The project is now underway. The participants met for the first time on Wednesday evening, and will meet each week until 19th July, when they will (hopefully) make a decision.

Over the next few weeks we will give you a flavour of how the discussion is going.

There are two rules: the participants must donate or transfer the money to no more than four individuals or organisations. And they cannot choose themselves as the beneficiaries. But otherwise anything is possible; the money can be used locally, nationally or internationally.

Breadth vs depth

When distributing funds, is it best to try and reach as many people as possible, or to focus on having a deeper and long-lasting impact within a more limited area? The trade-offs of “breadth vs depth” came up a few times in this week’s session. 

There was enthusiasm in the group about trying to help the maximum number of people. There was also recognition of the value of on-the-ground experience and expertise to ensure that “help” is meaningful.

The value of data 

As part of the process, participants are able to request information from us as the project organisers. We act as a sort of secretariat. 

We researched and presented some data which participants had asked for during the previous week. This prompted a discussion about the significance of the data and the extent to which it is or isn’t useful. 

There was agreement within the group that although data can tell you some things, it can only be understood within a wider context. There are always underlying judgements to be made.

State vs philanthropy

There was a discussion about the relationship between state and charity provision of services. Participants grappled with the question of whether some things shouldn't be funded if they are in principle the responsibility of the state, or whether that is putting idealism ahead of pragmatism.

If in reality needs aren't being met, is it necessary and appropriate to cover those gaps through philanthropy?

How to make a decision

As well as specific ideas about what could happen to the money, the session also featured some ‘meta’ discussion about how the group might use the remaining time to reach a decision.

Ideas included giving groups of participants the chance to advocate for a particular cause area, or issuing an invitation to external groups to pitch for funding.

There was also discussion about using a series of votes to narrow down the ideas that have been proposed. This is something we will organise for the group if they agree it would be useful.