclical. There's a whole bunch of bigger picture questions that I had down, which I would absolutely love to talk to you about, but I think that would take us on an entire other hour of podcasts, so I won't do that. I guess just as a final, you know, closer, I'm going to try and lump some of those together in an open-ended way and say, when it comes to philanthropy, what is it at the moment that kind of gives you most optimism or makes you most positive about its potential as a force for in society? And what is it that gives you most sort of cause for concern or makes you think that there are particular critiques of it that are valid and important and challenging? I think the thing that has me most excited about it is that increasingly in the more radical progressive end of philanthropy, I'm seeing people really galvanising and working together in ways that extend far beyond philanthropy, so creating a whole kaleidoscope of impact with the privilege and power that you hold and recognising that philanthropy is but an expression of a much more holistic intention. So I think it's very important that we collectively move towards thinking about the big picture of how we can achieve systemic change and move towards, well, a sustainable climate and also overcome social inequities. So the joined-up thinking is really exciting and the communities that are being built in relation to that are an absolute joy to be a part of and a real self for the dysfunctions of government and badly spent public money. I think one thing that has me somewhat worried is trying to marry that vision with the powers that be, how do we get to the point of collaboration when actually the powers that be stand to benefit more from the status quo remaining. So that is a big question that I keep coming back to. I actually run a course on the art of protest and interestingly for activism to be successful ultimately. Yes, you have the disruptive action to begin with. That's part of making an issue visible, get grabbing the attention of the authorities, but that's not largely what affects the change itself, the change tends to come with much more covert and quiet collaboration. And that is the point that I'm more anxious about with. The disruption is there, I see it, but I've not yet seen the hand holding, not in the western world anyway. Yeah, it's really interesting. It makes me think of some of the things Rebecca Solnitz written about kind of in praise of slow change and the fact that you get those moments of very fast change only because people have spent so long doing all of the hard legwork up to that point and then suddenly you get a tipping point, but it looks like it's just happened out of nowhere. Again, that could be the topic for an entire other hours conversations, maybe we should come back and talk about that at a different point. To be a bit sick of antic for a moment, Rodry, this is why the work that you do is something that I absolutely love because as you say, that there are cycles in philanthropic giving and the power it has to affect change and it's understanding those that help provide a model for the present day. So I do, I genuinely love reading your work. Oh, well, thank you, Kate, that's very kind of you, although I may well choose to edit that out. I'm too British to accept that sort of praise. But it just remains to say thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast. Absolutely, delight to get a chance to talk as ever. I'll put links in the show notes to places where people can find all sorts of stuff that's relevant to what we've talked about. I should say I've left an enormous amount in the locker in terms of other things that we could talk about. So at some point, I will almost certainly nag you again to come on and have another conversation where we can do part two of this. That sounds great. Great. Okay, well, my thanks again to Kate for finding the time to come on the podcast. As I said in the interview, there's absolutely loads that I could have asked Kate about, which I didn't get around to. So I absolutely will do my best to drag it back on the podcast at some point in the future. So we can continue the conversation. In the meantime, I will put links in the show notes to places where you can find relevant bits of writing and other sort of content that touches on the issues that Kate and I discussed. If you're interested, generally, in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out the website at yfalanthropymatters.com. You can find all the back issues of this podcast. You can find lots of articles, short guides to topics and philanthropy updates on things I've been doing and a whole bunch more. If you want to follow me on link on social media, the best place probably these days is linked in. I'm posting on there fairly regularly. If you've got ideas for topics we could talk about on the podcast or people like an interview, I genuinely do mean it that please get in touch. That has led to quite a few of the episodes that you've heard. So it really does make a difference. If you know anybody that you think might like the podcast, please do let them know about it. I think personal recommendation goes a long way with these things. Other than that, just like subscribe or follow and I will see you next time. Bye! [Music] [BLANK_AUDIO]