The latest conversations on the future of the philanthropic sector – and of this journal – bring to light “widening” generational differences, writes Tim Harper.
As we continue our exploration of the history and the future of the philanthropic sector – and the future of this journal – historical truths are crystallized. Some issues in the sector are eternal. Yet it’s impossible to ignore a widening chasm between the generations in this sector, with a growing impatience butting up against a more deliberative way of dealing with the ever-expanding challenges at hand.
After engaging two cohorts, which we perhaps indelicately branded “elders” and “reformers,” to look back and look ahead, we canvassed other sector leaders from both cohorts to analyze, criticize, or synthesize the views of their colleagues. One obvious truth: today’s elders in the sector were yesterday’s reformers. And today’s reformers, should they stay in a sector facing problems with retention, are tomorrow’s elders. The sector is not being reinvented by a younger cohort, nor are the elders as hidebound as reformers would have you believe. But both sides of this divide have different answers to today’s challenges.
“What’s the role of philanthropy? That is a never-ending question,” says Ana Sofía Hibon, project manager at Inspirit Foundation. “Power and privilege, relationships, the mechanics of change, the language we use to describe the work will all evolve, and individuals will come and go. But these themes are at the core of a lot of what the sector does.” The purpose of philanthropy will evolve as the world evolves, Hibon says. “I don’t think there is an end to these questions.”
Marcel Lauzière will retire April 30 as CEO of the Lawson Foundation, after decades as a non-profit leader in this country and a stint in government in New Zealand. He says that young reformers want to think they are doing something different. He knows this because he felt the same way when he was a young reformer.
He’s not trying to push reformers down a different path because he believes they are right when they talk about risk-taking and diversity. “It’s just when you’re an old fart, you can’t help but wonder why people think this is a new invention,” he says.
The core issues that people are raising, the way people are dealing with them, has evolved, but the underlying issues are old.
Allan Northcott, Max Bell Foundation
Allan Northcott, the president of Calgary’s Max Bell Foundation, says the sector in 2024 is trying to meet challenges without historical context. “A lot of people couch what they say as if this is the first time an issue had ever emerged or nobody had ever tried to tackle it before,” he says. “The core issues that people are raising, the way people are dealing with them, has evolved, but the underlying issues are old.”
Yes, reformers are impatient for change in what they seek as a risk-averse bastion of power and privilege. They fear that the sector often engages in “performative” change when it comes to embracing true diversity or trust-based philanthropy. The viral TikTok musings of Non-Profit Nicole and her no-holds-barred gaslighting of sector workers looking for better pay highlight the need of many to be simply paid a living wage, especially if they are seeking systems change while living in cities like Vancouver or Toronto. They want reform with a side helping of sufficient income to put roofs over their heads and food in the refrigerator. But the sector, like most of society, is financially strapped, and it may be looking at meeting greater need with fewer resources, a trend that runs deeper than a mere cyclical concern. Kevin McCort, president and CEO of Vancouver Foundation, warns of a “demographic and fundraising cliff” approaching in the sector that is going unheeded.
There is increasing frustration among some that leading voices in the sector have not called for a ceasefire in Gaza, yet those leading voices must guard against backlash and withdrawal of donations during a time of fiscal precarity. A younger cohort wants a more powerful seat at the table within their organizations but feel they are blocked by those who do not want to cede their seats.
Younger voices in the non-profit sector challenge the notion that foundations need to be sitting on $116 billion in assets with so many spending needs apparent daily, and, here at least, there is evidence this conversation is gaining traction.
But there are fundamental differences within this sector with a generational shift underway. Some believe that reformers, who include those who tend to view things through the lens of inequity and affirmative action regardless of age, see a black-and-white world without nuance or compromise.
McCort sees this generational difference when it comes to interpreting and valuing data. Reformers, he says, tend to be reductive and prone to generalizations, while the older cohort tends to be driven more by evidence-based data.
The reformers are much more prone to binary approaches – it’s either/or. There are generalizations, but there’s not a lot of data.
Kevin McCort, Vancouver Foundation
“One group is willing to jump to macro conclusions, while the other is insistent on the research and the data, and [that is] a generational shift,” says McCort, a self-described “middle child” who is younger than the elders but older than the reformers. “The reformers are much more prone to binary approaches – it’s either/or. There are generalizations, but there’s not a lot of data. There is a tendency among the reformers to rely on poor data, and that’s a risk to the sector because we will eventually be caught out if we’re jumping to conclusions based on poor data,” he says.
Too many reformers are willing to accept results if the data supports their beliefs, McCort adds. But without solid data, the impact of an increased disbursement quota or funding to non-qualified donees will not be properly measured and we can’t be sure of the impact of increased funding to Black and Indigenous recipients, he says.
I was on the other side of the table getting money from foundations for 30 years, and all those foundations were taking risks on me. Risk-taking is not something new to foundations.
Marcel Lauzière, Lawson Foundation
Lauzière believes reformers can lapse into group think. Their arguments, he says, are generally the same: foundations are not taking risks, they are not learning, they are not willing to put the money where it is needed. “These are all facile comments on what foundations are doing,” Lauzière says. “I was on the other side of the table getting money from foundations for 30 years, and all those foundations were taking risks on me. Risk-taking is not something new to foundations.”
Northcott acknowledges there is frustration at both ends of the age spectrum, “but that’s all to the good. New people bring energy and ideas, and none of us in this space knew what we know at the other end of the spectrum. That new energy is essential.”
But reformers believe there are fault lines among the old guard, particularly a “performative” response to pressing matters. Is the sector merely paying lip service to diversity, equity, and inclusion and trust-based philanthropy without truly addressing root issues?
Jessica Bolduc, the executive director of the 4Rs Youth Movement, which fosters cross-cultural dialogue between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, says the sector is learning how to use the right language without drilling down to do the actual work. She has seen it as the sector moves on greater trust-based philanthropy.
The on-the-ground relationships too often don’t align with the real meaning of trust-based philanthropy, she says. “There is a tendency to communicate really well and use all the right language, but the work really hasn’t been done to re-examine policies, re-examine how funding is distributed, how the relationship between program officers and organizations are cultivated – all the nitty-gritty things that actually develop trust.”
One can’t assume that a statement from an organization pledging to operate in trust-based philanthropy means that organization is going to be trustworthy, Bolduc says, particularly when that organization is dealing with Indigenous communities where trust has not traditionally been part of the relationship. Anything else is “trust-washing,” she says, borrowing a phrase often used when accusing organizations of “green-washing” on environmental investments.
I’m trying to change the culture of how we exist as an organization – and as a system.
Tim Fox, Calgary Foundation
Tim Fox, vice-president of Indigenous relations and equity strategy at the Calgary Foundation, is living this every day as he tries to change systems, mobilizing reconciliation efforts in the community and internally at the foundation. Only a tiny handful of the approximately 200 Canadian community foundations are doing this type of internal cultural work, he says. “I’m trying to change the culture of how we exist as an organization – and as a system,” he says.
Fox has seen “performative” change as well. “When we witnessed the public murder of George Floyd, you heard equity statement after equity statement from organizations which did not even realize what it took to resource that kind of work,” he says. This will change, he says, with the arrival of a new generation of leadership that has no patience with the status quo.
This is not to say things aren’t trending in the right direction. Bolduc had to endure years of funding from paternalistic organizations that had no lived experience or world view of Indigenous rights. They scolded her and she felt she was being interrogated by funders who were clearly skeptical about a young Indigenous woman running things. Today, she has been given space for her work to unfold with funding partners the Peter Gilgan Foundation and the Catherine Donnelly Foundation, as well as her government funder.
Some are acting boldly to overcome old frustrations. Surabhi Jain, executive director of the Toronto Workforce Funder Collaborative, found one problem when she brought private, public, and family foundations together to collaborate and innovate on systems change outside their mandates. Instead of collaboration, they remained largely cloistered in their own silos, demanded rigorous reporting, and told Jain to innovate using best practices. Innovation means a program hasn’t been done before, she says, while best practices means it has been proven to be the best way of doing something that has already been done. “How do I innovate with best practices?”
Funding and grantmaking has to be forward-looking . . . When we are talking about systems change, how can we even base it on performance in the past?
Surabhi Jain, Workforce Funder Collaborative
Jain is trying to plot a new direction for a risk-averse sector, so there is constant friction with the foundations she works with, and pushing them out of their comfort zone is “like pulling teeth,” she says. Her funders demand financial statements or reports on past projects, but she is moving them to a less rigid reporting regimen. “Funding and grantmaking has to be forward-looking,” she maintains. “Grantmaking is not a performance review. When we are talking about systems change, how can we even base it on performance in the past? If you had already changed that system, why would you be asking me for money?”
Others in the sector have sparked a conversation on the size of endowments and the need for greater funding of immediate needs. It is being discussed at all levels, and reformers and elders alike are talking.
“It’s something that should be considered by all foundations,” Fox says. “There’s room to support the needs of communities, because we all know the needs are so huge.” Calgary Foundation is sitting on $1.3 billion in assets, received $125 million last fiscal year, and granted $61.4 million to 1,192 charitable organizations.
But Northcott says foundations are being caricatured as “hoarding” funds. Max Bell should not be allowed to accumulate wealth beyond the rate of inflation, and it does not, he says. “That money is owned by charities for the public good,” he says. In fact, Northcott says, the value of its original endowment in 1972 is almost identical to its endowment today in 2024 dollars.
McCort says public foundations do need perpetual endowments, but private foundations may not. “Is there a legitimate argument for a perpetual foundation that remains controlled by families and descendants of the families?” he asks.
There is also renewed interest in foundations drawing down, much of it sparked by the decision of the Ivey Foundation of London, Ontario, to grant its entire $100 million over five years to organizations fighting climate change. Lauzière says that if those working on societal change draw down, they are also giving up their relational and social capital and are no longer there to open doors, bring people together, or exercise influence on government. He says he has seen no evidence that spending big dollars in a short period of time provides a bigger bang than smaller donations over a longer period. “In one swoop that’s all gone,” he says. “We often hear the solutions are easy. Just spend that money, get it in the hands of those who could use it, and we’ll be good. I don’t think that’s necessarily always the case.”
At the other end of the financial spectrum, a bigger problem looms.
Amina Mohamed, a podcast fellow at The Philanthropist Journal, was one of many who spoke to The Journal of the need for better pay for young workers. Too many in the sector are earning around $3,000 per month when a Toronto one-bedroom apartment rents for $2,500. They have trouble finding places to live or have moved back in with their parents, have postponed starting families, and have had to take second jobs. They are working to better their communities, but they also want to eat, she says.
It’s great to be working for organizations that have great missions, but if you are not being paid enough to buy your groceries . . . you can become resentful about what the cost of this work really is.
Amina Mohamed, podcast fellow, The Philanthropist Journal
Mohamed has moved to the private sector, but the non-profit sector always calls her back. “It’s great to be working for organizations that have great missions, but if you are not being paid enough to buy your groceries or treat yourself to a coffee with your friends, you can become resentful about what the cost of this work really is,” she says. In past positions, she and her co-workers were clear on their morals and values and had support in the community. “But I would look at my bank account and I couldn’t figure out if I would ever be able to get my first apartment or make any of my financial milestones.”
Senior leaders hear this complaint, and Northcott says it has grown louder in the economically stressed post-COVID workforce. But no one can point to an easy solution.
This sector will be challenged time and again as it has been in the recent past – on climate change, reconciliation, anti-Black racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia, inequality and poverty. Add to the mix in 2024, Northcott says, the teetering underpinnings of democracy in this country, an issue he feels more in the sector should be seized by.
I think we need to be out there and hear from others who are looking at [the sector] critically so we hear from them and don’t just become another bubble.
Marcel Lauzière
Most who spoke to us for this article believe that means a larger role for The Philanthropist Journal, one that includes criticism of the sector and exploration of issues that provoke, and one that relies on measured journalism shorn of the polarization and clickbait found in other journals. “If we didn’t have The Philanthropist Journal, we’d have to invent it,” Northcott says. “It is providing journalism, not acting as an aggregator of hot takes. Putting today’s debates in context is essential.” He also endorses the decision to put The Journal’s future under a public microscope.
Lauzière worries about The Philanthropist Journal becoming another “bubble” publication, and when he hears it referred to as “niche,” he fears it implies a forum where we can all be comfortable supporting the same arguments. “It is still a very small group of people in our little sector that read it and talk about it. When we say ‘it belongs to the sector,’ that sends a message we can tell our story and feel comfortable here. I think that’s the wrong approach. I think we need to be out there and hear from others who are looking at [the sector] critically so we hear from them and don’t just become another bubble.”
What actually is the role of The Philanthropist? I caution against trying to be who you are not, as opposed to continuing to grow and evolve in who you are.
Jessica Bolduc, 4Rs Youth Movement
But Bolduc warns the publication not to try to become something it isn’t. “What actually is the role of The Philanthropist? I caution against trying to be who you are not, as opposed to continuing to grow and evolve in who you are,” she says. Bolduc believes publications that are true to themselves will grow their readership “rather than trying to be a publication that decides, for example, to be all about grassroots Indigenous issues.”
Mohamed says The Philanthropist provides a space where the sector can be criticized – something that is not always tolerated internally in the sector. “I love the non-profit sector,” she says. “I believe it is uniquely valuable. But there are so many solvable problems in this industry that if we could just name them and address them meaningfully and transparently, then we could become a fundamentally transformative sector.”
There are so many solvable problems in this industry that if we could just name them and address them meaningfully and transparently, then we could become a fundamentally transformative sector.
Amina Mohamed
“I have tried to have these discussions with different non-profits I have worked with over the years,” Mohamed says, “and you can talk about them over the water cooler in hushed tones, but you can’t have them in a meaningful way because they are often seen as threatening and a direct attack on the organization.” The sector can become better in dealing with its issues only if it admits its shortcomings, she says, and The Philanthropist Journal is an outlet for honest debate about those shortcomings.
Jain agrees. She calls for articles that offer divergent viewpoints but could try to be a bit more provocative. “I would love to see some risks taken with the content, let it be more divergent. Not sensationalized – but something that is bold and is questioning the sector from a critical-thinking perspective.
“I want [the elders] to be uncomfortable,” she says. “I want them to be forced to sit back and think, ‘Did we really do this?’ ‘Is this really true?’”
But the most direct message comes from Fox: “My challenge to The Philanthropist Journal – what are they doing to impact their internal system? They are creating these stories, but are they actually incorporating some of the work internally as well?”
Correction, March 13: This article has been edited to reflect the fact that Amina Mohamed no longer works at the National Council of Canadian Muslims.
