 To get to know us and actually to get to know you all as well We're going to play med lives, which some of you might know growing up So let me start we're gonna do role system person. So as an example, I Am Carol Tan and my role is opinion Orchestrator I advocate for economic and social policy and financial policy and partnerships at Legacy Foundation the Rockefeller Foundation and we are well and personally I'm a woman in philanthropy from Asia I very recently came back to philanthropy after a Couple years in servicing government so that's a little bit of where I'm coming from and I would love to turn to Veronica on my left and she And you can see I will not talk too much about like our specific roles, etc You're gonna hear from each of us. So Veronica is at the BHP Foundation But I'd love for you to tell us role system person role system person so I eat sleep and breathe all things impact at a new Actor I would say a new philanthropy a corporate philanthropy tied to a very controversial donor probably the largest mining company in the world and Personally I Describe myself as having won the birth lottery having been born in the US during a time when It was okay, and you became legally able to be there But my family is from Some of the not-so-pretty parts of Latin America So I have always felt passionate and motivated about Leveraging that luck that opportunity that I've had to try to make the world a better place How is that that's perfect, okay Role systems person good morning everybody Let me try that again. Good morning everyone That's what I make sure we're not here alone So roles I am a chief beggar My back for money. I also give money, but at this moment I still back for a lot of money for the last 20 years I'm also a chief guide in my office I've got a team of a relatively young staff So half the time is trying to tell them, you know You write your emails this way and you don't write your emails like text messages So that's my role. I work in a organization for the majority trust. I'm from Singapore I just got over my jet like this morning, and I'm leaving tomorrow back to Singapore. So that's like I'm trying to get around it We are philanthropic organization. So in systems wise, I work with two groups of people I work with donors and I aggregate their funds and I work with grantee partners and I do grant making So that's the interchange and that's the intersection I play with on the person side I'm a father of two girls 16 and 14 and a husband or one wife. Try not to mistake that and I am a social entrepreneur over the last 20 years. I've always been in nonprofit I've built a foundation called a halogen foundation that was with young people and then I went to academia to Work in a university to lead an institute for society leadership and now for the last five years. I run the majority trust Thank you. So We're gonna ask you all to do the same You know turn to the person next to you. Let's do role system person and Let's go So I hope you met someone really interesting and can I please Hey guys Good morning It's great that you're having wonderful conversations You should absolutely continue and there will be opportunity as we go through the next hour or so If you were sitting on this side and you want to move in closer I encourage you to because we will be doing a lot of discussion So please move in feel free to but I am gonna jump in because from I think one of the things that we're talking about here is you know clearly philanthropy based on the title of the Panel and from a poll you can see some of the words that are on the screen If we flip to the screen, okay, I'll tell you what some of those words are that we tend to hear about philanthropy You see some of them, you know influential powerful America Rich of course, it's not quite grammatical because we crowdsource this outdated top-down But also, you know humanitarian supportive crucial and I think we see the two sides of Philanthropy here sort of two truths that we need to hold Intention and understand that both of them right now in our imperfect wall Just they they exist the way that it is and so The first is that philanthropy is really necessary and there has been a lot of good that has come from it at the same time Recognizing that philanthropy has not been at all perfect and perhaps should like it may not structurally Be ideal that it exists at all, right? And yet and despite all its flaws, it's here We are still in this world like today and that's why we want to talk a little bit about the practices for what do we do? right now some of the things that we're seeing from our experience and how to move forward and That's why we want to have this conversation with you Just to hear what you wear your heads at how do we keep moving and certainly there has been progress over the last 100 years because those of you who are familiar with philanthropy probably know of Carnegie's gospel of wealth, which no need to read the whole thing the key part is where it's underlying which basically Talked a little bit about how you know, like the philanthropist the person of wealth in his judgment Should do the best thing for his community because he has superior wisdom because they and he can do better for Better than they can do for themselves, which is all the things that clearly a lot of people Are critiquing nowadays and yet 100 years later. We are In a place where we are talking about the problems with winners take all the fact that we can have a chorus of people talking about decolonizing wealth and That's that's the hope that I I hope that we can bring to this conversation today, right? It's the idea that there has been progress We can make progress and the reason this is the session is called humankind is because We have good like human nature has good in it and we can be better. So let's do that and so I will say one thing In case you know people need to hop in and out and stuff if you take nothing else away from any of our conversation I think this will flow through from what we're talking about today How we give matters how we donate how we invest whatever type of capital you do or you have How you move with it? How we do it matters not just what we give to or how much we get So just if nothing else that is all I ask you to sort of take away from this conversation So I Would remind us that we're talking about practice today So let's talk about the positive examples the ways that we can actually do this better In order to move forward and therefore I want to turn to my old friend Martin and my new That's totally wrong my old friend Veronica and my new friend Martin and ask them from their experience to share a little bit Their vision for what better angels driven philanthropy looks like and if there's any questions about like what better angels and worse angels are You know the the Image we have of one angel on this side and the other angels decide so pick the right angel. That's all I'm saying and so yes, please share with us what What a new vision for better angels driven philanthropy could look like and what is the appropriate role of funder in that in that world and Martin if I could ask you to start and share from your experience We were doing Caesar's paper stonest to see who's going on next I actually love the idea of this concept of better angels in philanthropy because it does Contrast that they are actually You know worse angels in philanthropy We've seen how philanthropy does a lot of good for society, but at the same time we also see the collateral damage Sometimes if we don't think through the entire supply chain or where the money goes how the money helps and how the grants help towards an extent So when I think about better angels or our role and an appropriate role as a funder I tend to think about what are some of the superpowers that we as funders have as I was sharing with you I come from two sides of the coin over the last two decades. I've always been a nonprofit a large part of my life I've been begging for money But now I'm also over the last five years have been able to get the money and become a grand maker And Veronica would say that you know as a grand maker. You are the smartest person in the room You are the cutest person in the room and you're the tallest person in the room And then I realized that hey as funders. We do have certain superpowers One of the superpowers this idea of convening You know when we call for meetings people come I've never had that before which is really rather nice And it's not just the grantee partners or the charities on the ground, but it's also stakeholders just last week We have a whole week focused on research and social impact measurement in Singapore We had Amri Aronson from Robin Hood Foundation in Singapore to conduct a series of events and we brought together all the research teams of the Singapore government together all the different ministries the different entities and They tell me it is the first time that all the researchers who are interested in social impact are coming together And then I realized wow as a fund that we do have a superpower In convening the second thing is this whole idea that we could actually nudge donors and philanthropies to think differently I think in Asia we have a lot to catch up on compared to what you guys are here But this whole idea of trust-based philanthropy is an important aspect of a baton-agel Conversation because we are not as big into unrestricted funds There's this power dynamic that grants makers tend to have over grantee partners that we tell you what to do and so on so For we're trying to shift that at the majority trust to say that hey we trust the experts on the ground How do we give them the resources they they need and let them do what they need to do because we are not the experts We I mean let's make change that our donors are the experts are making money So that's what their expertise are. But how do we take that and give it unrestricted? So those are the kind of conversations and To really get our donors and philanthropies to think differently and say there is a need for us to actually trust The group a lot more and then last but not least in our past the time is this whole idea of collaborative impact In Asia in Singapore in particular I operate largely within Singapore the social issues are getting far far more complex these days It used to be easier, you know when you want to deal with poverty you roughly know the key things that you need to address But now it's getting far more complex with multi-generation poverty where multi-generational issues when you solve one it creates another problem What that means is that there's no longer one-size-fits-all solution and there's no longer a single actor solution Government alone cannot solve the problem private sector alone cannot solve the problem philanthropist alone cannot solve the problem How do we using the convening power to actually create collaborative impact? How can we work with each other? How can we throw our ego aside and say you know what? Let's see what we can put on the table instead of what we can take from the table What we can put together in the conversation and say you know what if this is going to solve this This is going to be my part I play so collaborative impact the whole idea of really nurturing trans-based philanthropy within our shores and this whole idea of being able to convene some of the things that we can do Thank you, and one of the things that we have discussed as well market is I And I would love for you to share a little bit with with all friends here is the idea of fun utilization And and you know can you just tell us a little bit about the concept and what what does that mean? How do you do it? So this whole idea has been on my mind for a while How do we make philanthropic capital efficient? I think that's the question I keep asking myself I'm not against endowment. So many folks here have you endowment and endowments allows perpetuity, right? It allows a long-term thinking But what happens is that when funds are raised and being set in the bank and you only take a portion out each time You're actually removing philanthropy capital from the market when so there's a phrase we say you know We're gonna keep for rainy days. I learned a saying recently that you know It doesn't matter if it's keeping for rainy day where it's pouring outside and some of the situation we're facing now They are pouring outside. We need more resources today So two numbers that we look at the majority trust is something called commitment rate and utilization rate for every fund raise That we for every fund we raise within 12 months. We want to achieve a hundred percent commitment rate That's our commitment to our donors within 12 months. The fund will be allocated out Within 24 months, we will try to achieve 95 percent utilization rates and we will hold our grantee partners accountable It means that when you submit a grant to us, we approve the grant within 24 months You must put into action. You must utilize the money Now it will never get a hundred percent because things changes currency fluctuation the pound drop whatever that might be You'll never achieve a hundred percent utilization because there's changes to programs But we try to achieve 95% but the key thing is how do we achieve a hundred percent commitment? It means that the team that actually scopes out the fund will only raise what we need for that year So sometimes in an emergency like COVID for example, there are people who actually raise millions and millions of dollars I have a university in Singapore. I won't mention name. Well, you guys won't know it anyway They raise during COVID seven million dollars and they put in their annual report and In 2020 after raising they only utilize six hundred thousand So what they have done in the name of prudence? They have actually removed six million dollars of political of philanthropic capital from the market is an Efficient use of the market. So what we're trying to do is to scope out a way of looking at philanthropic capital from an efficiency lens And so we will only raise what we need and we impose that on ourselves and we tell our donors this particular fund We've achieved a hundred percent this fund. We've achieved 95 percent Sometimes because the donors sit on our grand panel. I have one fund that the grand panel said, you know what will commit a hundred and twenty percent I say hey, you know, you say it's easy for you to say I got to raise the money But because the donors on my grand panel the donors say, you know what if you cannot raise the additional 20 percent our underwriter That's because the grant Proposals are so good that they don't want anyone's to go to waste. So they are prepared to backstop it So those are the ways that we're trying to think how can we create a system where donors have a part to play in it? And the grantee partners have a part to shape it but in a way that makes philanthropic capital efficient Wonderful. Thank you and Veronica. You've seen many faces of philanthropy You know, you've been you've had a career over the last I don't even want to tell everyone how long because it's you know, she looks And I would love to hear what you think what does the vision of better angels driven blend of people like where it's on the practices that you've seen Or you've experienced that could really get us in that direction. Sure. Thanks, and so I'll just share that I've spent probably maybe the last 15 years in Philanthropy and if you were to have asked me many years ago, you know what I was gonna do when I was going to grow up It was not going to be working in the phone for a big sector And so I've worked for one of the oldest philanthropies along with Carol One of the largest philanthropies in terms of the Mastercard Foundation and now I'm working with one of the newest polyanthropies And I would say from a superpower perspective just to build on Martin's point Well, I think convening is definitely something that's important to Philanthropies often seen as a neutral actor, although in sharing that in my graduate school class at Columbia My students were like, but they're really not neutral and it's true They're not neutral, but there's this perception that neutrality allows you to bring diverse and different perspectives together to solve problems I would say another superpower is the ability to amplify Does anyone know just generally speaking and not including the capital markets But generally speaking when you look at all the dollars that are going to doing good, you know We typically talk about government dollars. Does anyone have a sense of how big or small philanthropy is within that global market? What is the percent like is it like 50 percent 75 percent 25 percent of The government 2 percent. All right So when you look at the all of the dollars that are going into doing good and not looking at the capital markets private sector Just looking at the great government dollars when you take into account philanthropic capital, it's not too far from 2% It's actually 7% all the philanthropy philanthropic capital the Rockefeller the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation The welcome trust in the European market only makes up 7% of that Which means that we're continuously talking about optimization How do we use that 7% as risk capital as convening at to amplify? Learning that perhaps neither government sector nor private sector can take and so for me It's limited resources while it feels like we are working within a sea of free Resourcing we're not we're limited and we're a small fish in a very big pond And so we have to continuously be challenging ourselves to optimize And we do that through things like proving and demonstrating the potential effectiveness or efficiency of an idea and hoping that we are able to use our Brands to amplify our learning and so lots of examples around that in the mining industry for example the BHP is a is fairly large they they are they in 2017 announced a social value strategy and Part of that strategy is about being more transparent about the communities in which mining companies work within Which is primarily indigenous communities and part of the challenge of being Wanting to do the right thing within a competitive market is that if you go out and are first out the gate and are Transparent even if you're being the most responsible actor in the system It's going to work against you and the reason it'll work against you is because number one No one else is being transparent so the criticism will just come to you You are basically the baseline and number two there's a lot of impact washing happening And so the BHP launched something called the BHP Foundation an independent philanthropy Based in the US of which I am now chief impact and evaluation officer at in order to Try to change the system with some of their profit And so as an independent philanthropy we work on global transparency and open contracting and we make the case to actually the regulators to require mining companies and other Companies to be more transparent with their data because if everybody if we even out the playing field then Actors will have the opportunity to do the right thing and compete at an equal basis And so we're taking something we're proving something and we're amplifying it For the betterment of the world and so that's how we see the superpower of Philanthropy playing out. I would say though so here's the point around What Martin said, you know when I first joined back in the day when I first joined the Rockefeller Foundation And I remember very smart women who hired me said you have welcome to the Rockefeller Foundation You have just become funnier and taller and smarter and I was really confused I just didn't know what working in philanthropy was really about and in fact You know, I just I spent then the next 15 years in and out of all of these various roles with people really thinking that everything I said was fantastic and I realized that I have to you know, I and we in the philanthropic community Really begin to believe that our philanthropic space is based on a lot of ego And a lot of people that do not have lived experience making decisions about people community And so there's an inherent contradiction in our work And so I think a better philanthropy would be to number one acknowledge that contradiction Acknowledge that the default context is that a bunch of very arrogant. We saw it in the world world cloud arrogance very privileged very white Very elite communities making choices about bettering the day-to-day of people that they've never ever Connected with and engaged with and I think better philanthropic practice would number one acknowledge that and number two begin to Respond to the how the how in terms of how are you operationalizing? How are you hiring? How are how are you valuing evidence in an in my other role? I'm also the president of the American Evaluation Association, and I think about evidence an awful lot And evidence looks many different ways, you know in philanthropy we have the flexibility to redefine what evidence is for decision-making and so we have the opportunity to test things like and engage with things like feedback and listening for example via 60 decibels or just trying to bypass all of the middle people and get to actual community and Co-create and value that information as part of our decision-making cycle And so I'm happy to talk more about that, but that's really you know big picture if we were to do one thing different I would say that that would be that thing. Yeah Yeah, well, I'm sure there's a lot of food for thought and I just want to quickly add Two points and then what we want to hear you know you all to have the ability to chat through some of these as well I reflect on them Well, I think first and just to also amplify the point that we the collaboration is really important the convening is really important and and But when we start I mean at the already like we hear those of you here who are like us and sitting for more in the The the funding side of things our role is first and foremost to fund and I think let's not forget that We I you know I want to we should talk about how we find it all that but let's fun Let's give more if we can out of and as generously as possible out of a mindset of abundance versus out of a mindset of scarcity because we have a lot more than The vast majority of people and it might not be our own but we are Stewards in some ways of it and let's do the best that we can with it. I think that's just an important point to underscore We we have resources. Let's do what we can and then I think the second is Let's give more than funding which I think is a lot of the points that we're talking about with respect to convening I think we understand that too for for better or for worse We have some influence in in our respective spheres, whatever that sphere is and so, you know, like last week the Rockefeller Foundation convene a group of global south and global north ministers from around the world as well as civil society organizations think tanks academics to talk about And this was on the sidelines of the World Bank and no meetings in DC because everyone was in town for it and RF has So has that kind has the convening power because of the hundred years of work that Existence, maybe it's not always work that we've had and that that is just to create a space for that kind of Conversations to be had and let other people have the conversations that necessary to share inform educate and use whatever Light influence that we might have to bring people together And I just want to mention that because I know a lot of people talk about convening power We're sort of aware of it I think we can do a lot more with it and think about influence using our influence But also in some ways allowing other people to use our influence and that's not easy On a day-to-day basis, you know, we all feel like we have constraints But I think the important thing is for us to just try so anyway in summary for this part I heard Trust like trust the practitioners. There's something around trusting your stuff as well Trusting the community to know what what's best for them and there's a lot around acknowledgement and transparency that we can do better at and Give give as much as we can give more than money. So At this time and this is a little bit of experiment. So let's see if this works. I Would love for you all to discuss this some of the same things as well and if sorry Figuring out slides big. Ah, okay. We're gonna try Google Jamboard If you have your phone you have your laptop you can You know either use a QR code or use type in the URL and it should take you through this Jamboards slide and You can directly put in your thoughts use the stickies the sticky notes That we usually have in real life, but now we can kind of share this share in this virtual space all together everyone gets a say and Put your thoughts there and the question is I know while you're off it Figuring this out and I will say it again But the question is how would you recommend that funders Collaborate trust build capacity be more open etc While understanding that we're dealing with the reality that there is there's some need to claim credit along the way And again, I want to put it out there that we do not live in a perfect wall So let's try to work with the reality that we have how do we do that? How do we get all these good practices and play and understand that people are coming to the table with some ego in Hand all of us have some of that our institutions have that. So how do we do that? Any anyone successfully got to the Jamboard? Not yet. Okay, if we can't get there in two minutes You're welcome to raise your hand and I think we have mics that will go around Okay, sorry. Oh, it's sort. Oh It's not working. All right. Well, okay spinning wheel of death the wheel of death Well technology you always hope it works. Yeah. Oh that might be part of Okay, well, if you have the Jamboard app, go ahead and use it if you do not then Regardless, it's okay. I believe we have mics that we can use. Is that right? I I can be a mic run My very kind husband with our baby is is gonna try So but I also, you know, maybe if you want to speak oh great you have a mic Beautiful baby Yeah, I'm Doug Beal with Boston Consulting Group. So thank you for all your interesting insights Carol question for you. You said something about we need to claim credit now I would see why Somebody at BHP would want to claim some credit. That's part of your corporate You know, but why would some why would Rockefeller necessarily have to have to claim credit? Does it differ between the two? Sure. I'll I'll give a real I'll answer you really quickly just to get us going But I also I would love to hear your thoughts As well. So I think the first thing is that for Right, right here only I think we think of brand and convening power as Asset it needs to be built and if you can use it and you need you need to build it And you need to maintain it and and so there is some aspect of life Eventually if we use and use and use we might not have that much So we need to go to say like hey, this is some of the impact that we're creating and this is some of the difference that we're making in the wall In order that we can continue to be effective and have that influence over time Like I said, right here wrongly, but that's just the way it sort of is today Thoughts questions Suggestions Yes, please in the back Thanks, I think you have part of the answer already yourselves, right, which is You're not taller. You're not smarter. You're not more good-looking, right? But the reality is that people act like you are so how do you hold those two contradictions and work through it? It's kind of the same way that you know when you have say people want credit and ego. It's the same thing It's it's a Imperfect world that you're living in but you're also trying to acknowledge that and make it a little less at the same time Right, so that that's I don't know how you do it by the way I actually don't know how you so I'd actually love to hear your answer of how do you deal every day with? 50 people think you're taller smarter good-looking and at some level some of that probably seeps in and You probably aren't aware of how much seeps in even though you're aware of some of its seeping in red So I'm actually just curious about that too, and I think it's the answer to something similar, but I don't know Thank you. I Respond so, you know in a different talk not this one. I often talk about confirmation bias And that Adam Graham talks about this an awful lot and Grant's a great organizational psychologist You should all read him. He has a great book called originals And essentially when you look at all the various decisions that have many just big decisions that have been made in the world Oftentimes a group of people can't help but get into their group think and so in the philanthropic space we often talk about drinking our own Kool-Aid and And and so as the person that is continuously fighting that in the evidence base You know, I think two things the first is That we do not have there's nothing that really holds us to account We get to spend money and the only two requirements that we have in the philanthropic space is number one to Ensure that we are spending about five percent of our corpus for every two years and number two That we are not self-dealing and essentially making grants that are going to benefit ourselves and so one of the greatest assets, I think that we have is the ability to Put it put a put a say draw a sand in the ground. Oh, sorry draw a line in the sand and actually just Constrain ourselves discipline ourselves and I often yesterday. I was in another event at Salesforce and I talked a little bit about how private sector has Different types of structures checks and balances to make sure that they are they get an objective opinion In the philanthropic space some of us have the ability to commission evaluations And it basically get a third-party objective perspective on whether or not what we are hearing and what everyone is telling us is actually real and that and I think in the impact investing space the Way that that's churning out because you've got grant-making and you've got impact investing all wrapped up in philanthropy We're beginning to dabble with the processes around impact verification and assurance because we do need a Mirror to be held up to us because otherwise we will cognitively Move down a place where we could be creating lots of harms in the world because no one is willing to really shelf To check us in we essentially continue down that path and you can actually see that in many of the decisions where The world has signaled that things were good. I'll talk about the Rockefeller Foundation because I can The Green Revolution in Asia. It was fabulously successful We got the Rockefeller Foundation got a world food prize for it a peace prize for it and essentially things were good and Then you take you take a look like 20 years down the line and many of the safety health and Environmental challenges that we're experiencing is because we didn't check ourselves then we solved the immediate But we didn't plan for the long term and that's just a really good example Of how this work is so complicated and how you do need those checks and balances well in philanthropic capital It's often seen as risk capital and flexible and no one is going to hold you to account Therefore, it's a choice. So we need to be making better choices Which is actually well Martin. Do you have something bad? Oh, no I was just about to say that you know every morning my wife would bring me down to earth very quick So it helps that way On an operational side, we do try to structure that away as well so like for us I Actually, I raise all the money. I don't control the money my board doesn't control the money We delegate down to grant panel. So I run nine funds currently I have a youth mental health fund a dementia fund every fund has a grant panel and the grant panel is chaired by one of my Board one of my board member one of my donors and one subject matter expert who knows the ground within Singapore in their particular space The team in working in all these grants meetings with with the partners then put forward and Recommendation to the grant panel and the grant panel has the mandate from the board to make the final decision We've regards to that money So what we what we effectively doing is to structure out this whole dynamic that even my grand folks Who was working with the majority trust when they go and meet people they realized they don't have the power at the grant panel finally has it So when people come up to me and say, oh, you know, you are looking very good today I say, you know what I don't control money and then very very shortly the the time cut the card from one hour to ten minutes So it's life. So what we're trying to do is to structure that in in a Structural way so that power is not Residing in a small group of people but it's spread across and that allows us to actually do our work better They can tell us a lot more information one of our key Metrics of success internally is how honest our grantee partners are to us if they have failed or if they are slow Or if there's a delay, how quickly do they tell us? So we measure that because if we have a good relationship with them the faster they tell us the faster we can help them But if they only see us as a grant maker then there is this power relationship Then they don't want to tell us then we're failed at our job So what we're trying to do is to rethink what this grant making relationship is about and that would help What basically the question you were having that's great Okay, I know that there are a couple of questions I'm gonna take one and Because there will be more opportunity for for people to sort of chime in and I believe there was one on this side from earlier I just want to make sure we're including you all in the room and may I say you are welcome to come join us in the Center so I can definitely see you Yes, hi. Yes. Yeah sure on the The topic of credit. I was thinking in my opinion the most interesting and probably effective Philanthropist in recent history is Mackenzie Scott Who's given away something like ten billion in the last three years and she avoids all media attention? She doesn't do reporting. She writes a medium blog every once in a while and I I mean and to me it raises a broader question of If we think about the urgency of the crisis as we face now Why do we need to perpetuate? Indefinite future I mean why are more philanthropy is looking at a spend-down strategy to get the money out now and again If we're winding down or spending down We don't we don't need the credit. We don't need the publicity. So Maybe I don't know if that's a question or a provocation, but that's what's on my mind Thank you. I mean and you know like you said, we're seeing more of it nowadays, right? I think we are moving in slowly the direction. I think it's gonna take I don't know. We'll ever truly get there, but I think that is that is an excellent point that you know We should all bear in mind for potential going forward. Okay. I I want to make sure that we are able to get to all the interesting topics that we do want to cover and Veronica did bring up an excellent point about how do we make good decisions how as funders and I think there's already Elements of what some people are saying, right? Like, you know, we don't want to live in the echo chamber. We should hear different voices all that But I put the question to you both To start us off and then we want to hear same thing from all of you as well How do we make good decisions in philanthropy in social investment in whatever again? Whatever kind of capital that you're allocating if you're on the side of things Who wants to go first? Yeah, well Barton looks ready. So let's do that One of the one of the ways we look at Philanthropic decision whether we start a fund or not or whether we enter a particular area or not is Trying to be as best as possible be research informed So one of my first hires at the majority trust is an economist Because I wanted to know from a cost-benefit perspective How do I make sense of social needs? Because I'm very mindful I have to work with donors and I need to give them data and information on a particular area And what was social impact look like? So research became a big part but research through the lens of economics it research through the lens of not just Social science but rather saying hey this particular need is going to create X amount of problem And I give you an example. We're dealing with dementia in Singapore now Singapore is a small country For those of you who have been we are 5.8 million people. We're about 80,000 people are persons with dementia That's about 80,000 by 2030 is going to be a hundred and twenty thousand On a per year basis it cost us about seventy four thousand dollars in both direct and opportunity costs Largely because when you have a parent who's suffering from dementia one family member typically get out of the workforce to take care In the Asian culture feel a party is such a big part we stick very close to each other So one family member typically leave so it costs about seventy four thousand so in ten years time We're dealing with a billion dollar problem Now that's my way of having the ability to take these numbers go to my donors and say hey We think this is an issue. We should really invest in this issue and philanthropically give to the issue So data is an important aspect when we work with our grantee partners We don't give them just the money we ask them for information So we ask them for metrics that we can measure with that metric We then have the ability to analyze the data package the data generate insights and then we go back to our donors again And say you know what the money that you have given for this particular fund has paid out four dollar to a dollar in terms of Social impact because of what these charities have done and in hope then they will say you know what I'll give you more Resources for the next grand call and so on so research is that really important aspect The only caution I'll put in and it's something we're trying very hard to build is that research shouldn't just be academic because If we work close enough with our grantee partners on the ground a large part of research can be informed by the ground Because they know far better than we do in our 35,000 square feet view of small square feet, but Macro view they know what's happening So using the dementia as example One of the biggest pivots that we did last year of the what we call silver is gold fund Which is dementia fund is that we moved the funding criteria more than just benefiting from persons with dementia But to caregivers of person with dementia We now have learned that the challenge isn't the person with dementia But the caregivers was actually providing the care They are the one that's suffering from mental anguish. They are the one that's suffering from fatigue They're the one that's actually facing a lot of challenges in terms of you know social mobility and so on and so forth So we have pivoted the fund not because an academic research tell us But because our grantee partners have feedback through the data they have collected and say you know what if you don't start addressing This we are going to see a far bigger problem Those with dementia has a medical help and the medical system will provide help But no one is helping the caregivers. So how do we do respite care? So we funded a arts gallery Who created a whole program in the gallery to bring persons with dementia So they will have guides that bring them and see all paintings and help them recollect Singapore of old and so on but the caregivers during that time get respite care They get another program of their own they get Support and so on and so on so we're looking for innovative interesting ideas like that So research becomes a big part How do we make decisions is to look at what data tells to look at what the research tells us and more importantly what the grantee partners are Really letting us know Allowing research brings us away from what we call network philanthropy to inform philanthropy I'm not sure about in the US. I suspect a bit about the same a lot of philanthropy goes to people whom you know So if you have a really really Wealthy chairman who has very wealthy network your charity typically get more funds than a smaller charity who's doing very effective work But don't have that kind of board members So how do we then? Change that game where we move from network philanthropy to informed philanthropy where donors are asking the right questions So it's beyond you know, I know you're my mates, but your numbers are not actually hitting what they say they would Why would I give you the million dollars when that million dollars? I can actually give to this smaller charities doing the same work and they're paying $4 to a dollar to a certain extent now It's gonna take a while I don't think we'll ever go away with network philanthropy because that's where how relationship goes But if we can at least start asking getting donors to ask the right questions to really get data to really get analytics Involved to really say hey is this efficient is this effective then I think we can start moving into a very different direction Yeah Brown up Intel is absolutely crucial. I asked like just a critical takeaway that I I feel like I'm also getting in Veronica what about you? So that's such a controversial question to ask an evaluator. Yes, I'll just say I'm on tender Yes, so, you know, it's interesting because in probably the 20 years that I've actually been in the research space I've seen very few decisions be made based on data and the evidence base I will I've almost almost I've tested that out, you know, I've said, okay Let's spend a lot of time collecting the perfect data in the way that we wanted to do. I'm checking off all of the boxes and And here was the data and here was the decision and it was not correlated so This idea that we make database decisions in philanthropy specifically But also in other parts of the world or in other parts of the ecosystem. I think is an artificial false belief however Data can help you make some decisions. It just might not help you make the right decisions So but three things that I have taken away from how we could be thinking about it differently number one is Putting the money out the door and then asking the question around what impact is that making and I see this a lot in the impact investing space Is it going to help you answer the question? Because at that point it's too late. The money has gone out the door. What is the decision you need to make? Get the data and know whether or not it has worked or not worked in order to do what and so I really appreciate that thing Efforts like the impact management platform have done things like really started to bring in an impact lens To your due diligence processes Because what is the decision you need to make you need to know whether or not you are going to invest or fund in a particular Intervention that's a decision so being intentional about your decisions is part of the puzzle as Martin You were also speaking on speaking to number two so other ways that I've seen this play out is the money goes out the door and You're done the money. You've made the investment. You've made the grant and So the decision though is to me is that's where the work really starts You need Information coming through various different channels in order to know whether or not you are quote-unquote Adaptively managing which is the word of choice and then number three because we've talked about how We somewhat live in an echo chamber We need that that we need to hold up that mirror at the end of the day Did you do good? Did you do bad? Did you do more good than bad met more bad than good? You're not going to know that without actually commissioning without asking the question And so that to me makes impact measurement impact management all things impact not a technical skill set but a strategic one and I think that one of the One of the learnings that I have observed from the private sector now that I'm working pretty closely with them is That they wouldn't hire You know a non expert to manage their financial system or their risk system So why is it that all of a sudden people walk in and they've seen this happen time and time again in the philanthropic space? You walk in you wake up one day you go to work and you have now you have no background in any of this work But now you have been deemed the impact measurement person and now it's your job to figure all these pieces out And so I think that More more in the philanthropic capital space and in the capital markets We just need to get smarter about hiring the right talent to do the right job because if we already know that this is going to be Very expensive. We already know that that we need impact data to make impactful Decisions and if we already know that the work is complex I'm hearing over and over again, then I don't know where to start It's so complex then hire someone that knows something about data and about impact specifically Lots of provocations here. I'm sure there are lots of responses I think one of the One of the things that was most stunning and still continues to be stunning to me today is the fact that Data doesn't necessarily translate to the right decisions lots of evidence doesn't necessarily lead to evidence-based decision-making And and you know, there's a whole thing about decision science and everything that like gets into why That would be the case but I think it's helpful for us to bear that in mind and to bear the human elements in mind of How decisions get made and then also I think some the point that Veronica was making is that Having the right processes at the right time Doing thinking about your impact before your money goes out the door is a way to help you like or help us Think about making the not just a smart decision, but the right decision for what is happening at that point in time and The the one thing I will also add to like these excellent points is that One of the like key things about decisions is timing we are in in the In the latest discourse on philanthropy It is really important that and we're hearing this that we need to slow down To let people in and be part of the process and I think that's absolutely critical and I don't want to I don't want to Under I think that's such an important point to emphasize and at the same time I also have seen and personally done this myself that when Sometimes we spend so long looking at data and finding the perfect strategy and that's the problem match and and all that and There needs to be something in between and I think there's part of slow down to let people in but once but We need to know when we have just enough to make a decision and to decide Decisively and then move quickly to get things out of the door the way we did in co like during COVID and You know for the most part most of the a lot of that work was very impactful so just want to leave that point and also You know open open it up again because I can see people are kind of like jumping out their seats a little bit To to get in and so you know, I I would love to hear your thoughts. I would also like to hear a little bit How you would suggest funders can internalize the feedback and to have more of these processes to help us think about Making the smart and right decision and timely decision and I love yeah for this lady in the front who's been very enthusiastic Hi, I'm Raheba. I'm part of common future. We power community solutions that advance racial and economic justice Before I answer your question Harold one of the things I want to reflect back is that statistic that you shared, right? So 490 billion dollars Transacted in the philanthropic sector in the United States One thing that gets overlooked quite often is who does it go to and most often it's Ed's and Mets, right? whereas Just in the United States the 1.8 million nonprofits that exist about a million of them are under a million dollars That tells you something You know, they're bootstrapped. They're under resourced under estimated overlooked and oftentimes these nonprofits are not going to make it Onto your docket because they don't have the systems the know-how's the time to fill the reporting Criteria's at the Rockefeller Foundation at BH BH and others, right? So my question is and I think I come future we think deeply about Not only just what we do But how we do the work and one of the things that we say is in order to change the how you need to change the who Right and the who are the most closest to the problem is the most Proximate to the problems have the solutions so a better decision for philanthropy because we are in the grant making an Investing space is that how do you involve the community and that decision-making power because ultimately all the things that we saw in that word cloud colonizers supremacist all of those things have to do with power right and decision-making at the root of it is power So how are you relinquishing power and giving decision-making authority? To grantees and investees and those closest to the problems because they're gonna be the best equipped To make those decisions great point. Thank you Yes, I am gonna need some help moderating so please Yeah, make space and maybe after this lovely lady. I also want to move around a little bit around the room Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you. My name is Rebecca waterhouse. I'm with the Raven indigenous impact foundation based in Canada We work to co-create community alternative financing solutions to help the climate issues namely an outcomes finance This was a wonderful question. Thank you. You probably posed it much more eloquently than I will But I'm building off of that. It's really kind of more of a direct question to your organizations regarding How are you working to address the accessibility gap? funders in Canada from our perspective as it relates to Impact measurement don't really fund it. They don't like to it's expensive as We know those that need the systems the piping the infrastructure to actually Step up to receive that next kind of follow-on tranche funding to get to the scale that they want to go to Can't get there And so impact measurement is really nice in theory I just want to hear from your perspectives as to how Perhaps you are Legislating with your grantees that you will pay for all of their impact measurement Just trying to get some ideas here. Thanks. Thank you I can say one quick thing, but actually really, you know Veronica is like the real expert here at least on the You know the history of the RF side of things. I I have just you know, maybe this is helpful to know I don't work on the program side of things right now I work on our policy and advocacy and communications pieces But when I did work on the program side We worked with our grantees to insert line items into the programs and their grants Specific to impact measurement now. That's not done systematically every time I think it is at least historically has been driven very much by Sort of individual programs individual program officers But I would say if you know if that is possible like have the conversation with the funder Or if you're a funder consider that if if possible But I want to turn to both of you. Maybe I'll take it from an organizational point of view just and to explain Do you think I can have this slide? Oh, yeah, the life cycle slide Maybe I'll use that and answer both questions at the same time Just the one before this one. Yeah, so if I can have to slide on This is our view of things we we'd look at organization In a in a life what was life cycle fun? There we go So there are two types of funds for us at the majority trust We have what we call the life cycle funds and then we have the cause-based funds So as I've shared I have the dementia fund the youth mental health fund and so on But when we look at organization, we look at zero to nine and and beyond At zero is the ground-up groups the non-registered charities One two three are your startup phase your four five six your growth and in each we have designed a specific fund with a specific outcome And I think to your question earlier about the one million smaller charities I a large part of my thinking is that Science and The largeness of the organization does not equate necessary impacts Not all organizations have to grow big The same thing when we work with our ground-up groups We tell them that some things are better to be as a movement than not an organization You achieve far better outcomes as a movement than an organization Organization find it hard to grow movements, but grassroots non-registered ground-up have that ability to scale In a way that brings forth your outcomes far better than an organized charity camp So we talk down talk down to people we talk now some of our grantee partners to say You know what don't register there is no point for you because what you are doing you can grow organically as a volunteer based Organization you really don't need to incur the cost and so on so we continue to fund them under the SG strong fund as a ground-up group Then there are those that have the ability to scale All right, if given more resources they can register themselves get a lot more funding and then we can actually help them Grow towards an extent. That's where our incubator fund a new horizon fund helps them towards an extent So I respond a quick response to your question. I don't think sizes that matter It is perfectly okay to have a million smaller Charities so as long as they are funded sufficiently to do what they are doing now There are those that needs to grow and scale because what they do can be multiplied across Nationally, how do we therefore identify them what we're trying to do very What I very hard to do is to become like a white combinator of the philanthropy space in Singapore Right white combinator works great because they get some of the coolest startups So the funders the VCs like white combinator because they see things that the otherwise won't see outside But the smaller ones also want to become a white combinator Fellow because they have access to VCs. They are looking for interesting things So we want majority trust to grow to be a first port of call for smaller charity startups because we have funders Who have the ability and for our funders They want to come to majority trust because oh they see things that the otherwise don't see to a certain extent So where does impact measurement come in and to your question is that we then do the impact measurement on our end Because we have to report to our funders and I do it on an individual grantee level That report is made available to our grantee partners So they then take our report and say hey a third party that Evaluator have said this is our performance of their fund They now take this to go to other funders right so it's the same amount of money I've raised and I do the same work that I do because I need to compile and organize at a fund level report and an Organizational level report. I make that available for the grantee partners Therefore indirectly I'm funding the social impact measurements But all I need them to help me with is to do the data collection which is part of our grant making process so I'm trying to Do that at an aggregated level if that makes sense Because we have the expertise to be able to do that and then we make that available to the grantee partner so that they can use it So just an example of how we do that here in Singapore So so many things so many places and so many points where I can start and I think you know Just keep building from the bottom out. I think The way that we've approached knowing something and you know that the very simplest and basic level at the BHP Foundation is Structured around the minimum requirements. What is the minimum amount of things whether they be data whether they be Something else that we need to know in order to make a decision and To Martin's point taking on that burden within our system And I think that if we were all to take that approach then we would actually stop Overly Burdening the people that are actually busy doing the work from all the pieces of information that we need to go to our various To up our various different decision-making Channels and so our we have a policy that we've agreed with with our board To to do that at both the project at the project program and organizational level because we really see ourselves as actors within the ecosystem So just taking that minimum perspective However, what I wanted to say is Building on the earlier comment around trust-based philanthropy. So This is the new word. We've talked about McKinsey Scott And what does trust-based philanthropy really mean some in some places it's translated as core support operational support and other places is being translated as No reporting so it's like all this we trust and actually if you really think about it from a reasonable perspective If you put money into a problem, it doesn't mean that good things will happen How do you know that good things are happening and that you're minimizing the bad thing? So I think living in a world where no requirements is a real is not actually the responsible thing to do And we really need to be thinking about what is the responsible way we should be approaching philanthropy and so From my perspective and coming back to your point around the indigenous right behind you the indigenous communities piece The BHP Foundation, I find it a really interesting organization. We're only seven years old I often describe it as when I joined the Mastercard Foundation many years ago It was only seven years old So it's considered a startup philanthropy and the benefit of starting up in this page in this time Is that we don't need to be convinced that core support is important We don't need to be convinced that multi-year multi-million dollar funding is important and that we need to minimize those Requirements across all of our various actors We also don't need to be convinced that if that we need to segment our partners to some extent and that Core support to small entities that are working with indigenous communities Whether in Canada or Australia or in the US, which is something that we actually do Because 95% of all the mining sites are on indigenous land We don't need to be convinced that that we don't that we need to do all of those things I think the challenge is that we live in an ecosystem that is not efficient and That's and just because we don't ask that and require that of our partners or that we provide core support for data collection or that we provide core support for a capacity building and technical assistance is that They are not working within an optimal system and so the challenge we have is Observing the fact that we all talk about our spouse theory around philanthropy, but then when we start to action it and operationalize it It's often a contradiction. So we talk about how we Want to co-create with our partners? Which we do often listen to our partners and communities, but yet we do that after we've made all the decisions We talk about our grant making processes and we have these in certain Philanthropies we have these like large very complex systems That requires you to ask many many different questions and program officers themselves Push that burden on to their partners and they actually push it on and say that they justify it by saying their board wants this information Their senior management wants this information. However, if we at an in the very individual level saw ourselves as needing to be Responsible and the only thing you can actually control is your day to day decisions I think that we would be in a different place And I really think that the people that are most equipped to be in those positions are people that have Experienced poverty before and that have experienced Marginalization and challenges because once you can empathize with that your choices are going to be very different and you will be equipped to speak truth to power and that is Eventually what we have to get to because the people that control the actual endowments and the actual funds are amongst the most powerful people in the world And so really that is what I'm thinking about when I'm thinking about Really the the good angel and the bad angel. I'm always thinking about like, okay This is what I want to do because this is how I can get ahead in life This is how I can move money out the door This is how I can get the perfect quality data But I have to continuously be testing and challenging my own self to ask myself myself But is this really going to change anything and if it isn't then why am I doing this? So truth to power we all have agency in our respective areas And you know, I think half the conversation about what funding is really necessary I think thinking about being funded to do what you really need to be doing of Funding enough to enable our partners to be doing what we really want to be doing is so critical I am very aware that we're running short on time We have yes, I am getting signals everywhere of timing So I will say I think maybe we are gonna sort of wrap up and I want to sort of hear Your final thoughts as well and how we move forward And and you know, I I think we can stick around for a couple of minutes and chat if people want to after Depending on what's going on with the venue so just to summarize a couple of things that we've discussed today and I think to put it out there we Have the limit we are limited by our respective perspectives as well We understand I understand that I do not necessarily have any or all of the answers But just to share a little bit of the perspectives that we have and it is important for all of us to be a part of it and to keep raising all the important points that have been coming up today because the journey is only just begun and If you know, I mentioned how we give it's really important right at the very beginning And we've been discussing how to be humankind how to do philanthropy effectively And so I think one of the things I heard loud and clear was trust the practitioners trust the ground Trust the people who are closest to it who have lived experience the community and everything that they're telling us There's a lot about enabling the ecosystem Investing in impact measurement and there's a lot of new ones Of course there and how to invest and when is the right time to invest in impact in measurement? You know bring our other types of assets including funding but beyond funding to the table And how do we be responsible? Whatever that means in a lot of different our different contexts But we met a number of us are in positions where we can take decisions So let's make sure we are taking decisions instead of sitting on the assets for a long time Think about systemic issues think about our funding and how quickly they're moving the utilization point the commitment rates And feedback is so important and just to bring it back to the trust I think I just keep thinking about the word feedback because we should not and Probably not one to live in an echo chamber So bottom line is I think humility and responsibility probably go a big part I think in in the space for us and Well, I want to end with I hope a little bit more of a hopeful lens You know, we have discussed some of the challenges today. We have discussed on the ways forward what in Two sentences would you say would be your vision and your hope for the story that? Belendor be will be telling in five to ten years time that hopefully would give us a little bit more a little bit Different types of word clouds in the future maybe Yes And we will have a Can I do in three is that okay? Is that all right you you have very quickly go for it because I was asked to think about the future philanthropy and I can I wrap up around three piece that our and What are the biggest change for me or a development of philanthropy is the whole mindset that giving is a privilege It's not power I find that if we can adopt and the philanthropist can adopt that you know what it's such a privileged position to give And when we have that mindset the way we work with people will change Not everyone are in the position to give it's a real real privilege if I think about the future of philanthropy and if if Philanthropies and donors really see the wealth they have to give as a privilege I actually think that the dynamics of the way we work with each other will change So that's the first piece the second thing that I hope about the future of philanthropy is that of patients a Lot of social impact work takes time a Lot of money come from the capital markets We tend to think from a capitalist point of view that we want to see results in one two three years towards an extent some things just take time And if philanthropy can take a very long-term view and many funders are like that But not all funders there's new money and old money the new money in a tech space are very used to Seeing things immediately, but philanthropy doesn't work that way. So and then last but not least is the third P Which is people That a large part of philanthropy isn't just about the work but about the investment in the right people the right talents So that will be the last thing I would say that trust the people who have dedicated their lives to doing good Give them the resource invest in them then the magic will happen the money on its own Will not create any magic is the people that we invest that will create the magic So we have no time. So I'll just say, you know, well a building on Martin's point around being patient in patient capital I agree with that point, but I do want to then leave you with the sense of the failure to launch point point We do sit in privileged places. However, we are living in urgent times The clock is ticking our climate change challenges are ticking and so really Acknowledging that every day counts. So living with purpose is I think is a really critical However, I want to flip the what can we do better back to the audience and say You know, given that we do live in a world where philanthropy isn't really held to account I think that it's on all of us and all of you to hold us to account And I challenge you to hold us to account to the choices that we make and to the impacts that we say that we Are for Because if you're not going to hold us to account and I mean that within philanthropy I mean that with an impact investing. I mean that within the capital markets Then you know, then if you're not holding us to account then no one is and so that is your challenge Thank you. Thank you so much To my wonderful friends and thank you to all of you who have been such a wonderful group to have this conversation with To being more human together. Okay, let's do this