This document provides an overview of civic philanthropy and its history. It discusses how civic philanthropy originated from place-based giving focused on urban areas and civic causes. The document then covers the history of civic philanthropy in three parts: how secularization in the 16th century shifted the focus to outcomes of donations; how urbanization and the industrial revolution changed the nature of poverty; and how professionalization led to the development of charitable organizations. It examines lessons that can be learned from both successes and mistakes in the past approaches to civic philanthropy.

1. Civic Philanthropy for GeNErosity Festival
1) Background
● What is civic philanthropy?
● As with most things in the world of philanthropy, this isn’t
entirely clear.
● Best guess is that it is a subset of place-based
philanthropy that is more focused on urban areas and on
causes that are seen as contributing to civic life.
Plan for this talk:
o History
o Current landscape
o Motivations
o Opportunities
o Challenges
My interest:
● Origins in PGPM and awareness of role philanthropy had
played in many of our towns and cities (SLIDE for PGPM)
● GFTC project (SLIDE FOR Giving a Sense of Place)
Why should everyone else care?
● We’re at a philanthropy festival….
● But also, it plays into a range of wider policy debates:
○ North/South divide
○ Civic renewal,
○ Post-Brexit division
○ Political devolution (mayors etc)
○ Austerity

2. ○ Future role of cities
● BUT: little if any mention of the role of philanthropy
● So question was could we address this gap and craft a
21st century version of civic philanthropy that takes into
account all of the relevant complexities
2) History of Civic Philanthropy & What we can learn from
it
● It is important examining the history even further, to see
what can be learned from the various successes and
mistakes of the past.
● I’m going to focus on things that are relevant to the civic
role of philanthropy and I’m going to do it thematically,
rather than in any narrative sense, as this leads more
naturally to the sort of rules of thumb I’m interested in.
Secularisation
 First I want to take you back 400 years. (SLIDE)
 To when “philanthropy” in its modern sense began.
 The crucial point is the Reformation, during the 16th
century, when Henry VIII decided to split from the Catholic
Church and establish England as a Protestant nation.
 This had a massive impact on the history of Western
Europe for the next few hundred years.
 It had a profound impact on philanthropy too.

3.  Medieval catholic doctrine taught that the purpose of
charity was to cleanse the donor’s immortal soul, and
thereby secure their passage to heaven after death.
Hence the focus was entirely on the act of giving, and
there was little thought given on what was actually
achieved with donations.
 Protestant teaching, however, shifted the focus to what
was achieved with donations during the donor’s lifetime.
 Protestants used their generosity to badmouth Catholics:
e.g Jonne Donne:
 “There have been in this kingdome, since the blessed
reformation of religion, more publick charitable works
perform’d, more hospitals and colleges erected, and
endowed in threescore, than in some hundreds of years of
superstition before”
 Childish taunting aside, this change was fundamental as it
eventually paved the way for the secular conception of
philanthropy we have today.
 And established the key idea that philanthropy is not just
about the act of giving but about the PURPOSE of that
giving.
Urbanisation & the nature of poverty

4. ● As the understanding of the role of philanthropy shifted, so
too did the nature of the problems it was call up to
address.
● As the industrial revolution took hold, a combination of that
and other factors led to a massive shift in the nature of the
UK population, as people flooded into urban areas from
the countryside
● Poverty and ill-health were rife in these areas
● Employment was often precarious, and unlike in rural
areas where work was often seasonal, there was no
opportunity for people to supplement their income or diet
through subsistence farming.
● Likewise, the nature of accommodation led to problems,
as people piled into slum dwellings where many families
often crammed together in one house and sanitation was
non-existent.
● As a result, disease was rife
● In this new context, the old models of person-to-person
parish almsgiving simply didn’t work any more.
● Take the example of Liverpool, where the impact of
urbanisation was particularly dramatic
● STATS on growth of Liverpool:
o 1700: population of 4,240 and c. dozen ships
o 1841: 223,000 with a shipping list of c.4,000
“Such codes of social or moral decency as they might
previously have known hardly survived transplanting, and
the restraints normally exercised by regard for public
opinion did not exist in that polyglot community. The lack
of employment for the young or for women… resulted in

5. idleness which poverty and ignorance directed into habits
of delinquency and brawling… Meanwhile, the whole
burden of cementing into a social entity this medley of
people fell upon the religious bodies, who were no more
familiar than anyone else with the technique of building
and urban industrial community…[BUT] the churches and
chapels were not able to repeat outside their own four
walls the success which marked their work amongst their
immediate membership. The old parochial system
centring on an established church was not applicable to
the masses of a raw town.”1 (Simey)
“to translate the person-to-person charity from the village or
the small town to an urban slum seemed, and indeed
was, an impossible hope. (Owen)
Proximity & Awareness of Need (SLIDE)
● Although it was becoming evident that traditional charity
was not up to the ask of addressing urban poverty, the
existence of that poverty was unavoidable.
● So the problem obviously couldnt’ be ignored.
1
Simey, M. (1992) Charity Rediscovered:A Study of Philanthropic Effort in Nineteenth-Century Liverpool.
Liverpool:Liverpool University Press.10-16.

6. ● One of the important drivers of urban philanthropy was
simply the physical proximity of rich and poor, and hence
their awareness of the scale of the challenges facing the
working poor.
● Thomas Coram example
● Some, however, argued that the rich often went out of their
way to avoid coming into contact with the poor precisely so
that they could feign ignorance of the situation;
“One of the most telling aspects of Manchester life was that the
other half, the bourgeoisie, rarely had to come face to face
with the horrors of proletariat existence. The divide
between the two nations was more than financial. It was
physical. The prosperous middle classes made their way
to and from the city centre as the demands of their
business necessitated. And on their way, according to
Engels, ‘the members of this money aristocracy’ take a
route which avoids them having to see ‘The grimy misery
that lurks to the right and the left’… Engels believed he
had never seen ‘so systematic a shutting out of the
working-class from the thoroughfares, so tender a
concealment of everything which might affront the eye and
the nerves of the bourgeoisie’.” (Hunt)
● Proximity remains an important factor today

7. ● How America Gives study, Paul Piff study (showing people
video as counterweight) QUOTE
● Problem in London of City workers commuting to suburbs,
dorm towns (CF Give & Let Give)
Professionalisation and the birth of “Associated philanthropy”
● Since the problems were still very apparent to those who
didn’t go out of their way to avoid them, but traditional
models of charity were inadequate, a new approach was
needed
● Enter “Associated Philanthropy”
● This was the trend in which those of means who wanted to
do something came together to pool their funds and create
shared infrastructure- often appointing expert staff to help
assess needs and determine how best to distribute
resources.
● Sound familiar? It should, as this was how the charitable
organisation we know today was born.
● It mirrored developments in commercial sphere, where the
development of the joint stock corporation was similarly
revolutionising business.

8. “it was out of the question for the philanthropist, however well
disposed, to seek out the cases of greatest need and to
become familiar with them. The consequence was, of course, to
stimulate the growth of charitable societies serving as
intermediaries between individual philanthropist and
beneficiary… [Thus] the nineteenth century saw the charitable
organisation come to full, indeed almost rankly luxuriant,
bloom.” (Owen)
Understanding poverty and local problems
● So now we have motivation and we have means: what
next?
● A key stage was actually understanding the nature of the
challenges, as only then could the right focus and
approach be chosen.
● This is why a new emphasis was placed on research
● The first census (1801) had a huge impact here: as for the
first time it gave a comprehensive picture of the true scale
of poverty and urbanisation
● In many ways this posed a challenge for philanthropy, as it
raised the question of whether it could ever be up to the
scale of the task.
● However, in the short term at least, philanthropists of the
Victoria era did try to mount a response.

9. ● Philanthropists themselves also began to adopt the
methods of social research (Webbs, Rowntree, Booth)
● The insight wasn’t always strictly quantitative though:
sometimes it was more about simply bringing in the
knowledge and expertise of someone who understood
local poverty through their own experience
● E.g. Thomas Firmin
● E.g. Dickens and Burnett Coutts
Rationality & Co-ordinating philanthropy
● The growing importance of evidence and rigour had a big
impact on philanthropy
● We shouldn’t pretend that all philanthropy suddenly
became data driven, or that it is today TBH, but a number
of prominent schools of thought emerged that were to
have a big influence
● E.g. COS, Scientific charity movement
● N.B: it is worth flagging up that although this was sold as
“scientific”, it was actually heavily values-laden
● The key drive was avoiding “indiscriminate charity”, and
this was largely based on a distinction between the
deserving and undeserving poor that is controversial even
today.

10. Philanthropy and State Welfare
● The last 400 years in the UK have seen an ongoing
debate about where the balance lies between the state
and philanthropy when it comes to meeting the welfare
needs of citizens.
● Analogous debates have happened over different
timescales in many other countries, and continue today
● Since the introduction of the Statute of Charitable Uses in
1601, when the government first took a view on where the
balance for providing welfare lay, state and philanthropy
have existed in tandem.
● During some of the time, Philanthropy was the senior
partner (most notably in the Victorian era). At other times,
the state has taken the lead.
● But the important point is that this has never been a zero-
sum game.
● It is not about “Philanthropy or State”, but about
“Philanthropy and State”
● This puts an emphasis on understanding the unique value
of philanthropy and the role it can play. So what is this
value?
● A good starting point in answering this question is to
consider the words of William Beveridge. (SLIDE)
● He is known as one of the key architects of the Welfare
State.

11. ● But it is perhaps less well-known that he wrote an entire
book outlining his view on the continuing importance of
philanthropy and voluntary action in a welfare state.
● BEVERIDGE QUOTE.
● And I think much of that still holds true today
Importance of charity campaigning
 One thing that becomes clear when you appreciate the
historical sweep of the relationship between state and
philanthropy is that it has never just been about service
delivery- even when it ostensibly is.
 Just as (if not more) important is the role that philanthropy
has played in supporting campaigning and advocacy: in
speaking truth to power and thereby driving forward the
cause of social progress
Enlightened self-interest 1: Inequality & Fear of Unrest
● It is important to acknowledge that among the wide range
of factors which drive philanthropy are many that are not
purely altruistic.

12. ● For instance, there has long been a sense in which
philanthropy has been seen as a means of avoiding or
suppressing unrest: a way in which the rich can address
the needs of the poor without losing their own privileged
status.
● “[The Tudors] steady concern with the eroding poverty of
their age proceeded not from any sentimental concern for
the poor but rather from an astute understanding that
unrelieved, uncontrolled want constituted a grave threat to
the stability of the realm. It is not too much to say that the
Tudors viewed charity as a necessary aspect of public
policy rather than as a requirement of Christian morality”
● The historian Geoffrey Finlayson argues that while
philanthropic concern about this issue was
● “partly influenced by a genuine religious or humanitarian
solicitude that men should have to live in such
circumstances’, it was also driven by ‘the widespread fear
that bands of navvies– whose style of life was, to say the
least, robust – might constitute a threat to public order and
to property as they move around the countryside’.2
At the start of the 20th
Century, Winston Churchill argued that inequality,
urban poverty and the unrest it foments was still a source of great
concern:
“The greatest danger to the British Empire and to the British
people is not to be found among the enormous fleets and
2
Finlayson,G. (1994). Citizen,State and Social Welfare in Britain, 1830-1990.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.

13. armies of the European Continent, nor in the solemn
problems of Hindustan . . . nor any danger in the wide
circuit of colonial and foreign affairs. No, it is here in our
midst, close at home, close at hand in the vast growing
cities of England and Scotland, and in the dwindling and
cramped villages of our denuded countryside. It is there
you will find the seeds of Imperial ruin and national decay
– the unnatural gap between rich and poor . . . the awful
jumbles of an obsolete Poor Law, the constant insecurity
in the means of subsistence and employment which
breaks the heart of many a sober, hard‐working man, the
absence of any established minimum standard of life and
comfort among the workers, and, at the other end, the
swift increase of vulgar, joy‐ less luxury – here are the
enemies of Britain. Beware lest they shatter the
foundations of her power”
● This is interesting, as the words could almost be spoken
now in the wake of Brexit etc.
● Also, criticism of philanthropy on these lines is alive and
well (Ghiridharadas)
Enlightened Self Interest 2: Social Status
● Another less-than-purely-altruistic motivation for philanthropy is
a desire to bolster one’s own social status or to deflect criticism

14. ● Historically, we can see this very clearly in the example of many
big brewers (sometimes collectively known as “the Beerage”),
who were also notable philanthropist
● Some supporters big civic institutions E.g. Andrew Barclay
Walker in Liverpool
● Others went the whole hog and supported temperance
movements
● NB: Fred King of Greene King “May be the only brewer of whom
it never seems to have been claimed that he made the world a
better place by some means other than his beer.”
Enlightened Self-Interest 3: Local businesses & the workforce
● Apart from the desire to cater to the needs of the local working
populace in order to prevent any danger of unrest (as highlighted
above), there was also a positive incentive to ensure that they
were healthy and happy because that would make for a more
productive workforce.
● Cadbury, Rowntree, Lever
London vs everywhere else
● The complaint that London dominates the economic,
political and cultural landscape of the UK is not at all new
● Yet in the past, many other towns and cities did have their
own distinct identity (often based on local industry and
manufacturing) (SLIDE)

15. ● And during the industrial heyday of the C19th, many of
these towns and cities were players on the world stage
● They also had prominent local philanthropists associated
with them
● Many of these towns and cities have been suffering long
term decline, as traditional industry and manufacturing
have dwindled and disappeared
● As the UK as whole has shifted from an economy based
on manufacturing and industry to one based on services
and knowledge, individual places have had to adapt too
● We are seeing many towns and cities around the UK
reinvent themselves as hotspots of technology or creative
industries
● The question is whether this can be reflected in a new
culture of civic philanthropy?
Mayors
● It is worth saying something briefly about the particular
role of mayors
● There has long been a strong link between mayors and
philanthropy
● Often mayors themselves have also been philanthropists,
and have played a key role in encouraging others to give
● Way back in the Middle Ages, Dick Whittington established
the template

16. ● We have then seen other examples like Andrew Barclay
Walker in Liverpool MORE
● In modern times, the most prominent example of the
philanthropist mayor has been Michael Bloomberg
● Obviously not ever mayor can be a major philanthropist in
their own right (and arguably we wouldn’t want them to be)
● But what history shows is that the position of the mayor as
a figurehead of a place can enable them to play a key role.
Key lessons from history
● The importance of physical interaction between those from
different levels of wealth and different walks of life,
● The value of research and evidence in understanding urban
problems.
● The danger of moralistic approaches to poverty.
● Fear of unrest as a motivating factor.
● The power imbalance in philanthropy.
● The need for clarity over role of the state vs philanthropy.
● Ease of travel and communication may have eroded our
sense of place.
● Many UK Cities historically had a strong sense of their own
philanthropic identity.
● The importance of philanthropic leadership.

17. ● Right, so that is the past. What about the present?
● Let’s just take a moment first to look at the current
landscape of civic philanthropy (and more broadly place-
based funding) in the UK
● NB: I have done this to an extent, but for a detailed picture
you should check out the work by Cat Walker
4) The current landscape of place-based philanthropy in
the UK (and beyond)?
● Community Foundations
● PBGs (CF Cat Walker research)
● Place-based grantmakers (non-fundraising)
● Cause-specific grantmakers within local area
● National/International orgs that take a place based
approach in one or more areas
● Individual civic philanthropists
● The range of different individuals and organisations
involved in place-based funding highlights an important
point: that motivations are complex
● If we want to develop civil philanthropy, we need to
understand these
● It is not as simple as just appealing to people who live in a
particular place on the basis of their existing strength of
civic identity
● For one thing that would miss out many potential funders
who might be persuaded to engage for different reasons

18. ● Also it immediately raises a difficult question; what about
those areas where civic identity is low or non-existent?
How are we to bootstrap a culture of civic philanthropy in
those areas?
● (This is a question we will consider again when we come
to think about challenges)
5) What motivates place-based approaches?
1) Existing affinity with an area
2) Charitable cause has a strong geographic element, or there
is a clear geographic imbalance in the scale/severity of the
problem
3) Desire for person/community-centred approach
4) Testing innovation at a definable scale
5) Making measurement more achievable
6) Fitting with boundaries of public sector governance and
service delivery.
● OK, so we’ve got a sense of the myriad reasons funders
might wanto take a place-based approach
● What then, would it actually look like to develop a thriving
culture or ecosystem of civic philanthropy?
● Can’t cover it all here, but some ideas of the sorts of
elements we should be thinking of

19. 7)Where are the opportunities to develop
civic philanthropy?
● Data and research: (360 Giving etc)
● Civic institutions (stereotypes etc)
● Arts & Culture
● Higher Ed (new civic id link)
● Park & Greenspaces (CF: Controversy)
● Fund philanthropy infrastructure/strengthen existing civil
society
● Affordable Housing
● Local News (argument for value of quality journalism as
vital part of democracy)
● Community Assets (CLTs, pubs, community buildings CF:
Civil Society Futures
● Community cohesion
● Transition to the future
8)What are the challenges?
Austerity
 However, one shouldn’t be naive: against the backdrop of
harsh local government cuts, when LAs and others are
being asked to find new ways of funding services it is
understandable if the idea of harnessing philanthropy to
cover some of the gap is very appealing

20.  We have already seen this happen in the US, where a
new trend toward municipal philanthropy has emerged,
and has proven highly controversial (Detroit, Kalamazoo,
Stockton)
● Philanthropy is not a replacement for public spending
(SLIDE)
● The amounts aren’t comparable, and the distribution of
philanthropic capital doesn’t look anything like that of
public spending
Democratic legitimacy and distortion of policy
● Another concern about big money philanthropy is that it can
have a distorting effect on public policy priorities and spending
in a local area
● This is true even if it is done with the best of intentions
● (Zuckerberg in New Jersey, Gates etc)
Power imbalance
● Most forms of philanthropy contain a inherent power
imbalance: there are those who have and those who have not
● This can be particularly awkward in the context of place-based
giving.
● Perhaps fine for arts and culture (where donor and beneficiary
can exist on same level to some extent), but what about dealing
with extreme poverty etc?
● CF dehumanising nature of charity, Orwell etc.
● What are the possible solutions?
● Democratising philanthropy: citizen grantmaking, personal
budgets, DCTs, challenge prizes etc)

21. Civic philanthropy & sense of place: chicken or egg?
● The central theme of this talk is about the role of philanthropy in
building civic identity
● BUT: can you get people to engage in place-based giving if
there is little or no sense of existing pride?
● Is there a danger of those areas that have an existing sense of
identity prospering at the expense of those that do not?
● NB: Value of voluntary action in building social capital and civic
engagement
● ALSO: harness funding from those with different motivations to
“bootstrap” culture of civic philanthropy
Where do people feel a sense of “place”? What does
“community” mean?
● We have been talking a lot about “place”, but how do we
draw the boundaries around this in any particular context
● London vs borough example. Is the same true in
Newcastle?
● ALSO To what extent does “community” overlap with
“place”?
● What about diaspora communities (UK and international)?
● What about non-geographic communities of interest?
Can civic pride become parochialism, and add to division?
● Is there a downside to the idea of locality and civic pride?
● In the post-Brexit/Trump era context where communities and
localities are increasingly divided, is there potential danger in
the idea of asking people to associate more closely with one
place?