Remarks for D3
9:20 – 9:40 a.m. September 26, 2011
TIFF Box Lightbox, Toronto
Dr. Anne Golden, C.M.
President and Chief Executive Officer,
The Conference Board of Canada
Introduction
For most of my career, I have been involved with the charitable and not-for-profit sector. And I have participated in many fora and discussions on the role for that sector – on what we could achieve if we were only able to collaborate, cooperate, communicate and coordinate effectively.
In June, my dear friend and former colleague, Robin Cardozo, CEO of The Ontario Trillium Foundation, gave a very thoughtful speech. He argued that politicians and political parties seem “unwilling” to discuss the serious issues confronting Canada – issues like climate change, the aging of our population, immigration, health care, living conditions of our Aboriginal population, environmental challenges, and Canada’s role in the world. He went on to ask, “Where is the requisite leadership to come from?” His answer was from civil society, the not-for-profit sector. Robin went on to provide many examples of not-for-profit organizations doing important work on public policy issues (though for some incomprehensible reason he neglected mentioning The Conference Board of Canada, which is doing ground-breaking work on these issues… but I digress). Robin concludes by arguing that since we cannot look to governments for visionary thinking on the top issues of the day, the voluntary sector must step into the breach, take the lead, and set the agenda.
As I read the speech, I found myself nodding in agreement – up to this point. Then, Robin turned to “how”. How was the sector going to build upon each other’s strengths, to fulfill this ambitious mandate? The answer, he said, lay in collaboration and collective leadership. Here, he lost me.
My mind immediately went back to 1986 (25 years ago) when I was at the United Way of Greater Toronto and convened a conference optimistically called “A New Era for Voluntarism”.
The agenda for that conference of sector leaders included several critical issues: government funding of NGOs – policies and practices; commercialization and privatization of social services, which seemed to be on the rise; how the sector was – or was not – responding to growing ethnic diversity; and the potential leadership role that the sector could play. Ryerson Dean, Marvyn Novick, set out the idealistic vision: “the building of a movement for public responsibility…a community in which the weak as well as the strong are protected and nurtured.”
The central theme of the conference emerged early and often. Delegates agreed that the sector suffered a paralysis of will, and that lack of coordination, poor communication and muddled information were standing in the way of a more vigorous leadership role.
Despite our high hopes captured in the title of that forum, A New Era for Voluntarism, we did not make any progress. We weren’t even able to define a common set of issues on which we could work together, let alone take common action. Many of the top leaders of that day were in the room, filled with mutual respect and goodwill; yet, the truth is, despite good attendance and fascinating discussions, we were not successful.
As you can tell, I have now reached the debunking portion of my speech.
Debunking
We must first ask ourselves whether there is such a thing as a voluntary sector. I would suggest that it is too varied, too diverse to be a sector – in size, scope, revenue, and mandate. Consider this: the top 1% of charitable organizations receive almost 60% of all revenues; at the bottom end of this scale, 42% of the organizations account for just 1% of the revenues.
There are billion dollar corporations, like the University Health Network, and there are neighbourhood organizations that run local wading pools – all part of this so-called sector.
Nor can we view the not-for-profit sector as “neutral ground” – many organizations are ideological; many are faith-based; and many have mandates too closely tied to their revenue sources. There are local and regional interests that influence individual mandates. Moreover, individuals who volunteer their time and give their money, do so out of their passion about particular causes rather than a collective vision of society.
My second point – related to the previous one – the notion that some form of collective or collaborative leadership will emerge from among this hugely diverse group of not-for-profit organizations to take charge of the “big issues of the day” is, I believe, unlikely. I cannot imagine how this grouping of agencies and organizations, with all its diverse and vested interests, could ever establish a collaborative leadership model. Nor how it could realistically be expected to bring together business, government, labour, faith groups, etc., on so-called neutral ground other than on a very specific issue-by-issue basis. Moreover, I struggle to comprehend what kind of leadership model could work. There are some who have extolled the virtues of “a decentralized leadership model”, dependent on collaboration and consensus building. I can’t even see how this works effectively in a single organization, let alone with thousands – remember Nellie’s in 1991? How would you ensure accountability? How would you develop and implement strategy? How would you develop effect governance?
My third concern about the idea of unlocking the leadership potential of the entire sector towards a concerted search for solutions is the assumption that those who comprise the sector have common values. Even at United Way of Greater Toronto, where I was for 20 years, the motives and values of those who supported the organization with their hearts, time, and money, varied and were often in conflict.
I remember, shortly after I arrived in 1982, we held a day-long community forum as part of a strategic planning process to launch a period of change at United Way – top labour, corporate, spiritual, and community leaders attended. During the intense and emotional debate about our mission, a leading corporate spokesman declared: he supported United Way because “it would take the agencies off the government tit”. Thereupon, the labour council leader responded emphatically that organized labour backed the United Way for precisely the opposite reason, namely to strengthen advocacy for more government funding of human services. The conflict was smoothed over by the Anglican Archbishop who stated that he supported United Way because it brought both of them together in the same room. So while they could agree on the value of United Way, they could never have aligned on social public policy.
A second illustration, also from my United Way days, is the marketing study we did of donor values. Our objective was to define the values of typical United Way donors so we could more effectively appeal for donations. When the study came back, we were surprised to learn that there were at least three different types of donors. Each group had very different motives and values. Some gave to United Way because they were religious, believed in tithing, or at least felt a moral obligation to give back to society. Others gave for very practical reasons – they wanted the services there for them in case they needed them (like a form of insurance); still others gave because of peer pressure – that is, because their friends did. They didn’t even agree on why they gave, let alone, macro public policy. So, to me, the notion that the sector can unite to harness collective resources to problem-solve is not realistic.
What can the sector achieve?
That said, the power of the sector can be brought to bear under certain circumstances and for specific causes.
Following its merger with The Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, Imagine Canada is playing a significant role today in advancing the needs and interests of the charitable sector. It is taking a leadership role in developing standards for charity performance (e.g., Ethical Fundraising Code and its new Standard Initiatives). Less successful was Imagine’s earlier efforts to set standards for corporate giving for which it was created.
A second example, still fresh in our minds, is the opposition that the charitable sector was able to mount against Bill C-470. This was the Bill put forward by Liberal MP Albina Guareni in 2009 that would have required every charity to disclose salaries greater than $100,000 and to cap charity salaries at $250,000. That Bill actually got the support of the Liberal Caucus and later all party support to be taken to the Standing Committee on Finance. The Bill was in its second reading in the Senate, after passing the House, when the Government fell and the Bill died. Again, the cause was narrow and specific and affected the entire sector, which was able to unite against it.
I could provide many examples where charitable and/or not-for-profits have come together in response to single major issues. An interesting one that I am involved with through the Conference Board is the Winnipeg Consensus Committee, which involves most of Canada’s top think tanks heading up a project to develop a Canadian Clean Energy Strategy. There is no end to the important, constructive research and analysis that is being done by individual organizations, foundations, and agencies across Canada. Increasingly, it is voluntary sector organizations that are providing innovative and creative policy ideas.
Where I am especially optimistic with respect to the role of civil society in providing policy leadership and direction is on the urban front. Last week I gave a major speech on cities, here in Toronto – a kind of retrospective on what I have learned about cities in the past four decades. One of those learnings is that, while we have experimented with various approaches to metropolitan governance in Canada, we have not found the ideal model. The most exciting development in governance is occurring outside of government per se – in some cities, like Toronto and Calgary – business leaders are stepping up and engaging with the voluntary sector on a range of issues. CivicAction (formerly the Toronto City Summit Alliance) has galvanized leaders from all sectors to act on problems like immigrant employment, income security, diversity, etc.
The Toronto Region Immigration Employment Council (TRIEC) has inspired similar partnerships in Ottawa and Halifax. Community-based networks connecting people of different backgrounds – sometimes around local issues, sometimes on policy matters – can strengthen the urban fabric in important ways. An important caveat is that all of these exciting initiatives where citizens get engaged, in what has been called a “big tent” form of governance, relies on inspiring leadership of visionaries, visionaries who are also doers, like David Pecaut.
What does the Future Hold?
I’m tempted to take the advice of Yogi Berra who said, famously, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.
However, a look at the key trends affecting voluntarism and charitable giving should help. Here are seven such trends.
1. The proliferation of organizations will continue.
- There are 85,000 registered charities in Canada today – almost twice as many as there were in 1984 – together with another 80,000 non-profit organizations. The charitable sector represents a big chunk of Canada’s economy – almost 8% of our GDP, $80 billion. And 2 million Canadians work directly in the sector.
- Moreover, charities will become increasingly professional, innovative, and competitive.
2. Demands for accountability (e.g., Bill C-470) will not go away – whether the funds are coming from individuals, businesses or governments.
3. An aging society will have both benefits and negative effects. It may lead to a wider pool of potential volunteers willing to donate more hours. Almost one in two Canadians volunteered for at least one organization in 2007, up from 27% in 1987 (it is worth noting that while there are more volunteers, they are working fewer hours and that the top 25% of volunteers contribute almost 80% of all volunteer hours). However, the aging trend will also increase the demands for services.
4. Diversity, with Canadians coming from all parts of the globe, may generate a new pool of volunteers but with the possibility that more giving will be tied to specific communities.
5. The growing inequality in Canada will underscore the giving trends – with charities more dependent on fewer wealthy donors. This could also lead to more vanity-giving, with wealthy donors demanding certain quid-pro-quos for their gifts (e.g., roles in governance, choice of cause, naming rights, etc.).
6. The rise of social media with on-line giving is starting to be used very effectively and could be used to mobilize volunteers quickly. What will happen when all of this is too big to manage is unknown.
7. The shift in corporate giving to strategic philanthropy in support of the company’s brand or business interest – which began in the mid-1980s – will continue. Over the past few decades, we have seen the focus of corporate philanthropy narrow and a concomitant growth of corporate sponsorship for brand-enhancing events and products. In fact, in 2009 total corporate giving of $2.3 billion was almost evenly split between traditional philanthropy and sponsorships. As well in this era of globalization, more foreign companies are investing in establishing themselves in Canada. Often, though not always, these foreign-owned subsidiaries have less discretion over corporate donations and less interest in community-building. This trend will only continue.
Given these trends, can we really look forward to a new era for voluntarism in support of a kinder, gentler Canada?
I always say that because I’m short, I like to see the glass half full. The future of the sector depends on the efforts and vigilance of its members and leaders.
I agree with the saying that “the future is not something we predict, something that just happens to us, but it is something we create”.
So while we may not have a common societal vision or framework for collaboration, I hope we will work individually and together, where we can, to shape the future we want.