Philanthropic funders today have more opportunities than ever for collaboration with others. But which others? The choices are many: other funders, other community partners, others in business or others in government. The reasons for collaboration are not hard to point to: more resources, more impact, more leverage and bigger change possibly. Collaborative funding can also offer the possibility of more innovation, more perspectives on a problem and more possibilities for intervention. But as I described in a recent blog, typically funders don’t engage in structured collaborative funding. Most funders choose rather to focus on funding individual organizations delivering specific services usually in a shorter timeframe. This is unquestionably needed and important. But could some part of a funder’s portfolio also be allocated to funding collaboratively, not only with other funders but with other sectors? Are multi-sectoral partnerships now more of a possibility, particularly as we consider the opportunities for investing in a stronger Canada?
It's important to distinguish multi-sectoral funding from collaborative funding although both involve collaboration. I cited some examples of collaborative funding in Canada in my blog. In these cases, funders align their funding or directly pool their funds, usually as a group of charitable funders making grants. Even this sort of funding isn’t easy. Active collaboration requires compromise, communication and usually a long-term vision. But there have been growing instances of collaborative funding over the last decade, particularly in the environmental, community development and poverty reduction fields.
Multi-sectoral funding partnerships go beyond collaborative funding. In many cases they involve some mix of nonprofit, corporate and government funders. The partnerships may also involve a mix of capital, data, expertise and policy development. There are many examples of these types of funding partnerships across the Global South as described in a recent newsletter from WINGS, the international network for grantmakers. For example, the Mesoamerican Reef Fund (MARFund), a regional environmental fund that focuses on preserving the Mesoamerican Reef, which spans Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras involves international donors, environmental organisations, philanthropy like the Oak Foundation and Paul M. Angell Family Foundation, and regional governments. Another example is the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in Senegal, involving international partners, philanthropy like the Rockefeller Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and communities in Africa. Launched in 2023, it aims to boost renewable energy in Senegal’s electricity mix to 40% by 2030. These partnerships are what is envisaged in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 17, which emphasizes multi-stakeholder collaborations among governments, businesses, civil society, and individuals to share resources, knowledge, and technology.
WINGS cites the benefits of multi-sectoral partnerships (MSPs) when they are properly managed:
At the local level in Canada, one of the most influential models of MSP has been the collective impact work fostered by the Tamarack Institute and its Vibrant Communities Initiative. Another example in Canada is the collaboration scaffolded by Shorefast to develop local communities and economies. Shorefast describes its work as “forging a new path at the intersection of business, philanthropy and community development”.
The most interesting opportunities for multi-sectoral partnerships in Canada today will involve a combination of innovative financing, expertise and advisory capabilities, supported by a backbone organization or purpose-built platform. Philanthropic funders have many opportunities as providers of risk capital and impact investors to engage in these partnerships.
Here are some examples:
Food and Agriculture: MaRS Discovery District is collaborating with the Farm Credit Corporation to launch a Food and AgTech Mission which “aims to mobilize capital, coordinate adopters and accelerate ventures that will strengthen Canada’s food system” through a venture accelerator and a corporate adopter cohort. These will be guided by a advisory body of experts and stakeholders from industry, finance and the innovation community, who will identify market barriers and enable large-scale adoption of agri-food innovation. The founding coalition members include representatives from Wittington Ventures, S2G Investments, TELUS Agriculture & Consumer Goods, The Arrell Family Foundation and NYA Ventures.
Affordable Housing: The new federal agency Build Canada Homes offers an opportunity for the application of innovative financing partnerships to support the building of more affordable housing options, as described in a recent article in The Philanthropist Journal on how philanthropy can help Canada build its way out of a housing shortage. Nonprofit organizations such as New Commons Development already demonstrate the impact of a nonprofit real estate developer partnering with community organizations and attracting philanthropic investors to develop affordable and sustainable housing.
As WINGS points out, philanthropy can play a unique catalyzing role in MSPs. It can provide risk capital. It can also provide networks, expertise and convening power. Philanthropy can concretely engage in MSPs by acting as a convenor, providing patient, risk-tolerant capital, supporting experimentation and early-stage innovation and ensuring that marginalised groups and Indigenous communities have a voice in decision-making and access to resources. Local philanthropy can help to boost and empower local or grassroots organizations closest to the problems and able to work on solutions. Communities need to develop partnering bodies such as community trusts and co-operatives. Public sector bodies such as regional development agencies and autonomous public corporations need to acquire new risk assessment frameworks that permit more flexibility. There is much to do for all partners to pull off these MSPs. But their impact on the complex problems we face locally, regionally or globally, can be enormous. Certainly, worth allocating some part of a philanthropy’s portfolio for the long term.
I have worked with many foundations during more than two decades of my engagement with philanthropy. I have found that the best way to understand them, and to share my understanding with others, is to tell a story about them. Stories about what they do in the present are compelling. But the story becomes even richer when it is also about the past, about how the foundation got started, what shaped it and how it evolved. My 2022 book From Charity to Change tells many such origin stories about foundations. Their stories were an entry point into understanding their impact. Looking back made it possible to see how far they had come but what also held true from their beginnings – in other words, what still mattered most to them or what drove their purpose and strategies.
New foundations are starting up in Canada all the time. Many if not most are small family funds. But some have a different origin – and one of these is the Definity Insurance Foundation. This public foundation started operating in late 2021 when it received funding from the proceeds of the demutualization of Economical Mutual Insurance Company (now known as Definity Insurance Company). The story of this demutualization and what it led to is already well told in a 2022 article in The Philanthropist Journal, ‘Looking for the Good Way’. This year, I developed a new case study tracing the evolution of this remarkable foundation, which the foundation has made public.
In late 2021, the foundation was capitalized with an endowment of $100 million provided through the Conversion Plan for the demutualization. Well before this time, a founding group of directors had begun to work on a vision for the work of the new foundation. These directors had all worked through the demutualization process and knew each other well. Although they did not have experience in the foundation sector (only one had direct experience in the charitable sector), I learned when I interviewed them for the case study that they were all very open from the start to learning as much as possible about philanthropic practice, including both grantmaking and impact investing. The directors quickly landed on a vision of a healthy, equitable and flourishing world and a mission of working with charitable partners across Canada to tackle inequity, barriers to good health and opportunity, and climate-related challenges.
By August 2021, the board had chosen three funding pillars: healthy people, thriving communities, livable planet. The directors further agreed that they wanted the foundation to focus specifically on the health and well-being of marginalized people and to help communities reduce the effects of social and economic inequality, as well as the inequitable impacts of climate change in communities and economies.
Importantly, from its inception the foundation was not a corporate foundation but an autonomous independent public foundation. The new company, renamed Definity Insurance Company, mutually agreed with the foundation to enter a partnership, the first of its kind, where they would share the Definity name, include company and community directors, and where the company would contribute additional funds to the foundation annually for the betterment of community.
In December 2021, the board selected Arti Freeman as the first President and CEO of the Foundation. This was a major turning point. The board chose a leader committed to doing things differently, building on her own deep experience but eager to try a new approach in philanthropy. Arti drew widely on advice and conversations with a range of philanthropic and social sector leaders. These open-ended conversations touched on the needs and trends that other leaders were seeing, about what and what wasn’t working, and what high impact initiatives the new foundation should consider.
In June 2022, after six months of hard work, Arti and the board agreed on a new community investment framework (CIF). Articulating the goal of the foundation as “addressing the roots of health, social economic and climate inequalities” and based on six principles (equity, diverse and inclusive, leverage resources, collaborative, community-led and shared learning), the framework connected the three original impact areas (healthy people, thriving communities, livable planet) to specific outcomes, strategies and priority populations. The framework also set out five granting approaches: partnership grants, program-related investments, research, convening and sector strengthening. Finally, the framework included a learning approach aligned with the six principles of the community investment approach: using stories, data and evidence provided by grantees and communities themselves to share, learn and adapt strategies as needed.
The board also moved to diversify its membership, adding directors who had engagement and experience with underrepresented communities or with the areas of priority to the foundation such as climate mitigation and adaptation, health equity, food security, inclusive economic opportunities or knowledge of impact investing. The new group of directors quickly formed a collegial bond with the first group around their shared boldness of vision and their commitment to supporting systemic change in communities. By late 2023, the board had adopted an even clearer focus on social justice and equity, with community at the core. It also had identified four strategic goals: flow capital to underfunded regions and communities; take a holistic approach; advance collaborative innovation; and support all of this through organizational effectiveness.
Arti and the board have shared this thinking and framework openly with their partners and with the broader public. As I learned from my discussions, the foundation is setting itself apart with a conscious approach to collaborative learning and sharing. The foundation demonstrates an unusual combination at this early stage in its development of trusting relationships among board and staff and a shared commitment to structured learning and public accountability, recognizing that community has many of the answers already, and the role of the foundation is to invest and support its partners in alignment with their intention.
What can we learn from the origins and early history of the Definity Foundation? The case study has attempted to highlight some of these learnings:
It’s an ongoing story for the Definity Foundation. But as this first stage concludes, Arti Freeman sums it up: "I am honoured to have been given the privilege and opportunity to lead a philanthropic organization with a blank sheet. This journey has been grounded in humility and purpose, listening and learning every step of the way. The relationships we’ve built—with our board, our team, and our friends, partners, and colleagues in the sector—have been the glue that helped this foundation find its legs. Together, we’ve worked to build an institution that is not only adaptive, but relevant and responsive to the needs of our communities."
Why is philanthropic collaboration so difficult? Much is said about collaborating, but much less is done in practice, it seems. This is true even in the face of the complexity of the issues that philanthropy addresses, the increasing push for community partnerships, and the additional leverage to be had from funding and working cooperatively. Foundations in general are reluctant to co-fund, and unwilling to cede their control over strategy and allocation of their funds.
This is not unique to Canada. Collaboration among foundations across the world is not common. Collaboration across sectors is even rarer. Why is this the case? Three networks for philanthropy have partnered to study the barriers to philanthropic collaboration. The result of their analysis is summarized in a new report Building Foundations for Collaborative Transformation co-authored by WINGS , the global network for philanthropy, Philea, the European foundation network, and The Partnering Initiative, a UK nonprofit dedicated to professionalizing the practice of collaboration.
From June to December 2024, the three partners conducted a needs analysis involving over fifty foundations across the world through a survey, interviews and workshops. These foundations ranged from small to large and from family to corporate. A couple were Canadian; most of the others were European, South American or Asian. Most had an interest in partnership and therefore were eager to participate. The study sponsors note that this might lead to an overrepresentation of foundations already engaged in collaboration, but the researchers feel that their practice aligns with a growing interest across the philanthropic field.
So, what did all this research reveal? Unsurprisingly, the surveyed foundations report that they have confidence in their partnerships with community organizations and with other funders. But cross-sectoral collaboration is rarer. They have much less confidence and less engagement in collaborations with the private sector or government. More significant are the institutional barriers to collaboration, especially collaboration intended to bring about systemic or transformational change. Most foundations are not structured for effective long-term collaboration for systems change. They don’t have the mindset, the staff skills, the investment flexibility or the ability to understand or track progress towards such change. Indeed, they would say that this is not their mission. But for those who believe that private philanthropy must respond to the systemic economic, environmental and social disruptions that we face, the need for a collaborative approach is pressing.
How to meet this pressing need? How to become “institutionally fit for partnering “as the report puts it. Based on the responses of participating foundations, it appears that the gap is primarily in operational and implementation capabilities. The will is there but the way is not. “While foundations increasingly recognise the value of partnerships at leadership levels,” says this report, “many have yet to translate this commitment into the practical tools, training, and incentive structures needed for implementation”. Foundations interested in collaboration must reconsider their internal practices (funding cycles, application and reporting requirements, staff training and incentives etc). They may also need to invest externally to build enabling environments for collaboration, such as sector infrastructure, technical assistance to partners, and regulatory policy change. And they may need to reconsider their funding strategies to take a more active role in convening, creating and sustaining collaborative structures for themselves and their partners.
One such collaborative structure is co-funding. This is a structure that is still not widely used, for many of the reason cited above. Nevertheless, done well, it is an important way in which to leverage philanthropic funds. A recent piece by Nick Grono, the CEO of an American collaborative fund, the Freedom Fund, suggests how to set up a collaborative fund effectively. He cites three different types of collaborative funds: single donor-driven; funder co-created; and community-led. Canadian philanthropy has seen examples of all three types, many of them developed only in the last decade. In the environmental sector, the Clean Economy Fund has been operating for several years now to draw environmental funders together around the goal of a transition to cleaner energy. The Ivey Foundation has been an important driver of this collaborative fund, joined by other foundations such as Trottier. An example of funder co-creation is the Workforce Funder Collaborative, bringing together funders in the Greater Toronto Area to support workforce innovators. Two examples of community-led funder collaboratives are the Foundation for Black Communities (also cited by Grono) and the Indigenous Peoples Resilience Fund, both supported but not led by private funders.
Grono is obviously a fan of collaborative funds. But he cautions that there aren’t enough examples of how to establish these funds or platforms for matching funders with interesting fund opportunities. He wants a more systematic approach. In his view, “by sharing more openly about the origin stories of highly impactful funds, and by fostering more structured pathways to fund formation, philanthropists can ensure collaborative funding models thrive”.
The Gates Foundation has led work in this area and shared many lessons learned. The Bridgespan Group has provided much data and evidence. So, we do know more now about how to foster collaboration and overcome barriers to practice. As a new generation of practitioners rises to leadership in Canadian and global philanthropy, I expect to see an acceleration in collaboration that reflects a new understanding of how private philanthropy can increase its impact. In five years’ time, the question for foundation leaders to ask themselves will be “why aren’t we involved in a collaborative”, rather than “why should we go beyond our own organizational walls?”
Postcript: A Summer Philanthropy Bookshelf
For those who want to spend some of their summer reading more about collaboration in philanthropy or other philanthropic topics, check out my reviews of philanthropy books over the years, with links to be found here.
In early May I visited one of the most beautiful places in Canada, Fogo Island, Newfoundland. It is truly a distinctive place, with welcoming communities, stirring scenery and a long and meaningful history of human settlement. But over and above these attractions, Fogo Island features an extraordinary experiment in place building, led by the philanthropist Zita Cobb, the builder of the Fogo Island Inn and founder of the charitable organization Shorefast. For almost two decades, Zita Cobb has pursued a vision of creating “prosperous economies that serve people, nature and culture in local places”. Since 2004, Zita Cobb and her brothers, all born on Fogo Island, have been on a mission to build economic and cultural resilience on the island. Zita has not only built a world-renowned luxury inn on Fogo but has also helped to create a contemporary arts residency program, a local textile and woodworking social enterprise and many other economic development spin offs to support the resiliency of the Island’s economy. In doing so she has created a model for the application of philanthropic and private capital to helping Canadian communities and places flourish.
Zita Cobb’s thinking about philanthropic capital and its role in place-building has always gone beyond her investments on Fogo Island. The work of Shorefast, the organization she created, is to build, learn and share models of economic development that activate the assets of local places. In 2021, the Shorefast Institute for Place-Based Economies launched a Community Economies Pilot with four other Canadian communities which identified four levers to strengthen community economies: attract and retain financial capital; access and leverage data; build local capacity; and create architectures for collaboration. In 2022, the Shorefast Institute published a program agenda for supporting community economies with concrete suggestions for activating these four levers. As it points out, “the project of strengthening community economies is an urgent national priority that can be one part of the toolkit in addressing the many overlapping crises we face.” This is even more true in 2025 as we face a potentially much worse threat to our economic future.
While this agenda is important for governments and private capital, philanthropic capital also has a role to play. Canadian philanthropists and foundations are already working on building social capital and reinforcing social cohesion. Many of them appreciate the importance of building strong bonds within communities through civic and democratic engagement. But, like many government policy makers, foundations tend to think vertically about issues – health care, food security, mental illness and addiction, green space and housing – and lack a framework for investing in horizontal place-based strategies to deal with a set of interrelated problems in community. This is admittedly difficult to do and arguably it is not in the mandate of foundations to lead the way in funding broad-based community development strategies. Nevertheless, foundations can take advantage of the deep knowledge already available through literature and practice around place based and community economic development. Shorefast’s research and pilots build on the work of many other Canadian thought leaders – the Coady Institute and its work on asset-based community development; the Tamarack Institute and its work with Vibrant Communities; Social Capital Partners; the Canadian Urban Institute, and others.
Many of these organizations are supported by philanthropy. Foundations such as McConnell, Maytree, Metcalfe, Atkinson, and community foundations across Canada have invested in place-based initiatives to strengthen local communities, whether urban or rural. Newer foundations such as NorthPine and Definity, in addition to Shorefast, are choosing to invest in communities as a priority. But they are not being guided by a common framework around their community investments.
If philanthropic funders took as a frame the four levers of capital, capacity, data and architecture for community collaboration, they would be guided by what the research suggests are the most essential elements to thriving in place. Too many foundations focus only on the social and cultural aspects of thriving community. The vertical silos that divide social and industrial policy in government are mirrored in philanthropy which often limits itself to meeting social needs (poverty, illness, food security, etc) rather than strengthening economic assets. Developing strategies to combat community loneliness, isolation, poverty and inequality cannot be divorced from building capability for entrepreneurship, training, and civic infrastructure.
Philanthropic capital can be deployed in many ways to strengthen communities: through investments in financial instruments such as community bonds, mortgages, and community finance funds; through direct impact investments in social enterprises and housing trusts; through grants to collect data, train community leaders and provide support to community dialogues and tables (such as the support to neighbourhood tables provided through the Collective Impact Project in Montreal). I would suggest that philanthropy also can be more urgently and effectively deployed in two areas that are underfunded by other sources of capital: knowledge building, and advocacy for regulatory and policy change. Shorefast itself provides a model for investing in knowledge building both within communities and across sectors. By sponsoring research, convening dialogues, and creating or repurposing spaces in community for dialogue, philanthropic funders can support community voice and consensus-building, and bring business and government decision-makers and investors to the community table. Philanthropy can also fund the development of policy solutions and support advocacy for those solutions to be adopted, in collaboration with community leaders. Many legal and regulatory policies could be reformed for example to support more community investment in local assets and to facilitate creative philanthropic capital deployment to communities.
When I left Fogo Island, Zita Cobb gave me the gift of a beautifully crafted wooden doorstop, made in a Fogo Island workshop. She reminded me that if we hold doors open to each other across our country, “we can do a lot, if we do it together.” Philanthropy can play that invaluable role of holding doors open for citizens, businesses and governments to come together to strengthen community, if we are bold enough.
We are living today in a world shaped by conflict. And conflict makes philanthropists uncomfortable. This is not unique to them. In practice, individual aversion to conflict often leads to organizational avoidance of intervention in conflict, whether the organization is a company, a non-profit or a foundation. It is a rare foundation that takes on any effort to mediate conflict directly once it starts.
De-escalation of conflict is for the common good. Therefore, it should be within philanthropy’s mandate. Yet it is rare that funding is directed to specific initiatives to prevent or de-escalate conflict. A 2019 survey found that peace-related global grantmaking comprised less than one percent of all grants.
Why are foundations reluctant to support conflict de-escalation or peacebuilding? Some argue that this kind of grantmaking means taking a political stance. Others say that it is too difficult to do, too hard to measure, beyond their field of expertise. This might be true. But it could also be a definitional issue.
Broadly speaking, if conflict is defined as inter-state violence, or war, there isn’t much that foundations can do to prevent or resolve it directly. Yet before there is war, there are factors that build to war - religious or inter-communal tensions and polarization, inequality, poverty, injustice or social isolation.
Can foundations engage in preventing conflict and build peace through efforts to build social cohesion and strengthen civil society infrastructure so that the chances of outright conflict are decreased? Of course. In this way of looking at engaging with conflict, there are multiple models and resources available to Canadian philanthropy.
Mark Malloch-Brown, former President of the Open Society Foundations, in a thoughtful 2024 speech on philanthropy’s role, argued that “those of us in the philanthropic sector need to concentrate not just on peace-building among elites, but on building the long-term civic and interpersonal foundations for lasting peace…. philanthropists need to be a force against complacency, speaking out against assumptions that unresolved conflicts can be merely contained and in favor of deep investments in their resolution.”
Endowed philanthropy has some important advantages in resolving conflict. As Mark Malloch-Brown puts it, “foundations can move very fast to respond to a crisis or opportunity. But we also have sticking power, the ability to invest in causes whose results are measured not in months but in decades. We can be both patient and urgent.” The capacity for nimbleness coupled with the ability to take the long view give foundations a unique organizational advantage. To deploy that advantage, they need to pick their field of action and their most effective strategies for operating in that field.
Human conflict takes many forms: conflicts of ideas and values, interpersonal conflicts, inter-community conflicts and inter-state conflicts. Strategies for dealing with these conflicts can be direct -mediation, structured dialogues, collaborative problem-solving – or indirect - promoting inclusion and reconciliation, countering misinformation, human rights education, narrative change. These strategies are explicitly framed around defusing or preventing conflict, much of it interpersonal or intercommunal.
Some Canadian foundations have cautiously entered this space. Few foundations will act as mediators or dialogue facilitators directly. But they do fund organizations that engage in this work. Teaching mediation skills, combatting discrimination and racism, supporting public interest media and journalism, promoting human rights education and training are all activities that reduce or prevent conflict, as a direct or indirect outcome.
For example, the Brian Bronfman Family Foundation has committed itself to building harmonious relationships within communities in Canada, working through the Peace Network for Social Harmony and supporting Equitas, the leading Canadian human rights training organization. The Law Foundations in every province and territory of Canada fund community mediation, restorative justice and dispute resolution efforts. The Canadian Race Relations Foundation grants to organizations across the country working towards reconciliation and against racism. In the field of narrative change, the Inspirit Foundation does groundbreaking work to build new narratives to counter Islamophobia. And it has joined with Philanthropic Foundations Canada to promote more philanthropic investment in public interest journalism.
Many more foundations in Canada are willing to work upstream well before conflict develops. Conflict prevention itself is not an explicit goal for these foundations. Whether they take a place-based or community-centred approach, or they focus more broadly on systemic/policy change, they want to support community resilience and cohesion, combat social exclusion and injustice, and reduce the potential for conflict.
Many foundations are focused on the conditions which make it easier for communities and individuals to tip into conflict. Philanthropic strategies focused on building social cohesion and democratic or community empowerment have a strong connection to conflict prevention, even if it is not explicit. Examples of this include philanthropic investments in civic infrastructure such as parks, libraries, theaters and community centres. These are essential places where people can gather, learn, exchange, and engage positively with each other.
Other examples of more systemic interventions are structured community dialogues, such as the Collective Impact Project in Montreal, funded by foundations to build community capacity to fight poverty and social exclusion, or the Tamarack Institute which is working on a strategy to build a sense of belonging in communities across Canada as a way to help them thrive.
In the end, one could argue that all philanthropic efforts to build a fairer society with more informed, more empowered and engaged members, will create conditions for the reduction or prevention of conflict. Philanthropy’s advantages of time, patience, and sustainable funding may not directly affect the outcomes of wars. But as Malloch-Brown argued, philanthropy can contribute meaningfully to peace over the longer term, by investing in building skills for human relationship and connection and in efforts to create the conditions for civic engagement and community dialogue. These are peace-building investments we need more than ever to give us hope in a time of conflict.
We hear a lot of noise in philanthropy right now. This is especially true In the United States. It’s the noise of calls for funders to step up, spend more, rescue programs, fill gaps, support legal action and advocacy, help a civil society under siege, “meet the moment”. The U.S. federal government is making noise about threatened investigations of large endowments, calls to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, threats against expression of opinion and the rights of refugees. Sorting through this noisy onslaught, the foundation sector in the U.S. is beginning to respond with commitments to increase funding, to commit to funding advocacy and multi-year grants and to speak out for the freedom to give.
In Canada too, the noise around the slipping economy is increasing. Inevitably, much of the noise focuses on financial fears, as charities in Canada report that donations are declining, costs are rising and reserves are exhausted. The threat to Canada’s economy from U.S. actions will only worsen these real concerns.
The noise around financial vulnerability will keep people focused on the amount and pace of foundation spending. There are calls now which will grow louder, for Canada’s 11,500 foundations to give more than the $16 billion they do spend (according to 2023 CRA). This raises a familiar debate about perpetuity versus spend down. Critics argue for an increase in the mandatory payout from 5% of assets to 7% or even 10%, and time limits on the existence of endowments. Others argue that foundations must maintain their capital to play their best role as needed social investors for the long term, however long that is.
But is there a signal being lost in all the noise about money and whether it is being spent fast enough and in sufficient quantity?
This signal is what foundations need to pay attention to. Underlying the argument about money is an argument about what foundations themselves are for. What is their role in a capitalist economy and liberal democracy? The underlying signal is the questioning of philanthropic legitimacy.
There is fragile public support for the foundation model. While direct attacks on foundations in Canada have been rare, the growing size of philanthropic endowments over the past few years is making them more visible. As stresses over inequality increase, so too will suspicion of wealth, even wealth held for charitable purpose and for public benefit. The lack of transparency by most private foundations in Canada leaves them open to this suspicion. In the U.S. opinion polls show support for regulating higher spend rates of endowments and possibly removing tax incentives provided to foundation donors if they don’t show themselves to be more accountable. While a US opinion poll does not predict or reflect Canadian views, this does not mean that Canadian philanthropy should not take advantage of this opportunity to react.
David Callahan, the editor of Inside Philanthropy in the US, has raised concerns about philanthropy’s vulnerability to public attack, pointing out that “public support for philanthropy’s current practices is weak”. He suggests that foundations pay more attention to the need to demonstrate their value to society. Callahan argues that “philanthropy needs to better understand how deep currents of isolation, loneliness, alienation and anxiety have greatly complicated the work of social change. It’s not enough for institutions to solve problems and demonstrate results. What’s also needed is the articulation of a broader vision of human flourishing and the good life that people can believe in.”
How can/should/must philanthropy respond to this signal? What can foundations do to demonstrate their contribution to a more flourishing society? Focusing on the money is not the only answer. Focusing on what the money is being spent on and how it is spent may be as important. Foundations can help create a more flourishing society by increasing people’s sense of belonging, empowering civic voice, reducing polarization and conflict by listening and by directing their help to those who are working to change systems of inequality. And, in Canada’s current situation, foundations can take the opportunity to demonstrate how their work contributes to a stronger country.
This will mean reviewing assumptions, practices and roles as well as adjusting or renewing strategies. Michele Fugiel Gartner of Philanthropic Foundations Canada offers some valuable suggestions for Canadian foundations that are pondering their internal and external actions in this moment. Based on her reflections and those of others, here is my list of ways in which foundations might respond to the legitimacy signal. These can be considered independently of each other but are also mutually reinforcing.
Civil society is under attack in the United States. How does this affect Canadian funders? The calls for support are multiplying. Some of the work that Canadian funders support, whether it is international aid or scientific research, is being demolished. But funders here may feel that they or their partners in Canada won’t come under direct fire. Should they anticipate any differently?
In a prescient article from May 2024, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested that U.S. civil society organizations will face legal and political intimidation tactics that are similar to those used to harass and silence civil society in Hungary, India and other authoritarian democracies. In anticipation, the Carnegie Endowment put together some notes to guide U.S. civil society groups and foundations in defending against present and future attacks. Carnegie was ringing an alarm well before the election of the current Trump administration, saying that it was important to take measures to strengthen and enable civil society to survive and fight back. And it put the onus on funders to do more to support civil society defense, whether through rapid response grants to counter targeted legal attacks or more broadly to support sector network voices and narratives.
While we in Canada don’t expect direct attacks from an authoritarian government, is it a good idea for Canadian funders to remain oblivious? Authoritarian attacks outside of our borders can influence our own political discourse and intimidate civil society even if there no signs of government antipathy. This suggests that philanthropic funders might take time now to consider the impact of possible restrictions on civic space in Canada. It’s true that we have seen over the last decade some positive developments in federal rules governing public policy dialogue and development by charities. Yet there is a continuing reluctance on the part of charities to engage in such activity, mostly for lack of resources but also because of lingering worry that charities are not permitted to “advocate” for policy change. A July 2024 report from the Carleton Charities Insights Canada Project documents this clearly. Many charities rely on their umbrella or intermediary organizations to do the advocacy work for them. But these organizations are perennially short of funding. There is no guarantee that a change in government will not return us to more constraints on the ability of charities and nonprofits to speak out. Is the charitable sector limiting its own freedom of expression even before such explicit restrictions might be re-imposed?
The Carnegie Endowment notes that “restrictions on civil society and individuals’ right to organize and advocate freely have been defining features of the global democratic recession that has engulfed all regions of the world over the past two decades.” So, what can be learned from the responses of civil society organizations and their funders in other parts of the world? Carnegie lists some valuable lessons:
What can funders do beyond supporting these strategies through funding toolkits, trainings and other information? Carnegie underlines the importance of greater collaboration and standing together for threatened civil society organizations. The role of network organizations in coordinating these efforts cannot be underestimated. Carnegie suggests that funders “support greater coordination and knowledge-sharing by resourcing cross-issue working groups, convenings, and resource platforms focused on threats to civic space.” Organizations in Canada such as Philanthropic Foundations Canada, Community Foundations of Canada, Imagine Canada, Environment Funders Canada and regional networks such as the Ontario Nonprofit Network and the Alberta Nonprofit Network serve this important function of coordinating positions, monitoring legislation and law, and building positive narratives for the sector. There is much for Canadian funders to do that will strengthen nonprofits and their networks in confronting current or future pressures on their right to speak and act freely on issues where they have expertise. A diversity of voices will always be critical to a healthy democracy in a strong and independent country.
Canada is under extreme pressure in the era of Trump. Our independence is being called into question in a way that has not happened for many decades, if not centuries. Our political and economic stability is being turned upside down. And Canadians are rising to the challenge of the moment with declarations of patriotism and defiance. As many are saying, this is a moment when we need to consider defending our nation through nation-building actions. This means investing smartly and rapidly in our hard and soft assets: our resources, our built infrastructure, our brains and skills, our media, our cultural identity.
Does philanthropy have a role in nation-building? Or is it best for philanthropy to focus its resources on “bailing out” organizations most hurt by the upheavals we anticipate? Private philanthropy in the U.S. is feeling both pressure and expectation to step in when government funding of social justice or climate or international development work is cut. This may well be felt to a lesser extent in Canada. There is urgency. The cuts mean real harm to people in the short term. And the response of philanthropy during the pandemic provides a precedent for stepping up and helping. But can philanthropy fill the gap? Is this the best use of scarce philanthropic dollars (and they are scarce compared to public dollars)?
Vinod Rajasekeran at Future of Good has argued that bailout philanthropy, as he describes it, should not simply be about rescuing organizations but also seizing the opportunity for future building. I agree. He suggests that philanthropic dollars, if deployed for rescue, should aim not to maintain a status quo but to make it better. Again, I agree. Private funders can use this opportunity to strengthen the operations of key partner organizations.
Funders can also accelerate their long-term investments in Canada’s future. Many in Canadian philanthropy has made this their strategy for decades. Here are some examples:
And I haven’t touched on many other philanthropic investments being made to strengthen our country. What this tells us is that philanthropy is already playing a strategic role in helping to build some of Canada’s most important hard and soft assets.
Are there still gaps in our nation-strengthening efforts? Yes. Could philanthropy do more and faster? Yes. This is a moment for private philanthropy to think even harder about the necessary long-term investments in creating a stronger Canada. Perhaps foundations will need to talk about aligning their efforts more systematically, since nation-building requires coordination and concentration. The relatively scarce resources of foundations will go farther when applied together. And this is not a matter simply of higher disbursements. The current 5% disbursement quota is a floor not a ceiling. Foundations can and do exceed it. Calling for more disbursements isn’t a strategy without a systematic approach to building stronger organizations and investing in a stronger country. Future-building is well within philanthropy’s mission. I predict we will see more of it in response to today’s Trumpian geopolitics.
Here we are…beginning 2025. Still getting over 2024. And I thought that 2023 was a roller coaster year with more downs than ups! In January 2024, I was apprehensive but hopeful about what might happen to foundations and philanthropy in Canada. At the beginning of 2025 I am feeling perhaps more apprehension than hope.
Am I seeing the same things that others are seeing? I have looked around for predictions and guesses about what 2025 will bring (although I am not commenting on the political and economic front, important as that will be in Canada this coming year). I have listened to a few keen observers on philanthropic trends in the US and UK. Here are the most often mentioned and most worrying trends and concerns they express across borders:
On the more hopeful side:
As in 2024, I won’t make predictions for philanthropy (who can?) but I will suggest some wishes and worries without rating their likelihood of coming true.
In 2025, I wish that…funders will respond creatively to the pressures on civil society
I worry that…some of the risks I saw in early 2024 will become even greater
In what will be a turbulent year, let’s hope that foundations will be anchors of steadiness for many civil society organizations and leaders. Something we can all hold on to!