speaker-0: Welcome to the Stakeholder Impact Forum. Today I'm delighted to be joined by Safina Ahmad, ⁓ B E, ⁓ who is the director of the John Element Foundation. And she works with charities, communities, funders, multiple different stakeholders tackling some of society's biggest challenges. ⁓ that's from inequality, trust, long-term change, and really, you know, bringing people together on the difficult topic of funding. ⁓ I'm really pleased to introduce Safina as she brings a really honest perspective. To what think organizations are dealing with right now, ⁓ around listening, working better together, and creating impact that actually lasts. So welcome, Susina.
speaker-1: really delighted to be here. Thank you so much for the invite and that lovely introduction. Really appreciated it.
speaker-0: No, it's great. And I think it's really interesting, like we hear of the, you know, charities and foundations and things, but if you could really briefly introduce the John Elman Foundation and like the role it plays within funding and then the kind of wider ecosystem of charities, that
speaker-1: Yeah, of course, happy to. The John Elliman Foundation is a charitable grantmaker. So we are essentially in the business of giving money away to other organizations. The way that we do it is we have an overarching aim, which is to advance well-being for people, society and the natural world. We are really keen to take a total assets approach. So what we mean by that is how do we use our grantmaking, our investing and our wider operations in pursuit of our aim? So through our grant making, we distribute about five or six million pounds each year. And that's all geared towards supporting charitable organizations that are doing work that's focused on change making, that pursues justice and partners with individuals and communities that are being impacted by different issues. And the areas that we fund in relate to the triple planetary crisis, polarization and political equality and economic systems that are in service of people and planet and wealth inequalities. And we also recognise within those areas that some communities and groups experience those differently and have marginalisations within those. And then through our investing, we're really trying to be a responsible investor and think about the ways in which our investments cause least harms to people and planet. And we're also a social investor and within that we're able to do impact investing as well. And our income for the investments and therefore our grant making is derived from charitable endowment that we received in 1971. So that's the kind of first part of the question. Who are we? What do we do? And we're a small team with six staff and we have seven trustees that oversee our work. But where we fit into the ecosystem, I guess really boils down to the fact that There are many grant-making charities that exist in the UK. Some estimates are around 10,000 in the UK. Obviously, not all of them will be doing what we do and some will distribute more or less than we do. We're categorized as a medium-sized grant maker. I think that's probably where the majority of grant-making charities in the UK lie. And so that means that you're distributing between 5 million and 20 million each year. So we're a medium-sized grant maker. We really do try to be bigger than the sum of our parts and also try to model that even though we are on the smaller end of that scale, six staff, as I mentioned, and about five to six million being distributed each year, we try and model the very best or promising practices across how we recruit, how we progress staff, how we do our grant making, how we do our investing. I think there can be bit of an over-reliance on hoping that the bigger funders, those that have got big grants budgets, big endowments, big staff teams should do all the good work around good ways of investing or good ways of grant making. We're trying to model as a small team our ability to do that as well, because if you think about the ecosystem, most of us are medium sized or smaller. If we leave it all to the big funders, then... That means that there's a huge swathe of us not doing as much as we could be.
speaker-0: really living your values and that's
speaker-1: Yeah, it's really interesting. mean, think you have to do with the kind of work that we're doing.
speaker-0: Definitely. I think yeah, I mean we'll get onto it later, but that's what builds trust surely, isn't it? You know? Doing
speaker-1: Yeah, exactly.
speaker-0: But f for for kind of a foundation like yours, as you say, it's a small team, but obviously quite a wide network of people that you interact with, whether that's politicians, civil soci you know, ⁓ the the charities themselves, the people. What what does that look like on a kind of yeah, day to day basis in terms of the type of stakeholders?
speaker-1: I guess the people that we spend most time with are the people that we fund. So, and that does include applicants as well. So the people who want our money and the people who receive our money. so applicants and grant holders are a core constituency, if you will, organizations that we get to know and get to work with. And it's a real honor. Alongside that we have lots of peers. so we are ⁓ well networked with other funders and they could be funded by us with charitable endowments, but they may also be public funders or funders that are fundraising from other means and other ways ⁓ of receiving funding that they then go on to distribute. And we've done a lot of work to make sure that we have a clear kind of profile and network within the funding sector because we learn a lot from the other people doing this kind of work, but we also hope that we can share a lot with them and try to working collective ways to drive up standards. And I guess that's what's quite interesting about being part of this kind of organization. Inevitably, because we have money, people will say yes to a meeting with us. And equally, because we're part of the sector where people also have money, we're not really having to compete. And so there's natural ways in which you can be quite collaborative. But you also mentioned as part of our ecosystem, we will be working with policymakers and that could be government at a local, central or regional level. But it can also be, you know, other think tanks or policy focused organizations. And that's also within our grant making. We support a lot of policy organizations through that. But I think it is worth reflecting on because The vantage point that we have as a grant maker is that we can, you know, within our portfolio of applications and those that go on to receive funding from us, gain a real sense of what's happening in the different areas that we support and deliver our funding through and use that to try and say like, this is our helicopter view. These are the trends and challenges or opportunities that we're noticing. And these are the things that if we are to really make that lasting change. that you should be considering from a policy perspective. you know, we try to use our independence that we have as a charitable funder to try and do some thoughtful changemaking work of our own.
speaker-0: Yeah, definitely. And it's kind of that analysis as a as a foundation by by seeing the whole picture. And I was thinking there, you know, you're you're sat at quite an interesting intersection of the recipients, the policy, the you know, the as you say, your peers, quite a large ⁓ group that you interact with. So I suppose, yeah, what you you'd mentioned there that you look at the kind of opportunities, but what are the key pressures and the tensions that you're seeing emerging for a an organization like yourself?
speaker-1: Yeah, it's a really good question. And obviously, because we are taking this total assets approach, I should have mentioned that one of our key stakeholder groups are other institutional investors. So other people with endowments that are trying to ostensibly do good and make money in a way that means that we can get it out to the causes that we care about, but also ensure that there's a paradox that you're of grappling with. Because if the money that you're investing the way you're making that money is then contributing to the harms that you're trying to address through your grant making, you have to kind of manage that paradox. And that's why we take a lot of time doing work on responsible investing and social investing. But actually, one of the key constituencies that we now do a lot of work with is fund management and fund managers and trying to explain to them like... how some of the systems that they are a part of in terms of generating income and wealth are doing damage to people, society and the natural world. And there is therefore a need to think about the way we make money, not just the way we distribute money. And so I think to your question about kind of challenges and the opportunities that can be implicit within that, but the kind of challenges we're seeing is that, you know, we can see the reason which generating income and making money has huge ⁓ potential harms on people and planet and how do you kind of work in a way that you can still generate income because it's needed and try to address those harms or mitigate them or remove them completely. And so that's why we're on that kind of responsible investment and social investment journey. Equally, the demand for our funding is huge. ⁓ You know, in the last financial year, we received 571 applications and we were able to make less than 100 grants. So that in itself shows you that there is a need to get money out the door, but we need more money to be going out into the system. We can also see because we fund in the areas of, you know, things like polarization and political equality, the triple planetary crisis, economic systems and models and wealth inequality. There's a lot of data, including from those that apply to us and those that we fund, that those issues are becoming entrenched and worsening. So, you you don't have to pick up a newspaper if you still have a physical copy, of course, or, you know, look at something in the news to see that we are. dealing with lot of polarization across society. We are dealing with things like critical disenfranchisement, which means that people aren't exercising their rights to vote, for example, you know, the triple planet crisis in terms of climate, nature and pollution. trends there are not going in the direction that we need them to. And we can see, you know, things like wealth inequalities, economic inequality, economic systems, just getting entrenched in a way that they don't serve all of us. And so That in itself is a huge challenge that we're trying to, through our grant making and our investing actually, add as much value as we can to try and redress those harms. But we can't do it alone and that's why we work in this very kind of networked and collaborative way so that we can ideally do work through our own institution and organization, but also through others too.
speaker-0: And as you say there, you know, if if you're not doing those things, if you're not living your values as we mentioned before, then that weakens your message to e you know the the other stakeholders that you're trying to i engage with because you need to be seen seem to be doing what your vision is, your strategy. ⁓ so yeah, it's a real balance at the minute. I think a lot of organizations are struggling to deal with that. How do we uphold what people believe we should be doing with what we can achieve? In the current climate. So yeah, I think it's a really
speaker-1: And it can be overwhelming, right? Like how do you keep things right sides, but don't lose your ambition. And actually, I think one of the things I've really seen change within the kind of sector that I work in, I think the government now refers to us as the impact economy or part of the impact economy. And one of the things I really noticed is that, you know, there was a time where you could have a nice shiny aim like we're advancing wellbeing for people, society and the natural world. And we didn't have to interrogate it too heavily. It's a good set of words. We broadly know what they mean to us, but actually as the times shift and we see the ways in which, you know, life is getting harder for people, society and our natural world, we do have to have a much more incisive and decisive view on what that means to us. And then use what we have, our limited resources, even though, know, on the face of it, when you say you've got a balance sheet, you know, an endowment of 150 million, that doesn't feel very limited, but it is in the face of what we're trying to do. And then by having a real sense of what is our strategy, what are our tools, assets, however you want to describe them, how can they be leveraged in response to this aim? We've now come up with our current strategy, which is very focused in terms of our grant making, our investing and our wider operations. And it is that kind of process of refinement that I'm seeing a lot of other organizations, not just us having to do in order to feel like we can have any impact or role to play in the times that we're in. And I think there is a huge amount of challenge out there, but the opportunity is to figure out what is your role and. How can you deliver and how will you know if you're delivering? And that's a big part of what we do. We think a lot about what is our kind of impact? What are our signs of success? How will we know if what we're doing is having any, you know, thoughtful outcome for the world.
speaker-0: yeah, do you go more specific, as you say, with that kind of mission statement, or do you kind of try and make it more broad? It's it's a real kind of fine line of yeah, what is the right thing to do? And as you say, opportunities, but opportunities are always difficult to be the kind of front runner of.
speaker-1: Yeah, exactly. And I think as well, it's about knowing that you've had those kind of and made those decisions. And I think that's something with our current strategy, which we launched in June, 2025. We're really clear that for every decision we're taking, we have discussed it and have a reason for it. And whilst we may find over a five year period that this strategy is running for that some of those decisions need to be changed or adapted or evolved. At least we know that we didn't do anything based on Wim or Wimsy, but did it based on what was the best evidence we had at the time and the best sense of what we were able to do and what we were capable of achieving. And I think that's really important now. I think more organizations, particularly those that we work with, so either applicants, grant holders, other funders, other kind of policy makers and so on and so forth, do. want to see that sense of accountability and that sense of knowing that those that they're working with have been thinking clearly about what they're doing and why.
speaker-0: No, I I I was looking at your strategy and one of the key key areas that stood out was trust, you know, building greater trust and connection, reducing the polarization within society and increasing the levels of potas participation in the political process. So I think that's again, you're you're really honing in on a specific thing of trust there. Wha what was the kind of tension that made you focus on that and zone in that topic? Obviously we talked about the kind of wider things, but really around that kind of political and ⁓ polarisation, how are you finding kind of yeah, navigating that that specific tension and and zoning in on that for the next five years?
speaker-1: Yeah, so there's two things I think that drove that decision. So the first was our kind of recognition that we are really living in times of huge disruption and interconnected crises. And they are manifesting in different ways that are having huge implications that are multi-generational and you know, some of it we're already seeing the implications of and some of it we won't know about the know, the next few years, decades, and so on and so forth. So that sense that we were now in this kind of cycle of true ongoing disruption and interconnected crises was one factor that led us down the route of working on polarization and political equality. The second element actually is that we really do want to work in a more systems-based and systems-focused way. And so I think For funders, the temptation is often to fund in categories and they're neatly defined and they've got boundaries around them and it's just really clear what you're trying to achieve. And we were that funder. We had three funding categories of the arts, social action and environment. And that's what we cared about and that's what we did. But we were increasingly finding that a lot of what we were funding was interconnecting. So if you were trying to work on really deep issues around the environment, you couldn't ignore what was happening on the social side of things and the way in which culture is also driving some of the work that's happening in the environmental movement, for example. it was almost like we'd created these false delineations or boundaries. And so we wanted to be more accepting of the fact that really for us now as a funder, it's less about category and it's more about backing an approach. And so that's why we are saying we want to partner with organizations that at their very core are advancing justice, partnering with communities that are being impacted and are change makers. so, you know, have a thesis on what it means to make change happen through campaigning. It could be on the inside track, could be through outside track methodologies like community organizing, for example, and are building that kind of power to make lasting change. and are recognizing that things just don't operate in really neat, defined categories anymore. And we still needed some framing because obviously you could be doing change-making work on anything. And then we thought about what it is that we care about, the fact that we are grounded in this sense of wanting to advance wellbeing for people, society and the natural world. We live our values. We have limited resource, but you know, with that we can... seek to add value. And then we said, right, we're focusing and that's why we ended up with those categories. And we really feel that polarization and political equality are at that real kind of root cause reason for why we are having some of the kind of struggles that we've been referencing in this chat, but also I'm sure you've been referencing in other chats as part of this series and the wider work that you're doing. And so that's really what motivated us, this idea that, you know, we're in this kind of time of deep interconnected crisis. Systems are complicated and don't follow boundaries. And what can we do that pursues our aim and allows us to use our assets and tools as an organization as effectively as we can so that it adds value.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And you mentioned there about change making and the kind of the dynamics behind there. How do you see your role as funders kind of evolving from that, you know, you mentioned their kind of category and and and transactional. Working with all of your, you know, kind of v various ⁓ stakeholders, how are you kind of changing approach there from from that kind of older systemic thinking into yeah, what it is now to to ⁓ making a more Balanced power dynamic, I suppose.
speaker-1: So, I mean, any organization, whatever your kind of ways of working or role is within whatever ecosystem you operate in, has to understand that it's cool. What is it there to do? And we're a service provider in many ways. We have the service of grants. We need to get money out the door. We need to support those that we give money to so that they get a good grant making experience and service. And we'll never lose sight of that. We're also an investor. We want to be the most effective investor that we can be. And, you know, we're an employer and we are a person, you know, an organization that works with different stakeholders and partners and commissions, different, you know, services, whether it's food for a meeting or our accountancy and so on and so forth. So we never lose sight of the fact that at our core, we are a service provider and we want to be. and the best we can be. And we talk a lot about continuous improvement. How do we ensure that we're a good grant maker that's continuously improving a good investor and so on and so forth. We also frame it around this idea of transparency, accountability and effectiveness. Like how can we do all aspects of our work with that kind of framing? How are we transparent? How are we accountable and how are we affected? So that's one side of it. But actually to your question, That doesn't mean that just because you kind of define yourself as service provider A or B or C, that you should lose your ambition and your willingness to try and make change happen. so, you know, we don't try to offer more than we can do, but we also try to ensure that we are doing as much as we can because the times call for it. And I think sometimes a grant making charity can hide behind certain things. So we're independent, we're long term. We can even just say, hey, we're just in the business of grant making. We don't have a thesis on change, for example. We're not the change makers. We fund the change makers. And that is completely legitimate. However, because we are wealth holders, because we have a level of independence, we probably don't face the same scrutiny that other organizations might face who are doing the doing in a way that we aren't. I think there is an opportunity for us to try to push for
speaker-0: That's really interesting. ⁓ and I think focusing on the topic of change, you mentioned at the top that, you know, you have this organization of peers, you know, you you're you're kind of all at a similar level. And that's very unique. ⁓ not not a lot of industries or sectors have that. How do you find kind of when you're looking at change, when you're looking at these tensions that we've mentioned at the beginning of the interview, wh what's the per what's the ⁓ process you have of of of bringing together those ideas and kind of moving forward on a particular area of change.
speaker-1: think we spend a lot of time speaking with other funders to determine what they're doing and to see what they're learning and to kind of use that to inform our own approach and processes, as well as, you know, to share the same back to them so that it can help them too. Equally, we, you know, try to do as much direct learning and listening and engagement as we can with those that we fund and those that apply to us. I think what we would like to do, given our resource, it's taken us a little bit of time, but we're kind of moving towards this now, is try to be a bit more kind of fleet of foot and use the grants portfolio that we have in a way that means that we can get them together to talk to each other and learn as they go, especially because the context can shift quite rapidly, particularly in the places and spaces that we're funding in. And I think it could be helpful if we were able to. support with some kind of informal networking and connection and dialogue between those that we fund because we're already doing that with peer funders and policymakers. We probably do have that kind of informal and ⁓ quick way of being in touch and in regular contact. And I know that some of our grant holders would find that useful as well. And we're in a position to facilitate that, but it's something that we're kind of building up to as part of our new strategy.
speaker-0: So it's quite interesting, like moving away from just like a bi directional approach of, you know, just listening to your funders or just listening to the the recipients, and you're kind of taking a more multi directional yeah, kind of approach to how to bring everyone's ideas together.
speaker-1: Definitely seeking to, and we're kind of reviewing some of our processes, particularly around how we gain feedback and insights from those that we work with, so that we can process that in a way that's more impactful and quick and allows us to get it back out into the sector so that it can be used as a resource for others and not just for us. yeah, there are definitely plans in ⁓ train to be a bit more kind of but multi-directional as you say, so that we can get information we receive back out there and information we gain into our own organisation so that it can be used.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And I I suppose, you know, we've we've talked quite a lot about pressure and the overwhelm at the moment and the kind of the current state of the world, especially focused on three three pillars around your mission. So when you've got all these kind of competing pressures,
speaker-1: BWAH!
speaker-0: What is it that helps you and your organisation a be lean? I know you're a small organisation, but be lean, but also make those competent decisions? Because I think that's something that quite often we're hearing from organisations that it's almost like turning a an oil tank around, you know. How do you really embrace those competent decisions? How are you kind of tackling that as an organisation and and in that way that we just mentioned in that kind of peer led ⁓ approach?
speaker-1: It's a great question. actually, I think regardless of your size, for me, the answer would probably still be the same. So I think it does come down to strategy, to culture and to processes. I think that without a kind of clear strategy that gives you a sense of direction, a sense of purpose, a sense of what you're able to do and why, and how you're going to do it, everything else can't happen. So having a good strategy that's ambitious, bought into and delivering ⁓ is kind of fundamental, I think. ⁓ Equally culture matters. If people don't believe in the strategy, don't believe in the organization, don't believe in the work, then you know, there isn't much else that you can do beyond that. ⁓ I think with culture as well, it's also about believing in each other. Do we have confidence and faith in the structure, the team, the people, the governance, whatever it might be. So that's another kind of key component, I think. And then lastly, processes. I've been in too many organizations, large and small, that have processes because they've always been done like that. And no one's really minded to think through how should they be done right now for the times that we're in. And I think sometimes you can create a lot of like layers to our processes and they can become cumbersome or unwieldy and actually really heavily disliked internally and externally. yeah, I think for that question, I would really just summarize it as do you have the right strategy? Do you have a good culture and do you have the correct processes?
speaker-0: Absolutely. And y you recently wrote ⁓ about the it's around foundation practice rating and the kind of topic of transparency. And I think we're hearing that a lot nowadays i in relation to what you just mentioned of you know, if you're gonna work with all these people, work with new generations, especi especially in this time of tumultuous times. Do you think transparency today is still primarily about accountability or has it become more about, you know, relevance and trust?
speaker-1: It's a great question. that blog that you're referring to, we were talking about transparency in relation to disclosure of diversity data and recognizing that in the times that we're in, the level of tumult and risk that exists, it can be very tempting and necessary even to not disclose data relating to diversity because it places staff or trustees or the people that you're working with at risk. And so we would never kind of suggest disclosure when there is a risk factor. But we were also reflecting on the privilege that some organizations can have to withhold that type of data because of, you know, no requirement to disclose or no desire to, and no pressure to. We also recognize within that blog that some people don't get a choice in disclosure when it comes to diversity data because their diversity factors or characteristics will be visible. And so they'll already be considered to be A, B or C based on just turning up and taking it or having a picture on the website. And so I think this is a really complicated subject. I think that my view is ultimately that we shouldn't shy away from transparency and accountability, particularly at times like these. I think that some of us have the ability to weather the potential risks better. know, by being an endowed charity, we probably have access to resources that some of our organizations that we fund don't. And so our kind of main thrust of that blog was recognizing that there are risks and we should not deny those, but actually those of us with the ability to manage those risks should navigate them as best they can. And I think that really in the times that we're in, the more we can do to continue prioritizing work around transparency and accountability, it's essential. think it's part of the way through this time of tumult.
speaker-0: Think so. And it it's really interesting 'cause we're thinking in a broader p picture, and obviously as you say, related to individuals, the risk is a key factor. But thinking in a broader picture, we're hearing this kind of idea of organizations ⁓ comes back to what you were mentioning on change. On the one hand you've got the legacy, you've got the what we've always done, or do our members think that we've they they've they've always joined us for. And then then you've got the newer or you know, ⁓ Audience who have completely different feelings. They've they've just joined the workplace. They're they're joining for a different reason. And I think transparency and accountability accountability is one of the key linchpins of that. You know, how do you balance up this multi generational ⁓ impact? And I I'm really intrigued by how John Ehrman is working on that of what's what's forced you to adapt in the way that organizations impact. approach impact and decision making in light of that idea of yeah, transparency, what people are really wanting their organisations to put out there. And you've mentioned it before around culture, around, you know, your values and and and your purpose and really living that. But I'm just intrigued by what's changed in the last decade and how has that kind of led to where you are now for this next five years approach?
speaker-1: So just to zoom out a little bit, because it's a great question, I think, I will answer it. think zooming out, think in our grant making and in our investing and even in the workplace, we can see that when you do things to people rather than with them, then that change that you're trying to make is not a deep lasting change.
speaker-0: Very in depth.
speaker-1: You you can go into an organization, put in a load of policies to do with diversity, equity and inclusion, for example, and be like, here, boxes are ticked, we have what we need. But actually, unless you do that deep listening work, that means that you are in community with people, you're doing the change with them, then the policy is the policy, but the implementation is only, it depends on that buy-in. And so I think what we've seen across our grant making, our investing and the organization that we run and that I'm responsible for as director is that we can have all of the kind of boxes ticked, but it's pointless unless we're doing things with people and in partnership and with a real sense that this is like co-designed, co-created and being co-delivered. Like it has to be brought into every level. And so that I think would be my kind of answer really. None of this is possible. And that's the big trend that we've seen when you do things to people. It's the change that you think you've won doesn't last. And so I think you see this in politics. I think that you see this with kind of institutions. If people feel like everything is being done to them. then we are going to continue in this cycle of interconnected crises, disruption, and a sense that the world just isn't working for people, society, and our natural world. So that's big thing, trend, if you like, that we've seen. Change doesn't happen when it's done to people. Change only happens when it's done with them and it's created by and for them.
speaker-0: that and a really collaborative note to end on. I just want to kind of put you on the spot just at the end though, ⁓ sorry to do Sophia, but with your next five years, with this strategy you've you've laid out and you've worked worked on, what's the one blocker that you would really if that moved out of the way that you would see that yes, we would we would be able to succeed even in these tumultuous times?
speaker-1: So it's a great question and you have put me on the spot, which is fine. The one blocker is not enough money, right? So I think, and obviously I'm biased because this is the strategy that we developed and we back and it's very evidence-based. We are really clear on why we are pursuing this strategy, but unless other charitable funders support change-making work, then we cannot do this alone. So that is our biggest blocker. Unless more money goes into change making, we cannot achieve what we hope to achieve through our strategy.
speaker-1: really delighted to be here. Thank you so much for the invite and that lovely introduction. Really appreciated it.
speaker-0: No, it's great. And I think it's really interesting, like we hear of the, you know, charities and foundations and things, but if you could really briefly introduce the John Elman Foundation and like the role it plays within funding and then the kind of wider ecosystem of charities, that
speaker-1: Yeah, of course, happy to. The John Elliman Foundation is a charitable grantmaker. So we are essentially in the business of giving money away to other organizations. The way that we do it is we have an overarching aim, which is to advance well-being for people, society and the natural world. We are really keen to take a total assets approach. So what we mean by that is how do we use our grantmaking, our investing and our wider operations in pursuit of our aim? So through our grant making, we distribute about five or six million pounds each year. And that's all geared towards supporting charitable organizations that are doing work that's focused on change making, that pursues justice and partners with individuals and communities that are being impacted by different issues. And the areas that we fund in relate to the triple planetary crisis, polarization and political equality and economic systems that are in service of people and planet and wealth inequalities. And we also recognise within those areas that some communities and groups experience those differently and have marginalisations within those. And then through our investing, we're really trying to be a responsible investor and think about the ways in which our investments cause least harms to people and planet. And we're also a social investor and within that we're able to do impact investing as well. And our income for the investments and therefore our grant making is derived from charitable endowment that we received in 1971. So that's the kind of first part of the question. Who are we? What do we do? And we're a small team with six staff and we have seven trustees that oversee our work. But where we fit into the ecosystem, I guess really boils down to the fact that There are many grant-making charities that exist in the UK. Some estimates are around 10,000 in the UK. Obviously, not all of them will be doing what we do and some will distribute more or less than we do. We're categorized as a medium-sized grant maker. I think that's probably where the majority of grant-making charities in the UK lie. And so that means that you're distributing between 5 million and 20 million each year. So we're a medium-sized grant maker. We really do try to be bigger than the sum of our parts and also try to model that even though we are on the smaller end of that scale, six staff, as I mentioned, and about five to six million being distributed each year, we try and model the very best or promising practices across how we recruit, how we progress staff, how we do our grant making, how we do our investing. I think there can be bit of an over-reliance on hoping that the bigger funders, those that have got big grants budgets, big endowments, big staff teams should do all the good work around good ways of investing or good ways of grant making. We're trying to model as a small team our ability to do that as well, because if you think about the ecosystem, most of us are medium sized or smaller. If we leave it all to the big funders, then... That means that there's a huge swathe of us not doing as much as we could be.
speaker-0: really living your values and that's
speaker-1: Yeah, it's really interesting. mean, think you have to do with the kind of work that we're doing.
speaker-0: Definitely. I think yeah, I mean we'll get onto it later, but that's what builds trust surely, isn't it? You know? Doing
speaker-1: Yeah, exactly.
speaker-0: But f for for kind of a foundation like yours, as you say, it's a small team, but obviously quite a wide network of people that you interact with, whether that's politicians, civil soci you know, ⁓ the the charities themselves, the people. What what does that look like on a kind of yeah, day to day basis in terms of the type of stakeholders?
speaker-1: I guess the people that we spend most time with are the people that we fund. So, and that does include applicants as well. So the people who want our money and the people who receive our money. so applicants and grant holders are a core constituency, if you will, organizations that we get to know and get to work with. And it's a real honor. Alongside that we have lots of peers. so we are ⁓ well networked with other funders and they could be funded by us with charitable endowments, but they may also be public funders or funders that are fundraising from other means and other ways ⁓ of receiving funding that they then go on to distribute. And we've done a lot of work to make sure that we have a clear kind of profile and network within the funding sector because we learn a lot from the other people doing this kind of work, but we also hope that we can share a lot with them and try to working collective ways to drive up standards. And I guess that's what's quite interesting about being part of this kind of organization. Inevitably, because we have money, people will say yes to a meeting with us. And equally, because we're part of the sector where people also have money, we're not really having to compete. And so there's natural ways in which you can be quite collaborative. But you also mentioned as part of our ecosystem, we will be working with policymakers and that could be government at a local, central or regional level. But it can also be, you know, other think tanks or policy focused organizations. And that's also within our grant making. We support a lot of policy organizations through that. But I think it is worth reflecting on because The vantage point that we have as a grant maker is that we can, you know, within our portfolio of applications and those that go on to receive funding from us, gain a real sense of what's happening in the different areas that we support and deliver our funding through and use that to try and say like, this is our helicopter view. These are the trends and challenges or opportunities that we're noticing. And these are the things that if we are to really make that lasting change. that you should be considering from a policy perspective. you know, we try to use our independence that we have as a charitable funder to try and do some thoughtful changemaking work of our own.
speaker-0: Yeah, definitely. And it's kind of that analysis as a as a foundation by by seeing the whole picture. And I was thinking there, you know, you're you're sat at quite an interesting intersection of the recipients, the policy, the you know, the as you say, your peers, quite a large ⁓ group that you interact with. So I suppose, yeah, what you you'd mentioned there that you look at the kind of opportunities, but what are the key pressures and the tensions that you're seeing emerging for a an organization like yourself?
speaker-1: Yeah, it's a really good question. And obviously, because we are taking this total assets approach, I should have mentioned that one of our key stakeholder groups are other institutional investors. So other people with endowments that are trying to ostensibly do good and make money in a way that means that we can get it out to the causes that we care about, but also ensure that there's a paradox that you're of grappling with. Because if the money that you're investing the way you're making that money is then contributing to the harms that you're trying to address through your grant making, you have to kind of manage that paradox. And that's why we take a lot of time doing work on responsible investing and social investing. But actually, one of the key constituencies that we now do a lot of work with is fund management and fund managers and trying to explain to them like... how some of the systems that they are a part of in terms of generating income and wealth are doing damage to people, society and the natural world. And there is therefore a need to think about the way we make money, not just the way we distribute money. And so I think to your question about kind of challenges and the opportunities that can be implicit within that, but the kind of challenges we're seeing is that, you know, we can see the reason which generating income and making money has huge ⁓ potential harms on people and planet and how do you kind of work in a way that you can still generate income because it's needed and try to address those harms or mitigate them or remove them completely. And so that's why we're on that kind of responsible investment and social investment journey. Equally, the demand for our funding is huge. ⁓ You know, in the last financial year, we received 571 applications and we were able to make less than 100 grants. So that in itself shows you that there is a need to get money out the door, but we need more money to be going out into the system. We can also see because we fund in the areas of, you know, things like polarization and political equality, the triple planetary crisis, economic systems and models and wealth inequality. There's a lot of data, including from those that apply to us and those that we fund, that those issues are becoming entrenched and worsening. So, you you don't have to pick up a newspaper if you still have a physical copy, of course, or, you know, look at something in the news to see that we are. dealing with lot of polarization across society. We are dealing with things like critical disenfranchisement, which means that people aren't exercising their rights to vote, for example, you know, the triple planet crisis in terms of climate, nature and pollution. trends there are not going in the direction that we need them to. And we can see, you know, things like wealth inequalities, economic inequality, economic systems, just getting entrenched in a way that they don't serve all of us. And so That in itself is a huge challenge that we're trying to, through our grant making and our investing actually, add as much value as we can to try and redress those harms. But we can't do it alone and that's why we work in this very kind of networked and collaborative way so that we can ideally do work through our own institution and organization, but also through others too.
speaker-0: And as you say there, you know, if if you're not doing those things, if you're not living your values as we mentioned before, then that weakens your message to e you know the the other stakeholders that you're trying to i engage with because you need to be seen seem to be doing what your vision is, your strategy. ⁓ so yeah, it's a real balance at the minute. I think a lot of organizations are struggling to deal with that. How do we uphold what people believe we should be doing with what we can achieve? In the current climate. So yeah, I think it's a really
speaker-1: And it can be overwhelming, right? Like how do you keep things right sides, but don't lose your ambition. And actually, I think one of the things I've really seen change within the kind of sector that I work in, I think the government now refers to us as the impact economy or part of the impact economy. And one of the things I really noticed is that, you know, there was a time where you could have a nice shiny aim like we're advancing wellbeing for people, society and the natural world. And we didn't have to interrogate it too heavily. It's a good set of words. We broadly know what they mean to us, but actually as the times shift and we see the ways in which, you know, life is getting harder for people, society and our natural world, we do have to have a much more incisive and decisive view on what that means to us. And then use what we have, our limited resources, even though, know, on the face of it, when you say you've got a balance sheet, you know, an endowment of 150 million, that doesn't feel very limited, but it is in the face of what we're trying to do. And then by having a real sense of what is our strategy, what are our tools, assets, however you want to describe them, how can they be leveraged in response to this aim? We've now come up with our current strategy, which is very focused in terms of our grant making, our investing and our wider operations. And it is that kind of process of refinement that I'm seeing a lot of other organizations, not just us having to do in order to feel like we can have any impact or role to play in the times that we're in. And I think there is a huge amount of challenge out there, but the opportunity is to figure out what is your role and. How can you deliver and how will you know if you're delivering? And that's a big part of what we do. We think a lot about what is our kind of impact? What are our signs of success? How will we know if what we're doing is having any, you know, thoughtful outcome for the world.
speaker-0: yeah, do you go more specific, as you say, with that kind of mission statement, or do you kind of try and make it more broad? It's it's a real kind of fine line of yeah, what is the right thing to do? And as you say, opportunities, but opportunities are always difficult to be the kind of front runner of.
speaker-1: Yeah, exactly. And I think as well, it's about knowing that you've had those kind of and made those decisions. And I think that's something with our current strategy, which we launched in June, 2025. We're really clear that for every decision we're taking, we have discussed it and have a reason for it. And whilst we may find over a five year period that this strategy is running for that some of those decisions need to be changed or adapted or evolved. At least we know that we didn't do anything based on Wim or Wimsy, but did it based on what was the best evidence we had at the time and the best sense of what we were able to do and what we were capable of achieving. And I think that's really important now. I think more organizations, particularly those that we work with, so either applicants, grant holders, other funders, other kind of policy makers and so on and so forth, do. want to see that sense of accountability and that sense of knowing that those that they're working with have been thinking clearly about what they're doing and why.
speaker-0: No, I I I was looking at your strategy and one of the key key areas that stood out was trust, you know, building greater trust and connection, reducing the polarization within society and increasing the levels of potas participation in the political process. So I think that's again, you're you're really honing in on a specific thing of trust there. Wha what was the kind of tension that made you focus on that and zone in that topic? Obviously we talked about the kind of wider things, but really around that kind of political and ⁓ polarisation, how are you finding kind of yeah, navigating that that specific tension and and zoning in on that for the next five years?
speaker-1: Yeah, so there's two things I think that drove that decision. So the first was our kind of recognition that we are really living in times of huge disruption and interconnected crises. And they are manifesting in different ways that are having huge implications that are multi-generational and you know, some of it we're already seeing the implications of and some of it we won't know about the know, the next few years, decades, and so on and so forth. So that sense that we were now in this kind of cycle of true ongoing disruption and interconnected crises was one factor that led us down the route of working on polarization and political equality. The second element actually is that we really do want to work in a more systems-based and systems-focused way. And so I think For funders, the temptation is often to fund in categories and they're neatly defined and they've got boundaries around them and it's just really clear what you're trying to achieve. And we were that funder. We had three funding categories of the arts, social action and environment. And that's what we cared about and that's what we did. But we were increasingly finding that a lot of what we were funding was interconnecting. So if you were trying to work on really deep issues around the environment, you couldn't ignore what was happening on the social side of things and the way in which culture is also driving some of the work that's happening in the environmental movement, for example. it was almost like we'd created these false delineations or boundaries. And so we wanted to be more accepting of the fact that really for us now as a funder, it's less about category and it's more about backing an approach. And so that's why we are saying we want to partner with organizations that at their very core are advancing justice, partnering with communities that are being impacted and are change makers. so, you know, have a thesis on what it means to make change happen through campaigning. It could be on the inside track, could be through outside track methodologies like community organizing, for example, and are building that kind of power to make lasting change. and are recognizing that things just don't operate in really neat, defined categories anymore. And we still needed some framing because obviously you could be doing change-making work on anything. And then we thought about what it is that we care about, the fact that we are grounded in this sense of wanting to advance wellbeing for people, society and the natural world. We live our values. We have limited resource, but you know, with that we can... seek to add value. And then we said, right, we're focusing and that's why we ended up with those categories. And we really feel that polarization and political equality are at that real kind of root cause reason for why we are having some of the kind of struggles that we've been referencing in this chat, but also I'm sure you've been referencing in other chats as part of this series and the wider work that you're doing. And so that's really what motivated us, this idea that, you know, we're in this kind of time of deep interconnected crisis. Systems are complicated and don't follow boundaries. And what can we do that pursues our aim and allows us to use our assets and tools as an organization as effectively as we can so that it adds value.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And you mentioned there about change making and the kind of the dynamics behind there. How do you see your role as funders kind of evolving from that, you know, you mentioned their kind of category and and and transactional. Working with all of your, you know, kind of v various ⁓ stakeholders, how are you kind of changing approach there from from that kind of older systemic thinking into yeah, what it is now to to ⁓ making a more Balanced power dynamic, I suppose.
speaker-1: So, I mean, any organization, whatever your kind of ways of working or role is within whatever ecosystem you operate in, has to understand that it's cool. What is it there to do? And we're a service provider in many ways. We have the service of grants. We need to get money out the door. We need to support those that we give money to so that they get a good grant making experience and service. And we'll never lose sight of that. We're also an investor. We want to be the most effective investor that we can be. And, you know, we're an employer and we are a person, you know, an organization that works with different stakeholders and partners and commissions, different, you know, services, whether it's food for a meeting or our accountancy and so on and so forth. So we never lose sight of the fact that at our core, we are a service provider and we want to be. and the best we can be. And we talk a lot about continuous improvement. How do we ensure that we're a good grant maker that's continuously improving a good investor and so on and so forth. We also frame it around this idea of transparency, accountability and effectiveness. Like how can we do all aspects of our work with that kind of framing? How are we transparent? How are we accountable and how are we affected? So that's one side of it. But actually to your question, That doesn't mean that just because you kind of define yourself as service provider A or B or C, that you should lose your ambition and your willingness to try and make change happen. so, you know, we don't try to offer more than we can do, but we also try to ensure that we are doing as much as we can because the times call for it. And I think sometimes a grant making charity can hide behind certain things. So we're independent, we're long term. We can even just say, hey, we're just in the business of grant making. We don't have a thesis on change, for example. We're not the change makers. We fund the change makers. And that is completely legitimate. However, because we are wealth holders, because we have a level of independence, we probably don't face the same scrutiny that other organizations might face who are doing the doing in a way that we aren't. I think there is an opportunity for us to try to push for
speaker-0: That's really interesting. ⁓ and I think focusing on the topic of change, you mentioned at the top that, you know, you have this organization of peers, you know, you you're you're kind of all at a similar level. And that's very unique. ⁓ not not a lot of industries or sectors have that. How do you find kind of when you're looking at change, when you're looking at these tensions that we've mentioned at the beginning of the interview, wh what's the per what's the ⁓ process you have of of of bringing together those ideas and kind of moving forward on a particular area of change.
speaker-1: think we spend a lot of time speaking with other funders to determine what they're doing and to see what they're learning and to kind of use that to inform our own approach and processes, as well as, you know, to share the same back to them so that it can help them too. Equally, we, you know, try to do as much direct learning and listening and engagement as we can with those that we fund and those that apply to us. I think what we would like to do, given our resource, it's taken us a little bit of time, but we're kind of moving towards this now, is try to be a bit more kind of fleet of foot and use the grants portfolio that we have in a way that means that we can get them together to talk to each other and learn as they go, especially because the context can shift quite rapidly, particularly in the places and spaces that we're funding in. And I think it could be helpful if we were able to. support with some kind of informal networking and connection and dialogue between those that we fund because we're already doing that with peer funders and policymakers. We probably do have that kind of informal and ⁓ quick way of being in touch and in regular contact. And I know that some of our grant holders would find that useful as well. And we're in a position to facilitate that, but it's something that we're kind of building up to as part of our new strategy.
speaker-0: So it's quite interesting, like moving away from just like a bi directional approach of, you know, just listening to your funders or just listening to the the recipients, and you're kind of taking a more multi directional yeah, kind of approach to how to bring everyone's ideas together.
speaker-1: Definitely seeking to, and we're kind of reviewing some of our processes, particularly around how we gain feedback and insights from those that we work with, so that we can process that in a way that's more impactful and quick and allows us to get it back out into the sector so that it can be used as a resource for others and not just for us. yeah, there are definitely plans in ⁓ train to be a bit more kind of but multi-directional as you say, so that we can get information we receive back out there and information we gain into our own organisation so that it can be used.
speaker-0: Absolutely. And I I suppose, you know, we've we've talked quite a lot about pressure and the overwhelm at the moment and the kind of the current state of the world, especially focused on three three pillars around your mission. So when you've got all these kind of competing pressures,
speaker-1: BWAH!
speaker-0: What is it that helps you and your organisation a be lean? I know you're a small organisation, but be lean, but also make those competent decisions? Because I think that's something that quite often we're hearing from organisations that it's almost like turning a an oil tank around, you know. How do you really embrace those competent decisions? How are you kind of tackling that as an organisation and and in that way that we just mentioned in that kind of peer led ⁓ approach?
speaker-1: It's a great question. actually, I think regardless of your size, for me, the answer would probably still be the same. So I think it does come down to strategy, to culture and to processes. I think that without a kind of clear strategy that gives you a sense of direction, a sense of purpose, a sense of what you're able to do and why, and how you're going to do it, everything else can't happen. So having a good strategy that's ambitious, bought into and delivering ⁓ is kind of fundamental, I think. ⁓ Equally culture matters. If people don't believe in the strategy, don't believe in the organization, don't believe in the work, then you know, there isn't much else that you can do beyond that. ⁓ I think with culture as well, it's also about believing in each other. Do we have confidence and faith in the structure, the team, the people, the governance, whatever it might be. So that's another kind of key component, I think. And then lastly, processes. I've been in too many organizations, large and small, that have processes because they've always been done like that. And no one's really minded to think through how should they be done right now for the times that we're in. And I think sometimes you can create a lot of like layers to our processes and they can become cumbersome or unwieldy and actually really heavily disliked internally and externally. yeah, I think for that question, I would really just summarize it as do you have the right strategy? Do you have a good culture and do you have the correct processes?
speaker-0: Absolutely. And y you recently wrote ⁓ about the it's around foundation practice rating and the kind of topic of transparency. And I think we're hearing that a lot nowadays i in relation to what you just mentioned of you know, if you're gonna work with all these people, work with new generations, especi especially in this time of tumultuous times. Do you think transparency today is still primarily about accountability or has it become more about, you know, relevance and trust?
speaker-1: It's a great question. that blog that you're referring to, we were talking about transparency in relation to disclosure of diversity data and recognizing that in the times that we're in, the level of tumult and risk that exists, it can be very tempting and necessary even to not disclose data relating to diversity because it places staff or trustees or the people that you're working with at risk. And so we would never kind of suggest disclosure when there is a risk factor. But we were also reflecting on the privilege that some organizations can have to withhold that type of data because of, you know, no requirement to disclose or no desire to, and no pressure to. We also recognize within that blog that some people don't get a choice in disclosure when it comes to diversity data because their diversity factors or characteristics will be visible. And so they'll already be considered to be A, B or C based on just turning up and taking it or having a picture on the website. And so I think this is a really complicated subject. I think that my view is ultimately that we shouldn't shy away from transparency and accountability, particularly at times like these. I think that some of us have the ability to weather the potential risks better. know, by being an endowed charity, we probably have access to resources that some of our organizations that we fund don't. And so our kind of main thrust of that blog was recognizing that there are risks and we should not deny those, but actually those of us with the ability to manage those risks should navigate them as best they can. And I think that really in the times that we're in, the more we can do to continue prioritizing work around transparency and accountability, it's essential. think it's part of the way through this time of tumult.
speaker-0: Think so. And it it's really interesting 'cause we're thinking in a broader p picture, and obviously as you say, related to individuals, the risk is a key factor. But thinking in a broader picture, we're hearing this kind of idea of organizations ⁓ comes back to what you were mentioning on change. On the one hand you've got the legacy, you've got the what we've always done, or do our members think that we've they they've they've always joined us for. And then then you've got the newer or you know, ⁓ Audience who have completely different feelings. They've they've just joined the workplace. They're they're joining for a different reason. And I think transparency and accountability accountability is one of the key linchpins of that. You know, how do you balance up this multi generational ⁓ impact? And I I'm really intrigued by how John Ehrman is working on that of what's what's forced you to adapt in the way that organizations impact. approach impact and decision making in light of that idea of yeah, transparency, what people are really wanting their organisations to put out there. And you've mentioned it before around culture, around, you know, your values and and and your purpose and really living that. But I'm just intrigued by what's changed in the last decade and how has that kind of led to where you are now for this next five years approach?
speaker-1: So just to zoom out a little bit, because it's a great question, I think, I will answer it. think zooming out, think in our grant making and in our investing and even in the workplace, we can see that when you do things to people rather than with them, then that change that you're trying to make is not a deep lasting change.
speaker-0: Very in depth.
speaker-1: You you can go into an organization, put in a load of policies to do with diversity, equity and inclusion, for example, and be like, here, boxes are ticked, we have what we need. But actually, unless you do that deep listening work, that means that you are in community with people, you're doing the change with them, then the policy is the policy, but the implementation is only, it depends on that buy-in. And so I think what we've seen across our grant making, our investing and the organization that we run and that I'm responsible for as director is that we can have all of the kind of boxes ticked, but it's pointless unless we're doing things with people and in partnership and with a real sense that this is like co-designed, co-created and being co-delivered. Like it has to be brought into every level. And so that I think would be my kind of answer really. None of this is possible. And that's the big trend that we've seen when you do things to people. It's the change that you think you've won doesn't last. And so I think you see this in politics. I think that you see this with kind of institutions. If people feel like everything is being done to them. then we are going to continue in this cycle of interconnected crises, disruption, and a sense that the world just isn't working for people, society, and our natural world. So that's big thing, trend, if you like, that we've seen. Change doesn't happen when it's done to people. Change only happens when it's done with them and it's created by and for them.
speaker-0: that and a really collaborative note to end on. I just want to kind of put you on the spot just at the end though, ⁓ sorry to do Sophia, but with your next five years, with this strategy you've you've laid out and you've worked worked on, what's the one blocker that you would really if that moved out of the way that you would see that yes, we would we would be able to succeed even in these tumultuous times?
speaker-1: So it's a great question and you have put me on the spot, which is fine. The one blocker is not enough money, right? So I think, and obviously I'm biased because this is the strategy that we developed and we back and it's very evidence-based. We are really clear on why we are pursuing this strategy, but unless other charitable funders support change-making work, then we cannot do this alone. So that is our biggest blocker. Unless more money goes into change making, we cannot achieve what we hope to achieve through our strategy.
