Episode Transcript
JOSEPH: Welcome to the Purposeful Planning Podcast. My name is Joseph Brooks. I'm a Managing Director at Vital Impact Advisors, where I co-lead our ultra-high-net-worth individual and family philanthropy practice. I'm also proud to serve on PPI’s Board of Directors, to chair the Education Development Committee, and to co-lead the Chicago Collaboratory with my friend Marguerite Griffin, who I'll introduce in just a minute. Like many of you, I've stayed engaged — and become even more engaged — with PPI over the years, given the strong sense of community, the opportunities for professional growth and networking, and the opportunity to get to know some of the best and brightest working in this field of family wealth and family business, including, of course, our guests who are joining us on today's podcast. I'm excited to introduce you to two of my friends, Marguerite Griffin and Dien Yuen. I'll start with Marguerite Griffin, Senior Vice President and Director of Philanthropic Advisory Services at Northern Trust. As you'll hear in the conversation, she has so much more going on — she's always got an interesting project, a new passion, another gig — and we're going to weave some of that into the conversation today. I'm also excited to introduce Dien Yuen, Philanthropic Strategist and Trainer and CEO of Daylight. Again, we're going to learn more about the work that she does — and Daylight specifically — as we talk more today. Before we get kicked off, here are just a few words about our topic: philanthropic advising — the growing field of philanthropic advising — and the competencies that those of us who refer to ourselves as philanthropic advisors bring to the work. We know the PPI community includes a range of diverse advisors and consultants serving a range of families — families of wealth and families in business. As the needs of those families continue to expand over time, so do the professions serving those families. One of the professional fields that has been expanding significantly in recent years is philanthropic advising, and that's what brings us to the conversation today. If any of you have been to a PPI event recently — and hopefully that's all of you — the chances of bumping into a philanthropic advisor have increased, as there are more and more of us, both at PPI and elsewhere in these spaces, doing this work with families. So for folks on the call today — those of you who might be collaborating with philanthropic advisors, those of you who might be hiring philanthropic advisors, or maybe even some of you who might be considering becoming a philanthropic advisor — we're excited to share more about the evolution of this field and the core competencies that philanthropic advisors bring to the work. So let's go ahead and get started. Dien, I'm going to start with you. Your LinkedIn profile describes you as a philanthropic strategist, a trainer, and the CEO of Daylight. On a call the other day, you also described yourself as a philanthropy research and data geek. What has brought you to this work that you're doing today — the work you're doing around strategizing, training, geeking out, and leading Daylight? And as you introduce yourself, we'd also love to hear more about Daylight. What is Daylight as an organization?
DIEN: Great. Thank you, Joseph, and thank you to PPI for inviting me. I'm really excited to be here because I love to geek out on this topic, and it’s great that it’s also kind of my work as well. So getting up in the morning and working on this just excites me. I think what’s really interesting for me is that the field is relatively young, right? It’s relatively new. When I got into this work about 15 to 18 years ago, there wasn’t a roadmap — and there really isn’t one yet. There is something, but it’s not clearly defined. There weren’t many people to learn from, a lack of mentors, no formal training, and very little research in the space. And the idea that someone would pay for philanthropic advising was still pretty new. I’ve always been a builder, so this idea of coming into the field and trying to figure out how to build and develop the marketplace as well is a huge opportunity. I’m thinking not just about building it as a practice, but as a true profession, right? And then making it something that people can integrate into their existing work. You could be a full-time philanthropic advisor, but it could also be an adjacent part of your job. So I think helping to shape the marketplace is really exciting, and that’s exactly what we do at Daylight. We’re building a philanthropic advising ecosystem that brings together learning, credentialing, and a real, true global community of practice. But at the same time, we have to raise awareness of the field itself and also help develop the demand for high-quality philanthropic advice.
JOSEPH: Great. Thank you, Marguerite. I'm going to pass it to you. I remember distinctly that our paths first crossed a number of years ago. We were together at the Chicago Community Trust, and you were giving a presentation. I have to admit, I can’t exactly remember what you were talking about, but I was so impressed. I thought, “I have to know this person. This is clearly a smart and talented person working in the space of philanthropic advising who really knows their stuff.” I’m so glad that our paths have crossed and that we’ve had lots of opportunities to team up in Chicago and elsewhere. I’d love to ask you a similar question — just to share a little bit more about your work as a leading philanthropic advisor, what that looks like, and your involvement with Daylight.
MARGUERITE: Sure. And thank you, Joseph, and thank you to PPI. I'm very happy to be here. If I were to describe my work, it would be this: I help individuals and families translate their values into a practical philanthropy plan — one that is technically sound, relationship-based, meaningful, and sustainable. Thinking about how Daylight talks about modern philanthropic advising, it’s guiding people through the who, what, why, when, where, and how — and I would also add, to what end of social impact. At Northern Trust, I sit at an intersection where clients are often navigating multiple layers at once — wealth transfer, family dynamics, governance, legacy questions — and beneath all of that is what it means to live with purpose. I often find that, over the years, the philanthropy conversation can be one of the most values-forward parts of wealth transfer planning. I was introduced to Dien through — oh gosh, I can’t even say how we met, and I don’t want to date us at all — but through the Impact Philanthropy Advisor Program. I’m so grateful that it’s here and that so many advisors have been learning from it. It’s a learning experience that offers a shared vocabulary for folks who have been in this field for a long time and for those who are relatively new. As Dien mentioned, philanthropic advising is not a regulated profession, and the expectations of what a philanthropic advisor is and what he or she will offer vary widely. When I think about Daylight and the Daylight Competency Model — which we’ll talk more about — it’s really Dien and her team saying, “Let’s stop treating philanthropic advice as an informal add-on, and let’s start treating it as the craft and profession that it is.” So Daylight, for me, has been both a learning partner and a field-building partner, and it has come around at exactly the right time. We finally have enough people who are interested in this space, and the idea that clients would pay for philanthropic advice — I think we’ve finally cracked that nut. They recognize the value of it.
JOSEPH: Yeah, thank you for sharing, and thank you again for joining us today. What we're going to do here for a few minutes is sort of zoom out a little bit. We’ve heard specifically about the work that you both do — what your day-to-day looks like and the work you're doing on behalf of your organizations. As two of the more experienced and prominent advisors working in the field, we’ll start with some stage-setting — some basics to get everyone grounded. I’m curious what it means to you, right at its core — both from your own seat and as you look across the field, working with other advisors at other organizations and with different kinds of families — what does that role look like in practice? What does it mean to be a philanthropic advisor? Marguerite, would you like to start?
MARGUERITE: Sure. So I think a philanthropic advisor is someone who helps clients navigate the full landscape of philanthropy and social impact — not just the mechanics of giving, but the meaning of it, the strategy behind it, and the relationships and learning required to do it well. At its best, philanthropic advising is values work, strategy work, and relationship work, with enough technical fluency to ensure that the plan can actually be implemented with integrity. It starts with relationship and trust, because you can’t really talk about money, values, legacy, and family dynamics without some level of psychological safety. Thinking about the competency model, that maps to core competencies like relationship and network development, behavioral intelligence, and cultural dexterity. From there, the philanthropic advisor helps a client clarify purpose: What do they care about? What has shaped them? What’s the motivation behind the giving? And what do they want their giving to say about them and their family? That’s the purpose and legacy identification competency, and it’s often the hinge point between generosity and the strategy that you build. Then we move into planning and execution, which can include education and facilitation for individuals and families, further defining the strategy, conducting research and data analysis, and helping clients choose appropriate vehicles and structures. And you’ll notice that I didn’t start there, right? Understanding the purpose — how they want to show up as philanthropists — helps determine which vehicle will be most appropriate. Then there’s the ongoing assessment and learning. Within the Daylight framework of modern philanthropic planning, the plan should include all of these components: clarity of purpose, resource allocation, governance choices, and the vehicles best suited to what the individual or family wants to accomplish.
JOSEPH: JOSEPH: Thanks for sharing that, and thanks for pointing out the structures. Too often, people jump to the structures too quickly, right, before having done all of the other work that would inform what sort of structure makes the most sense and what will lead to the kinds of impacts they’re looking for. Dien, do you have anything to add to that?
DIEN: Yeah, I think Marguerite articulated what a philanthropic advisor needs to be really well. I would say, just stepping back and looking at the field itself, we’re beginning to move from these text-centered conversations to much more human-centered conversations. As we were building that competency model, we were trying to be very aware of what’s going on — especially with Wealth 3.0 and this concept of flourishing. I also think we need to start considering, philosophically, that philanthropic advisors operate as a T-shaped field, right? Think of most advisors as broad generalists. You do need to have — as my mom calls it — “a half bucket of everything.” But you also need some depth of understanding in a particular area, whether that’s issue areas, causes, or a specific client segment. You need some sort of specialty to do this work really well. That’s what’s so beautiful about this space — the combination of breadth and depth in the field. And it was really hard to define, so we relied heavily on people like Marguerite and others who are practicing in the space to tell us: What is it that you’re actually doing, and how do we articulate that and pull it all together? So while Daylight published this report, I want to make sure we thank everyone who participated — whether through working groups or by responding to our questionnaires — because it’s really about them. We’re just trying to put pen to paper on this work.
JOSEPH: Thank you. So both of you have come to this work with legal backgrounds, right? You’re both attorneys, and you had done a lot of work in estate planning and trusts, which is often a natural entry point for philanthropic conversations. Over time, you’ve both moved more deeply into philanthropy itself as an area of focus. I’m curious — based on your experiences in this field — what are some of the other common pathways that people take into philanthropic advising? What mix of backgrounds and experiences really helps prepare someone to do this work? Marguerite, I’ll pass it to you first.
MARGUERITE: Yeah. So my background was, as you mentioned, estate planning and trust administration — all within a wealth management context, so wealth transfer planning. I’d love to see more psychologists, or people with a psychology background, enter this space. Folks who have been money managers all their lives are also in this space. Fundraisers can move into it, too, I think, when you are able to hold a number of different perspectives. I really love what your mom said about having a little bit of everything — I think that’s so important, because the work we’re doing is people work, right? Relationship work. And any profession where you’ve had to navigate that would be a good addition. No one really comes into philanthropic advising as their first gig. There’s usually something else that’s informing it — whether you work for a foundation and you’re giving away money, or whether you’re raising money. I think all of it is important. What I love about the competency model is that it’s presented in a way that, wherever you start, you can see more of an on-ramp to the goal of being a philanthropic advisor. It’s not shaming anyone if you start here or there. It’s about opportunity building and creating that on-ramp: “Yep, here’s where I need to develop more, and here’s how I can get there.” It helps you identify the skills you need to hone so that you can be better because, when you’re in this role, you’re going to be called to do all of these different things. I think estate planning is very much like that. Dien, I think you’ll find that to be a really good estate planner, you’ve got to know a little bit about corporate tax, real estate — the whole ball of wax. Philanthropic advising is similar, but you also have to have experience just working with people and understanding how decisions get made within families. I can tell you about one class I took at the Newberry Library in Chicago. I’ve always loved Greek mythology, and there was a Jungian analyst teaching a class on all the books in the Oedipus trilogy. I took this class early in my career because of my love for Greek mythology, and I can tell you that hearing that Jungian analyst talk about stories — and how those stories within families are made and passed down — was one of the most helpful things for me in my work as a trust administrator and philanthropic advisor.
DIEN: Marguerite, I totally agree with that. And, as someone once told me, to be a good philanthropic advisor, you’ve got to have a life — hobbies and interests — because all of that comes back into your conversations with clients. In terms of teaching, we can teach the technical stuff. The technical stuff is easy, right? But the human-centered part — knowing when to step in and hold someone’s hand, and when to back off a little and let the space breathe — that’s much harder to teach. We’ve tried to incorporate it into the competency model, but I think we can always do more. When we talk about practice — right — Daylight and others have really good programs, but we also need to actually practice this work. You were talking about the estate planning piece. I did estate planning for about a year, and I can tell you, if you’re young and coming into the space as a young attorney, you’re not going to do this work well without experience — you need it to really understand and listen in order to do an estate plan properly. Joseph, I wanted to share something from about three years ago. Tony Macklin and I ran a little session at a PPI Rendezvous, and it was kind of fun. We asked the group — there were about 80 or 90 people in the room — to write down the last three professions they had. You would be amazed: about 40–42% came from the philanthropy or nonprofit space, which we expected. But the other 58% came from completely different industries. We had GED instructors, cowboys, bartenders, professional ballet dancers — just this huge mix. Again, I think it reflects this T-shaped model — a liberal arts approach that brings breadth and depth together — and then finding a specialty within the space. I don’t know if it’s a good idea for someone to grow up and say, “I want to be a philanthropy advisor.” I think that usually comes later in life.
JOSEPH: Yeah, thanks for sharing. What an interesting range of careers — and think about all the skill sets and experiences people can bring with them. Dien, a question for you. So many PPI colleagues also carry the title of advisor, right? Financial advisor, wealth advisor, investment advisor, etc. How does philanthropic advising differ — in terms of the role itself, the preparation for the role, and the training and credentialing? I know that’s been a lot of what you’ve been focused on. How does it differ from the other advisor titles that people are more accustomed to?
DIEN: As an attorney, I can tell you — I sat for three bar exams — and philanthropic advisors don’t have to do that. So I think that’s part of what’s missing. Jim Grubman always talks about the “four E’s,” right? To be a true profession, you need ethics, examination, experience, and some sort of credentialing or examination that gives you that “umph.” We need the ethics piece as well. For philanthropic advisors, whether you’re an attorney or from another background, there’s a code of conduct, certain ethics you abide by. But philanthropic advising itself doesn’t yet have formal ethics or professional responsibility standards, and that’s something we need to work on. That’s part of the four E’s. Being taken seriously and being at the table requires some structure behind the work. We’re getting there, but it’s going to take some time. And also, for clients who are hiring us, they understand what an attorney does. They understand what an accountant does. They understand licensing. But not yet for our space. So we still have some work to do. What makes it exciting, though, is that we — the people doing this work — now have the opportunity to actually craft and build it. We can build this together and decide what we want it to look like.
JOSEPH: Yeah, well, thanks for all the work that you’re doing to contribute to that. Let’s pivot a little bit and talk more about shaping this field of philanthropic advising — the work that’s happening right now and where it’s headed over time. Dien, I’m going to pass this one back to you. Your team at Daylight has done a significant amount of work — a huge amount of work. I don’t think you sleep! You’re always putting out thought leadership, running sessions and cohorts. It’s super impressive. It didn’t start there, but some of the big work you did in 2024 was the report on U.S. philanthropic advisors, professional development, practice, and knowledge gaps. More recently, last year, in 2025, you developed the Philanthropic Competency Model — which we’ve started to reference here. I’m curious if you could share some top-line learnings as you step back and look at both of those bodies of research, and how you’re applying that research to the work of Daylight in 2026.
DIEN: Well, thank you, Joseph. I’m a data geek, right? Going back to the research piece — as we were building Daylight, we thought, “Oh, we need to develop a modern curriculum for philanthropic advisors — something that’s more human-centered, global, and that really takes a look at demographic changes and shifts, as well as what the profession needs in the future.” But there was no data. That’s why we started with this research. We sent it out, and about 258 advisors responded. We are so thankful for them, because they spent 15 minutes answering all these questions — from compensation, experiences, and background, to how they learn. What we’re finding is that the field is seasoned and experienced — usually around 16 years and up — and advisors work in very diverse environments. Some are in community foundations, donor-advised funds, sponsoring organizations, solo entrepreneurial firms, or smaller and larger groups in between. But if you look at the profession itself — aside from philanthropic advising firms — you see a gap. There are some big firms, and then there are solos, but nothing much in between. Another interesting finding is that we’re seeing a lot of women, LGBTQ, and BIPOC advisors coming into the space. For those two groups in particular, they often come in as solo entrepreneurs — what we like to call “philanthropic advisor entrepreneurs.” They’re building the profession while learning, figuring out which market segment they want to focus on. Like any other profession — attorneys, accountants, even wealth advisors — you can choose the level of wealth you want to serve. Some people work with ultra-high-net-worth families, while others prefer everyday donors. Personalizing the space is taking some time. The second piece of research led to the creation of the Certified IP Program, based on what we learned was missing. From there, we realized we needed a competency framework — because this is the practice piece, and it also helps advisors identify their next learning pathways. As you build a team, one person might be really strong in one area, another excels elsewhere, and by looking at the competency model, you can identify gaps and complement the team. We started with 13 competencies — Marguerite knows there were many more initially, but we whittled it down to 13. Within each competency, there are objectives to meet. We don’t expect everyone to have all 13 — the idea is to know what you’re good at, focus on a few things, and partner up to complement the others. We’re also seeing more specialized, niche areas emerging. For example, Valerie Con is a science philanthropy advisor — very niche. Impact investing has its own unique angle. This is how a true profession progresses — from generalists all the way to specialists.
JOSEPH: Thank you for sharing that, Marguerite. I’m going to pass it to you and build on what Dien mentioned about using these competencies. I know that you just made a big hire on your team not too long ago, and you shared with me that this was a helpful tool as you thought about what you and other members of the team are bringing to this work. It also helped when putting out a job description and finding someone who might not have had the formal title of “philanthropic advisor,” but who came to the work with the core competencies needed to round out the team and help everyone thrive. Can you share more about how you thought about that, and how the competency model showed up in your work?
MARGUERITE: Yeah, thank you. And it was just as you described. I had the experience of working with Dien and her team, building the competency models, and I had a bit of a eureka moment thinking, “Oh, this is really going to be helpful for me.” It gave me a structured lens to define what excellence would look like for a specific role, rather than just hiring based on a vague impression — “Oh, they’re polished,” or “They’ll be good with clients.” This gave me the opportunity to think about the role in terms of core behavioral competencies, core technical competencies, and then specialized competencies — the “nice-to-haves” or “wouldn’t it be great if…” It really helped me assess what we currently have on our team in terms of skill sets, and what would complement or add to that. The model also improved our interviewing. Instead of asking generic questions, I was able to ask things like, “Tell me about a time when you facilitated a values conversation, perhaps with conflict in the family or ambiguity.” Or, “How would you adapt when a client’s cultural relationship with money, power, or mutual care differs from your own assumptions?” That gets at cultural dexterity. I could also ask, “Walk me through how you would turn a client’s purpose into an actionable strategy or learning plan.” When you have that clarity and consistency around the kind of advisor you’re looking for, two things happen. First, you build credibility as an employer. Second, you’re better able to find the right person. That person might not match your mental image of a “traditional philanthropic advisor,” but I actually learned through this process that there isn’t a single definition. We’re all very different. The model helps bring the practice together so we can present ourselves as professionals with shared goals. Even if we have different backgrounds, we can define the lanes that clients can expect, providing clear coverage and expertise across the team.
JOSEPH: That’s great. Thank you for sharing that. So let’s look ahead to 2036 — I don’t know, ten years from now. What do you hope the philanthropic advising field will look like? What do you hope will be different, stronger, or more clearly defined? Dien, would you like to kick us off?
DIEN: Sure, interesting question, Joseph. My hope is that the profession becomes a true profession, that we have the “four E’s” in place. I do worry, though, about AI, and I think that’s something we need to address. Yes, some nonprofits and grant-making organizations are already thinking about this, but philanthropic advisors, not so much yet. We need to figure out what this means for our work. We talk about table stakes, right? Things like due diligence, researching nonprofits, and even pulling impact reports — that’s already table stakes. The next level, I think, is a human-centered approach. AI cannot replace the ability to talk to a client and draw insights out of them. AI will be interesting to watch in this space. I’m also a little worried about cybersecurity and risk. Risk management is already one of the competencies we look at, but risk goes beyond data. It’s about professional responsibility. When we design plans for our clients, we need to overlay risk management to ensure that what we propose is safe for the client, safe for their families. Right now, we’re not taught how to do that — we just don’t have that experience. With the world heading in this direction, it’s going to be really important to figure out how to protect our clients, how to protect donors, and also, when money flows into the community, how we protect the community as well.
JOSEPH: Yeah, I love that point — being able to look around the corners for our clients. And, of course, not to make decisions for them, but to paint a picture of what different paths and scenarios might look like, so they feel equipped to make good decisions for themselves. Anything you’d like to add to that point, Marguerite, about 2036?
MARGUERITE: No, I’m just fascinated by what Dien just said — wow, those are really important points. For me, I would like to see a more consistent client experience across the board. I hope the field becomes more culturally dexterous and community-centered, rather than just donor-centered, and that we see better collaboration. One of the reasons I’m so excited about PPI and the work that Daylight has done is that it gives us opportunities to think about how we can collaborate more and better. We’re building this ecosystem, and it also creates continued learning opportunities. I hope the field focuses on learning and impact, rather than always having to have a certain answer or solution. The human-centered part is just so fascinating. I would want the field to be stronger not only in technical sophistication but also in how we hold human meaning — purpose, grief, legacy. How do we repair communities? How do we create communities of belonging? And I hope all of that is incorporated into the philanthropic conversation.
JOSEPH: Those are big, important conversations we have to have, right? Lots of big things to talk about, lots of work that needs to happen. This has been delightful. Thank you both so much for joining me this afternoon on the podcast as we start to wrap up. I mean, we’re just scratching the surface of this stuff — really just scratching the surface. Dien, you mentioned the research you’ve done and the reports you’ve put out. For listeners who want to learn more, where should they start? And for folks who have a lot of time on their hands and really want to dive deep into these topics, where might you point them?
DIEN: Yes, definitely. Go to our website — it’s daylightadvisors.com. We try to put all of our research there. There’s no paywall; everything is available. If you can’t find something, email me, and I’ll make sure you get it. There’s not enough research out there yet, so we try to keep a really interesting library. Definitely follow us on LinkedIn at the Daylight corporate account, because we push materials out there as well. As you know, legislation and news change, and we try to share that with everyone. Thank you, Joseph, for inviting me. This is a great space, and I love this topic — you know that!
JOSEPH: Yeah, so just as we wrap up today, I’d love to give you both the final word. What excites you most about this work right now, and what gives you hope about serving philanthropists, unlocking philanthropic capital, and creating that lasting social impact you were talking about, Marguerite? What gets you excited, and what fills you with hope? Marguerite, would you like to start? If you want, I can now compile all of your edited podcast segments into one fully polished transcript with consistent formatting, speaker flow, and punctuation — ready for editing, captions, or publication. Do you want me to do that next?
MARGUERITE: Sure. I think what excites me today — and every day — is that philanthropy is one of those rare places where people are willing to ask and respond to the question, “What do I want my life to stand for?” That’s a really exciting and rare place to be. When I think about the future, I think about the rising generations and how they are expanding what impact can mean. I love how they integrate giving with investing, volunteering, advocacy, and community partnership. They give me a lot of hope that we’re going to be okay. In Daylight’s framing, philanthropy is voluntary action for the public good. That captures the broader view of where I think we’re going and what excites me about this work. What about you, Dien?
DIEN: Oh, I agree. I agree with Marguerite. Education, in my family, has always been very, very important. Being in this professional development and training space is fascinating. How did I end up here? There is money out there — more than enough capital. The problem is, as you know, Joseph, from your research work, things get stuck. Education helps unlock that and get people unstuck. Whether it’s wealth advisors, donors, or anyone else, education plays a really important role. To give you a sense of scale, we believe there are about 102,000 advisors in wealth, estate planning, and CPA fields who are interested in philanthropic planning and having philanthropic conversations with their clients. That’s 102,000 across CAP, UPenn, and even Daylight if you add all the learners who have graduated from these programs. But since CAP started in 2003, we’ve only reached about 5,000 advisors — that’s 5%. We still need to reach the remaining 95%. If we can reach them, Joseph, we can move and unlock this capital right into communities. That’s what excites me — figuring out how we can address that 95%. Daylight’s goal is to bring 10,000 advisors into this space, so that everyone is at least having philanthropic conversations with their clients. That’s really exciting.
JOSEPH: Well, thank you for making that point. That’s what gets me excited about unlocking this capital and moving it into communities — into our country, into our world — in areas that are really meaningful and that can create real change in people’s lives. I love that we’re ending on that note, and I appreciate all the tools and resources you’re making available to help make that happen. Thank you all for joining us today on the Purposeful Planning Podcast. I hope to see you on the next one. Have a good afternoon.
