The story of philanthropy is not static; it evolves with every new challenge faced. Recently, the calls for reform have been loud and clear – to unlock the billions locked up in endowments, remove “direction and control,” and shift to more reciprocal relationships.
On the occasion of The Philanthropist Journal’s 50th year of publishing, we look back at 50 notable moments, movements, and trends that have affected the non-profit and charitable sector in Canada. Part 3 focuses on the long road to improving sector–government relations.
The original version of this story, published in 2007, is one of The Philanthropist Journal’s most popular pieces of all time. In this updated version, Peter Elson and Peyton Carmichael expand on that detailed (and not so short) history.
We asked Hilary Pearson, who frequently reviews books for The Philanthropist Journal, to comment on “A Short History” as a way of providing an entry point for the article.
On the occasion of The Philanthropist Journal’s 50th year of publishing, we look back at 50 notable moments, movements, and trends that have affected the non-profit and charitable sector in Canada. Part 2 focuses on the pivotal moments that have shaped philanthropy and funding.
On the occasion of The Philanthropist Journal’s 50th year of publishing, we look back at 50 notable moments, movements, and trends that have affected the non-profit and charitable sector in Canada.
Bill S-216 would amend the contentious language in the Income Tax Act that requires registered charities to exercise “full direction and control” over their “own activities” when they work with partners that don’t have formal charitable status. In the second part of an ongoing series – exploring a range of views, experiences, and concerns – we examine the concern that the sector may be hiding behind direction-and-control to “mask a more deeply rooted issue in a white-led philanthropic sector.”
Bill S-216 would amend the contentious language in the Income Tax Act that requires registered charities to spend dollars on their “own activities” rather than giving autonomy to organizations whose expertise and experience make them best placed to efficiently use charitable monies.
