Funder Focus: Special Edition: Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz and Imagine
Canada
February 7, 2005
By Melanie Lovering
This month we feature a special edition of our Funder Focus. CharityVillage
speaks with Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz, president and CEO of
Imagine Canada. about the impact of corporate philanthropy, the
issue of project funding versus core funding, how nonprofits and funders
can prepare for changes in the sector, and the role that Imagine Canada
will play in all of this.
CharityVillage: We know that the nonprofit sector is growing
rapidly. Now that the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and the NVO have
merged their operations to form Imagine Canada, what role will this
new organization play?
Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz: I think there is the perception
that we represent a lot of funders. We are encouraging them to become
members of Imagine Canada and we do have the Imagine Caring Companies
program. As a membership organization, we engage with our stakeholders,
but our role has been to encourage them to be prepared to step up to
the benchmark of what they give and to try and make that a somewhat
consistent benchmark. If you go back to how this program started, it
really was trying to take a look at what corporations should be doing
and to actually articulate a benchmark that they think is appropriate.
I would argue that we want to engage these funders in the conversation,
but that many of the issues we address would be appropriate for fundees
as well. I think our real value is that we can actually bring the parties
together and try to be a bit of an honest broker. I think that's a very
important role that very few people are positioned to play. One of our
strategic objectives is: how do you bring contribution to community?
How do you get people engaged in community to become funders, whether
it is dollar funders or volunteers? I certainly see us as more of an
honest broker rather than a representative of the funder or fundee,
per se.
CV: Statistics show that Canadians and Canadian corporations are
not as generous as their American counterparts. Should government bear
some responsibility for encouraging Canadians to be more generous? Is
there more to it than tax laws?
GSS: I haven't seen what I think a researcher would call a really
satisfactory comparison, so I don't know. Our fiscal regimes are so
different. In the US, certain corporations are subject to community
economic development requirements where they have to take a certain
portion of their profits and contribute them to community programming.
We don't have anything like that in Canada. And generally the tax rates
are different, so there is a mythology that says Canadian corporations
are not as engaged as American corporations. The other thing you have
to look at is the different role of government in our society.
Any comparison is really just a comparison to start a dialogue, and
to start to move you to a strategic discussion about objectives. What
are we doing, what are our values, what are our goals? The favourite
answer from people when they don't want to benchmark themselves is to
say, "well that's not valid; it's apples and oranges." They want to
avoid the issue. I think the more valid question you're raising is what
is enough, how do you define it, and what do you do? This whole area of
corporate citizenship is a real evolving field.
I don't think we have a strong position that says this is the model
that is right. Corporations are grappling with the issue of corporate
citizenship and a lot are saying that it used to be just how much money
they gave. Today, it's not just how they give money, it's also the extent
to which they are giving or contributing in other ways. It is very multi-faceted.
Michael Sabia of BCE gave a speech on his view of corporate citizenship,
saying it's a much more pro-active view of how we treat our employees.
What is the value system we communicate to employees about getting engaged,
and how do we apply the expertise that we have to communities around
us? They have, in fact, just started a new program called 'Connected
to communities'. They are actually working through an economic development
organization associated with Carlton University to help them administer
funds, the notion being that we should be encouraging community innovation.
There is the money, but there are also Bell employees. And we haven't
really gone down that path yet, starting to quantify those pieces. When
I was in the corporate giving side at Manulife Financial and I saw the
amount of employee and management time that went into that fundraising
effort, we never quantified it. It was never measured anywhere.
CV: Can and should Statistics Canada continue to track the
economic impact of this sector?
GSS: What [Statistics Canada] has done is really quite revolutionary
and puts Canada way at the forefront. They created what is called a
'satellite account' to measure the economic value of the nonprofit and
charitable sector. For the first time, they have actually attributed
an economic value to volunteer hours. It is a unique feature right now
in Canada, and worldwide. We are way ahead of many other countries in
the way that we measure, but the point is that we have not attributed
the value of volunteer hours within a corporation. We have started to
evolve the methodology to do that.
There is important data in [the satellite account] and, for the first
time ever, it is segmented by size of organization, which I think is
extremely helpful. It is very powerful information, and it's very striking
that the higher up you go in size of organization, the more government
money they get. The smaller the organization, the less government money
and the more they rely on private philanthropy.
CV: Is Imagine Canada planning to turn its focus toward individual
giving, to any degree?
GSS: We do focus on individual giving in our research and we
do disseminate that research, which is publicly available information.
The issue is: are we going to advocate in a way that we do with the
corporations, through a program? We are looking at whether it is possible
to structure a program, analogous to the Imagine corporate program,
which targets individual venture capitalists. We are in the very early
stages of a separate little program called E-magine. It is a pilot at
this point in time and volunteers would be either investors in small
entrepreneurial firms, or they themselves would be entrepreneurs.
We are also looking at gaining a deeper understanding of the whole area
of large donors, with potentially some comparison, again internationally,
around what drives wealthy donors and what are their concerns. Other
people are doing work in that area so we would not replicate it.
CV: The nonprofit sector's growth will increase the demands
placed on corporations to give and volunteer. In your opinion, how can
they best prepare? At the same time, how can nonprofits prepare for
the increased competition for corporate dollars? How much emphasis/time/resources
should they be putting into attracting corporate support?
GSS: First of all, people should understand that the prime reason
a corporation exists is not to give money to community groups. There
needs to be a strategic look, not at "let's go after corporations,"
but at how an organization will sustain itself. Maybe, as part of that
sustainability model, they try to partner with a corporation. Remember
that it's not just "we're going to give you money." It's that
"we would like some kind of partnership with you."
Nonprofits could also choose to work with smaller entrepreneurial organizations.
Prepare for that. Think about it. Who are you going to and why? And
it shouldn't be seen as just, "they write cheques." We are seeing a
real change in trend there.
Organizations may say that corporations are not a part of their sustainability
strategy. Maybe they want to find a few individuals who will identify
with their cause and become longer-term funders. Maybe they will create
a sub-organization that also earns revenue in a certain way. Don't always
assume that corporations are a panacea.
As far as the corporate funders, I was addressing the Corporate Grantmaker's
Association recently. The point I was making with them is that they
need to be understanding of the issues facing the organizations they
are supporting, and also to have a strategic view of what segment of
the sector that they want to get involved with. They should also be
taking a more strategic view around what it is they are trying to encourage.
That may also start to dictate what size of organization they fund.
For example, if you are looking for social innovation, that might come
from grassroots organizations. They have very different needs and are
structured differently, and therefore the way that you would approach
it would be very different.
That's why I think Imagine Canada is very relevant, because we can lay
out the segmentation of the sector. It's like a business analysis. If
a business enters a new market, they are segmenting potential customers;
to me it's that same analysis. Ask, what is our strength and were does
a charity link to us strategically? So my advice to these corporate
funders is to approach this like a business problem.
CV: In your presentation to the Empire Club last fall, you
raised the issue of core funding versus project funding. Why is there
such a disinterest in core funding and a corresponding overdeveloped
interest in project funding? Do you have an explanation for that?
GSS: I will put my former public servant hat on here. In my own
view, if you look at it as a corporate funder, the focus on project
funding has come out of the very laudable and honest motivation to ensure
the effective and efficient use of the money. I think where it has gone
wrong, at the public funder level - particularly the federal government
- is that it has become an over-response to what were perceived as certain
scandals and concerns about the government begin able to prove that
taxpayers' money is not being wasted.
They are all laudable objectives, but it's about how those objectives
are achieved. I think what has happened is that people have pursued
their objectives at the expense of understanding the need of the recipient
organization. I would also argue that what that is doing is penalizing
the organization, and in fact, probably potentially leading to inefficient
use of funding. If these organizations do not have the basic infrastructure
and capacity to run themselves, you lose organizational memory, especially
in small organizations. Staff involved with projects receive less supervision,
and they probably don't have much other than their own experience to
draw on. The money expires in six months and the board makes a decision
to discontinue the project. Yet the service may need to continue. The
project person goes to find another job and the organization brings
in someone new. It's extremely expensive because each time you have
to hire, that churn costs an organization. So to me, the funders would
not tolerate that in their own organizations. Yet this is what they
are imposing, not malevolently, but unknowingly on the organizations
they fund.
I think that when we look at public policy, this is one of the things
Imagine Canada will be looking at. One of the questions is "what is
the most effective way to promote change?" Can you do it through public
policy, or initially through private funders, whether it is foundations
or corporations? The point I'd like to make to them is that they can
be leaders here; they can get to understand the issues. There is an
opportunity to experiment collectively. There is nothing that says it's
a competitive process. They can be leaders and say, "we're prepared
to step up to the plate to address these issues," and talk about how
they can do it. It is people who are in that world that can show that
leadership if they want to.
CV: What arguments or strategies would you suggest charities
apply to convince funders of the value of providing core funding versus
project funding?
GSS: They should not try to be doing it alone. My view is that
there is strength in numbers in making the case. There is a very good
example of that going on in Toronto, where Skills Development Canada
has just undertaken a major change in the way that they are proposing
to fund a number of organizations that provide skills development. These
organizations are grouping together. The more we can group together
and show the impacts together, the more the funders will have to listen.
Take a little bit of time. I know it is very hard for small organization,
but the more you can get out there together and speak with a common
view, saying how this is impacting you, the stronger the case.
Engage your boards in this. You often have business people serving on
these boards of directors. They, of all people, should understand this.
Educate your board. Boards of directors should be taking a much stronger
view of this. They are often also the ones who are out there doing the
fundraising, and so they have the relationship with the funders.
CV: If you could gaze into your crystal ball and see this
organization and a list of its achievements in 2020, what would you
hope to see?
GSS: I hope that in 15 years we continue to exist as an organization.
One can't always assume that a newer organization won't spring up to
fill the need. But I think that the thrust of the original two founders
will probably continue. You'll always need some kind of focus on the
kinds of things we are working on. I hope that through that period,
we will have come up with a good sustainable model. You could say that
in an ideal world you wouldn't need an organization like ours, but I
don't think that's true.
I think we need more linkages between the federal, provincial, and municipal
governments because there are some real disconnects there. I'd like
to see a whole modernization of the structure of giving in Canada and
coordination at the federal and provincial levels, in particular, because
those are the two sets of institutions that have the most impact.
I would like to see a world in which the information about the not-for-profit
sector in Canada - available to government, corporate funders, private
funders and the organization themselves - is as sophisticated as that
available for the private sector. In making that transition myself,
I was shocked at the lack of information. We will need to find creative
ways to engage this generation of baby boomers, in both monetary and
civil society engagement terms.
I'd like to see the continued vitality that I see in the charitable
and nonprofit sector. I would like to see less cynicism in our society,
generally. I would ideally like to see a greater mutual trust of Canadians
in all their institutions, as I'm alarmed by the declining trust Canadians
have in business and government and politicians, when we look at society
as a whole. If we, as Imagine Canada, can play a role in bringing together
parties and exposing how corporations can become more engaged in community,
we can help to increase some of these levels of trust.
Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz is the president and CEO of Imagine Canada.
Prior to joining the organization in 2004, she worked as a senior executive
in the private sector. She has also served as a Deputy Minister in the
federal government. For more information about Imagine Canada, visit
www.imaginecanada.ca.
Melanie Lovering is executive director of the Stephen Leacock Foundation
for Children. She can be reached at leacock@sympatico.ca.
