Why Trustees Should Think Differently About Giving Away Money

By David Owen, Chair, Summerfield Charitable Trust

There comes a point in the life of every charitable trust when trustees have to ask themselves a difficult question.

Are we preserving capital because that is what we’ve always done, or because it remains the best way to create lasting change?

For Summerfield Charitable Trust, that question led us down a path that was both exciting and, at times, uncomfortable. We chose to spend down the remains of our endowment and, just as importantly, to rethink how those funds should be invested. Rather than just asking ourselves where the money should go, we asked who was best placed to answer that question.

Looking back, I believe that second decision may prove even more important than the first.

Letting go of control is harder than writing a cheque

Trustees are appointed because they bring experience, judgement and governance. We have legal responsibilities that cannot simply be delegated away.

But none of us should confuse governance with omniscience.

As trustees, we quickly recognised something that many boards will identify with. However experienced we were, we could never know Gloucestershire’s communities as well as the people working in them every day. We were a small board making decisions about thousands of people whose lives and challenges we could never fully understand from a boardroom.

That realisation fundamentally changed our thinking.

Rather than inviting hundreds of applications and trying to decide between them, we worked with the Gloucestershire VCSE Alliance and leaders from across the voluntary sector to develop investment priorities together. We deliberately shared influence with people whose knowledge came from lived experience, frontline delivery and long-standing community relationships.

It required trust. It also required humility.

Communities usually know better than funders

One of the greatest misconceptions in grant-making is that funders have the best view of where investment should go. In reality, communities often see opportunities long before funders do.

When people who understand local neighbourhoods help shape investment, different conversations emerge. Instead of asking, “Does this application meet our criteria?” you begin asking, “What would genuinely make a difference here?”

That subtle but fundamental change transforms everything.

The Summerfield Community Chest was built around relationships rather than transactions. Existing partnerships were strengthened. New ones emerged. Ideas were developed collaboratively rather than competitively. Organisations spent less time writing polished bids and more time designing solutions together.

That doesn’t mean every decision became easier. Quite the opposite.

Sharing power introduces ambiguity. It requires patience. It challenges long-established habits. But it also unlocks insights that trustees alone could never generate.

Bigger investments can achieve bigger ambitions

Perhaps the biggest lesson for us concerns scale.

Historically, like many trusts, we made relatively small annual grants. They undoubtedly helped many organisations, but they rarely altered the systems in which those organisations operated.

Our spend-down approach allowed us to think differently.

Instead of dozens of small grants, we made fewer, much larger investments over three to five years. These projects were designed not simply to fund activity but to change how services are delivered, how organisations collaborate and, ultimately, how communities themselves become part of the solution.

Longer-term funding changes behaviour.

It gives organisations confidence to recruit, invest, innovate and build partnerships. It creates space for learning and adaptation rather than simply delivering against a twelve-month funding agreement.

Most importantly, it allows charities to spend more time serving beneficiaries and less time chasing their next grant.

Trust is an investment too

One phrase from our learning report has stayed with me.

“Funding rooted in relationships and trust creates different kinds of value.”

I believe that is absolutely true.

Traditional grant-making often rewards organisations that write the best applications. Whereas relational funding rewards organisations that know their communities best. Those are not always the same thing.

The Community Chest demonstrated that when trusted local organisations are empowered to shape proposals together, the quality of thinking improves. The resulting projects were built around genuine local need rather than around what might impress a funding panel.

This approach isn’t easier

I would never pretend this model is simple. The report is refreshingly honest about the challenges.

Collaborative funding requires investment in facilitation, learning, communication and relationship-building. It demands clarity around decision-making. Trustees must remain accountable while resisting the temptation to over-direct. The process itself needs funding, not just the projects that emerge from it.

These should not be mistaken for weaknesses, however. They are simply the realities of doing philanthropy differently. If anything, they reinforce why boards should think carefully about process before they think about projects.

Advice to fellow trustees

If your board is considering a spend-down strategy, my advice would be simple.

Don’t see it purely as a financial decision. See it as an opportunity to rethink how power is exercised.

Ask yourselves:

Are we making decisions because we genuinely know best?

Who else should be involved before funding decisions are made?

Could fewer, larger, longer-term investments create greater impact than many small ones?

Are we funding programmes, or are we helping communities build lasting capacity?

These are challenging questions, but they are healthy ones.

A legacy measured by change

Every trustee thinks about legacy.

For many trusts, legacy is measured by preserving an endowment for future generations. There is merit in that approach.

But there is another way of thinking about legacy. What if our greatest legacy is not the money we leave behind, but the stronger communities, deeper partnerships and more confident local leaders we help create today?

Our experience at Summerfield has convinced me that philanthropy achieves its greatest impact when it combines financial courage with trust in the people closest to the issues.

Communities rarely need trustees to have all the answers. More often, they need trustees who are prepared to ask better questions, listen carefully and have the confidence to let local people help decide where meaningful investment can make the greatest difference.

If our experience encourages even a handful of charitable trusts to explore that possibility, then the learning from the Summerfield Community Chest will have travelled well beyond Gloucestershire.

You can read a full report on The Summerfield Charitable Trust spending down, sharing power and funding through relationships here.