Philanthropy trends from Factary’s New Trust Update Archive Database

Following on from our previous post looking at the make-up of Factary’s New Trust Update Archive Database, in this blog we take a closer look at the reported and identified areas of interest of the funders in our new database.

There are some surprising results, with encouraging findings if you are fundraising for projects for women, the environment and mental health amongst others.

First we examine the number of funders supporting the various philanthropic areas of interest in the database. Then we look at the level of funding potentially available in each area. Then we look at interesting trends in the data.

Classification of funders

All the funders in the database have been reviewed and their philanthropic areas of interest classified based on:

  • their charitable objects,
  • the Activities section of their Charity Commission entry,
  • their website (if available),
  • the Trustees’ reports in the annual accounts, and
  • noticeable trends in their reported grant-making.

Many funders are registered with General Charitable Purposes when we first feature them in our monthly New Trust Update reports. Reviewing these trusts and foundations after they have been established for a few years, we find we are able to classify them more accurately based on the information now available to us.

Factary’s classification system

We have expanded on the basic classification system used by the Charity Commission and the International Classification of Non-Profit Organizations (ICNPO). We feel these systems are too limited and simplified to be truly useful for fundraising.

Factary’s NTU classification system is focussed on fundraisers’ needs, and is based the types of project you have asked us to research during our thirty-plus years working in the UK charity sector.

The categories and how they’re assigned

Funders are assigned multiple classifications to reflect the various different interests and grant programmes they offer.

In some cases we apply standalone categories, such as Christianity or Environment. Where appropriate, we combine classifications to categorise a funder’s activity. For example, a funder working in children’s health would be assigned to two categories: Children & Youth and Health. The classifications we use in our database are:

  • Animals
  • Armed Forces
  • Arts & Culture
  • Children & Youth
  • Christianity
  • Community
  • Disability
  • Education & Training
  • Elderly
  • Emergency Services
  • Environment
  • General Charitable Purposes
  • Health
  • Heritage
  • Higher Education
  • Hospices
  • Housing
  • International Development
  • Islam
  • Judaism
  • Mental Health
  • Other Religions
  • Political Body
  • Research
  • Rights, Law & Conflict
  • Sports & Recreation
  • Welfare
  • Women

Activity Overview

The graph below provides an overview of the number of funders with reported or identified philanthropic interests in each of the Factary’s classification areas.

The data shows that many trusts and foundations continue to focus on General Charitable Purposes, years after they are first registered. This is a reminder that even for organisations operating in a less-represented or ‘niche’ category, there are plenty of funders potentially open for applications.

Outside General Charitable Purposes, the three largest categories are Welfare, Education & Training and Health.

These are broad categories that can cover a wide range of areas and beneficiaries. This is particularly the case with Welfare, which encompasses all general areas of disadvantage – old age, poverty, circumstance and so on.

In addition to such broad categories, which reflect the wide interests of such funders, we assign funders to more specific categories wherever we can. These include Housing, Women, Children or Elderly. So, while more general Welfare funders will of course be of interest to charities working in these areas, the more specific funders we’ve identified will also be of interest (potentially greater interest).

It’s a similar case with Health. Here, we have separate categories for palliative care (Hospices) and Mental Health, and an additional category of Research that can be used in conjunction with Health to identify medical research funders. As above, specialised charities will be interested in funders whose interests we have been able to specify, along with the more general Health funders.

Expenditure and Activity

The first graph below shows total charitable expenditure from the last financial year for funders on the NTU database, broken down by activity type. This total charitable expenditure broadly mirrors the total number of funders in each area in terms of those areas with the greatest potential funding available; Education & Training, Health, Welfare and Children & Youth.

(Note that each category gives the total expenditure of the funders, and has not been broken down by funders’ expenditure on any particular philanthropic area – many funders have multiple areas of interest.)

In the other graph below, we provide funders’ median average expenditure , broken down by philanthropic area of interest. (We have excluded dormant funders, i.e. those with no recorded expenditure in recent years.)

This average expenditure graph shows that the areas of philanthropic interest with the largest funders in terms of expenditure are Women, Higher Education and Community.

Average expenditure of funders who support the category of Women is significantly higher than any other area. Funders in this area include some of the largest foundations in the UK, such as the AKO Foundation, Fondation Chanel and the Moondance Foundation.

Mental Health, Arts & Culture and Environment also appear to attract the largest funders, all appearing high in the rankings.

Higher Education also attracts some large foundations such as The Huo Family Foundation (UK), The Rumi Foundation and The Law Family Charitable Foundation.

Those at the other end of the scale include Islam, Animals, Emergency Services and Disability. Disability and Animals are notable, as whilst there are many funders with an interest in these areas (400 and 200 respectively), they appear to tend to be smaller in terms of expenditure.

Again, we note that the total and average expenditure is for the funders as a whole, and is not broken down by their expenditure to each philanthropic area. However it does serve as an indication of the potential funding available for the various philanthropic areas.

The full data for these graphs is available in the following table:

Comparison

It is useful to compare these two graphs, above, because they represent the increasing specialisation and focus amongst philanthropic trusts and foundations.

For example, while funders supporting Community are 11th in rank order of total expenditure, they place third in average expenditure. This implies that a small number of foundations are increasingly focused on that area of work.

This is good news for fundraisers in women’s and community organisations, because NTU data allows you to focus on those high-value funders.

Median grant size

One further level of analysis we can do is look at the median grant size of the funders by philanthropic area of interest.

Of course, not all funders disclose their grant-making. In addition, many of the funders on the NTU database are small, and as such are not obliged to publish their accounts with the Charity Commission. Because of this, grant data in the Archive Database is incomplete, with data only available for around one in three funders.

The median reported grant size across the whole dataset is £10,000.

For the same reasons that grant data is incomplete on the database – smaller funders are exempt from submitting accounts, and many larger funders only disclose grants over a certain level – this is likely to be higher than the true average across the sector.

Again, Higher Education and Women are at the top of the list in terms of median average grant size, with Research, International Development and Other Religions all attracting above-average grants from the funders that support these areas.

Those areas that receive support from funders who appear to award smaller-than-average grants include Hospices, Emergency Services, Christianity, Elderly and Community.

We note, however, that the total expenditure of Community funders is high. This is likely to be due to the number of County or Regional Community Foundations on the Archive Database, and their tendency to provide a large volume of small grants to grassroots community organisations.

Notable Trends

We have analysed the philanthropic activity types against the year funders were registered with the Charity Commission. This is to see if we can identify any notable trends in philanthropic interests over time.

Many causes and interests have remained consistent with little noticeable increase or decrease in the number of funders each year. These include Arts & Culture, Christianity, Education & Training, Health, International Development and Welfare.

Growing areas of interest

However, we can see clear trends in some philanthropic areas of interest, most notably year-on-year increases in the number of funders set up with an interest in the areas of Environment and Mental Health, and to a lesser extent Rights, Law & Conflict (human rights, refugees, asylum seekers and so on).

Whilst the overall numbers remain relatively low compared to the most commonly supported activities, there is a noticeable increase over the past decade or so.

With Environment and Mental Health, this can be seen to reflect the growing public awareness and importance of these issues; philanthropists are responding accordingly. This is also reflected in incident rates for ‘climate change’ and ‘mental health’ on the Factiva press database, which show a strong correlation in terms of upward trends in recent years:

(Note that the graph charting increasing registration of funders in philanthropic areas of interest ends with 2022. This is because trusts registered in subsequent years are still ‘newly registered’ and can’t be properly reviewed based on their funding activities.)

The Covid Effect?

Another interesting trend that appears when we look at the number of funders set up each year is a noticeable spike in 2020 and 2021, when the Covid pandemic was at its height.

This is particularly apparent when looking at Health, Welfare, Elderly, Housing, Mental Health and Research.

This is another clear example of philanthropists responding to world events and this being reflected in the aims and interests of the charitable trusts and foundations being established.

It also highlights the value of such resources as the New Trust Update, allowing charities to find out about these new sources of funds at the time when the need is most pressing.

About the New Trust Update Archive Database

Factary’s New Trust Update is a subscription service that gives you access to a monthly report profiling the most recently-registered grant-making trusts. The New Trust Update provides information, where available, on funders’ aims and interests, as well as background information on the trustees and settlors. The reports also include updates on previously featured trusts and foundations.

The New Trust Update Archive Database contains over 3,500 funders that have been featured in our monthly reports since 2005. The majority of these funders do not appear in any other leading directories. They have all been reviewed and accurately classified based on their areas of interest and geographic areas of benefit, and the database is fully searchable on a range of criteria:

  • Philanthropic areas of interests
  • Geographic area of benefit
  • Grant capacity / financial size
  • Objects
  • Trustees
  • Biographic and research notes
  • Additional classifications including:
    • corporate foundations
    • ‘Foundations of Wealth’ (i.e. funders established by a HNWI)
    • open to unsolicited applications
    • and more.

If you would like to learn more about this service and receive a free online demonstration of the database please contact Will Whitefield at will@factary.com or call us on 0117 9166744.

In these difficult times, we are here for you

To all our colleagues in prospect research and fundraising, we understand what a worrying and challenging time this is right now – not just for our organisations but for us personally. Here at Factary, just like everywhere else, we have had to come to terms with major changes to the way we live and work whilst we focus on ensuring we and those close to us remain safe and well. Whilst people’s attention has rightly been focused on issues closer to home, we also want our organisations to be able to continue to achieve their objectives,  but Covid-19 has already and will continue to have a negative impact on organisations’ ability to deliver their services, with the impact on fundraising a specific concern for many[1]. There are so many questions that we don’t know the answer to yet; what will be the long-term impact on income levels for charities and non-profits? How can you engage with donors and supporters with social restrictions in place? Will donors have the capacity to support you at the same level in the future? Will their priorities be the same? How should we respond to the situation in the short term and how can we plan for the long term?

We do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, and in many ways, it is still too early to know for certain. That there will be long-term implications for the economy, and therefore people’s household wealth, is not in doubt[2], but we do not know how severe this impact will be or how donors will respond over time. For example, one article we have seen stated that the world’s richest have already lost $200bn[3] whilst another other stated that their wealth has grown by $308bn[4]. At the same time, we are seeing some phenomenal responses from philanthropists around the world, both at the international and local level[5], however this is involving a re-alignment of funding priorities for some philanthropists[6].

Luckily there are some brilliant, clever, helpful people out there who are offering advice, insight and support to the sector during this difficult time. These are some of the people who may be able to help you find the help and answers you might be looking for right now and as we start to move forward with our recovery:

  • Institute of Fundraising – Lots of great blogs providing information and advice for various aspects of fundraising during this time.
  • Association of Charitable Foundations – An interesting survey on foundations’ responses to Covid-19 plus other advice and resources.
  • UK Fundraising – A wealth of useful articles and blogs from Howard Lake and others containing advice for fundraisers. Particularly useful is this one with five actions fundraising teams should be considering taking now.
  • Alliance Magazine – articles giving a global perspective on the philanthropy response to Covid-19.
  • Helen Brown Group – The ever-amazing Helen Brown and her blogs on things from a US perspective.
  • NFP Synergy – research and resources on charities and Covid-19.

This list is far from exhaustive, but we’ve found some really useful thoughts and advice on some of these pages and we hope that they may help you think about how to respond to Covid-19 both in the short term and in the longer term.

Right now, the main priority is to ensure that we, our friends, family and colleagues are safe, and we do all we can to support our incredible NHS and key workers. But when we are able to start looking to the future and working out the best way forward, we will be here for you. Whether that is just for a friendly chat or some advice, or to talk about ways we can support you to build your prospect pool for the future, we will be here working with you.

Stay safe, and we look forward to talking to you and working with you in the near future.

The Factary Team

[1] https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/nine-in-ten-charities-will-struggle-to-meet-objectives-due-to-covid-19-poll-finds.html

[2] https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-update-covid-19.html

[3] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/how-coronavirus-impacted-the-wealth-of-rich-people-around-the-world/coronavirus-is-taking-away-the-wealth-of-the-wealthy/slideshow/74667660.cms

[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/04/27/billionaires-are-getting-richer-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-while-most-americans-suffer/#44d667654804

[5] https://www.nptuk.org/philanthropic-resources/giving-perspectives/global-philanthropys-response-to-covid-19-and-how-to-get-involved/

[6] https://www.acf.org.uk/news/covid-19-results-of-acfs-survey-on-foundations-responses

The role of prospect research in major donor fundraising

As part of an MA in Philanthropic Studies (undertaken at the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent) I completed a study which aimed to identify the role that prospect research plays in major donor fundraising. The study involved a survey, undertaken in 2018, of major donor fundraisers and prospect researchers working in higher education institutions in the UK. I’m pleased to say that the results of the study are now available to download.

Download report:
The role of prospect research in major donor fundraising

As a quick summary the results of the study cover a number of areas, such as:

  • The activities commonly undertaken by prospect researchers
  • The purposes or reasons for which fundraisers use prospect research
  • How necessary fundraisers feel research is to their work
  • The ways in which prospect research contributes to fundraising
  • Prospect research metrics (i.e. what data is being gathered on the output or impact of prospect research)

In particular, the results can be used by non-profit organisations when analysing the use of personal data for prospect research purposes under the GDPR. Until now, the non-profit sector did not have a reliable evidence base which outlined the purpose or necessity of prospect research, nor which identified if the purposes of prospect research could reasonably be achieved by other methods (which do not use personal data) – all important areas to analyse, particularly for those organisations relying on their Legitimate Interests to process personal data for prospect research. In practical terms, the data and evidence presented in the paper can now be used by any non-profit organisation when completing, for example, a Legitimate Interest Assessment or a Data Privacy Impact Assessment.

Beyond GDPR, the paper highlights that, on the whole, the prospect research community is not particularly good at gathering evidence which illustrates the impact (or the ROI) of prospect research. That said, it does also show that the vast majority of major donor fundraisers are overwhelmingly positive about the ways in which prospect research supports them in their work.

If you think it might be useful for you or your organisation, please do download the paper and (when sufficiently caffeinated) have a read. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions or chat about the data/paper in more detail if you’d like to get in touch.

Nicola Williams

Factary New Trust Update 2017 Review

Download free report here

According to the Association of Charitable Foundation’s (ACF) Foundation Giving Trends 2017 grant making by the Top 300 foundations reached a record high for the second year in a row in 2017, with giving totalling £2.9bn. 64% of this grant-making (£1.87bn) comes from personal and family philanthropy through foundations. The report also states that the top 50 corporate foundations gave grants totalling £269m – up 9% on the previous year. According to the report these top foundations account for around 90% of all foundation giving.

In addition, The Coutts Million Pound Donor Report 2017 shows that the total value of £1m+ donations in the UK was £1.83bn from 310 donations. Foundations continued to be the main source of donations of £1m or more, representing 55% of the overall value, and corporate donors significantly increased their giving – accounting for nearly a third of the overall value.

These statistics highlight the importance of keeping abreast of new sources of funding in the foundations market, particularly from High Net Worth families and corporates. That is where Factary’s New Trust Update can be a vital resource for fundraisers. With details on around 20 new grant-makers each month, including notes on the professional and philanthropic interests of the settlors and interview notes on the aims and objectives of the trusts and foundations, New Trust Update gives fundraisers a head start on building relationships with these new philanthropic vehicles.

Whilst there are on average around 100 new organisations registered with the Charity Commission each month that state they make grants to other organisations, in practice the vast majority of these are not what would be considered grant-making trusts or foundations. We scrutinise and carefully select the organisations that are featured in New Trust Update and as a result, our review of 2017 found that 1 in 5 of the trusts and foundations featured had been created by a settlor with an estimated wealth of £10m or more. The combined estimated wealth of these 48 philanthropists was in excess of £12bn. Our review also found that we included details of 38 newly created corporate foundations in 2017 with the companies involved having a combined turnover in excess of £4.25bn in the past financial year.

Our infographic report, available to download here, includes a range of useful analysis and statistics including the philanthropic areas of interest of the trusts and foundations featured throughout the year, the source of funds of the High Net Worth Individuals creating their own foundations and their geographical distribution. It also includes mini profiles on a handful of the most interesting and potentially major foundations and their settlors.

Subscriber numbers for New Trust Update are limited to maintain exclusivity of the information contained. If you would like to find out more then please contact Nicola Williams or call us on 0117 9166740.

Prospect Research and Legitimate Interests

Something quite remarkable happened a few weeks ago. I went to a conference on GDPR (the CASE Regulation and Compliance Conference) and, by the end of the day, I was actually feeling upbeat, hopeful and – even – vaguely excited about the future of prospect research. This was not at all how I was expecting to feel after a GDPR conference, based on the countless other GDPR conferences and events that I have attended over the past 18 months which have mostly left me feeling a mixture of despondency and frustration.

So, why the sudden shift? Well, a few things. Firstly, the brilliant presentations were, for the first time, practical, focusing on what people are working on and achieving as they build towards compliancy for GDPR. To be at a GDPR event which was about positive action in regards to things like privacy notices or data analysis, and not just about all the things we can’t or mustn’t do, felt like progress.

Secondly, there was a real focus on analysing the ‘legitimate interest’ condition for processing data for prospect research. This is a huge step forwards. For too long now ‘legitimate interest’ has been viewed as a second-best option, a condition for processing that non-profits can maybe use, which is kind of OK, but probably just not quite as good or as ‘safe’ as consent. Obviously, this is due in no small part to the Regulator and ICO’s view that non-profits should probably get consent for wealth screening (by which they seem to imply most forms of prospect research). Alongside this, as Adrian Salmon’s recent blogpost highlights, one of the problems of principles’ based regulation is that, whilst it should encourage flexibility, it tends to lead to a “very conservative compliance mind-set”. So, it was great to see the all the relevant conditions for processing being analysed in an informed and practical way at the conference.

And lastly, many Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are actively choosing legitimate interests (after careful analysis) as their condition for processing data for prospect research. This is another good, positive step.

All that said…

There is still confusion and misinformation. In the past two weeks alone I have received a number of emails from researchers who are still asking if wealth screening is illegal or if they need to get consent from all their donors before doing research. I also speak to many organisations that have suspended some or all forms of prospect research whilst they try to work out their next steps. Occasionally, I speak to smaller charities who have no idea that any of this is even happening.

So, despite great advances in the HE sector and with some charities, it is clear that there is still a long way to go for prospect research before we reach May 2018, when GDPR becomes law.

The main aspect which seems to be paralysing many organisations is the question of whether to rely on consent or legitimate interests as the condition for processing for prospect research. Many researchers have been tasked with coming up with a plan for assessing this and making recommendations, which is a tall order. Much has already been written about consent (see, for example, The Fundraising Regulator’s Guidance on Consent) and we thought, therefore, that it might be useful to add some thoughts around legitimate interests, specifically in relation to prospect research.

Please click here to download our paper on this, which is a meander around the topic (you’ll be asked to subcribe to Factary Updates, so you’ll receive other reports and updates like this in the future). We hope the report is useful. Please do come back to us with any questions or comments. Also, remember that we are not data protection lawyers, so don’t make any decisions based solely on the information we provide!