The head and heart of philanthropy

I sing in a community choir and one of the songs in our repertoire is ‘Bread and Roses’.

“Hearts starve as well as bodies

Give us bread, but give us roses”

This comes from a protest poem by James Oppenheim and has been set to music many times including by John Denver. Although singing is an escape from work, this particular song always gets me thinking about philanthropy.

Philanthropy is often framed as oppositional: either ruled by the heart or by the head. At one extreme, donors are characterised as easily moved by emotive stories and thoughtlessly giving money to whatever causes they care about. At the other end philanthropists are described as dispassionate and objective, keen on impact and effectiveness and looking to scale up social change using business approaches and technology.

But of course, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. What’s the point of effectiveness without understanding and compassion? And money given just with the heart can be a missed opportunity to fund something else with greater impact. Paul Connelly puts this across really well in his article ‘The Best of the Humanistic and Technocratic: Why Philanthropy Requires a Balance’ – the answer is to recognise the strength in both approaches.

As a Philanthropy Advisor, my role is often about stepping in to correct any imbalance. This could mean adding the head: such as researching alternatives or conducting thorough assessments. Or it could involve ensuring the human element is part of any potential solution, for example, challenging the desire for easy measurables when people’s lives are complex and chaotic.

A recent trip to the Foundling Museum in London reminded me that the head and heart have often gone together in philanthropy. Established in 1739 by philanthropist Thomas Coram, the Foundling Hospital was both the UK’s first children’s charity and first public art gallery. Coram was motivated by the plight of abandoned children but it took 17 years of campaigning and negotiating to get his hospital built. And from the start he was supported by artists – including Hogarth and Handel – who donated works and gave concerts to raise funds. Music and art was part of the children’s education and paintings lined the walls. Coram saw they needed bread – and roses too.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/

Necessity is the mother of invention

Amidst all the financial uncertainty and cuts, it is easy to think that more funding is the only answer to solving society’s problems. The one silver lining in this time of austerity is that it has encouraged creativity – getting people to think differently.

Here are some examples that show how a change in mindset – and not money – can bring about positive social change.

Some changes are quite simple:

Plymouth has introduced dementia friendly car parking spaces. The designated spaces are close to the ticket machines and exits. It did not cost a lot to mark these out. What it took was listening to carers of people with dementia and deciding to do something to help.

And there are a number of examples of nudge effects like these where small changes can be used to increase desired behaviours. Images of watching eyes have been shown to encourage payments into an honesty box and donations into a charity bucket. And interestingly a sign saying “think of yourself” lead to more people switching off their engine at a level crossing.

Whereas other examples can bring about significant changes in how things are done:

The Mayday Trust have shifted power to the homeless people they support and focussed on their strengths. By giving clients their own personal budgets, the charity no longer has to spend time persuading people to participate in training. Instead clients purchase the training they want to do. And by making having a mentor voluntary, they have actually increased engagement from 50% to 80%.

Rather than older people getting stuck in hospital or having to move away, local people in the Scottish Highlands are providing social care through Highland Home Carers. The help includes neighbourly tasks like chopping firewood, clearing snow and walking the dog and not just personal care.

Wessex Water’s Collaborative Public Health Project tries to address the significant amounts spent on removing medication from water at their treatment plants. Wessex Water is funding a social prescribing project in the Twerton area of Bath to test if environmental and social activities can reduce the use of medication, such as anti-depressants, and so reduce the need to remove these from the water supply.

Homeshare is a great concept tackling both the issue of lack of affordable housing and the needs of older people. The homesharer gets somewhere to live at a reasonable rate in exchange for providing 10 hours of support (e.g. cooking, shopping, companionship) each week to support the householder.

I am sure there are plenty of other examples where a change in approach has led to improvements at no extra cost. Please share your favourite examples.

Emma Beeston advises philanthropists and grant makers on how best to direct their money to the causes they care about. Support includes strategy and programme design, scoping studies, assessments and monitoring visits. www.emmabeeston.co.uk; emma@emmabeeston.co.uk; @emmabeeston01; www.linkedin.com/in/emmabeeston/