2015: Issue 2

At the beginning of every calendar year, Ispeak to leaders in the fundraising profes-

sion and charitable sector to hear theirthoughts about the year ahead. We talk aboutwhat trends and practices they are keeping aneye on as well as what concerns or issues are“keeping them up at night”.

As you can imagine, these conversations yield a richness of thought and insight that help toinform our thinking here at KCI. And this yearwas no different. What was different was thatalmost without exception one overarching preoccupation emerged from virtually everyconversation - the struggle to grow fundrais-ing revenues.

Whether working in a large charity or small,growing fundraising revenue was highlightedas becoming increasingly difficult. And, as youwill see in this edition, while Canadians contin-ue to give, there are some undeniably soberingtrends in both giving to and engagement withthe charitable sector. Most notable is that allevidence is pointing to fewer donors and fewervolunteers. While regrettably not new, the lat-est data are telling us that it is more stark andreal today than I think ever.

This decline is coincident with some profoundchanges and disruptions in the sector. Just aswe are rethinking the rules and norms in somany parts of our lives, Canadians are rethink-ing their relationship with the charitable sector.I believe that some are critical, some are ques-tioning and some are just confused. Regard-less, there is a large scale enquiry going on in

Canadian society about the role of charities andhow best to interact with them from the per-spective of both giving and volunteering.

This evolution in thinking may require a proac-tive, wholesale examination of the paradigmsthat govern how the sector currently operates.At both the sector and organization levels, thisis a time when everything needs to be on thetable – what you are “in business” to do, howyou are set up to do it, who are your partners inmaking it happen. I believe that if sector andorganizational leaders don’t have these discus-sions and make sound, and in some cases,tough decisions about the future, the rapidlyevolving philanthropic marketplace in Canadatoday will make decisions for them.

Fundamentally, I believe we are at an inflectionpoint for the sector in Canada – a moment intime after which, depending on what we do asprofessionals, and collectively as a sector, therewill be a significant change, either positive ornegative. The way forward for the sector is neither clear nor simple. But with strong andcourageous leadership and a lot of thoughtfulconversation, I believe the sector can emergestronger and more vibrant than ever.

Marnie SpearsPresident and CEO

The Change & Adaptation Issue

SUMMER 20152

We live in a rapidly changing world.

Thanks in part to advances in technologyas well as significant changes in demogra-phics, so many of the rules and norms ofyesterday just don’t seem to apply anymore.

Think of Netflix and how it has changedour relationship to television and how weconsume entertainment. Or how Uber ischanging the way we are getting aroundand turning the taxi industry on its headas it does it. Or the way Airbnb has be-come a big player in travel accommoda-tion and the impact that it is having onthe hotel industry.

A similar transformation is happening inthe charitable sector.

“We are living in a time that I woulddescribe as a period of profound disrup-tion. In many parts of our lives, attitudes

and behaviours are changing and as aresult, so too are long held rules and def-initions,” says James Stauch, Director,Institute for Community Prosperity atMount Royal University. “And this periodof change and disruption applies to thecharitable sector as well. Canadians arethinking differently about charities andtheir interactions with them. And I be-lieve that this evolution in thinking isgoing to require a change in strategy inthe sector.”

Examples of the evolution Stauch refersto are abundant. Whether it’s the grow-ing interest in “giving direct” throughcrowdfunding, or donors establishingtheir own “terms and conditions” for giv-ing by creating family foundations anddonor advised funds, the charitable sectoris living in a period of significant trans-formation where old rules are being chal-lenged and new ones are being written.

These changing and evolving attitudesand definitions are also occurring in themidst of a backdrop of decline in partici-pation in the sector, both from the pointof view of giving as well as volunteering.While Canadians are a giving people bynature and certainly continue to exhibit aspirit of generosity, a look at giving andvolunteering rates points to two overar-ching themes – there is a struggle togrow revenues and fewer Canadians aregiving and volunteering.

As outlined in Figure 1 (page 3), traditionalcharities have struggled to grow over thepast few years, realizing only 3% growthin fundraising revenues between 2009 and2013. And Figure 2 shows that total taxreceipted giving of $8.6 billion in 2013 isnow just matching pre-recessionary levels.

Even more sobering is that participationrates, in terms of both giving and volun-

SUMMER 2015 3

teering, are also on the decline. The per-centage of tax filers who claim charitablereceipts has been steadily dropping(Figure 3, on page 4), from around 30% inthe early 1990s to a low of 21.9% in 2013.And while tax receipted giving is onlyone indicator of giving in Canada, thedata from the Canadian Survey of Giving,Volunteering and Participating (a surveythat includes Canadians 15 year andolder and defines giving in all its means)shows that the declared donor ratedeclined from 84% in 2010 to 82% in2013. While only a 2% drop, once popula-

tion increases over the period are fac-tored in (982,000 Canadians aged 15years and over), the total number ofdonors “lost” is almost 500,000.

Evolving definitions…

Bruce MacDonald, President and CEO ofImagine Canada, doesn’t believe thatCanadian society is any less committed to the charitable sector, but rather thatthe definition of what that means andhow it manifests is changing. “As wethink of society going forward andCanadians ‘doing good’, I believe we areliving through a period of fundamentalchange,” says MacDonald. “Involvementwith charity has always been defined asvolunteering and giving, but I think that

“ “

The charitable sector is living in a period of signifi-cant transformation whereold rules are being chal-lenged and new ones arebeing written.

Struggle for growth…

Figure 1: Source T3010 filings. Gifts from other charities not included.

Data pulled from the T3010 filings for the

past several years paint a relatively sombre

picture for the majority of the charitable sec-

tor when it comes to fundraising revenues.

While public foundations (including com-

munity foundations and some hospital

foundations) experienced growth of 40%

between 2010 and 2013 and private foun-

dations grew by a relatively healthy 14%,

fundraising revenues of traditional charita-

ble organizations inched upward by only 3%

over that same period. And so, the message

from this chart is clear - core charities are

struggling to grow.

In addition, total tax receipted giving by

Canadians at $8.6 billion in 2013 is now just

matching pre-recessionary levels, six years

later. Since 2008, tax receipted giving has

seen years of both growth and decline, cer-

tainly not exhibiting the kind of slow and

steady growth that was experienced in the

two decades previous from the early 1990s

to the mid-2000s.

Figure 2: Source Canada Revenue Agency

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

$13.52 $13.82 $13.96 $13.92

$1.56 $1.57 $1.66 $1.79

$3.05 $3.57 $3.62 $4.25

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

2010 2011 2012 2013

Bill

ions

Public Foundation Private Foundation Charitable Organization

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$8

$9

$10

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tota

l Giv

ing

from

Indi

vidu

als

- in

Bill

ions

SUMMER 20154

we in the sector are going to have tobroaden that definition. While this way ofthinking continues to resonate with cer-tain segments of the population, mostnotably older generations, I believe thatwhat it means to be involved in charity isunfolding differently for young people aswell as for many in the boomer cohort. ”

There are myriad examples of thechanges that MacDonald refers to. Linesand definitions about what is charity arestarting to blur with the emergence ofhybrid models that have a mix of busi-ness and charitable benefit.

In the charitable sector, the social enter-prise model that combines charitablepurpose with for-profit business isbecoming more and more common. Inthe private sector, many corporations areintegrating “giving back” right into theirbusiness models. One example among

many is Tom’s Shoes that donates a pairof shoes to someone in need for each pairsold. And cause marketing, where con-sumers support a cause or charity whenthey make a purchase, has also long beena popular hybrid model.

Finally, there’s crowdfunding, a platformthat sees people making gifts to initi-atives that may or may not fall into thetraditional definition of “charity”. Butwhen contributing to an individual orfamily through a crowd funding project,that “act of giving” feels the same as giv-

ing to a charity in the mind of the “donor”.So this is yet another example of the blur-ring of lines and definitions.

“Society’s appreciation, trust and under-standing of the historically dominantstructures of the charitable sector seemsto be diminishing,” says MacDonald. “So I believe that we are going to have toadapt and respond in order to meet Canadians where they are, something thatwill require thinking of different ways forthem to connect with their communities.”

Barbara Grantham, President and CEO ofthe VGH and UBC Hospital Foundationalso doesn’t agree that society is becom-ing less philanthropic and believes thatchanging attitudes and expectations areat the crux of the need to adapt. “InVancouver, many of the leading philan-thropic families have begun passing thetorch to the next generation. In addition,

…and fewer donors and volunteers

“ “Society’s appreciation, trustand understanding of thehistorically dominant struc-tures of the charitable sectorseems to be diminishing.

For the past several decades, there hasbeen an overall trend of “fewer donorsgiving more” when it comes to the tradi-tional method of giving to charity – taxreceipted giving.

In the early 1990s, about 30% of tax filersreported charitable tax receipts withaverage giving of about $600. Sincethen, the percentage has declinedsteadily, dropping to 21.9% in 2013 withthe average donation growing to morethan $1,500.

In addition, data from the CanadianSurvey of Giving, Volunteering andParticipating (CSGVP), which takes awider look at giving by Canadians (sur-vey includes Canadians 15 year andolder and defines giving in all its means,not just tax receipted giving) indicatethat the declared donor rate declined

from 84% in 2010 to 82% in 2013. Whileonly a drop of 2%, when populationincreases over the period are factored in,(982,000 Canadians aged 15 years andover), the total number of donors “lost” isalmost 500,000.

The data becomes ever more troublingwhen voluntarism is considered. The vol-unteer rate declined from 47% to 44%between 2010 and 2013, which meansthat the sector has “lost” just over 1 mil-lion volunteers.

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

Average Donation

% of taxfilers

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

20122013

Figure 3: Source Canada Revenue Agency

SUMMER 2015 5

The changing tide in terms of attitudesand behaviours is transforming howpeople want to engage with charities,resulting in a “new donor” profile. Whilenot universal as some donors, particular-ly older Canadians, continue to look for atraditional relationship with the charitiesthey support, the rules of engagementfor the “new” Canadian donor can besummarized in the following five “wants”.

1. Something to believe in - Thesedonors are looking to be inspired. Theywant to be involved in causes and issues,not just particular organizations. And asa result, they want to understand howyour work fits into a bigger picture. Thetraditional model sees charities askingfor money to support their particularneeds and priorities, whereas the newmodel is one where charities createopportunities for donors to believe insomething and advance an agenda ofmutual importance.

2. Direct connection to impact – Therehas always been a desire to understand

the impact of giving, but for thesedonors, it’s about making that impact astangible as possible. The desire to getcloser to those who have been directlyimpacted by their gift is demonstratedby the success of a number of recentcrowdfunding initiatives. The ChildSponsorship programs of several inter-national development organizations aswell as the KIVA loan model are excellentexamples of methods to provide thekind of direct connection these donorsare looking for.

3. Something to belong to – Thesedonors want to have a sense of commu-nity and feel connected to others whoare involved with the organization. Thatconnection can be as simple as beingable to link to the charity website ontheir own social media profiles, or itcould be as deep and profound as play-ing the role of volunteer or ambassadorfor the cause. Regardless, these donorsdesire some degree of defining connec-tion with the group of peers who sharetheir interest in and passion for the

organization and perhaps more impor-tantly, its cause.

4. To decide for myself – Choice is notthought of as a privilege for thesedonors, but almost as a fundamentalright. Rooted in an ability to choose thatis now a reality in most other parts oftheir lives, these donors reject the limita-tions of being told what to do. They arelooking for the freedom and fluidity ofchoice, wanting to have a say in whatthey support and how they go aboutmaking that support a reality.

5. Others to know – These donors valuesocial currency and validation. As aresult, they want to be able to share theirinvolvement with their personal and pro-fessional networks. The traditional modelsees the charity providing recognitionthrough annual reports and donor walls.But, these donors want more than thatand are looking for ways to share theirinvolvement themselves.

The “new” Canadian donor

there is new wealth settling in Vancouver.This brings new cultural norms andbeliefs that we need to learn and under-stand” says Grantham. “These donors arecoming into philanthropy with a newerconversation around impact and engage-ment, and with a highly engaged sense ofphilanthropy that is more like a socialventure. Most organizations, regardlessof size, are to some degree facing thesetrends. All of us are thinking throughwhat these changes are going to look likeand mean for our organizations and thecauses we represent.”

Further adding to the need to adapt is the desire for greater control and involve-ment when making a gift, something that Penny Blackwood, Executive Director

of Alumni Affairs and Development atMemorial University in Newfoundlandand Labrador is encountering more andmore often. “We are seeing that donorswant to be more in control of their givingthan we ever have before,” says Blackwood.“Many of our graduates from the 70’s and80’s have a strong entrepreneurial mind-set. When they graduated, they weren’tgetting jobs, so they created their ownopportunities. Having always been in con-trol of their situations, now that they aregetting to the age of giving back, theyalso want to be in control of their giving.”

…mean new rules of engagement…

This desire for control is manifesting notonly at the major and transformational

SUMMER 20156

Parachute merger critical success factors

As an example of an organization thatresulted from a successful merger, weasked Louise Logan, President and CEO ofParachute what she felt were the factorsthat were critical to their success. Sheidentified the following.

Create the platform for change

• Clearly focus on what is best for thecause; set aside personal agendas (focus on what matters)

• Spend time to develop and document thecase for change (why are we doing this)

• Establish clear goals and a guiding vision that all parties publicly embrace(what are we trying to accomplish)

Make change happen

• Move quickly from concept to imple-

mentation (maintain momentum)

• Obtain funding for the pre andpost-merger process (secure necessary resources)

• Establish a steering committee withsenior leadership (Board) representa-tion from each of the merging organi-zations (lead from the top)

• Engage external, objective, professionaladvice to facilitate dialogue and themerger process (get professional help)

• Proactively engage key influencers, funders and stakeholders, and commu-nicate progress and results (generatebroad-based buy-in/ownership forchange)

• Be transparent and open with staff,engage them in the process to the

extent possible (proactively manage theinternal change process)

• Pay attention to selecting the rightleader and governance model (leader-ship and governance matter, a lot)

Look to the future

• Don’t focus solely on the mergerprocess, look ahead and plan for post-merger (look to the future, the merger isjust a vehicle for achieving your goals)

• Establish the new brand identity andset the new organization culture assoon as possible (move quickly to thefuture state)

• Engage sponsors and donors in thenew organization at the first opportu-nity (make them want to support andbe ambassadors for the new vision)

gift level, but at all giving levels and, as aresult, is having a profound impact on thework of fundraisers. Traditional philan-thropy, which is characterized by givingwithout reward or recognition and oftenstimulated by a sense of duty or obligationis being challenged. Rather, we are nowin an era where the “self” is at the centre.

Whether it be the growing number of pri-vate and family foundations and donoradvised funds being created or postingvideos as part of the ALS Ice BucketChallenge, it is becoming increasingly evi-dent that giving as a means of personalexpression is an important trend acrossall gift levels.

For years, we have heard that donorswant more engagement with the chari-ties they support. Traditionally, this desirehas been thought of through the lens ofvolunteer roles tied to organizational

mission. While critical for these types ofengagement opportunities to be avail-able, many donors are now definingengagement through the giving lens,looking to create experiences with theirgiving that go beyond simply “writing acheque”. While not new (think of the par-ticipatory events like the Shoppers DrugMart Weekend to End Women’s Cancer orThe Becel Ride for Heart), it is becomingincreasingly popular. And, what is new isthe desire to share the story of their giv-ing with others. Probably best exempli-fied by the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge,

many donors are looking to “make pub-lic” their giving by communicating it withtheir personal and professional networks.

One organization that has adapted wellto this trend is charity:water. From shav-ing their head, to throwing a party, toteaching yoga (just some of the examplesfrom their marketing campaign to en-courage participation), the organizationhas developed a program where donorscan create their own fundraising initiativeto raise money for the charity. Within rea-son, anything goes and the donor gets todecide. Not to leave anyone out, donorsare also given the option to simply write a cheque. As a result, charity:water has created space and programming thatenables donors to give in a way thatmake sense for them.

We are also increasingly in an era of DIY(Do-It-Yourself ) philanthropy. Enabled by

“ “Organizations must putmandate reflection and relevancy squarely at thefront and centre of theirstrategic conversations.

a variety of new mechanisms like crowd-funding that have democratized the defi-nition of charity, no longer is it a “top down” model where charities decidewhat is needed and then ask donors forsupport. Crowdfunding enables anyoneto decide what “need” requires fundingand gives them the means to take thatneed out “to market” themselves. As aresult, individuals don’t need charities inthe way they used to in order to “do good”,now having the ability to do a lot with-out them, which could be a real gamechanger for the sector.

…and evolution in paradigms

Another trend that can’t be ignored is the desire for more collaboration amongcharities. Donors have been telling us for years that they are frustrated with the multitude of similar causes seeking the same money and now, we have statis-tical corroboration from a variety ofsources that this is in fact true.

The 2013 Muttart Foundation TalkingAbout Charities survey reports consistentmessaging over the past 14 years. Theresults of the survey, which is conductedevery three years, show that since 2000upwards of 70% of respondents agree orstrongly agree that “too many charitiesare trying to get donations for the samecause”. And an AFP commissioned IpsosReid study in 2013 reported that 75%strongly agree or agree that “charities thataddress similar issues should work togeth-er and share plans and resources.”

So what do Canadian donors want? Inshort, more collaboration. And the res-ponse will require significant innovation,both within our current paradigms aswell as the creation of new ones.

Jan Belanger, Vice President, CommunityRelations for Great-West Life, London Lifeand Canada Life, sees progressive organi-

zations undertaking courageous exami-nations of what they exist to do andwhether they are optimally set up to do it within their current structure andparadigm.

“These organizations are putting rele-vance front and centre in their strategicconversations. This means stepping backand taking a more critical look at their

purpose and the fundamentals of howthey are set up and operate. They’re pok-ing holes and pushing back on assump-tions about their mission, who they are,and how they work. Perhaps most impor-tantly, I’m seeing a greater focus onunderstanding who else is addressingtheir issue, and not just from the perspec-tive of competing for the same funding. Inwhat ways is an organization unique in itsoffering? To move their issue forward, isthere a need for greater alignment, andsharing of knowledge, expertise, andresources? These hard questions are lead-ing to authentic collaboration, or eventhe amalgamation of some charities.”

Belanger recognizes these are tough con-versations that demand fresh thinking onthe part of both voluntary and institu-tional leaders. And if there is such a thingas “institutional ego”, it must be con-sciously sublimated for the greater good.

SUMMER 2015 7

“ “

So what do Canadiandonors want? In short,more collaboration. Andthe response will requiresignificant innovation,both within our currentparadigms as well as thecreation of new ones.

SUMMER 20158

“It takes courage to challenge past suc-cesses and institutional history, and puteverything on the table to see if an organ-ization is doing as well as it could be. And,if not, to ask ‘why not?’ These conversa-tions are invaluable; without them, I worrysome organizations may be self-directingtheir demise. Through sincere objectivityand working to take on change with com-mitment, today’s sector leaders are begin-ning to emerge.”

One organization that undertook such acourageous leap is Parachute. Formed in2012, Parachute is a national, charitableorganization that unites the former orga-nizations of Safe Communities Canada,Safe Kids Canada, SMARTRISK and Think-First Canada into one strong leader ininjury prevention.

“Before merging, all four organizationswere small and each focused on a partic-ular niche area of injury prevention. As aresult, each was individually finding it achallenge to advance their portion of theinjury prevention mission in Canada aswell as to grow and sustain a solid base of financial support,” says Cathy Séguin,who was the Vice-President of Safe KidsCanada pre-merger and became the in-augural Chair of Parachute. “We thereforerealized that we would be far strongerand have more impact as a collectivethan as four independent organizations.”

The amalgamation process began in 2009when the leaders of the four organizationssat down to explore options to work to-gether more formally, investigating variousways in which an amalgamation might bestructured. Ultimately, a new organizationwith the new brand Parachute was creat-ed that combined the expertise and ex-perience of all four legacy organizationsand was designed to achieve greaterimpact in awareness, advocacy andaction in the cause of injury prevention.

Louise Logan, President and CEO ofParachute, feels that the merger hasunequivocally had the kind of impact thatwas intended, particularly as it relates toadvancing the issue of injury preventionin Canada. “We have grown in size andhave increased our ability to have impacton the issue. Bringing together the fourorganizations has enabled us to bringattention to the cause of injury preven-tion in a way we never would have beenable to as individual entities. Because weare now a larger organization, we havebeen able to attract new people to theorganization, grow our corporate donorbase and are now beginning to focus ongrowing individual fundraising. Theorganization, and more importantly ourability to advance the issue of injury pre-vention in Canada, is in a much more solidplace now thanks to the merger.”

While merging several organizations isone model of collaboration, the RESOLVECampaign in Calgary is another. Involvingnine Partner agencies, RESOLVE is a col-laborative fundraising campaign that isseeking to raise $120 million to buildaffordable and supported rental hous-ing for 3,000 vulnerable and homelessCalgarians.

The RESOLVE Campaign arose out of the Government of Alberta’s Plan to EndHomelessness. As part of funding this initiative, from 2008 to 2011 the Govern-ment of Alberta issued a call for proposalto offer affordable housing grants. But theagencies needed to fund the remainingamount of a purchase or construction inorder to access the grants.

Three visionary agencies came togetherto consider how they could raise the philanthropic dollars to create debt-freeproperties that could sustain affordablerents. They realized that working togetherwith other homeless-serving agencieswas the best way and invited all thosethat received grants to join.

“In thinking about all these differentagencies going out to the community toraise money, it was acknowledged thatdonors may be frustrated by receivingmultiple asks from different organizationswho are raising money for very similarprojects,” says RESOLVE Executive Direct-or, Sheryl Barlage. “There was also anacknowledgement that a unified cam-paign could create greater awareness ofthe need for affordable housing andgreater profile for the agencies. Also con-sidered, the collaboration could attract ahigher level of community leaders andinfluencers for its Cabinet to championthe Campaign.”

Ultimately, nine agencies signed on toRESOLVE. And Barlage reports that the

Marnie A. SpearsPresident and CEO

Nicole NakoneshnyVice President and Editor,Philanthropic Trends Quarterly

Philanthropic Trends Quarterly© is published by KCI.Unauthorized reproduction or distribution without attributionis prohibited. Philanthropic Trends Quarterly© is intended toprovide an anecdotal ‘snapshot’ of philanthropy in Canada.We hope it will serve as a useful overview for observers of thecharitable and nonprofit scene.

Aussi disponible en français. Illustrations by Rocco Baviera.

214 KING STREET WEST, SUITE 508, TORONTO, ON M5H 3S6 t: 416.340.9710 f: 416.340.9755 e: toronto@kciphilanthropy.com www.forwardthinkingKCI.comT O R O N T O O T T A W A M O N T R E A L C A L G A R Y V A N C O U V E R H A L I F A X E D M O N T O N

response from the community has beenexcellent. “We have not once been turnedaway at the door during our approachesto donors. And while we are still in thequiet phase, we are experiencing suc-cess – we have raised enough money toprovide 1,102 vulnerable Calgarians witha place to call home, towards our goal of 3,000.”

Collective action

Bruce MacDonald believes that in thesechanging times, organizations must growtheir capacity to anticipate change andadapt to it before the case for changebecomes desperately obvious.

“Charities need to be spending sometime over the next while thinking aboutthese issues,” says MacDonald. “I thinkthat in general, charity leaders are so busykeeping the doors open from a fiscal per-spective that they often find themselvesin a mode of responding to changeinstead of getting out in front of it. Weneed to develop a capacity to respond tochanges in society, finding the balancebetween maintaining an internal focus onrunning good, tight organizations whilepaying attention to what is happeningexternally. If leaders aren’t paying atten-tion to the seismic shifts in the environ-ment, they will find themselves playingcatch up. And when that happens, it be-comes really tough to regain momentum.”

MacDonald also believes that successfullyadapting to changing attitudes and behav-iours means charities need to have thefreedom to experiment and innovate. Andthe environment in which charities operatemust be open and hospitable to doing that.

“We can’t have it both ways,” he says. “Wecan’t expect charities to be able to adaptand experiment while having the rules ofthe game inhibit and restrict innovation.As a result, we need to ensure that ourregulatory and policy environment isconducive and that societal attitudes areopen and understanding. It is time for usto take our rightful place alongside othersegments of the economy. We need tomove our own thinking, as well as thethinking of those outside the sector, fromthe realm of “good people doing goodwork” to one that sees us as being part ofthe economic engine of this country.”

This is something that he believes willrequire collective action on the part of the whole sector. “If, as a sector, we are going to convince lawmakers thatchanges are needed and help shape society’s attitudes and opinions aboutthe sector, we are going to need to dothat together. “

In addition to a sector-wide conversationabout the future, it is also a time for orga-nizational introspection. It is a time at theboard table and among senior leadershipfor thoughtful contemplation of what (ifany) this “disruption” and challenge to traditional philanthropy means for you. It is a time to think about who you could/should be collaborating with to advanceyour mission. It is a time to do a carefulassessment of current revenue genera-tion programs and build three to five year fundraising and volunteer engage-ment plans. And finally, it is a time togrow and build champions for yourorganization who can help advance yourvision and mission.

These changing times mean that busi-ness in the charitable sector is tough,competitive, fluid and uncertain, perhapslike never before. And so, leadership mustbe willing to confront these facts andhave the courage to make decisionsabout shaping both the future of theirown organizations as well as the sector as a whole.

“

“

We need to move our ownthinking, as well as thethinking of those outsidethe sector, from the realmof “good people doinggood work” to one thatsees us as being part of the economic engine ofthis country.