Coutts Million Pound Donor Report 2010

The Coutts Million Pound Donors Report 2010In association with The Centre for Philanthropy, Humanitarianism and Social Justice at the University of Kent

Written by Dr. Beth Breeze

MPDR 2010 v 12_Layout 1 03/11/2010 15:51 Page 1

By Dr Iain Wilkinson Director of the Centre for Philanthropy, Humanitarianismand Social Justice at the University of Kent

We are very pleased to collaborate with Coutts in order toproduce this report. Our latest research largely confirms thepatterns and trends identified in earlier reports, though it isencouraging to note a marginal increase in the number ofmillion pound donations through 2008-9.

In previous reports we have profiled the distribution of theselarge donations, and in particular, we have highlighted criticalissues relating to the relative speeds at which capital movesfrom foundations to various charitable concerns. The inclusionof new data on the geographical location of donors in thisedition of the report can be taken as a cue to readers tofurther enquire into the dynamics governing the sources anddistribution of donations.

The promotion of a Big Society agenda in the UK will bringmore public debate to issues relating to the sources anddestinations of philanthropic funds. In this regard, we hope thatthe Coutts Million Pound Donors Report continues to serveas a valuable resource both for prospective donors and thepotential recipients of their donations.

By Maya PrabhuHead of UK Philanthropy, Coutts & Co

Welcome to the third edition of the Coutts Million PoundDonors Report.

Coutts has been privileged to serve the banking and wealthmanagement needs of the wealthiest individuals and familiesaround the UK for over 300 years. Many of our clients aredriven to give something back or to create a social impact andadvising them on achieving the most from their philanthropy isan integral part of our service.

This years report captures the trend towards a positivegrowth in philanthropy. However, it is not just about statisticsand figures. The report also reflects on topics that we know areimportant to donors through our conversations with clientson their philanthropy - for instance, the interest amongstdonors to enhance their impact through collaboration. For thefirst time, we have highlighted some geographical trends andthe importance of geography in giving decisions, illustrated by a spotlight on the North West region in the UK. We hope toshine the light on other regions in subsequent editions.

This report comes to life through the case studies of donorsand recipients. We are grateful to Heather Beckwith, DrAndrew Cooper, Professor Robert Heyderman, Dr JamesMartin, Michael Oglesby, Dame Stephanie Shirley, Sarah Sleigh,David Spinola and Niklas Zennstrm.

Thank you to Dr Beth Breeze and her team for theirdedication and hard work in compiling this report.

We hope you enjoy reading it.

The Coutts Million Pound Donors Report 1

Foreword

Cover Photographs reproduced with kind permission:Tom KingRoyal National Lifeboat Institute (RNLI) Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH)Rob Moore at the Royal Opera House (ROH)Nadia Bettega for The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund


This is the third edition of the Coutts Million PoundDonors Report, which collates and analyses data on thelargest charitable donations made in the UK each year. Itdescribes and discusses 201 donations of at least 1 millionthat were made by UK donors or to UK charities in2008/09, with a combined value of just over 1.5 billion. Thisreport assesses the scale and impact of such gifts, analysestrends in major giving at this level and presents case studiesof both million pound donors and million poundrecipients, to provide insights into the experience of bothgiving and receiving gifts on this scale.

Million pound donations are made by both individual andinstitutional donors, including charitable trusts and foundationsand private corporations; this report covers all types of donor.Given the particular interest in the philanthropic decisionsof wealthy people, additional data is presented to illustratethe size and destination of donations made by individuals.

Summary of key findingsThis years data confirms that major philanthropy in the UKcontinues to prove resilient as we emerge from the recentrecession. The number of million pound donations recordedin this report is the highest of the three years we have beentracking this data. In 2008/09 we identified 201 separatedonations, up from 193 in 2006/07 and 189 in 2007/08.

The value of these largest donations is also showing signs ofpost-recession recovery. In 2008/09 the collective value ofall donations worth 1 million or more was worth 1.548billion. This figure is higher than the 1.405 billion we foundlast year, though still lower than the high of 1.618 billionrecorded in the first report.

Whilst the number of million pound donations made byindividuals has remained fairly constant over the period oftime we have been tracking this data, the number ofdonations of this size made by both foundations andcorporations has been steadily rising. This indicates thatinstitutional donors are rising to the challenges created by

the recent recession and the current difficult publicspending round, and that there is more to be done toencourage more individual donors to discover both thepublic benefits, and the life-enriching qualities, of philanthropy.

Higher Education continues to dominate as the preferredcause of million pound donors. Indeed, for the first time wefind that the collective value of donations to UK universitiesexceeds the sums placed into charitable foundations, whichhas been the main destination of million pound donationsin both the previous editions of this report. The preferencefor funding Higher Education Institutions is partly due towealthy donors understanding of the wide-ranging rolesthat universities play in improving society, in terms of botheducating the next generation and researching solutions topressing scientific and social problems. But it is also due tothe existence of special incentives in place to encouragethis type of giving, notably the government-funded MatchedFunding scheme, launched in 2008, which has clearly playeda large role in prompting donations to this sector. Thesuccess of this scheme raises important questions aboutthe potential for further government-funded incentives toencourage giving to other charitable subsectors.

This report also contains new data revealing thegeographical spread of million pound donors around theUK. It is encouraging to note that donors in all parts of thecountry are making donations of this size. As might beexpected, most of the biggest donors are based in Londonbut there is a strong presence in Scotland, the North Eastand the Midlands. Areas lacking a strong regional identity,such as the South East, have fewer such donors, especially inrelation to the amount of wealth held by individuals living inthat region.

The difficulty in researching and drawingconclusions on this topicWhilst we are proud of our efforts to create an evidencebase in relation to million pound donations in the UK, andconfident that we have done all we can to accurately collate

Introduction

this data, two points should be emphasised regarding themethodology and potential interpretations of the findings.

Firstly, this is a difficult topic to research and it is likely thatsome donations will be missed, as no donor or recipient isunder any obligation to share with us or indeed any otherbody the occurrence, size or destination of philanthropictransactions. Therefore this report is likely to represent aconservative account of the scale and impact of this type of giving.

Secondly, whilst we acknowledge the interest that existsregarding annual fluctuations within the data, undue weightshould not be placed upon year-on-year trends as theuniverse of million pound donors is very small. In each of thethree years that we have tracked this data, just a hundred orso individuals and institutions have made donations of this size.Therefore, what may appear to be a significant development(in either a positive or a negative direction) may simplyreflect the decision of one or two donors to make, delay or withhold a donation within any given financial year. Forexample, the setting up of, or significant addition to, a largepersonal foundation clearly boosts the total value of millionpound donations in any given year, but the funds remainavailable for distribution for many successive years. Any 12 month period in which a particularly large personalfoundation is established or enhanced is clearly a propitiousyear, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Unique events,such as the establishment of the multi-billion dollar Bill andMelinda Gates Foundation or the announcement of WarrenBuffetts multi-billion dollar gift to that foundation, musthappen at some given date but the failure of such singularevents to be repeated in the subsequent 12 months doesnot indicate any grave problems with the philanthropicculture in the USA. Likewise, in the UK we must learn toaccept that major philanthropic gifts occur in a lumpy anduneven fashion, and resist reading too much into suddenpeaks and troughs. The only trend that really matters is that,over time, the general direction is positive.

A pro-philanthropy era that needs ongoing nurturingFortunately many positive conclusions can be drawn from thisreport, as we appear to be living in an era that is increasinglyaware of the presence and value of philanthropy. The signsappear to be good for ongoing positive trends toward agreater number of major donations, and for the total valueof million pound donations to increase. However, thereshould be no room for complacency.

Further action needs to be taken by the government, by the philanthropy sector and by charitable organisations, toencourage, assist and advise those with the capacity to usesome of their personal wealth to promote the public good.For example, as discussed in this report, some potentialdonors might be encouraged by an awareness of thesignificant impact that can be achieved by collaborating with other funders, whilst other potential donors might beprompted to act by considering the impact they can havewithin a geographical region that is meaningful to them,such as where they were born and brought up, or wheretheir working life is based.

The aim of this report is to offer this type of inspiration topotential donors, whilst providing good quality data on thetop end of charitable giving. We hope that the findings,discussion and case studies will prove useful in sheddinglight on contemporary UK philanthropy and in raising ourcollective understanding about the nature, contribution andimpact of million pound donors.

We were delighted that the first two Coutts Million PoundDonor reports proved to be useful to charities, donors,fundraisers, philanthropy advisers, policy makers and all whocare about encouraging major philanthropy in the UK. Wehope the 2010 edition of the report will be of similar value.

The Coutts Million Pound Donors Report 3www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/cphsj

2 www.coutts.com/philanthropy



Findings

1. The number and value of million pound donations201 charitable donations worth 1 million or more were identified in 2008/09, with a combined value of 1.548 billion. Thisrepresents the largest number of separate million pound donations in the three years we have been collecting this data. Thetotal value of these donations is 143 million higher than the previous year, but 70 million less than the total recorded inthe first year of this study.

2. The average size of million pound donationsThe average (mean) value of a MPD in 2008/09 was 7.7 million, up from 7.4 million in the previous year, though not yetreaching the higher mean value of 8.4 million found in 2006/07. However, as means are strongly affected by the presenceof a handful of large donations it is helpful to look at other ways of measuring average donations: the median (middle size ofdonation) has returned to the high point of 2 million and the mode (most frequent size of donation) remains the same asin both previous years of this study, at 1 million.

Year Number of donations worth 1m+ Total value of donations worth 1m+

2006/07 193 1.618 billion

2007/08 189 1.405 billion

2008/09 201 1.548 billion

www.kent.ac.uk/sspssr/cphsj 4 www.coutts.com/philanthropy

3. The source of million pound donationsAs some donors made more than one donation of 1 million or more, a total of 95 different million pound donors were identified.

Half (50%) of the million pound donations were made by individuals, who either gave directly or through their personal trust or foundation. In the most recent year, individual donors were more than twice as likely to give donations of this size through foundations than to give them directly, indicating a trend towards more formal organisation of philanthropic activity.

The total value of the donations made by individuals was just over 1 billion (1,022,260,000); individual donors are by far the most significant type of million pound donor, accounting for two-thirds of the total value of million pound donations. However, almost half of this amount is accounted for by the donation of one donor into a charitable foundation, reinforcing the extent to which this data is affected by singular decisions.

Almost four in ten of these donations (39%) came from professional foundations, defined as those where the founding settler is no longer alive to direct the flow of grants.

Only one in ten (11%) of donations worth 1 million or more came from corporations.

3

0

1

2

9

8

7

6

5

4

06/07 07/08 08/0906/07 07/08 08/0906/07 07/08 08/09

m

illio

n

Mean Median Mode

Number of MPDsmade by Individuals 102of which19% direct from individuals 34% through personal foundations

Professional foundations 68

Corporations 17

Unknown 6

2006-076



Corporations 21

Unknown 0

2007-08

9672

21



Corporations 23

Unknown 0

2008-09

10078

23

10268

17



5. The value of million pound donationsThe number of individuals and institutions making million pound donations has dropped from 102 in 2007/08 to 95 in2008/09 - despite the value of their donations increasing from 1.405 billion to 1.548 billion. This means that the numberof donors willing or able to commit 1 million or more has dipped, but the average value of their donations has risen.

Last year, more than half (51%) of these donations were worth less than 2 million, but this year 56% are worth 2 millionor more. 2008/09 also sees the largest number of donations worth 10 million or more 28 donations of this size weremade, compared to 23 of that size in 2007/08 and 24 of that size in 2006/07. However, only one donation worth 100million or more was made in the latest year, compared to 5 just two years earlier. As is the case with all such 9-figuredonations, this involved money being banked in a personal foundation rather than being spent immediately on front-linecharitable activity.

4. The location of million pound donorsThis edition of the report presents, for the first time, data on the geographical location of the 95 donors who made gifts of 1 million or more in 2008/09. This data is complicated by the fact that many individual donors have more than oneresidence, and some institutional donors have more than one office. However, we have sought to establish the main addressin all cases, and find that unsurprisingly most are based in London, with a strong showing from Scotland, the Midlandsand the North East. Fewer million pound donors are located in areas that arguably lack a strong regional identity, such as the South East.

Interestingly, almost 1 in 6 of the donors are from outside the UK, and the collective value of their donations is 145 million,which accounts for around 9% of the total value of million pound donations made to UK charities in 2008/09. Over half ofthese 15 international donors are based in the USA (notably this includes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, whichaccounts for a large proportion of the total value of million pound donations made by international donors); a handful aretax exiles living in places such as Monaco and Belize; and one donor each is based in Saudi Arabia, Australia, the Netherlands,Switzerland, India and Australia. This finding reflects both globalisation and the global appeal of some UK charities.


Region Number of Percentage of million pound donors donors from this region

London 40 42%

Scotland 9 10%

Midlands 8 9%

North East 6 6%

South East 5 5%

North West 4 4%

South West 4 4%

Unknown 4 4%

International 15 16%

All 95 100%

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09


7. The recipients of million pound donations161 organisations were recipients of million pound donations, including 140 operating charities and 21 charitablefoundations; the vast majority received only one donation worth 1 million or more. Organisations that received multipledonations of this size are almost all universities.

6. Are million pound donations banked or spent?Donors giving at this level are continuing the trend away from banking money in charitable trusts and foundations in favourof spending by giving it directly to operational charities. In 2006/07 the largest part of the total value of million pounddonations (56%) was banked in tax-efficient charitable trusts and foundations for distribution at a later date. This dropped to less than half (42%) in 2007/08 and has dropped further to represent just over a third (36%) of the value of millionpound donations in the most recent year.

Number of million No of organisations receiving this many MPDs in each yearpound gifts received

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

1 141 133 141

2 11 12 15

3 4 4 2

4 1 2 0

5 0 0 1

6 1 2 0

7 1 0 0

8 0 0 1

11 0 0 1

Year Amount banked in foundations Amount spent directly on charitable beneficiaries

2006/07 913 million (56%) 705 million (44%)

2007/08 597 million (42%) 808 million (58%)

2008/09 550 million (36%) 998 million (64%)



8. The distribution of all million pound donationsA significant finding of this report is that, for the first time since we started tracking this data, charitable trusts andfoundations are not the major destination of million pound donations. Instead, the most popular destination for gifts of thissize was Higher Education, which received 37% of the total value of million pound donations made in 2008/09, and wellover half (58%) of all spent donations (this is calculated by removing those donations placed into trusts and foundations fordistribution at a later date). The dominance of Higher Education occurs in numeric terms as well as in terms of the totalvalue of donations, as the university sector received 66 separate donations worth 1 million or more, which is a third of allsuch donations.

Furthermore, whilst Higher Education was the most popular destination for spent donations in both the previous tworeports, the gap between this type of beneficiary and other causes has widened. Once money banked into foundations isremoved from the calculation, universities received 58% of the total value of million pound donations, the next mostpopular cause was Arts & Culture, which received 13% of the value of such gifts, and all other charitable subsectors receivedless than 10%.

This finding is likely to be interpreted as proof that incentive schemes are effective in encouraging philanthropic donations. In2008 the UK government launched a 200 million Matched Funding scheme, which sought to encourage private donationsto UK universities by providing top-ups from the public purse, ranging from pound-for-pound matching for universities withminimal experience of fundraising, whilst establishing fundraising institutions, such as the universities of Oxford andCambridge, could offer a top-up of 1 for every 3 donated, up to an agreed cap.

Joanna Motion, Vice President of International Operations at the Council for Advancement and Support of Education(CASE) comments on this finding:

In 2008-09, cash gifts to UK universities broke through the half billion pound mark for the first time. This is the fundraisingequivalent of breaking the 4-minute mile, because a target that seemed humanly unattainable is brought into the realm of the do-able for those with courage, focus and training.

UK universities are able to attract so many million pound donations because they are increasingly fundraising-friendly andfundraising-ready. The time-limited opportunity presented by the Matched Funding scheme changed the conversation. With a cashincentive in front of them, universities professionalised their development operations and talked to their supporters with a newurgency. The Scheme also funded an investment in structured training, delivered by CASE, which has boosted fundraising skills at alllevels in universities, from Vice-Chancellors and Governors to Deans, Development Directors and new graduate trainee fundraisers.This has created a powerful legacy which should continue to pay dividends in the future, underpinning the future health offundraising in this sector.

Charitable Number Mean Median % of total Total % of total % of total sub-sector of million value of value of number of value of value of value of

pound million pound million pound million pound million pound million pound spentdonations donations donations donations donations donations donationsto this to this to this to this going to this going to thissub-sector sub-sector sub-sector sub-sector sub-sector sub-sector(m) (m) (m) (m)

Foundations 21 26.2 2.7 10 549.52 35.5 -

Higher Education 66 8.7 3.5 33 575.38 37 58

Arts & Culture 24 5.2 1.7 12 125.88 8 13

Health 19 4.8 2.5 9.5 90.57 6 9

International Aid 16 3.3 2.5 8 53.15 3.5 5& Development

Education 10 4.5 1.7 5 44.61 3 4.5(not universities)

Human Services 20 2.1 1.5 10 41.97 3 4& Welfare

Overseas 10 2.5 2.5 5 25.19 1.5 2.5(outside UK, notdevelopment)

Other public 7 3.8 4 3.5 26.47 1.5 2.5service benefit

Environment 6 2.2 1.8 3 12.9 0.8 1& Animals

Religious 2 1.1 1.1 1 2.24 0.2 0.5organisations & causes

All 201 7.7 2 100 1.547.88 100 100




9. The distribution of million pound donations made by individualsAs a result of feedback from the first edition of the Million Pound Donors Report, we are aware there is a particularinterest in the philanthropic activities of individuals. Therefore, we have extracted all the data on the 100 donations made byindividuals either by direct donations or through personal foundations and re-analysed the distribution of these donations.

Whilst half of the total value of all donations made by individuals are banked in foundations for distribution over time,Higher Education is by far the most popular destination for million pound donations that are spent directly on charitableactivity. Last year, Arts and Culture was the dominant destination for individual donors, but drops into second place in2008/09, though still receives almost a quarter of the value of all donations of this size, and no other charitable subsectorreceives more than 10%.

Commenting on this finding, Michael Attenborough, Artistic Director of the Almeida Theatre, says:

All subsidised theatres are registered charities and are hugely dependent on private philanthropy to enable them to provide topquality cultural events at affordable prices to the widest possible audience. The Arts nourish that which is invisible - namely our innerlives, our emotional, spiritual and moral selves. In many ways they influence and define the very terms and standards of ourhumanity, of our civilisation.

Charitable Number Mean Median % of total Value of % of total % of total sub-sector of million value of value of number of MPDs value of value of

pound MPDs MPDs MPDs to this MPDs spentdonations to this to this made by sub-sector donations

sub-sector sub-sector individuals (m)(m) (m)

Foundations 12 42.7 1.6 12 511.9 50 -

Higher Education 29 9.3 2.6 29 269.66 26 53

Arts & Culture 18 6.6 2 18 117.96 11.5 23

Health 7 5.7 2.1 7 40.12 4 8

Education 7 3.2 1.4 7 22.2 2 4(not universities)

Human Services 13 1.6 1.3 13 20.37 2 4& Welfare

International Aid 6 3.2 3.3 6 19 2 4& Development

Overseas 4 2.1 2.1 4 8.5 1 1.5(outside UK, not development)

Environment 2 3.7 3.7 2 7.35 1 1.5& Animals

Other public 2 2.6 2.6 2 5.2 0.5 1service benefit

Religious 0 - - 0 0 0 0organisations & causes

All 100 10.2 2 100 1,022.26 100 100






Case StudyHeather Beckwith supporting Great Ormond Street Hospital Million Pound Donor

Heather Beckwith is a mother, grandmother and formernurse who now supports a number of charities, includingGreat Ormond Street Hospital. She is also founder of theTheatres for Theatres appeal which conducts fundraisingwithin Londons theatrical community to raise money foroperating theatres.

I have donated large sums to a number of organisations,including the Royal Opera House and the Royal MarsdenHospital, but the only organisation to which I have donated1 million is Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH). This isfor personal reasons and is my way of coping with very sadcircumstances. I have a little grandson who was born with arare and complicated genetic syndrome called Crouzon. Iwanted experts at a centre of excellence to be able towork through the understanding of this condition and researchthe genetics, with the eventual aim of preventing it in the future.

My grandson receives treatment at GOSH, but in fact mysupport for the hospital long pre-dates his birth. In 1988 Iran a marathon to raise funds for the Wishing Well appeal,not realising that my family would need the hospitals helpin future years.

When I decided I wanted to make a significant contributionto GOSH, I had a tour around the hospital and wasintroduced to the medical director, who happens to be one of my grandsons doctors, and the fundraising team.They told me there were a number of things they neededmoney for, including funding for research, so I agreed tohelp with this. A world-class scientist was appointed who

has set up a laboratory with an assistant, and they workhand-in-hand with the clinical doctors who are actuallytreating the children.

My donation is staggered - Im giving it over five years,partly for tax reasons and partly so that I can keep an eyeon things. I think one has a responsibility to make sure thatthe funds are spent wisely. Ive visited the laboratory and I receive reports once or twice a year. The medical team is obviously in charge but I do like to meet with theresearchers and doctors as I am interested in how they are getting on. They are always very open and helpful.

The hospital employs the best and brightest scientists intheir fields and obviously genetics is a very complex area.However my training as a nurse does help me understand a little of what they are doing to find out why the DNAchanges in these genes, and why Crouzon occurs in 15 outof a million children. I dont anticipate them finding a cure inmy lifetime, but at least by starting to fund this now, ratherthan waiting any longer, theres a slim chance of seeingsome results. One hopes that gene therapy and knowledgeof genes will have changed in, say, 25 years, when mygrandson is an adult because theres a 50% chance of himpassing the rogue gene on to his children so obviously wedlike to prevent that.

It didnt occur to me to wait and leave making big gifts in my will: I dont intend to be the richest woman in thegraveyard! It was something I wanted to get on and do, tohelp right now.

Being a practical person, I also wanted to play an active partin the fundraising to help rebuild the hospital. We haveestablished an initiative called Theatres for Theatres, whichmakes use of my familys connections with the theatre. Weaim to raise 4 million to help to pay for two new neuro-surgical operating theatres, which will enable up to 20%more children to be treated each year, including childrenwith Crouzon. We launched this campaign just after therecession started and although it was difficult to gathermomentum at the start, it is now going well. The support so far has been incredible, and the new theatres are due toopen in 2012. It is lovely being affiliated with the hospitaland it is wonderful to see the new building going up.

I do feel in a privileged position. I am fortunate enough tohave some spare money and time, so I can give some ofboth. It is wonderful to hope that I will have made adifference.

I know a lot of people do not like giving to the biggercharities because they can seem to be too successful atraising funds and they can be a bit bureaucratic. Sometimessmaller charities are easier to deal with as they can bemore accessible. But it is only larger organisations likeGOSH that have the capacity to do the kind of researchthat I wanted to fund. Also they have a very professionalfundraising team that takes great pride in showinginterested parties around the hospital. I know that seeingthe amazing work done there is a major factor inpersuading potential donors to contribute.

Were fortunate and grateful to have GOSH on ourdoorstep - it is actually our neighbourhood hospital as wellas an international centre of excellence. All the charitiesthat Ive supported with large donations have been local to me. But personal reasons are the most powerful factorbehind my giving. Perhaps if I had a family member with a different health problem, like autism, then I would besupporting a charity that helps autistic children rather thanGOSH. But this is the situation that I find myself in and Ibelieve that many philanthropic acts are driven by the kind of personal experiences that our family has,unfortunately, experienced.

Another reason for my giving is gratitude. My ex-husbandand I jointly gave 1 million to the redevelopment fund forthe Royal Opera House because we had had years ofenjoyment attending performances there - it is just awonderful place. To see the Opera House being put tosleep by Darcey Bussell in 1998 and reawakened after theredevelopment for the Millennium were just the mostmagical moments.

Supporting good causes is also something that has been a normal part of my life that started when I was a childmaking sandwiches on the childrens ward at my localhospital. I like being busy and I couldnt just play bridge orgolf every day I like to feel Ive earned my holidays! I needa sense of purpose. So its not only about being altruisticbecause it gives me a great sense of satisfaction too.




Case StudyThe Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fundsupporting the Prison Reform Trust Million Pound Donor

Dr. Andrew Cooper, Research Manager at The Diana,Princess of Wales Memorial Fund, which has given 1.5million to the Prison Reform Trust.

The Fund has always wanted to help solve significant socialproblems. As a spend out organisation with limited funds, wereviewed our grant making strategy in 2007 and decidedthat focusing our efforts on clear policy objectives wouldgive us the best opportunity to achieve sustainable changewith the resources we had available. At the same time, wenarrowed our work down to four areas of focus palliativecare, refugees and asylum seekers, cluster munitions andpenal reform which were all areas we had worked inbefore and where we believed we could achieve moresignificant, systemic change.

The Fund was always intended to be time limited and the2007 Strategic Plan confirmed that the Fund would spendout its capital by 2012. We feel fortunate that the need tosprint to the finish provides such focus and energy and the opportunity to think boldly about what we can do withour resources.

One of the first grants made under the 2007 Strategic Plan was 1.5 million to the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) for acampaign called Out of Trouble. Its a five-year programme,running from 2007-2012, with just one objective: to reduce the number of children and young people in prison and custody.

Since the Fund was established in 1997 weve spent around3 million on prison-related work and we already had arelationship with the PRT before making this grant. In 2001it received a three-year grant of 234,000 to supportyoung parents in prison, and then we gave them another300,000 to work with people with learning disabilities inthe prison system. The latest, and biggest, grant came aboutas a result of them coming to us with a clear objective anda very good strategy underpinning it, involving research,lobbying and a range of advocacy tactics. As a result of theexisting relationship we had confidence in the PRT, we knowthey have the right connections to make this work a successand we believed in the individuals leading the project.

As well as giving a large grant to the PRT, we also aim touse our non-financial assets to see how we can contributeto the end goal of reducing child and youth imprisonment.We take a funder plus approach to grant making, aiming to add value as well as provide money. We spend a lot oftime on this aspect of our work, for example by helping toconvene meetings and supporting learning through evaluation.The PRT has good political connections, which is partly whywe backed them, but for all of our major grantees we try touse our independent status and association with the Princesshumanitarian work to increase the impact of the work.

Theres no way wed have made a grant of this size unlessthe recipient organisation had a very clear vision that

was supported by an appropriate strategy. However, weappreciate that the methods and tactics for realising a visioncan change over time. There are many different andcomplex reasons why there are so many children andyoung people in prison, and we are happy for the PRT to decide on the best ways to reduce that number. Werecognise that situations change and we have been open tothe PRT suggesting alterations in how they use the money.For example, some of the long-term research included inthe original strategy will not now take place. This is becausethe changing political landscape has meant that it hasbecome more appropriate to do something in a shortertimescale that has a better chance of influencing policy-makers. The strategy still includes research, but now alsoincludes a campaigning element designed to build up publicsupport for the issue.

We dont want our recipients to spend too much timereporting and we dont want to interfere, or for them tofeel that we are interfering in their work! However, weobviously have a commitment to rigorous accountabilityand we encourage the involvement of an evaluator on anongoing basis. This way we can help ensure funds are beingused as effectively as possible and that the right approachesand tactics are employed.

We try to separate out accountability from learning. Wehave grant management meetings every two or threemonths that focus on budgetary issues, accountability and

compliance. And we also have joint evaluation groupmeetings every six months, involving board and staffmembers from both the Fund and the PRT, which help usall to analyse and learn from what is and isnt working well. We also try to share any learning with the widervoluntary sector.

My advice to other individual or organisational donors withthe capacity to make very large grants is to be flexible andconfident about supporting issues you believe in and whereyou think you can make a big difference. But have a clearstrategy and idea of what you want to achieve in terms ofsocial or policy change. As long as both the funder and thegrantee agree on the point you want to reach, it shouldntmatter too much if the methods and tactics used need tochange along the way. And think about if you might be ableto add value other than just giving the money.

As a funder able to make a grant of this size, we do get ahuge feeling of achievement when things go well. Were notdoing all of the direct work ourselves, but we still get thatsense of achievement. It has been incredibly satisfying to beinvolved with a campaign like Out of Trouble and to see itdevelop into something with the potential to bringsignificant change to a huge number of lives.


Case StudyDr. James Martin supporting the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford Million Pound Donor

James Martin is a writer, speaker and entrepreneur. Hewrote The Meaning of the 21st Century, which wasmade into a major film, and is a Pulitzer nominee for hisbook The Wired Society. A pioneer in the automation of software development, he was ranked 4th in ComputerWorlds 25th Anniversary Editions most influential people in computer technology. He was a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the U.S. Department ofDefence. He is an Honorary Life Fellow of the BritishRoyal Institution, a Fellow of the World Academy of Artand Science, an Honorary Fellow of Keble College,Oxford, and a Senior Fellow of the James Martin Centrefor Non-Proliferation Studies at Monterey, California. DrMartin also has honorary doctorates from universities onall six continents.

Ive been concerned with the difficulties and opportunitiesfacing our planet throughout my professional life as anauthor, businessman and social entrepreneur. The earthfaces many problems, but in the 21st century there aregreater opportunities to solve them, more so than everbefore. Grasping these opportunities requires an ambitiouseffort, which is why I provide extensive financial support to what has been named the Oxford Martin School, atOxford University, which is an interdisciplinary researchinitiative addressing key global future challenges.

The vision for the School grew gradually over time. Beforetaking up the post of Vice Chancellor at Oxford University,John Hood visited me to talk about the impact that theuniversitys research has had on society, and how it ought to be playing more of a leadership role in this new century.We discussed the various challenges we currently face,including those in which new technology plays a part, suchas nanotechnology and stem cells, and we made a list ofseventeen areas in which work needed to be undertaken.

I wanted to fund this work and I talked about it with avariety of different universities. At one time I thought itwould happen in an American university, but in the end Ifelt that would have restricted its scope to looking solely atthe new technologies. Questions about the major problemsand challenges facing our world also need to be examinedby people working in more traditional academic areas such as economics, sociology and philosophy. Oxford Universitywas the natural choice because of its expertise in thesedisciplines, for example it has got more - and better -philosophers than anywhere else. It is also my alma mater,where I studied Physics at Keble College.

Eight months after John Hood began his term as Vice Chancellor,he announced the setting up of the Oxford Martin School.Thats moving very fast by university standards!

I made my donation of $100 million in 2005, and the earlyyears of the School went very well. After a competitivefunding round in 2007 to invite further applications forstudy of global challenges, the School was expanded to 15Institutes. They rapidly began to reap the rewards of success, achieving great esteem among their academicpeers, gaining influence in government and public policy, andauthoring many highly recognised publications.

When something is successful, you want to increase itssuccess. So I met again with John Hood and we talkedabout how we could put our foot on the accelerator andmake the School even larger and more substantial. Wedecided to announce a matched funding scheme in March2008, whereby I would donate another $50 million if otherdonors could be found to match that amount. Each of the newdonors would be asked to support a specific new project,and I would match their contribution. Lots of people said we were crazy to attempt such an ambitious fundraising



initiative in the middle of the economic meltdown,especially as the received wisdom at the time was that theBritish public do not give to universities. But the matchedfunding scheme worked well because people appreciatedthe chance to double the value of their contribution, andbecause there is an understanding that even in the veryworst financial circumstances we still have to deal with themajor issues that face us. In fact we ended up receivingmore offers of matched funding than we could deal with!

We only fund projects for which theres support fromwithin the university, as I believe that research ideas shouldcome from academics, not donors. But we largely see eye-to-eye and I thought the ideas generated from within theuniversity were very good, and we now have an additional19 projects, as a result of the matched funding scheme. I didntknow all of these new donors before they got involved, but Ithink it will be a tremendous advantage to be able to invitetheir varied expertise, influence and networks into theSchool. The value that these 19 new research projects willbring to addressing humanitys problems is going to beextraordinary, for example weve got a project that seeks totackle famine by modifying crops so they can thrive in thenutrient-deficient soil that is found in most of sub-SaharanAfrica, and weve got another project working to avert arepeat of the world financial problems that have caused somuch difficulty in recent years. To solve the many problemsof the planet, you need to work across disciplines, but mostacademics work within just one discipline throughout theirwhole career. One of the Schools greatest achievements hasbeen its successful inter-disciplinary approach.

I gather that my donations count amongst the biggest ever made in the UK, and are the largest benefactions madeby a single donor to Oxford University, but this wasntsomething that Id always planned to do. Much of my work

has been concerned with understanding and improvingvery complex organisations in areas such as digitaltechnology, education and international development. So,over my lifetime I have gradually become more and moreconcerned about how our increasing population, made upof people with ever greater economic aspirations, couldmanage to live together successfully on our planet.

If youd asked me when this whole thing started how Ithought it would turn out, I would not have imagined itwould go so well. Thats largely because we have attractedthe most brilliant people to undertake the research. But westill have much more to do, for example we need to blendand integrate the wide-ranging disciplinary expertise acrossthe School to bring the fresh perspectives required toaddress these complex problems.

One thing strikes me all the time. Ive known a lot ofpeople whove made large sums of money in business andin the entertainment industry. These people have oftenamassed fortunes in the region of $500 million, but whenyou look at the way they live they need about $20 millionto fund their lifestyle. I would suggest that such people askthemselves what they could do with their spare moneythat is truly interesting and exciting. If you leave your moneyin your will then you have no idea what will be done with it.Its far better to spend it whilst youre alive because you canbe involved and make sure it is being spent well. In my oldage I will enjoy meeting with, and talking to, all these brilliantpeople that are involved with the Oxford Martin School. It has really been the most exciting and fascinatingopportunity and it has changed my life for the better.


The recent recession has dominated most discussions ofphilanthropy in recent years, due to widespread interest in clarifying and capturing the impact of the possible suddendip in wealth experienced by all types of donors, includingindividuals, institutional funders and private corporations.The impact of the recession on donors confidence was alsoa matter of wide speculation because feelings of financialsecurity are also known to be an important preconditionfor major gifts.

The increase in the number of million pound donations, andsigns of recovery in the collective value of gifts of this size,indicate that philanthropy has emerged from this difficultperiod in terms of both donor confidence and practicalphilanthropic acts.

In this edition of the report we explore two important topics:

1. The potential for collaboration between philanthropic funders.

2. The importance of geography in giving decisions, with a spotlight on the North West region of the UK.

1. The potential for collaboration between philanthropic funders

Philanthropic collaboration occurs when donors decide to work jointly with other funders in order to achievecommonly desired ends. Collaboration is, of course, thenorm amongst ordinary donors who do not have thecapacity to make donations worth 1million or more. The vast majority of the population make contributions tocharitable causes on the assumption that others will alsooffer support, and that collectively their combineddonations will be useful in advancing the causes that theycare about. It is only those individuals and institutions thathave the capacity to act alone who need to decide whetherit might be better to act in concert with others.

Philanthropic collaborations often come about because thescale of social problems that philanthropists wish to addressare significant in size and require resources and effortsbeyond the scope of any single funder. Tackling a problem in a collaborative way, rather than seeking to solve it alone,enables donors to acknowledge the scale of the task and to enhance the likelihood of making an impact by drawingon a larger pool of resources. This is often described asleveraging a donation, borrowing from the concept ofleverage as it is used within the financial sector, which refersto techniques intended to multiply gains.

However, philanthropic collaborations are not only drivenby a desire to magnify financial outcomes. They also occuras a result of seeking a wider pool of expertise andenthusiasm to tackle the given problem, for example bycollaborating with a donor that has greater knowledge of atopic or whose personal or professional life has generateduseful contacts. Collaboration can also occur as a result of donors getting more enjoyment and fulfilment fromworking with fellow donors. Developing relationships withother donors has been identified as a key motivation forUK philanthropists, who enjoy participating in donornetworks and socialising with others who share theirpassions for certain causes1.

Collaboration between donors can also benefit the recipientcauses, for example by enabling a more joined up approachto be taken, resulting in greater impact and by cutting downon the administration involved in reporting to multiple,non-collaborating donors.

As Olivia Dix from The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund explains,

We work with three funders: The Childrens Investment FundFoundation (CIFF), Comic Relief and the Elton John AIDSFoundation as the Funders Collaborative For Children - Malawi(FCFC). Together we fund a model programme in Malawi thataims to address the complete needs of orphans and vulnerablechildren affected by HIV/AIDS from the earliest stage of life tothe point at which they can thrive independently. Collaborativefunding works for us because it brings together the differentexpertise and perspectives of the four donors, as well of courseas their money, and this enriches the programme on theground and makes for a more powerful impact.

As a result of the different rationales that lie behindphilanthropic collaborations, they come in various formsand take place across a spectrum, ranging from the sharingof information and knowledge to the co-funding of projects.In this report, we present case studies that illustrate twotypes of collaboration.

Three years after having donated $100 million to establishthe Oxford Martin School at Oxford University, JamesMartin decided there was a need to, put our foot on theaccelerator and make the School even larger and moresubstantial. In order to attract further funds from otherdonors, he created a matched funding challenge wherebyhe would provide a further $50 million if a similar amountcould be raised from other donors. The challenge wassuccessfully completed within a year, and attracted sufficientfunds to run an additional 19 research projects addressingkey global future challenges. Dr. Martin attributes thesuccess of this form of collaboration to donors desire tosee their money go further, saying: the matched fundingscheme worked well because people appreciated the chanceto double the value of their contribution.

Dame Stephanie Shirley also offered a challenge grant tofund the transformation of a redundant church into anHistoric Collections Centre. Despite being able to fund thefull costs of this project herself, she was persuaded that itwould be better to involve other funders to strengthen theproject in the longer-term, as she explains:

They needed 3-4 million and I was all for giving them the

full amount but my foundation trustees said, no, do it as achallenge grant, which is much better. Im learning how toleverage my gifts. Its much easier to just give it all myself, butinvolving other funders results in more stability.

Philanthropic collaborations are not a new approach, butthey do appear to be gaining in popularity. They can occuras a result of one donors initiative, as exemplified by JamesMartin and Dame Stephanie, or they can be organised asformal initiatives. Community Foundations, Giving Circles,Funders Networks and Donor Advised Funds are some of the main, formalised ways by which donors are nowcoming together to work with other donors to reachshared goals.

A study of Giving Circles in the US concludes that inaddition to the ostensible aim of pooling money,

they also serve to educate members about communityissues, engage them in voluntary efforts, provide socialopportunities, and maintain donor independence from anyparticular charity2

In the UK, Coutts has initiated a Donor Advised Fund thatprovides clients with the opportunity to collaborate withothers to learn about microfinance and provide charitablesupport to projects together. Donors are given access toreports prepared by an advisory panel, thereby increasingtheir own knowledge and expertise as a result of choosingto pursue a collaborative approach.

Despite the many attraction to both donors and charitiesof taking this type of approach, some barriers to greatercollaboration remain. Donors may not know how to meetothers who share their philanthropic passion, and needgreater support from organisations that can help to identifyand bring together groups of donors who wish to worktogether. Donors may also be unaware of the benefits ofcollaboration, and need reassurance that this approach willenhance their impact rather than dilute their contribution.Finally, some donors will simply prefer to be lone operators,retaining control of their giving and using their resources tomake change happen, without needing to rely on input fromother funders. There is room for all types of philanthropistbut it is to be hoped that the barriers to collaboration willbe lowered for those who wish to pursue that route.


Discussion


1 Theresa Lloyd (2004) Why Rich People Give. London: Association of Charitable Foundations/Philanthropy UK, pps.91-93

2 Angela Eikenberry (2009) Giving Circles: philanthropy, voluntary association and democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p.ix


2. The importance of geography in giving decisions, with a 'spotlight' on the North West region of the UK

As the purpose of this report is to collate and analyse dataon all donations of at least 1 million that were made byUK donors or to UK charities in the most recent financialyear, we have not previously focused on the location ofmillion pound donors. However, there is a growing interestin the geographical aspect of philanthropy, reflected in the suggestion that there exist charity hot spots and charity deserts, such that some parts of the countryappear to enjoy greater levels of philanthropic activity, whilst other areas are lacking in both donors and charitable organisations.

In response to this interest in the philanthropy of place, thisedition of the report contains data on where the 95donors who made gifts of 1million or more in 2008/09come from. We found that million pound donors arelocated in all regions of the UK, but that some areas suchas London and Scotland have a disproportionatelygreater number of such donors.

Recent research3 concludes that around 20% of significantcontemporary UK philanthropists have a strong localdimension to their giving, and prefer to support projectswhere they live or where their business is located.Beneficiaries of these donors often have little in commonbeyond a shared geographical location.

Reasons for factoring in geography as part of philanthropicdecision-making were explored in a study of philanthropyby family business owners. The report concluded that:

Family businesses tend to have strong roots in the local areasin which they are based, which often go back for generations.Family business owners are aware of the debt they owe to thecommunity that helped to generate their wealth and are keento give something back. They want to be and be seen to be good neighbours and members of the local community4

In order to explore further the role and relevance of geographyin major philanthropy, we decided to draw two of the casestudies for this report from one region, the North West.

Our North Western million pound donor is Mike Oglesby;his business is based in that region and around half of hisphilanthropy is focused on the communities in which hisbusiness is based. Explaining why he chooses to give locally,he says:

Our company is very much part of the region in which weoperate and we feel that it is beholden on us to become trulyinvolved in the society in which we exist, to play our part inensuring that it works for everyone and is a good place to liveand to work.

The case study includes examples of putting this philanthropicprinciple into practice. Oglesby has given over half a millionpounds to support a project which aims to make Manchestera more sustainable city because it, has both social andeconomic implications for our region. Oglesby has alsorecently provided significant support for a centre ofexcellence in musical education located in Manchester, oneof the major cities in the North West region. Whilst thisdonation also fits well with his passion for the arts, heexplains that this gift came about because, This is a veryspecial place in our region and we want to support it.

This case study demonstrates that civic pride, a desire toimprove the local community and an awareness of what anindividual owes to a particular region all contribute togeographically-motivated philanthropy.

Our case study of a million pound recipient based in theNorth West region is the Liverpool School of TropicalMedicine (LSTM), which is a leading charity in the fields oftropical medicine and international health. LSTM is based inLiverpool, but its activities and impact are global, as itcurrently has over 80 projects in more than 60 countriesworldwide. The international reputation of LSTM means

that it has attracted multi-million pound donations fromsome of the worlds most significant funders, including TheWellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.However, Professor Robert Heyderman, the director of theproject based in Malawi notes,Its also important toacknowledge that the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicinemakes a significant contribution to our work, for example theycontinue to pay my salary whilst I am working out here.

Having the headquarters of significant organisations basedin the regions, rather than in London, can also contribute tocivic pride and encourage donors living in that region tosupport their local centre of excellence.

Clare Brooks, Head of Philanthropy at the CommunityFoundation Network says,

A sense of place is such a powerful part of the discussions wehave with donors, and that doesn't necessarily relate to justone location. We quite often see people who want to give backto the area where they live now, and also to the areas theycame from: its all wrapped up with identity.

People who give through community foundations also discoverthat there are opportunities for them to become part of acommunity of donors, to meet with like-minded people whowant to make a real difference in the same area as they do,and with whom they can exchange ideas and experiences faceto face. This is when geography can create some interestingand powerful philanthropy partnerships

It is important to ensure that all the regions of the UKcontinue to generate both donors willing to makecommitments worth 1 million or more, and organisationsable to attract this level of investment. It will be interestingto see if the new governments commitment to encouragingphilanthropy has any geographical dimension, and whetherany efforts can or will be made to encourage major donorsin those areas that currently have few funders willing or ableto commit 1 million or more to good causes.


3 Beth Breeze (2008) The problem of riches: is philanthropy a solution or part of the problem? in Social Policy Review 20. Bristol: Polity Press

4 Beth Breeze (2009) Natural Philanthropists: Findings of the family business philanthropy and social responsibility inquiry. London: Institute for Family Business and Community Foundation Network, p.9



Case StudyMike OglesbyMillion Pound Donor

Mike Oglesby founded Bruntwood Estates in 1976, initiallyas an industrial property business based in Manchester.Today Bruntwood is one of the largest office investmentcompanies operating across the North of England and inBirmingham. Since his son took over as Chief Executive in2000, Mike Oglesby has remained as Executive Chairman,devoting the remainder of his time to philanthropic, civicand arts activities.

There are two vehicles for my philanthropy: a familycharitable trust that mainly supports social and arts issues,and our corporate activities that focus on the community inthe regions in which our business is based. The familyfoundation is supporting approximately 40 different causesat any time, with gifts which range in size but in total add upto around three quarters of a million a year. Bruntwoodaims to give 10% of its profits each year to charitable andcommunity activities, which in part is made as a donation tothe family trust.

One of our biggest current donations is 600,000 to Eco-cities, which aims to make Manchester a more sustainablecity and has both social and economic implications for ourregion. Another recent large donation was 250,000 to anew music school at Chethams, the UKs centre forexcellence for music education. This school, located inManchester, operates out of a mixture of medieval and rundown Victorian buildings and urgently needs better facilitiesto reflect the standard of excellence of its pupils and tohelp to maintain its international reputation. This is a veryspecial place in our region and we want to support it.

Approximately half of the projects that the family trust fundare as a result of organisations approaching us directly. Theprocess normally begins with an electronic submission andwe would then expect to have at least two meetings beforefunding is agreed. We then meet with recipients, at regularintervals of between six and twelve months during theperiod of funding. We believe this is critical as it allows us to

have an input and ensures that we are kept fully informedof any changes which may occur.

Often the most interesting part of any relationship comesat the very beginning in the pre-funding stage. These earlymeetings can be very productive, as the trustees often playa key role in shaping the proposal and the experience theybring often has a very real input into the project. I believethat we can add real value by being objective and saying,you are asking for money for things but truly is that wherethe need and weakness lies? If we give you the money inthe form you have requested, then really you wont besustainable and you need to consider other areas on whichto concentrate.

The other half of the projects which we fund are as a resultof us looking at an area in which we have a specific interest.As an example we have funded a lot of activities for youngpeople with issues from chaotic and deprived backgrounds.After being involved in this area for some time, it becameclear to us that many of these young people came frombroken homes and the fostering system. We felt that wereally needed to look at the issues at a much earlier stage inthese childrens lives before the behavioral problems arise.We therefore decided to look more closely at the field ofadoption so that these children could get the very bestupbringing in a real family, as opposed to being maroonedand moved around from pillar to post and becominginstitutionalised. We therefore decided to focus onsupporting adoption in order to get to the root of theissue, rather than always dealing with the problems whenthey have arisen at a later stage.

In a similar attempt to tackle causes rather than symptoms,we also fund a project in Manchester prisons. It becameclear to us that there was a large part of the prison systemwho were involved in relatively low level crime, but whoregularly came in and out of the prison system on a regularbasis. They are serving short term sentences and werent



getting the kind of support and assistance with issues likedrugs, accommodation and finance that are available topeople serving longer terms. They therefore return straightback to their old habits, hence quickly returning to prison.After having meetings with the prison governors we agreedthat this revolving door syndrome needed tackling, not onlybecause of the effects on the criminals, but also the effect ithad on all of our lives, as a major social irritant. We arefunding a trial project which has been running for two years,and although its early days, it is clear that we are seeing a50% reduction in reoffending rates through the scheme.This is a relatively modest program, but we hope to be ableto see this rolled out nationally over a period of time. This isa very hot topic in the government at the moment and it isinteresting to note that others are beginning to look atalternative models in other parts of the country. As funderswe often make the first step and pledge money for newideas to show that they work, which then attracts otherdonors who may not be prepared to take this initial risk.

There is no doubt that on a personal level it is extremelysatisfying to feel that you are making a difference and to seevery real results. It is surprising how often I and my fellowtrustees find ourselves in meetings becoming veryemotionally involved, and on occasions being reduced totears. When you are able to help and make a real differenceto someone in real need then the experience is one of themost rewarding and satisfying that you can have.

The reason why much of our philanthropy is focused on the North West region is because that is where thecompany started. You see, our company is very much part of the region in which we operate and we feel that itis beholden on us to become truly involved in the society inwhich we exist, to play our part in ensuring that it worksfor everyone and is a good place to live and to work. I trulybelieve that it is incumbent on families and companies toget involved in this way, if they are in a position to do so.This is why we have our family foundation, and this is why

the company gives 10% of its profit to good causes andprojects in regions in which we operate. I firmly believe thatthis is an aim which others should have.

I also feel strongly that giving your time is just as importantas giving money. I would urge other business owners notonly to get involved in their own communities, but also tolet their employees have time off to encourage them tobecome involved with charities and other causes in orderto make a very real difference in society.

A number of years ago it was my intention to leave acharitable legacy rather than giving in my lifetime. However,when I reached my 60s I realised that it made little sense toleave the giving of a large sum of money to a panel ofprofessional trustees and to allow them to run somethingthat I have spent a major portion of my life working hard tocreate. It is only when you become involved that you arereally able to form the views on how this should beoperated and where the money should really go. With thebest will in the world, you cant sub-contract that decision-making to other people. It is only by running your ownphilanthropic trust yourself that you can really shape it inthe way in which you want, and also frankly you get thevery real satisfaction that undertaking this work brings. Idont believe in employing agents to do things for me as I have always been a hands-on person in business, andthere is no reason at all why the same philosophy one hasemployed in making money should not be used in giving it.

I passionately believe that we need to bring more peopleinto the philanthropic net. The huge pleasure and satisfactionthat is to be gained from spending ones time in giving inyour later years, far outweighs any pleasure that you canpossibly gain on the golf course, on the beach or on theback of the yacht in the Mediterranean sipping dry martinis.


Case StudyDame Stephanie Shirley Million Pound Donor


million, 2 million or 5 million. Their ideas werent verycarefully worked out because at that stage they were anembryonic organisation, but I decided to fund the mostexpensive option and their original proposal gave mesomething to compare with the actual results later on. Ididnt ask for any systematic reporting from that grant, and Iwent some years without hearing anything, but then I gotan unsolicited report setting out what the money hadachieved, which was very welcome.

I have supported 12 different universities over the years,but I dont really see it as funding them as institutions butrather as funding quality projects that interest me. Almostall were autism projects. I can always spot when peopleseeking money have massaged a project proposal - theynominally mention autism in an effort to make it appeal tome, which is annoying.

Not having studied at university myself, I love being in anacademic environment. My support for Oxford University,where among other things I funded the Oxford InternetInstitute to over 10 million, keeps my feet in the industryfrom which my wealth stems; and also that institution hasgot the relationship just right. Ive helped some of thestudents, Im on the OIIs strategy advisory board and Impart of the Oxford Court of Benefactors, which involvesinvesting people in grand robes and making us feel good!Im also a Foundation Fellow of Balliol which means I meetwith the other Fellows - so many different people who areexperts in varied fields - pain management one time,French literature the next its so interesting! A couple ofyears ago I sat next to the Director of the Graduate Centrewho enthused about a redundant church next door. This isnow being renovated to serve as an Historic CollectionsCentre. I dont have any faith, though I am spiritual. Butthere were medieval treasures sitting in cardboard boxesand I wanted to make it possible for people to have access.

They needed 3-4 million and I was all for giving them thefull amount but my foundation trustees said, no, do it as achallenge grant, which is much better. Im learning how toleverage my gifts. Its much easier to just give it all myself, butinvolving other funders results in more stability. I went tohave a look at the church recently and the stonework is soclean. Its gorgeous, so beautiful and Im getting a real kickout of that project. So my latest big donation is not relatedto either IT or autism, but theres always room for anexception!

One reason for making money was to be sure I couldprovide for my family. Weve been sensible and ring-fencedenough to cover all possible costs that might arise for meand my husband and Ive already made all the gifts to otherrelatives that I was originally going to make in my will sothat they could use that money now. And I now have thefun of actually spending whats left over! I find that the largerand more strategic the gift, the more pleasure I get out of it.

I like to have something worthwhile to get up for eachmorning. I want to enjoy my giving and the feel-good factorin promoting philanthropy is enormous. My advice toothers starting out is just to start, preferably with somethinglocal, where you know someone on the management boardof the charity, and give to something that youre interestedin. I should especially encourage people whove made theirown wealth to think seriously about philanthropy.Entrepreneurial skills transfer directly into the non-profitworld. All the business experience is applicable and there isa lot of fun in helping charities and not-for-profits. I getimmense pleasure from giving, and even after all these years,Im still learning.

Dame Stephanie Shirley founded the Xansa software companyin 1962 and retired in 1993 to focus on philanthropy. In2009 she was appointed by the UK government as theworlds first Ambassador for Philanthropy.

Ive made around 20 major donations, the largest was 30 million, a couple at 10 million, one at 5 million andrecently another 1 million. Most of the charities I gave my biggest donations to are organisations that Ive founded or helped to found, and Ive given them a lot of entrepreneurial drive as well as funding.

I make my gifts via The Shirley Foundation, which I set upfor tax reasons. All my wealth came from Xansa so I onlyhad its shares to give away. It was too clumsy to give sharesdirectly to charities and then have to ask them not to sellthem for a certain period to avoid my becoming liable forCapital Gains Tax, so it was easier to transfer the shares intomy foundation and then give from that.

It took a long time to set up my foundation so once it wasestablished I was raring to go. With hindsight I can see thatmy first donations were totally and utterly reactive. I gave to people I knew who asked for support. But after about 18 months I developed a clear strategy based on fourprinciples. Firstly I aim to be pioneering: we never fundmore of the same, no matter how worthy. Secondly, I aim to be strategic, which means taking risks - if all mydonations end in success then Im not actually pleasedbecause it shows were not taking enough risk. Thirdly I aimto act on a large scale, because the amount of due diligencethat I do before making a donation means it isnt worth itfor smaller gifts. I have made a lot of gifts worth around100,000 and charities can do something significant withthat amount of money, it can have an impact. But there area lot of people out there who can give at that level, so Iprefer to make larger gifts. And fourthly, I give to the two

areas that I know and care about, which are autism andinformation technology. A few years ago the foundationchanged its mission to focus exclusively on autisticspectrum disorders with particular emphasis on medicalresearch into causes. There are plenty of others fundingphilanthropy related to IT. So now were tightly focused.

The first big gift I made was to set up the Kingwood charityas my now late son, Giles was autistic and I couldnt findanywhere suitable for him to live outside hospital. Thatactually cost us more because we still had many familyneeds to meet, for example we needed a better car.Kingwood took 2 million spread over 17 years, before itwas financially and managerially independent of me. It nowsupports over 50 adults with autism and challengingbehaviour. The time-scale I prefer to work to is more likethree to five years; much less is too easy to engage me andI get bored and if its much longer I get depressed.

The 30 million gift was for Priors Court School for autistic pupils and my funding was spread over five years. Itconsumed both my dreams and waking life, but by that timeI was more experienced so there was a proper businessplan and after five years it was (as planned) breaking even.So now my only involvement is just to visit a self-sustainingorganisation. My son never visited the school but theres aGiles House and also a Shirley House named for me. Theywere very insistent on the naming business, which I didntlike at first as it seemed egocentric and having my name ona building doesnt interest me. I dont give so that my namewill be remembered. I give because Ive been given a lot inmy life, so what else can I do but give?

5 million went to the IT livery company. Id got it into mymind to help this young charity through its adolescence butwanted to negotiate anonymously. I found an intermediaryto approach them and ask what they could do with 1





Case StudyNiklas ZennstrmMillion Pound Donor

Case StudyLiverpool School of Tropical MedicineMillion Pound Recipient

Founded in 1898, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine(LSTM) is a leading charity in the fields of tropicalmedicine and international health. Based in Liverpool,LSTM currently has over 80 projects in more than 60countries worldwide. LSTMs Professor RobertHeyderman is Director of the Malawi-LiverpoolWellcome Trust Programme (MLW), a research unitwithin the College of Medicine, University of Malawi.

We have received grants worth more than 1 millionfrom both the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation. The grants are largely focused onimproving the research infrastructure at our host institutionin Malawi, paying for the construction and maintenance ofbuildings and salaries of staff, which are essential to facilitateworld-class research, to support scientific endeavour andprovide research training.

Our institution aims to nurture the researchers of thefuture, which ties in well with the Wellcome Trusts aim ofdriving research excellence, and we also conduct researchthat helps the Gates Foundation to pursue their agenda ofdeveloping capacity in relation to malaria research. We hostresearchers from Malawi and from all over the world; its atrue melting pot of research.

Having the backing of these two significant fundersundoubtedly enables us to pursue our institutional aims.Without large grants we simply couldnt proceed. They alsogive us some degree of flexibility which really does enableus to operate efficiently and effectively.

Originally we responded to a call for applications issued bythe Wellcome Trust, our relationship with them developedover time and now they provide our core funding. Therearent many research institutions that receive core grants, mostothers have to piece together lots of bits of project funding,so this core funding does enable MLW to move forward.

Recently the governors of the Wellcome Trust awarded usan additional 600,000 to establish an emergency andtrauma unit at the hospital where we are based. We do alot of our research in the hospital, so that is obviouslyhelpful for our work. It had a hugely positive effect on the

hospital and is important for Malawi to have an effectiveemergency department. It also inspired a local act ofphilanthropy, as a Malawian businessman made a largedonation - from his personal rather than company funds -to ensure that the project was completed. The unit will benamed after both donors: The Anadkat-Wellcome TrustEmergency and Trauma Centre; it is a wonderful exampleof matched funding on a global scale. Its also important toacknowledge that the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicinemakes a significant contribution to our work, for example theycontinue to pay my salary whilst I am working out here.

All our funders require regular reports but luckily theres nomicro-managing going on. The Wellcome Trust takes a greatinterest in what we are doing, they come to many of ourmeetings and we have a close working relationship. I comeback to the UK four or five times a year and Ill always aimto make a trip to the Trusts offices in London to meet withthe project co-ordinator. Im also in constant email contactwith our funders. The Trust has the balance about right but Iknow some funders can be intrusive and require overlydetailed and frequent reporting.

We all celebrate when a funding application is successfulbecause its very affirming and reassuring to receive largegrants. It does give confidence to us internally within theteam and externally to other grantmakers who might bemore likely to consider supporting us if we have backingfrom other serious funders.

We have a staff of 220, of whom about 40 are hard-coreresearchers and the remainder are largely local staff nurses, cleaners, gardeners and so on. For them, the awardof a new grant is also about securing their future livelihood.Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world with veryhigh unemployment. Large numbers of people are relianton the few relatives and neighbours who are in employment,so being able to provide decent, well-paid jobs is also animportant contribution we make to the local economy.

MLW and the Wellcome Trust share a commitment toimproving the health of Malawians and in doing so providea medical research hub to lead the way in the fight againstthe devastating diseases of poverty.

Niklas Zennstrm is a Swedish entrepreneur, investor andphilanthropist. He has founded several high-profile onlineventures including Skype and Kazaa. He has recentlyfounded the investment group Atomico, which primarilyinvests in fast growing technology companies with theability to transform their industries.

We started out by giving largely to charities where weknew the founder and quickly realised that we needed toset up some strategic objectives and focus on some greatcauses. We started the Zennstrm Philanthropies in 2007and are seeking to do something a bit different to othergrantmakers. We have two areas of work that we focus on.Human rights, which my wife Catherine spearheads, andclimate change which I lead on.

I think that traditional foundations can become veryconservative over time as decision-making moves awayfrom the founders. It seems to me there is a tendency forthem to become risk averse, so they fund proven projectsor organisations that may do good work but may not havethe capacity to become real game changers.

My philanthropic approach is related to my background as anentrepreneur who has focused on challenging the status quo.We realised we could be much bolder in the climate changeand social enterprise space if we donated our money to earlystage organisations and initiatives. Our idea is that we can helpdevelop them by providing not only financial resources but alsostrategic advice and contacts to take them to the next stage whenthey will be able to tap into funding from the traditional foundations.

Due to the size of the organisations we generally fund, ourindividual grants are usually in the tens or hundreds ofthousands of pounds, and we very rarely give 1 million ormore in one go. We often make multi-year, core-fundinggrants to provide financial stability to growing initiatives andlook to build a real partnership with each grantee.

To take climate change for example, we examined the globalagenda and worked out what role there is for philanthropy,and then within that we looked at where we could make abigger impact. We sought out the key levers in this spaceover the next two or three years, then looked to fundorganisations that, for each pound we provide, can havehundreds or even thousands of pounds worth of impact.For example, we believe that green investments can be good

investments, and that we need a market space that providesa level playing field for low carbon technologies. By workingwith non governmental organisations that make the businesscase for companies to invest in climate change technologies,help educate institutional investors on the opportunitiesaround green infrastructure investments or work to eliminatefinancial incentives for high carbon investments, we can influencebillions if not trillions of pounds. These are the types ofleverage points we seek out at Zennstrm Philanthropies.

We have 10 to 15 active grantees and we think that is themost we should have, as it is not possible to have goodrelations with too many organisations. Our programmeofficer meets with recipients often and spends time in theiroffices. The relationships we have with recipients are notabout keeping an eye on them, but about helping them scaleup. We believe in taking a collaborative approach, buildinglong-term relationships and forming strategic partnerships.We look for organisations with strong leadership. We alsobelieve that the worst thing you can do is to give a bigcheque with no accountability. Its very difficult for non-profits to measure their success or indeed be open withtheir setbacks. Because of our long-term relationships withour grantees, theyre able to be honest with us and in doingso hopefully we both learn how to do our work better.

We find that non-profit organisations dont always instinctivelylook at the others operating in their field. Because wereinvolved in funding a diverse group of organisations workingin each area, we can help them to know what othersoccupying the same space as them are doing and how theycan work collaboratively instead of competitively.

We feel good about investing our money in philanthropiccauses because its the right thing to do, but its not until thefunding has achieved impact that it feels really good. At theend of the day youre giving away your own money thatyou could spend on other things. But if you have some kindof success its a great feeling, its very pleasing to see.

This is a learning process and people starting out shouldexpect to make a lot of mistakes in the beginning. It is verydifficult to give money away well but you have to get onand do it yourself, because you cant hope that someoneelse can do it for you. But it is worth it, it is so rewarding tobe engaged with these organisations and to be making adifference to one or two causes that you care about.




Case StudyRoyal National Lifeboat InstitutionMillion Pound Recipient

continually tell us how rewarding it has been to give to theRNLI. In addition, the recognition this brings for them andtheir family creates memories that last forever and arelationship with the RNLI that can last a lifetime.

Some donors want to fund a lifeboat and have it namedafter themselves, but usually our boats are funded andnamed in memory of loved ones. Relatives like to imaginethat their loved one lives on saving lives at sea, which is whynaming a lifeboat is so popular. We arrange formal RNLINaming Ceremonies for every new lifeboat going onstation, at which the donor has the opportunity to make aspeech and formally hand the lifeboat over to the care ofthe Institution. These important and very special occasionscan help the family involved cope with their grief. We keepthe donors updated with reports about the rescues theirlifeboat has been involved in and the family can thencontinue to visit their boat and the crew at the lifeboatstation. Our donors often remain an integral part of theRNLI family.

Although our lifeboats are at the very heart of the RNLI,they make up only a small part of our expenditure. We havemany other vital RNLI shoreworks projects and pieces ofequipment we can offer to donors as funding opportunities,including hovercraft, lifeguard equipment and tractors.

We often present significant opportunities for 1 million+donations in tranches because there are mutually beneficial

aspects to this kind of multi-year gift plan. Making largedonations over a number of years suits the donor, becausethey can be more tax-efficient, interest rates can boost thevalue of the gift and it means were not asking for large giftsevery single year which is important. They enable us tobudget better with regards to our income; they also showthat were organised, financially aware and emphasise howour fundraising is firmly based on a five-year plan.

Fundraising has become more difficult over the past twoyears. Previously we would often receive a positiveresponse to approximately 40% of our applications forfunding, but now we tend to receive only a 20% positiveresponse rate. Additionally, we have found that high networth individuals take more time in making their decisions.There is often a long build-up to a big donation. Wenormally expect it to take a year or two years, but it is nowtaking much longer even for existing donors who havequickly agreed a gift in the past. Multi-year funding optionscan give people confidence, because were not asking for 1 million in one financial year. It is a slower burn, which ismore suitable for some.

Contrary to public perception, we rarely receive millionpound donations. When we do, they have a hugely positiveimpact on our charity and they boost morale all around theorganisation. For me, its a privilege to see a donor and theirfamily enjoy the marvellous experience of making a gift intheir lifetime to help save lives at sea.

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) is thecharity that saves lives at sea. It provides a 24-hourlifeboat search and rescue service, which operates aroundthe coasts of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the ChannelIslands and the Isle of Man, as well as on selected inlandwaterways. RNLI lifeboat crews save on average 22people every day. The RNLI also provides a seasonallifeguard service on many of the busiest beaches i

Documents

Coutts Million Pound Donor Report 2010