Master / Diploma of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership ...

Master / Diploma of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership

PANL 5002 – Policy and Legal Environment Summer 2015

Logistics Instructor: Professor Susan Phillips School of Public Policy and Administration Office: Room 5213 River Building Email: [email protected] Phone: (613) 520-2600 ext 2633

Class Times: Online Orientation: available on CULearn Summer Institute Days 1 – 5: July 6 - 10, 1:00 to 4:30 pm Days 6 – 10: July 13 - 17, 8:30 am to noon

Learning Outcomes Successful leaders in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector need to understand the legal, policy and regulatory regime that governs their work, and how to effectively engage with governments at all levels in order to affect policy change. This course aims to give you the basic tools to do both.

The course focuses on understanding how to participate in public policy and on understanding public policy for philanthropy and the charitable/nonprofit sector. At the end of the course, students should be able to:

1) know the basics of how government works in Canada, from the municipal to the federal level, and assess how as a leader of a civil society organization you might effectively participate in policy development and implementation; and

2) evaluate the policy frameworks and regulations that govern charities, nonprofits and social enterprises in Canada and, drawing on theory and international experience, critically assess the need and potential for reform. Apply these to professional work in this sector.

We begin with analysis of the fundamentals of a parliamentary system of government and specifically the federal and provincial systems in Canada, and then turn to the municipal level. In day 3, we work at constructing an effective advocacy and communications strategy.

The second part of the course is concerned with assessment of the taxation, policy and regulatory frameworks that guide the work of philanthropy and third sector organizations, with a focus on Canada while drawing extensively on international experience. We start with articulating the parameters of an “enabling” environment that would facilitate philanthropy and civil society organizations to thrive in an accountable manner, and consider the history and current state of government-nonprofit relationships in Canada. We then turn to specific aspects of these governing frameworks including: 1) the definition and legal treatment of ‘charitable’ and ‘nonprofit,’ and associated regulations covering political, business, human rights and foreign activities; 2) tax incentives for charitable giving and the legal

2

definition of a ‘gift;’ and 3) governance of the “industry” that supports philanthropy and its institutions. Be advised that this is not a “plumbing “ course: while students are expected to learn the basic legal and regulatory parameters that govern the operations of the philanthropic and charitable/nonprofit sector in Canada, you are also meant to critically assess how well these work and consider alternatives.

A related goal of this course is to introduce students to some of the leading scholars and professionals in this field, providing a wide range of perspectives and engaging students in contemporary debates.

Expectations Please think about your engagement in the course as having three parts:

Preparation: before coming to the Summer Institute, students should do all the readings and reflect upon them; prepare a draft of your ‘Issue Stance’ brief;

Summer Institute: a mix of lectures, guest lecturers, class and group discussions, debates, case studies and peer-peer learning in which we critically assess, integrate and apply the material to contemporary issues;

Capture: following the Summer Institute, students have until the end of August to complete assignments that assess, synthesize and apply the required readings, other research and learning from the Summer Institute.

It is imperative that students come to the Summer Institute prepared by completing and reflecting upon the readings listed in the outline below. The instructor is a resource for students throughout the course – both as you are doing the readings before the Summer Institute, during the Institute and later while you are doing the assignments. Don’t hesitate to ask questions or seek further guidance through email ([email protected]) or the CULearn discussion board. It is expected that there will be active discussion – indeed, vigorous but respectful debate – on the topics and themes and viewpoints presented in the course. You are strongly encouraged to participate in this exchange, both in class and through the CULearn discussion board. The composition of your cohort has been selected in part to include diversity in terms of your interests, disciplinary backgrounds and experiences. You have much to learn from each other: please take full advantage of this – in a good way!

Required Readings There is no textbook for the course; all readings are available through CULearn (where noted, some are online as well). You can access CULearn from the main Carleton University webpage: https://carleton.ca/culearn/

3

Evaluation

Component % of Grade Due Date

Issue Stance Brief, in two parts:

Draft

Final

30 % of which: 15 % 15 %

June 30 July 25

Class Participation 20 %

Research Paper 50 % September 1

NOTE: 5 percent is deducted for every day that an assignment is late.

Issue Stance Briefing Note: This course raises a variety of issues and debates about how policies,

regulations and institutions could work differently, and perhaps more effectively. You are to pick one of these issues from a list provided on CuLearn, to argue for or against the position – sign up on CULearn under the Issue Stance Sign Up buttons. The assignment is to take a stance on this issue which is captured, concisely, in a short, 3-4 page (approximately 1500) briefing note. You can think of this as “be it resolved that . . .”

A draft of this brief is due June 30th and is worth 15 percent of the overall grade; I expect it will still have gaps and will not be fully polished. During the class discussions, you will be asked to articulate and defend your stance; expect another student to take the opposite position, and the goal is to stimulate class discussion. The Issue Stance Briefing Note might take account of challenges and complexities, but it should not be a paper of options or “on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand.” Rather, establish your position (even if you do not fully agree with it) and robustly defend it. Following the Summer Institute you will have a chance to revise your draft with this final version due July 25th (worth an additional 15 percent). Please submit through CULearn.

Class Participation: The format of the Summer Institute will rely heavily on various means of student

engagement (such as debating your Issue Stance, group discussions, role playing, and formal debates), and you will be expected to be a thoughtful, active participant. The participation evaluation will be based on an aggregate of your engagement throughout the Institute (and pre-and post- electronic discussions), taking into account that what matters is not how much a student says but how thoughtful and constructive it is for the class as a whole.

Research Paper: This is your opportunity to take up a topic or issue that you wish to explore in more

depth, draw in research beyond the course materials, and be creative in how you handle it. The paper should be about 25 pages (double spaced). Please consult with me on your choice of topic; it may relate to the topic of either your Issue Stance Briefing Note but should not duplicate it.

In all cases the paper must be a critical and analytical treatment of the subject. In grading the papers I will look for: a) the ability to think critically and analytically; b) a convincing argument that is substantiated by the literature and/or primary sources/data; c) evidence that the concepts and ideas relevant to the subject matter have been digested and discussed; d) the integration and synthesis of ideas, concepts and empirical data (data are useful but not essential); e) a logical and clear structure, and; f) appropriate references (any standard formatting style) and graduate level writing style. If you are interested on working as a group and/or with an organization on a topic of relevance to it, please let me know early in the course, so I can help facilitate this. The Research Paper is due September 1st . Please submit through CULearn.

4

Grading Scheme

The following explanation of grades is the agreed policy of the School of Public Policy and Administration (SPPA), based on the Carleton University system. Not only are expectations about analytical abilities and performance higher in graduate school than in undergraduate work, but what is an acceptable grade is different. This table is intended to provide elaboration of the Graduate Calendar, and in no way overrides it.

Carleton University uses a 12 point grading scale from A+ (12) to D- (1). Your overall Grade Point Average (GPA) will be calculated on the basis of this 12 point scale and the final evaluation you receive in courses will be submitted as letter grades corresponding to this scale. Grades of A- or B+ should be considered as good, solid performances that hover around the average for graduate work. In any given class, most of the grades are likely to be A- or B+. There are usually fewer grades of A, which means you have done very well; grades of A+ are quite rare (but we do give them). A grade of B- is a strong signal that things did not go well in the course, and you were considerably below average. A grade of B- or better must normally be obtained in each course credited towards the master's degree.

Letter Grade

CU No.

Indicates that work is: % Range

SPPA Explanation

A+ 12 Outstanding 90-100 For written work, virtually publishable. Demonstrates exceptional evaluative judgment, outstanding critical thinking, and mastery of technical as well as literary aspects of writing.

A 11 Excellent 85-89 Demonstrates superior grasp of material, very strong critical thinking, and capacity to understand and extend underlying patterns.

A- 10 Very Good 80-84 Demonstrates strong grasp of material, its component parts, and capacity to analyze their relationships to each other.

B+ 9 Good 77-79 Demonstrates clear understanding of material and ability to apply concepts. Written work is competent.

B 8 Satisfactory 73-76 Satisfactory, but below average. Demonstrates comprehension of material, reasonable but not strong analytical capacity, with limitations in the ability to apply concepts.

B- 7 Barely Adequate 70-72 Clearly below average. Demonstrates comprehension and understanding, with limited capacity for application. Communication skills problematic.

C+ 6 Less Than Adequate 67-69 Did not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the material or the ability to apply the concepts. Writing and/or presentations show serious problems.

C to D- 50-66 Grades in this range indicate work that is passable in some respects but overall does not meet the standards of graduate work.

F Failure Did not meet minimal requirements.

5

University Policies Academic Integrity Please be aware that this paper must be original to this course, and your own work. Academic offences are serious infractions and will not be tolerated. Students should consult Section 14 of the Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, General Regulations concerning academic integrity and instructional offences. Academic Accommodation You may need special arrangements to meet your academic obligations during the course. For more details on accommodation, please see the Student Guide. Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities: The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students with Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), chronic medical conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at 613-520-6608 or [email protected] for a formal evaluation.

Course Outline Online Orientation – Overview and Expectations

This ‘podcast’ outlines emergent trends in philanthropy and civil society and identifies themes for the course, intended to provide a rationale for and guidance through the readings.

Please see CULearn

PART I: Participating in Public Policy Day 1 Engaging Policy in a Parliamentary System July 6

Develop a working knowing of policy instruments and policy framing

Understand the principles of public management and processes of policy formation in the federal (and provincial) governments in Canada by knowing the basics of a parliamentary system and the budgeting process

The intent of this session is first to give you a working knowledge of how the parliamentary system of government functions at the federal and provincial levels in Canada. Obviously, this is a big topic for an afternoon, so we will focus on three aspects that might help you, as someone seeking to make policy change, be more effective in making your case: 1) the choice of policy instruments; 2) decision-making authorities; and 3) the politics and timing of budgeting. The main questions to think about are: How does the framing of a policy and the instruments used to implement it affect its likely success? What difference does its fit with budget politics and timing make? The introduction by Northcott (2014) makes the case about why charities should care about and participate in public policy. Northcott, Allan. 2014. Creating Better Public Policy: The Roles of Canadian Charities, The Philanthropist, 25 (4): 201-206.

6

International Political Science Association (IPSA), Policy Design Lab. ‘Introduction to Policy Design’ and ‘Policy Instruments and Tools’. Doern, G. Bruce, Allan M. Maslove and Michael J. Prince. 2013. Chapter 4 - Canadian Budgetary Institutions, in Canadian Public Budgeting in the Age of Crises. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press (pp. 60-77). A Resource (not required reading but might be useful): Milne, Glen, 2013. A Guide to the Federal Government’s Policy Process. Ottawa: Glen Milne. Michael Prince. (video on policy design) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC09DM-n26ZfjUUO3o_I_Esg/videos Day 2 Engaging with Municipal Governments July 7

Appraise how to effectively participate and collaborate with municipal governments

Understand municipal government from the political perspective and in the context of multi-level governance

Anticipate how radical restructuring of services will affect the work of nonprofits This set of readings is crafted around three themes. A starting point of this session is that urban governments are increasingly important spheres of public policy, in spite of limited authorities and financial resources. Municipal governments work quite differently than parliamentary systems, with different kinds of institutions, sources of power and sets of actors holding influence. The reading by Sancton (2011) provides an overview of how municipal governments make decisions and the role of mayors in this process. The emerging challenge for municipalities of advancing both innovation and social inclusion is the second theme. How this is achieved varies greatly across municipalities and most major policy issues are embedded in systems of ‘multilevel governance.’ The reading by Bramwell and Bradford (2014) is intended to get you thinking about these kinds of issues. The third theme is that, for a variety of reasons (e.g. financial pressures, demographics, technology), the delivery of many public services are about to be dramatically transformed. Third sector leaders need to anticipate and be part of the solution of constructive reconfiguring. The report by KPMG/Mowat Centre demonstrates the direction for integration of services that might occur in the near future (don’t dwell on detail when you read it but get the overall picture). Sancton, Andrew. 2011. Canadian Local Government: An Urban Perspective. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Chapters 9 (pp. 171-197) and 11 (pp. 221-241). Bramwell, Allison and Neil Bradford. 2014. Civic Infrastructures of Innovation and Inclusion: Reflections on Urban Governance in Canada (Chapter 14) In Neil Bradford and Allison Bramwell (eds.), Governing Urban Economies: Innovation and Inclusion in Canadian City Regions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press (pp. 372-394).

7

KPMG and the Mowat Centre. 2013. The Integration Imperative: Reshaping the delivery of human and social services. Toronto: KPMG and the Mowat Centre. Resource: Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2006. Your Guide to Municipal Institutions in Canada. Ottawa: FCM. Day 3 Strategies for Collaboration and Advocacy July 8

Develop and apply strategies and practical skills for preparing and presenting your policy case

Learn how you can make your organization needed by governments

This session is designed to help you prepare an advocacy strategy, from framing the “problem” to evaluating success. The first three readings will give you some ideas on a DIY (do-it-yourself) strategy. Increasingly, there is pressure, and benefit, to civil society organizations working together to achieve ‘collective impact’ – to address big, complex issues: as you read the Kania and Kramer (2011) article, consider how such collaboration might occur. How would you assess the effectiveness of your organization’s or collaboration’s advocacy strategy? The Barkhorn et al. (2013) article is intended to give you some guidance in such assessment. Note that most of these readings are quite short.

The criticism is often raised that the rules on advocacy by Canadian charities are too restrictive (we will review the rules in the second week), but the question of whether the sector effectively participates as fully as it might in policy is also being raised. Think about your stance on this.

Broadbent, Alan and Ratna Omidvar (eds.) 2013. Five Good Ideas: Practical Strategies for Non-Profit Success. Toronto: Coach House Books, Chapter 6 – Advocacy and Policy (pp. 198-223.)

Moore, Sean. 2011. Can public-policy advocacy be taught? or learned? The Philanthropist, 23 (4) (pp. 471-80). Bass, Gary D., Alan J. Abramson and Emily Dewey. 2014. Effective Advocacy: Lessons for Nonprofit Leaders from Research and Practice. In Robert J. Pekkanen, Steven Rathgeb Smith and Yutaka Tsujinaka (eds.) Nonprofits and Advocacy: Engaging Community and Government in an Era of Retrenchment. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press (pp. 187-215).

Kania, John and Mark Kramer. 2011. Collective Impact, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter (pp. 36-41).

Barkhorn, Ivan, Nathan Huttner and Jason Blau. 2013. Assessing Advocacy, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring (pp. 58-64).

8

PART II: Public Policy for the Third Sector Day 4 Meta-Policy: What Constitutes Enabling Policy? Assessing international trends July 9

Critically assess what constitutes an enabling policy and regulatory framework for civil society and philanthropy – one that helps them achieve what their best?

Assess whether philanthropy has a policy ‘problem’

Reflect on the history of Canadian policy for this sector, and the implications for government-sector relationships

This session is designed to provide a framework for thinking about how and why governments regulate charities and philanthropy, and for understanding the evolving relationships between government and the third sector. We explore specific aspects of regulation in the second week, but the intent of this session is to address some of the bigger questions about what are we trying to achieve through the regulation of charities and philanthropy, and what is driving (or constraining) reform in policy approaches. The Civicus (2013) report outlines the elements of an enabling ‘meta-policy’ for civil society in an international context: draw out your own list of the elements that you think need to be part of an overarching policy framework that would facilitate the work of the sector; don’t get bogged down in the detail of specific countries. The interview by Glass with the CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation considers this question from the perspective of Canadian organizations working internationally in a development context. The paper by Phillips and Smith considers the purposes of policy frameworks for philanthropy, and asks: what is the underlying ‘problem,’ if any that public policy needs to address? From this broad policy framework, we turn to a review of the history of relationships between Canadian governments and the sector, as outlined by Elson (2007). Civicus, 2013. State of Civil Society 2013: Creating an enabling environment. Johannesburg: Civicus. Phillips, Susan D. and Steven Rathgeb Smith. 2015. “Public Policy for Philanthropy: Catching the Wave or

Creating a Backwater?” Working Paper.

Glass, Juniper. 2015. Do Canada’s Internationally Focused Charities Operate in an Enabling Environment? The Philanthropist, April 20.

Elson, Peter R. 2007. A Short History of Voluntary Sector-Government Relations in Canada, The Philanthropist, 21, 1 (pp. 36-74).

A Resource: Bloodgood, Elizabeth A., Joannie Tremblay-Boire and Aseem Prakash. 2013. “National Styles of NGO Regulation,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, , March: 1-21.

9

Day 5 Policy and Regulatory Regimes: The Basics

July 10

Appreciate the trends in policy and regulation internationally: Is there convergence? What good ideas do you take from international experience that we might adopt?

Understand the basics of charity regulation in Canada: who regulates, why and how? Does the nature of the regulator matter? Consider options for reform

Understand how and why Canada defines ‘charity’ as it does; how this compares to other countries, and the implications for regulation and the sector

Assess recent developments and the appropriate role of fiscal considerations in defining charity

How we define which types of nonprofits can be officially recognized and issue tax receipts for donations has implications not only for their financing but their legitimacy. And, it has fiscal implications for government. The reliance on the common law has both strengths and limitations: we will review Canada’s approach to defining ‘charity’ and compare this to recent developments in other common law countries. Should Canada move to a ‘public benefit’ test codified in legislation? The main focus of this session is on recent trends in Canadian law and policy which reveal a clear trajectory toward defining and regulating charity as a fiscal concept. The Supreme Court of Canada recently refused to recognize the charitableness of amateur sport based in part upon tax revenue considerations. Is this appropriate? Is legal charity more than a mere tax concession? Or are courts being appropriately deferential to the legislature when they tread cautiously with grants of charitable status? If not income tax considerations, then what considerations should guide courts and regulators when they are confronted with new charitable purposes? A central theme of these readings is that there is no one source of regulation of charities but regulation operates as a regime – different bodies both inside and external to government use their authority or influence to shape behaviour. In addition, public and funder expectations of transparency have become important drivers of change in reporting and regulation. The O’Halloran et al. (2008) provides a historical and common law overview; Phillips (2013) introduces the concept of a regulatory ‘regime’ and provides a comparative assessment of recent developments; Broder (2014) provides some background on why Canadian case law pertaining to the definition of charity has been so limited; and Parachin (2014) addresses the issue of mixing fiscal considerations with interpretation of charitable purposes. O’Halloran, Kerry, Myles McGregor-Lowndes and Karla W. Simon. 2008. Charity Law & Social Policy. New York: Springer, Chapter 1 – Charity: Concept, Parties ad Governing Principles (pp. 7-39). Phillips, Susan D. 2013. Shining a light on charities or looking in the wrong place? Regulation-by-Transparency in Canada, Voluntas, 24, 3 (pp. 881-905).

Broder, Peter. 2014. Pemsel Case Foundation Launched to Foster Canadian Charity Law, The Philanthropist, 25 (4): 207-214.

10

Parachin, Adam. 2014. The role of fiscal considerations in the judicial interpretation of charity, in M. Harding and M. Stewart, eds., Not-for-Profit Law: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Day 6 Tax Incentives in Comparative Perspective July 13

Assess and engage the debate: Are tax incentives for charitable giving good fiscal tools and good public policy? How do other countries treat tax incentives, and are they under threat?

Evaluate the First-Time Donor Credit and federal Budget 2015 additions

Consider, from ethical and legal perspectives, when a ‘gift’ is really a gift

What limitations should go with the tax privileges? Different jurisdictions take different approaches to providing tax incentives for charities – for example, some give top up credits to donations for particular kinds of causes. In some countries, notably the US, the issue of charitable tax incentives has recently become a hot political debate, linked to concerns over inequality, with Obama’s proposal to cap the deduction. Canada has gone in a different direction: we have already have one of the most generous set of tax incentives for charitable giving in the world, and these have been extended in recent federal budgets with introduction of a First-Time Donor Credit and plans to remove capital gains on donations of private securities and real estate. The purpose of this session is to evaluate different approaches to charitable tax incentives, and consider the limitations on political activities such privileges should entail. Guests: Professors Adam Parachin, Faculty of Law, Western University and Calum Carmichael, SPPA, Carleton University will lead this discussion.

The articles by Carmichael (2012) and Parachin (2012) provide different perspectives on tax incentives, including the question of when a gift should be considered a ‘gift’ under the law and ethically. The report by the Department of Finance (2014) evaluates the costs and benefits of the current system – don’t dwell on the specific details but think about the criterion on which the evaluation is based and the summary conclusion.

Parachin, Adam. 2012. Funding Charities through Tax Law: When should a donation qualify for donation incentives?, ANSERJ – Canadian Journal of Nonprofit & Social Economy Research, 3 (1): 57-81. Carmichael, Calum. 2012. Dispensing Charity: The deficiencies of an all-or-nothing fiscal concept, Voluntas, 23 (2): 392-414. Carmichael, C.M., forthcoming. The fiscal treatment of philanthropy from a comparative perspective, in T. Jung, S. Phillips and J. Harrow (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge. Department of Finance, 2015. Evaluation of the federal charitable donation tax credit, in Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2014. Ottawa: Government of Canada, pp., 30-70.

11

Day 7 Political Activities: How Restricted Should Advocacy Be? July 14

Assess the legal restrictions and regulation of political activities in Canada, with comparison to other countries, and consider options for a different approach

Has the regulation of charities been politicized?

The appropriate involvement of charities in advocacy or ‘political’ activities is one of the most disputed aspects of charity regulation: Canadian charities have long argued the rules are too restrictive; others think that charities, subsidized as they are, should stick to charitable activities. What are the appropriate limits? How do other countries approach this issue? How might a different resolution be reached? The assigned readings and class discussion deal with the legal restrictions on advocacy by charities, the rationales articulated by courts and regulators for differentiating charity from politics and some ideas about how to reform this area of law. Guest: Professor Adam Parachin, Faculty of Law, Western University The article by Hayhoe (2014) gives a brief overview of the CRA rules, and Blumberg in his Five Good Ideas video provides more depth. Parachin (forthcoming) addresses the issues involved in current interpretations in more depth and suggests possibilities for reform. Hayhoe, Robert. 2014. What’s the Law: Charities and politics, The Philanthropist, 25 (4): 245-47. Blumberg, Mark. 2013. Five Good Ideas about Registered Charities and Political Activities. http://maytree.com/fgi/five-good-ideas-about-registered-charities-and-political-activities.html Parachin, Adam. Forthcoming. Shifting Legal Terrain: Legal and regulatory restrictions on political advocacy by charities, in N. Mulé and G. DeSantis, eds., The Shifting Terrain: Public Policy Advocacy in Canada. (Montreal: McGill University Press. Day 8 Charities and Human Rights Norms: When charity meet equality July 15

Is it charitable to discriminate? How do modern equality rights apply to charities? The assigned reading and lecture takes up the question: to what extent, if at all, should human rights norms relating to equality inform the legal definition and regulation of charity? For example, should the law recognize as charitable scholarships for women only, men only, gay men only, Catholics only, etc? Why or why not? What about religious institutions requiring staff to conform to a traditional theology of human sexuality, which casts heterosexual relationships as the ideal. (Courts have ruled on this issue.) This session has application for both the Canadian and international context. Guest: Professor Adam Parachin, Faculty of Law, Western University

12

Parachin, Adam. 2014. Public benefit, discrimination and the definition of charity, in Kit Barker and Darryn Jensen, eds., Private Law: Key Encounters with Public Law. New York: Academic Press, 171-206, Day 9 Business, Social Investment, Hybrids and Social Enterprise July 16

Evaluate how and why Canada regulates business by charities, and consider the alternatives

Is the law well prepared for social enterprise? Will it enable social entrepreneurship or constrain it? Should there be tax incentives for social investment?

Assess the implications of an expanded social investment market, and consider the position of the Social Impact Investment Task Force

One of the mega-trends is the push for social innovation and the search for new forms of social finance and investment through entrepreneurial activities and a blending of social and financial returns. How do we define ‘social enterprise’ – is it a legal form of organization or an approach that can be used by any third sector organization? Should registered charities be allowed to conduct business activities? As a social entrepreneur, what organization form would be best suited to your business? We will examine some of the new corporate forms developed to support social enterprise, considering their strengths and limitations. The chapter of the Social Enterprise Guide (2011) provide an overview of the regulation of business by charities; Manwaring and Valentine (2011) address the tradeoffs of different organizational forms for social entrepreneurship. An international G8 task force has been working to develop means of catalyzing the impact investing market, and report of the Canadian Advisory Board (2014) to this taskforce presents opportunities in the domestic context. Enterprising Nonprofits. 2011. The Canadian Social Enterprise Guide, 2nd Edition. Vancouver: Enterprising Nonprofits. Chapter 7 (pp. 101-120).

Manwaring, Susan and Andrew Valentine. 2011. “Social Enterprise in Canada: Structural options,” MARS White Paper Series. Toronto: MARS.

Canadian National Advisory Board to Social Impact Investment Taskforce. 2014. Mobilizing Private Capital for Public Good: Canadian Priorities. Toronto: Mars Centre for Impact Investing. Day 10 Now and Fovever. . . Governance of the Philanthropic ‘Industry’ July 17

Understand the broader ‘industry’ related to philanthropy and consider how it should be governed and regulated or self-regulated

Evaluate the notion of perpetuity in philanthropy: is the ‘dead hand’ of donor intent always relevant? Should foundations and DAFs have higher pay-out rates?

The role of philanthropic advisors

Conclusion and Synthesis

13

A wide range of intermediaries support philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, including fundraisers, philanthropic advisors, and institutions holding donor advised funds. This final session considers issues of governance and (self-) regulation for these intermediaries, staring with the regulation of fundraising as discussed by Breen (2015). Given new technologies and the globalization of philanthropy, is it realistic for governments to try to regulate fundraising at all? What is the appropriate role of philanthropic advisors, and could they be more effective? An important new vehicle for philanthropy is the Donor Advised Fund (DAF) which are raising new concerns about transparency and how quickly funds are transferred (depending on the kind of DAF). The piece by Florino provides a few brief introduction to DAFs. Increasingly, courts have been involved in adjudicating donor intent of gifts in cases in which the donor is no longer alive and circumstances for the recipient charity may have changed. The value of thinking of gifts or foundation endowments being held in perpetuity is being questioned. Perhaps the money could do more if foundations spent out more quickly. The chapter by White (2014) addresses some of the more controversial aspects of donor intent, focusing on the case of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and Hamilton (2011) queries whether foundations should have higher pay-out rates. Finally, we will take some time to weave together the themes of the course and discuss the emergent trends and issues of public policy for philanthropy and the third sector. Breen, Oonagh. 2015. Minding the Pennies: Global trends in the regulation of charitable fundraising, in T. Jung, S. Phillips and J. Harrow, eds. The Routledge Companion to Philanthropy. London: Routledge. White, Doug. 2014. The Landscape of Good Intentions (Chapter 3), Abusing Donor Intent: The Robertson Family’s Epic Law Suit Against Princeton University. St. Paul, MN: Paragon Press. Hamilton, Charles H. 2011. “Payout redux.,”Conversations on Philanthropy. 8: 28-38.

Florino, Joanne. 2015. Giving Made Easy, Philanthropy Magazine. Spring.