The Canadian Experience. Susan Phillips

Local empowerment through philanthropy: Is the community foundation the right model?

The Canadian Experience

Susan Phillips Presentation to the CGAP Conference

May 2013

The Right model?

Compared to what?

For what purpose?

The Study

• With Tobias Jung and Jenny Harrow • Comparative study of community foundations in

the UK and Canada • Supported by CGAP and Canadian granting

council (SSHRC)

• Data on 13 Canadian CFs • More extensive interviews over the summer • 360 degree assessment

Community Factors

Organizational Factors

Relational Factors

Community

Leadership

Phillips, Harrow & Jung, drawing on Graddy & Morgan, 2006; Daly, 2008

A Conceptual Model: Explaining Leadership

Canadian Context

• Very generous tax incentives

• Giving is flat, except for high income donors

• Canada was early adopter of community foundation model, 1921

• Important role of CFs in donor advised funds

• Governor General: Smart, Caring Communities

748.4 (477.2)

507.5 (323.6)

408.8 (260.7)

266.5 (169.9) 194.6

(124.1) 93.1

(59.4)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Vancouver Winnipeg Calgary Edmonton Toronto Ottawa

Mill

ions

of C

anad

ian

Dol

lars

(M

illio

ns o

f U.K

. Pou

nd S

tirl

ing)

Canada's Largest Community Foundations:

Total Assets

0.7 m 1.1 m 1.0 m 5.2 m 0.96 m Population 2.1 m

Size Comparisons with US

$0

$500,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,500,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$2,500,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$3,500,000,000

$4,000,000,000

Tulsa MountainView

New York Cleveland

Chicago Vancouver

CFs

CFs

Comparisons with the UK

Canada UK

Total Assets £ 1.9 billion £ 309 million

Total Grants (2011-12)

£ 98.7 million £ 52.1 million

No. of CFs 183 54

Canadian CFs: no government funding, none for the national association

The Financials

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Vancouver Winnipeg Calgary Edmonton Toronto

% Donor Advised

% Donor Advised

Mean = 44 %

Recovery after the Crisis

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Vancouver

Winnipeg

Calgary

Edmonton

Toronto

Change in Assets & Grants

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Assets

Grants

Vancouver

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Assets

Grants

Winnipeg

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Assets

Grants

Calgary

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Assets

Grants

Toronto

Growth in assets is not directly reflected in growth in grants

Pick us over a Commercial DAF or Private Foundation

Advice to Professional Advisors

Toronto: The Knowledge Centre

Vital Leverage Started Vital Signs in 2001 Process not data Leveraged to:

• Vital Ideas (capacity building) • Vital People (prof development) • Vital Youth (recreation)

Community Knowledge Centre • Connects issues with solutions &

organizations

Vancouver: Focus & Impact

# 1 - Youth homelessness created separate organization, streetohome ( investment of £320,000 to £ 17 m)

#2 – Connections and Engagement

• Fit initiatives to the community – Giving/matchmaking; social enterprise; ‘forever funds’

• Policy transfer: Knowledge centre

• Impact initiative

Largest gift ever to a Canadian community foundation

Niche-Picking relative to other CFs

What is ‘our’ space?

• Social enterprise

• Responsible and impact investing

• Youth and family philanthropy

Are Canadian CFs agents of change?

• Mixed, but most of the larger ones are seeking to be agents of change

Explanations – what it is NOT:

• NOT a direct result of: – Asset size (over a threshold)

– Community size

– Age of the foundation

– Increase in grantmaking

– Size of grants

What it might be:

• Leadership and strategy

• Focus – drive change, pick a few priorities

• Fit with the community

• Knowledge and connection

• Collaboration, relational networks

• Leadership of the national association

Organisational Leadership

• Women in leadership? – of the 13 CFs in the major cities, 8 have women

CEO/Presidents

• Boards are ‘corporate,’ but the more innovative tend to be more diverse and connected – Toronto: Council of 100

– Vancouver: ethnoculturally diverse board

– YACs – Youth Advisory Committees

Conclusion

Place-based philanthropy is gaining prominence, and community foundations are likely to be the major players, IF they are strategic and make use of their relational capital. They need to look beyond their grantmaking to become leaders of change and community empowerment.

[email protected]

Thank you