Giving a Voice to Mental Health
Client Background
Matthew and Gemma were in their late 30s. They were part of a very well off Melbourne-based family that had made its money in pharmaceuticals. Gemma’s father Peter had established a large philanthropic Foundation 15 years ago and from the start had encouraged his two children and their partners to be actively involved. Matthew and Gemma had recently begun a family themselves and were both employed full time with Gemma’s brother Tim in the family business.
Matthew and Gemma were keen to contribute their somewhat different ideas to the Board, but were time poor.
Gemma and Matthew had met at business school in the United States. They had been excited by the recent changes taking place in US philanthropy. The emergence of social impact investing, social innovation and social enterprise development resonated strongly with them. More recently they were interested in the Giving Pledge of US Billionaires – to give away at least half of their money in their lifetime. They realised that wasn’t Peter’s vision, but the notion of being measurably more accountable for what their money did, and for being risk takers in how they approached their grant making, appealed to them and they both brought this discussion and debate to the Foundation Board. Peter had appointed a full time administrative officer to manage the Foundation, but he expected the philanthropic grant decisions to be made by the family members on the Board.
Bringing in PSI Managers
Matthew and Gemma were keen to contribute their somewhat different ideas to the Board, but were time poor. They met Keith from PSI Managers and immediately appreciated how difficult it was to bring their mantra of better accountability and innovation to life without the right support. They talked to Peter about appointing Keith in their own right as a philanthropic advisor. Peter understood their logic and weighed up whether this would better be a Foundation appointment, but in the end supported their idea on a 12-month trial.
Pin-pointing a cause
The Foundation granted its money to a variety of causes, but a significant portion went to medical research and health services. Gemma and Matthew were very interested in the growing problem of mental health, particularly for young people. A close and talented friend from university had long suffered from depression and recently killed herself. Initially they had a series of discussions with Keith at home over dinner to open up these issues.
In discussion with Keith they recognised that the community’s reluctance to talk about mental health was a core part of the problem.
Matthew and Gemma had no doubt about the role that better drugs (and the research into those drugs) could bring to the nation’s mental health agenda, but they realised that the effectiveness of other institutions mattered. To get mental health right there had to be the right level of spending on community health, which the government was drawing away from. Total spending on mental health was significantly less than spending on physical illnesses, yet the scale of the problem was at least as significant in terms of the numbers of individuals affected. Their discussion lamented that so many opportunities were lost as a result of the community not adequately addressing this problem. Services for young people were very poor and took no advantage of early intervention to make problems later in life more manageable. Job opportunities for the mentally ill were particularly difficult to find yet employment was known to be a relatively inexpensive way to substantially reduce the negative effects of the disease.
Agreeing on a plan and presenting it to the Board
In discussion with Keith they recognised that the community’s reluctance to talk about mental health was a core part of the problem. Matthew and Gemma came to realise how futile their ideas about mental health services would be unless there were stronger voices for change that addressed the whole system. Keith prepared material for discussion at the next Foundation Board meeting, which Gemma and Matthew presented. They argued:
- that the Foundation set aside $200,000 pa to support advocacy for system-wide changes to mental health;
- that those funds should go primarily to charities that had relevant, thoughtful experience on the ground in delivering mental health services;
- that such grants to charities would require each to present a plan to build the internal capacity of that charity to advocate; and
- that it was important that the family and its foundation, having agreed on the broad policy positions, remained largely removed from the advocacy efforts.
The Board meeting produced a very healthy debate on this proposal. Peter felt it was important that they selected charities that advocated for policies that were not aligned to any political party. He also had reservations about being too removed from what each charity was advocating and how they intended to advocate for it. He could see a lot of grant money being wasted unless there was a well thought out plan including ways of determining the effectiveness of the advocacy efforts.
A multi-year strategy proposed by PSI Managers
Peter reflected that if this strategy were successful, say over a 10-15 year period, it would be the source of enormous pride for him.
Keith joined the next Board meeting and explained that he was confident he could help select the right charities to work with, help frame an appropriate advocacy plan and provide a framework for determining whether the advocacy funding had been effective. However he cautioned about being too ambitious with objectives – the strategy required patience and would only proceed via small steps. Peter proposed that Keith work for the full Board on this matter, and asked him to prepare a multi-year strategy, explaining how the Foundation would manage the risks associated with that strategy. Peter reflected that if this strategy were successful, say over a 10-15 year period, it would be the source of enormous pride for him. Their family had made a lot of money out of their pharmaceutical business, but this showed they truly had the broader interests of the community front of mind, and were prepared to adopt thoughtful leadership positions to bring about change.