Review a Family Philanthropy Grant Conflict

Identify the interest and governing route

Ask each participant to disclose direct and indirect interests in the proposed recipient: ownership, board roles, employment, advisory fees, family relationships, donations, sponsorships and expected reputational benefit. Describe the connection and the decision it could influence. Review the foundation constitution, trust deed, company documents, grant policy and any applicable charity obligations before deciding who may participate. Do not assume that calling an organisation independent removes a family connection.

The Singapore charity governance materials offer useful conflict practices, but the official Code explains that it does not apply in the same way to every self-funded grantmaker without IPC status. Record the actual legal and governance basis for the process. A family office should not claim statutory compliance merely because it borrowed a template, and it should not ignore a sound disclosure control merely because the Code is not directly applicable.

Related guidance: VCC for family offices

Set recusal and independent review

Decide who leaves the discussion, who can answer factual questions, whether a valid quorum remains and who records the process. The conflicted person should not choose the substitute reviewer or privately direct the outcome. If too many decision-makers are connected, use the alternative authority in the governing documents or obtain advice. Record both attendance and absence so the minutes show that recusal operated in practice.

Related guidance: trust protector conflict resolution

Test the grant on its merits

Prepare a grant file stating the purpose, intended beneficiaries, requested amount, budget, milestones, delivery capacity, safeguards and reporting. Verify the recipient, controllers, bank details and relevant sanctions or adverse information through the appropriate process. Compare the proposal with alternatives and prior grants. A strong family endorsement may explain why the opportunity was found, but it is not evidence that the terms are reasonable or the recipient can deliver.

Distinguish a grant from an investment, sponsorship, service contract, political contribution or benefit to a family business. If goods, publicity, access or commercial rights flow back, classify and approve the arrangement on its real terms. Keep philanthropy outside VCC fund operations unless the fund documents, legal advice and investor interests support a separate transaction. Family giving should not be used to obscure a related-party payment.

Related guidance: separating family giving from VCC operations

Approve conditions and payments

State the approved purpose, amount, payment schedule, account, signatories, milestones, reporting, unused-funds treatment, conflicts, change control and suspension rights. Use dual verification for bank details and retain the recipient acceptance. If the grant is staged, link later payments to evidence rather than personal assurances. The conflicted person should not regain control by becoming the sole monitor or payment approver.

Where the grant crosses borders, assign tax, sanctions, foreign-exchange and local-law questions to qualified advisers. Avoid public claims that the grant produces a particular tax or regulatory result. If a condition cannot be verified, pause the affected payment and document the decision. Urgency created by a family event does not remove the need to confirm recipient identity and payment instructions.

Related guidance: VCC governance roles

Monitor outcomes and close the conflict file

Collect activity and financial evidence proportionate to the grant, compare it with the approved purpose and investigate deviations. Record changes, extensions, returned funds and further connections discovered after approval. Separate outcome monitoring from public storytelling. A photograph or thank-you message can support context but does not prove that funds were used as agreed.

Close the file with the declaration, recusal record, decision, agreement, payment evidence, monitoring, outcome and lessons for future grants. Update the interests register when relationships change. Periodically review whether repeated grants to connected recipients are crowding out other opportunities or reveal that the family needs a clearer giving policy. Preserve rejected proposals as well as approved ones so consistency can be tested.