350 Bay Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5H 2S6 416 640 4135 info@theoffordgroup.com www.theoffordgroup.com

M A Y A A N G E L O U

WOMEN AND PHILANTHROPYGender differences in charitable giving

PLUS + The Next Decade’s Trends

Volume 04 NOVEMBER • DECEMBER 09

Top Qualities Required for Leadership

One of the greatest challenges in the charita-ble sector today is finding and keeping great talent. This is especially true at the leadership level, where the demand for top professionals with proven experience continues to outpace supply. We contacted a leading and highly respected search consultant and asked her about the Top Qualities she looks for in charitable sector leaders. In addition to all of the attributes listed below, we feel that one of the most important traits is judgment. Leaders must possess excellent judgment in or-der to lead, plan, recruit and train and execute.

Women have, for many many years, been impacting on the charitable sector in significant ways. In this issue, we look at what women’s roles have been in the past, and what they are today and into the future. More women have been making their own decisions around leadership philanthropy – both in their giving and volunteering. And because women live longer than men by an average of 5 years, they will end up with much of the anticipated intergenerational transfer of wealth expected over the next 50 years. Martha Keates, Senior Consultant at Marts & Lundy, our strategic partner in the U.S., has written an engaging ar-ticle that we first “heard” as a presentation a year ago at a conference -- we are very pleased that she’s written it up and that we are able to share it with you here. For those of you who aren’t sure about what the next ten years will bring, we’ve put together a look into the future of the charitable sector – check out our list of “10 to watch”. And while you’re looking at your work through a new lens, check out Andrea Belanger’s views on the changing nature of charitable communications in the technological age and the articles on the new requirements from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and the changing role of being “green” in the charitable sector.

As we have in previous issues, we are again pleased to profile an important charityexecutive in Judy Davis, CEO, Hospitals of Regina Foundation. We’re pleased too to bring you perspectives throughout this issue from fundraising volunteers, donors, professional fundraisers and our own Advisory Board.

This issue is chock-full of information and each topic – from leadership to “women and phi-lanthropy” to the “greening of charity” to the trends and law – could no doubt each be a full issue. We look forward to bringing you more food for thought again in our next issue. Best of luck with your efforts into the winter – may the wind always be at your back.

Nicholas OffordPresident, The Offord Group

THEVIEW from here.

PERSPECTIVES ON CANADIAN PHILANTHROPYis a publication for Canadian CEOs, volunteers and

professional leaders in the philanthropic sector. Our goal is to provide a qualitative and quantitative review of the sector that will help

to inform decisions and strategies for practitioners.

Editor: Robin Fowler, CFREContributors: Andrea Belanger, Mark Blumberg, Tracy DePass,

Robin Fowler, Prabha Mattappally, Diane Scrafield, Martha Keates, Avon MacFarlane, Nicholas Offord

Design: Michelle Donnelly

Created by The Offord Group • copyright 2009 • all rights reserved printed on recycled paper • for more info please visit www.theoffordgroup.com

03 Observations on Charitable Communications

06 Women and Philanthropy

10 Defining the Next Decade

15 Top Offord Picks

Volume 04 highlights NOVEMBER • DECEMBER 09

Charities are confronted by two very different kinds of problems. One is putting in place the kind of management capabili-ties that will maximize potential in a highly competitive marketplace. The second is securing the leadership required to make change in a complex and dynamic environ-ment. We know that change is constant, yet many organizations are stuck in business models created in the last century and reinforced by both professional training and educational modules which, while supporting sector knowledge, are not able to drive managerial competency and leadership development.

There is also a certain truth to the fact that good fundraisers I know want to work for leaders with strong vision and who will give them a clear mandate to do their work without mi-cro-managing programs. Most want respect from, and access to, the CEO on key decisions and relationships. I think too many senior managers spend too much time trying to edu-cate CEO’s about fundraising “best practices” rather than being focused on core performance metrics and ac-countability for program execution.

Asked in Montreal at the recent As-sociation of Healthcare Philanthropy (AHP) meeting what I thought was the characteristic I would most value in charitable sector leaders, my answer was “courage”. Courage not only to make the sacrifices all leaders must make to live up to the demands of staff, the Board, volunteers, and donors, but also the courage to make hard choic-es to drive change, sometimes when such choices will force organizational upheaval and be subject to open criti-cism. I am reminded sometimes when I observe these folks under fire at orga-nizations of the old saw: “Leaders will lead and chisellers will chisel.”

A time for COURAGEOUS LEADERSHIP by Nicholas Offord

2O1O

Charities are faced not only with eco-nomic pressures and competition, but must also adapt to new social and politi-cal expectations, new technologies, and changing demographics. Only quality leadership with strong strategic thinking can drive these changes in organizations.

Yet change, by definition, puts leaders in vulnerable positions. Leadership is about making difficult choices, about changing status quo, challenging sacred cows. This isn’t going to make everyone happy and often we hear “culture trumps change” in organizations. When organizations are unable to transform themselves or move forward, strong leaders become frustrated with the slow pace of change in charities and move on to other things.

Leaders in charities don’t enjoy the traditional “command and control” roles that they do in the private sector. They must share the stage with institutional, program, board, campaign, staff, and other kinds of voluntary-based stake-holders, including donors. All can derail a plan for change if not properly man-aged and, sometimes, even when it is.

Many charities are seeking leaders from other sectors and bypassing career fund-raisers. They want people with proven leadership capabilities, an obvious pas-sion for the cause, but someone who fundamentally will bring a different per-spective on the future of the organiza-tion. Being the greatest fundraiser in the organization won’t automatically qualify you for the top job, if these other elements are expectations of the Board.

‘‘ BEING THE GREATEST FUNDRAISER

IN THE ORGANIZATION WON’T AUTOMATICALLY

QUALIFY YOU FOR THE TOP JOB ’’

Sharon Rudy, Partner, Head of Canadian Education, Public Policy and Not For Profit Practice, Spencer Stuart

Compelling Communicator they should have energy, be inspiring, convincing, and be able to listen

Quiet confidence ability to gravitate easily from the Board-rooms to the volunteer front lines (as one former client said, “walk with the crowd and talk with the Kings”)

Passion for the mission Mix of patience/tenacity - focused on moving forward but realistic to know that this will take time

Humility Know what they are not good at and able to hire a team to complement them (in these positions, one can’t be good at everything)

Here’s what she had to say:

Note from the EditorThe world today is frenetic. Our work in the charitable sector is full of hope, promise, and lots of hard work. It is often hectic work. Technology, which was supposed to make it all easier, has certainly made us able to do more, but has also connected us 24/7 (unless we make very conscious efforts to turn it all off) and many people feel obliged to be “on” all the time.

I hope this issue – our fourth – inspires you to turn off your electronic gadgets for a little while and engage with our stories, statistics, profile pieces and some of our recommended books, websites and more. We’ve redesigned this issue to make it easier (and hopefully more fun!) to read. I look forward to hearing your thoughts – please let me know what you think at robin@theoffordgroup.com.

Robin Fowler, CFRESenior Associate, The Offord Group

Followthe leader?

Philanthropy shouldn’t be defined as a bunch of rich people writing big cheques. Small amounts of money given by large numbers of individuals can be combined to do great things.Jean Case

‘‘

’’

The internet is not just for the young – one of the fastest growing demographics of internet users are senior citizens and older adults – those who are more likely to make donations. In the United States, 88% of adults aged 50-65 and 65% of those 65 and older, with an income of over $50,000, are internet users. Users in the 65+ range are increasingly becoming a more visible online demographic – the number of seniors in this age category went from 7.6 million users in 2002 to over 18 million in 2007.

In 2008, a Giving USA survey, reported on by Guidestar (www.guidestar.org), found that “combined funds” such as the United Way or Jewish federations generally raised more funds, on average, online in 2007. The average dollars raised online by these organizations in the United States was over $457,000 each. The average funds raised for all organizations was $45,457 each.

People are more likely to give via the internet if there is a sense of urgency – particularly in the wake of natural disasters. A time-sensitive matching program, where donations during a given window will be matched by a sponsor, can also create a sense of urgency.

Online fundraising is one of the most efficient ways to raise money and can easily be integrated into marketing and annual giving campaigns.

Sources:Ted Hart et. al. (2007), People to People Fundraising, Social Networking and Web 2.0 for CharitiesCanadaHelps, www.canadahelps.org

13,900,000,000. 13.9 billion: the number of min-utes individuals living in the United States spent on Facebook in April 2009, according to Neilson Online. That’s over 231 million hours in one month and one country. And, according to Softpedia, more than half of Facebook users are between 25 and 44 years old.

Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, Tagged.com, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube and so many, many more places to reach out, to communicate, to market … and to find donors.

We all know that electronic communications and social networking sites have exploded. When was the last time you sat down and wrote – by hand, on paper – a letter? Okay, maybe a sym-pathy note, but you can even do that online.

Smart politicians are making the most of the Internet and social networking. Here’s a personal example. I signed up to receive emails from the Obama campaign last summer. I made a donation online because they made it so simple and easy. I had to identify myself as an American living outside of the country, but that was it. Give us your credit card, thank you very much.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one. The Washington Post reports that during the 21-month campaign, 3 million donors made a total of 6.5 million donations online to-taling more than half a billion dollars. Most remark-able is that 6 million of the 6.5 million donations were in increments of $100 or less, with $80 as the average donation and average donors giving more than once.

Are long-established communications mediums passé? How will a hip and savvy 40 year old poten-tial donor respond to a glossy case for support – will it be compelling or will it raise concerns about how the charity’s money is being spent? How do chari-ties communicate effectively with someone who may be spending hours a day online communicating?

All legitimate questions; unfortunately, no pat answers.

A successful communications plan in this age of in-stant communications will be many things: reflective of the charity, thoughtful and nimble, traditional and up-to-the-minute, organized and engaging. It will in-clude a mix of old and new tools based on the charity’s development history, potential donor audience, and its resources and staffing. Its most important component will be an understanding and willingness to explore the potential that new media brings to fundraising.

A well-established organization with a significant devel-opment component and an existing and mature donor base will continue to draw on those strengths. So the beautifully designed, award-winning case for support is not likely to disappear any time soon. Nor will in-person cultivation and solicitation of major donors. A tweet is not going to land a transformational gift.

And, while donations that come via broad-based online, telephone or email communications may not be as large as those that come through more traditional forms of solicitation, they can nevertheless be very significant. As Jean Case, who with husband Steve (America On-line), founded the Case Foundation, said, “Philanthropy shouldn’t be defined as a bunch of rich people writing big cheques. Small amounts of money given by large num-bers of individuals can be combined to do great things.”

No doubt there will be obstacles and issues related to expanding a charity’s communications efforts into new media venues. Controlling the message, technical, in-frastructure and staffing support requirements and their attendant costs will be part of the decision-making. And internal attitudes and a resistance to change will no doubt have a significant impact on how quickly and ful-ly a charity can embrace new media communications.

None of these obstacles are insurmountable. Most importantly, balanced against the costs and reach of traditional communications, the possibilities offered through new media to engage an entirely new audience, expand a charity’s reach, spread its message and enlist new supporters are significant. After all, 13.9 billion minutes in one month alone just cannot be ignored.

Online fundraising has grown from an estimated $550 million in the U.S. in 2001 to over $6.87 billion in 2006, and is steadily increasing.

Globally, online fundraising accounts for over an estimated of $13 billion dollars (2006).

The NonProfit Times (April 1, 2008, Vol. 22 No.7) reported that online donors are currently most likely to give at year end, or during times of major disasters.

In a recent study conducted by The Chronicle of Philanthropy (June 12, 2008, No. 17), online donations have typically accounted for less than 1% of the majority of charitable organizations’ overall fundraising – but are increasingly ac-counting for more fundraising dollars and higher percentages. As reported by GuideStar (www.guidestar.org), a Giving USA survey found the average to be closer to 4.8%.

In 2007, CanadaHelps (www.canadahelps.org), an online giving facilitator (one of many), helped to facilitate the exchange of $23 million dollars of charitable giving dollars to 6,545 charities.

Online fundraising is more than just a “give now” button on a webpage– the internet can also be used to build stronger ties with existing donors and reach out to new donors through e-mail, e-newsletters, forums, blogs and through social networking sites.

Social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and YouTube are becoming an increasingly important source for heightening donor awareness. Although the users of these sites tend to be between 18-34 in age, whereas the average direct mail donor tends to be in the 55-60 range, these sites are a cost-effective way of building relationships with future donors and can be used to create awareness as well as recruit volunteers.

And, here is the really interesting part. Almost a year after the campaign ended I am still getting emails – from the President, from Michelle, from Joe Biden and even from Joe’s wife, Jill. They urge me to do one thing or another or voice my support for this or that. Almost all of them have one thing in common: make a donation.

Granted, political campaigns are not the same as fund- raising campaigns. But there are two important aspects of these communications from the Obama campaign that will serve charity fundraising efforts well: first, I am blanketed with information about what is happen-ing and I can pick and choose to learn more about the issues that engage me and, second, I can back up my interest with a donation when and if I decide to do so.

What does it mean for philanthropy and for chari-ties when traditional communications methods are being eclipsed by new forms of communica-tion that are being embraced by all generations?

Observations CHARITABLE COMMUNICATIONS In the Technology/Media Age

by Andrea Belanger

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Click & Give: 11 Online facts

Firstimpressions count.

A web site viewer will decide whether to continue exploringa website afterjust 10 seconds.

08

09

10

11

A successful communications plan in this age of instant communications will be manythings: reflective of the charity, thoughtful and nimble, traditional and up-to-the-minute, organized and engaging. It will include a mix of old and new tools...

NEW?

Andrea Belanger has consulted on communications and government relations strategies to Canadian senior executives for more than twenty years. Clients include multi-national corporations, associations and universities. She is a member of The Offord Group’s Advisory Board.

Senior Surfers. Almost 90% of adults 50-65 yrs are internet users

There is no substitute for direct, two-way com-munication. Women report again and again that they are not asked to give, and therefore they don’t. Whether they are looking for op-portunities to be engaged as leaders or simply to belong to a group which is making the world a better place, successful fundraising will align the needs/desires/goals of the potential donor with the charity’s fundraising priorities.

How do we target women to get involved in/give to charity? Within the next decade, women will continue to take greater control of their financial resources, assume top philanthropic leadership positions and make increasingly larger philan-thropic gifts. To capitalize on this continuing gender evolution, charities should, at minimum, review and adjust their fundraising processes to ensure that the needs of female donors are being met. However, as women continue to influence philanthropic growth, charities should strive to develop programs specifically for women. Increased customization and personalization within organizational fundraising offices will not only benefit female donors and volunteers, but will ultimately benefit charities’ relationships with all donors. So Are Women Really That Dif-ferent From Men? Yes.

Because women live longer than men, they will end up in charge of much of the $41 trillion expected to pass from

generation to generation over the next fifty years

-Diversity Best Practices & Business Women’s Network

Results from a recent study show that Canadian women donate at higher levels than men (87% women vs. 82% men) and although men have a higher average annual donation amount than women ($453 compared to $422), over a 3-year period from 2004-2007, the average annual donation amount of women significantly grew by 12% compared to 5% for men.

Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians – Highlights from the 2007 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating

A planetary shift in philanthropy? MEN ARE FROM MARS, WOMEN ARE FROM VENUS

By Prabha Mattappally

Over the past few years, the topic of women in philanthropy has become one of the hottest subject matters in charitable giving across North America. Women are, more than ever, beginning to take charge of the philanthropic decisions for their families and/or businesses.

In addition to making more major home and workplace decisions, they are also expected to live longer and therefore ultimately benefit over the longer-term from the estimated $41 trillion (US) in wealth transfers over the next fifty years. Gone are the days of speaking of female donors as ‘theoretical potential’...If organizations haven’t already been talking to the women in their communities, they should now be looking to connect with ‘the woman/women of the house/business’.

Does Gender Affect Philanthropy?If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, fundraisers should not assume that the strategies for engaging men in philanthropy are the same as those for engaging women. Female philanthropists are motivated differently from their male counterparts.

Fundraisers have also noted that women tend to give in ways that are linked to how they build re-lationships. They are interested in more than just a conversation with a fundraiser – a certain level of commitment accompanies their donation and they are keen to see their donation’s impact and will engage with the organizations they support in order to ensure their gifts are put to good use.

What Do Women Really Want? Not even I, a fellow female, can give you a definitive answer to that question.

By nature, a woman’s instinct is to nurture those around her. As she becomes involved with a worthy cause, through a simple donation or physical hands-on volunteering, she is in a small part, leading to the improvement in the lives of those touched. Although this may be the most obvious effect, a great number of women, including myself, have found that by becoming involved in a specific endeavour dear to our hearts, we too become forever enriched.

Amelia Saputo, Director & Chair of Advancement Committee, Lower Canada College Board of Directors

Since the 1980’s, women have experienced significant improvements in earnings:

The number of women earning more than their spouse has tripled, with close to 1/3 of women acting as the primary breadwinner.

In Canada, women now make up a larger share of self-employed individuals than in any other country.

In the US, nearly half of the top wealth holders are women, including more than 3 million with annual incomes of more than $550,000 (US).

Research shows that women are more likely to

• Give to a charity in both time and money

• Engage a larger circle of influencers in their giving, including extended family and friends

• Increase their giving during challenging economic times

• Give smaller gifts to a larger number of charities.

But there are two proven strategies to engage women in philanthropy (and these are in fact no different from engaging anyone in philanthropy, whether male or female, but are perhaps more important for women):

1 Ask them what they want2 Listen to what they have to say

Minding their own business.

The Generous gender.

That’s one of the differences between men and women. Men write a cheque and might want to see their name emblazoned on a plaque or whatever, but basically they walk away. Women give with their heart. They want to be agents for change, to create new structures, attitudes, and organizations. They invest time, energy, and themselves, as well as

money, in their search for ‘now’ change.

Margaret McCain, former Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick and a founder of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Foundation speaking at a forum, 1999.

My hope is that this program (Homeward Bound) will continue to grow and be successful. We need more programs like this one that address the fundamental issues of poverty, employability, self-sufficiency – it’s far better to “teach someone to fish than to give someone a fish.” I un-derstand the program more deeply now from having met some of the women -- it has been so rewarding to hear how it has positively changed

their lives, and to help determine what more we can do to make the program even more successful.

Pat Meredith, Homeward Bound Volunteer, WoodGreen Community Services

When women are fully involved, the benefits can be seen immediately; families are healthier; they are better fed; their income, savings and

reinvestment go up. And what is true of families is true of communi-ties, and eventually, of whole countries.

Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

It has almost been more valuable to be involved in what they were doing and to be able to give back intellectually and with our experience than to

give the cheque – it’s much more engaging to become involved with organizations.

Christine Croucher, Homeward Bound Volunteer, WoodGreen Community Services

Quotes of Note.

01 Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey reports there were 877,000 self-employed women in Canada in 2006, accounting for about one third of all self-employed persons.

02 Today women continue to represent one of the fastest growing sectors. And even in these difficult economic times, they are discovering new markets, charting new territory and building new companies. Ivey Business Journal, March/April 2009

03 What segment of the Canadian population provides jobs for 1.7 million Canadians and contributes over $18 billion to the Canadian economy? The answer: women. In fact, between 1981 and 2001, the number of women entrepreneurs in Canada increased 208%. Connecting businesswomen to opportunity, CanadExport, April 22, 2009.

3fast facts

Women executives with money are coming of age. But they are

busy, really busy. I’ll go out on a limb and say they are busier than

male executives with affluence & influence, due to their demanding

roles as caregivers and managers of households. Charities will have

to compete to attract the most affluent and influential women to their

organizations. Women philanthropists who have earned their own

money are “doers”. Before they commit large sums of money, they

will ask charities good questions about how their donation will

“get the job done.”

Valerie McMurtry, President & CEO, Bloorview Kids Foundation

.

That American women are gaining economic power is a well-documented trend: in 2005, women constituted more than 46% of the nation’s top wealth-holders, with their share of assets growing by 50% over the last decade to more than $6.3 trillion. By 2010, women will control 60% of wealth in the United States. Women start more than 400 new businesses each day, twice the rate as men. 1 Add to this the tide of wealth being conferred through the inter-generational wealth transfer (and the undisputed fact that women live longer than men) and, to paraphrase Sena-tor Dirksen, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.

But when it comes to giving money away, are there differ-ences between men and women and their philanthropic be-havior? If so, there are important implications for our clients and those in the business of encouraging gifts to nonprofit organizations. Numerous studies and countless anecdotal observations suggest that there are significant differences. We explored just a few of these findings and reflected on our own experiences in the field to offer these observations.

Women are more generous than men. In a study conducted in 2001, economists James Andreo-ni and Lise Vesterlund evaluated philanthropic behaviors and found marked differences between the sexes. Specifi-cally, the study found that women tend to exhibit prefer-ences to share evenly and to be “more generous when altru-ism is expensive”; whereas, men are more generous when altruism is cheap, and “men are more likely to be either perfectly selfish or perfectly selfless.” 2 The Women’s Phi-lanthropy Institute (WPI) at Indiana University finds that single women are far more likely to give than single men; married individuals are more likely to give than single men. The WPI has also found that women who participate in donor education programs are more likely to give larger gifts, to give unrestricted gifts, to develop a long-term giv-ing plan, and to hold leadership roles on nonprofit boards. When we remember that women make 83% of household consumer decisions, it fits that women will disproportion-ately influence how money is given for charitable causes.

For many women, volunteering and philanthropy are equal, nearly interchangeable, concepts. There is a strong history here, starting in the Civil War with nursing aid societ-ies, and growing in significance and impact through the start of

monetary gifts? Maybe both. “Giving circles” have long been the domain of philanthropic women. For example, in the late 1880s, Mary Elizabeth Garrett and a few female friends, calling themselves the “Friday Evening Group,” met to dis-cuss how they could use their wealth to effect social change. The group decided to launch a fundraising campaign to endow a medical school at Johns Hopkins University and eventually established the Women’s Fund Committee across the country to meet their goal. 3 Even among very wealthy women, “Women’s Funds” are still used for collaborative and democratic approaches to giving and making changes in communities. Conversations with our clients, and our own experiences, indicate that participation is nearly always a precursor to giving, and lengthy involvement is a predictor of even larger gifts. Collaborative or group decision making is more often seen with women than with men. It is rare for women to make spontaneous or transactional gifts; it is far more likely that they will have given small amounts, year after year, and attended events or meetings at their favorite organization, before considering a large or transformational gift. At Scripps College, trustee and alumna Elizabeth Hu-bert Malott gave consistently and generously throughout the decades following her graduation. But it was not until her alma mater decided to create a building on campus that reflected her own priorities of community and architectural beauty that the idea of making a very large gift even oc-curred to her. Even then, the decision to make the lead gift was painstakingly considered, right down to the location of the elevator and the decorative stenciling on the ceil-ing (details on which she was consulted). Tellingly, she also worked to ensure that she had the vote of every member of her family, whose opinions she cherished, before the gift was made. Or, as she put it to the vice president: “I have to be pregnant before I give birth.” No men in our experience have put this process in quite the same memorable way.

There are generational differences in the way women give, reflective of their experiences and the cultural framework in which they find themselves. Marjorie Houston, Execu-tive Director of Development at Wheaton College in Mas-sachusetts, has studied this issue for several years.

Perhaps the most important take-away of Houston’s study is that the growth in economic power parallels the trend away from the proliferation of “women’s funds” in favor of increased numbers of major gifts made by indi-viduals. Women are increasingly discovering the power of philanthropy and flexing their giving muscles through personal gifts: eight of the top 50 gifts made in 2005 were made by women (seven of whom were over age 75).

Among her findings:

01 Women in their 80s, those born between 1919 and 1927, are less inclined to see the money as “theirs,” and often give to causes their husbands supported. They are influenced by the lean years of the Depression. They are collaborative and frugal.

02 Women in their 70s respond to conversations about their pas-sions and interests. They are motivated less by recognition and more by being engaged with the organization. Interestingly, this decade reflects some discomfort with the notion of “volunteering,” associating it negatively with the “white gloves and pearls” set.

03 The women’s movement is a key part of the experience of women now in their 60s. Depending on her relationship to those events, a 60-something donor may view philan-thropy as a way to enact social change. She likely sees phi-lanthropy as personal, and sometimes selfless, as in giv-ing in honor or memory of others. Women in this decade are less collaborative than those in their mothers’ generation.

04 Women in their 50s have both inherited wealth and time to continue working and earning more, bringing a greater sense of independence with regard to making philanthropic decisions. They understand and are empowered by giving, and more often than prior generations make gifts with restrictions. Responsibil-ity and accountability are associated with gifts from this cohort.

1 Center for Women’s Business Research2 Andreoni, James and Lise Vesterlund. (2001). “Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics., 116(1), pp. 293-312.3 McCall, Nancy and Elizabeth Peterson. (2002). Mary Elizabeth Garrett. In Notable American Philanthropists: Biographies of Giving and Volunteering, edited by Robert T. Grimm, Jr., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 107-112.

8 lessons for practitioners

This paper is not meant to suggest that gender differ-

ences alone should determine how we should work

with our female prospects and donors. However, we

do recommend reflecting on some historic facts and

behavioral trends as you form strategies to maximize

major gift activity at your institution.

PHILANTHROPY & GENDER. Not Your Mother’s Bake Sale.

By Martha Keates, Senior Consultant, Marts & Lundy Marts & lLundy is the U.S. partner of The Offord Group

350 Bay Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5H 2S6 416 640 4135 info@theoffordgroup.com www.theoffordgroup.com

M A Y A A N G E L O U

WOMEN AND PHILANTHROPYGender differences in charitable giving

PLUS + The Next Decade’s Trends

Volume 04 NOVEMBER • DECEMBER 09

the 20th century. Some of this activity can be attributed to limitations in women’s access to education and the board-room. While their fathers and husbands wielded power in those settings, and brokered philanthropic exchanges (you give to my cause and I’ll help yours), women built their own power structures in their communities and churches. Some of the most important and enduring charitable ac-tivities were conducted by women mobilizing in support of causes they felt warranted their attention, including war relief, women’s access to education, healthcare, and po-litical issues of the day regarding equal rights and suffrage.

Today, women still outnumber men in volunteer activ-ity and are gaining financial parity as wealth-holders. The U.S. Department of Labor reported in 2004 – 2005 that 25% of men and 33% of women volunteer. There is a strong correlation between women’s involvement in an organi-zation and willingness to support it financially. Bruce Mc-Clintock, chairman of Marts & Lundy and consultant to several women’s colleges, states, “Men like to be involved with the institutions they support, but women demand it.” Is it that women’s long history of voluntarism continues to be a familiar and effective practice that leads to philan-thropic investment? Or are women wired to favor hands-on involvement, wanting to understand fully every nuance of an organization and its impact before following that with

By 2010, women will control 60% of wealth in the United States.

“ Men like to be involved with the institutions they support, but women demand it.”

Mallot Commons, Scripps College.

01 Women have been leading in philanthropy for a long time. Many of the behaviors of women philanthro-pists established a century ago are still practiced.

02 Women tend to be entrepreneurial. They had to be, in order to find ways that were as effective as the men making change through business and educa-tion. Remember when forming strategy for particular female prospects that entrepreneurial problem-solving approaches can be very appealing. Be flexible and responsive to clues for how giving to your organization can address their interests and passions.

03 Women often work collaboratively, in groups, or they are known to seek opinions to achieve their phil-anthropic goals. Be inclusive of the opinions of others in your donor’s orbit.

04 Volunteering is equal to giving in defining women’s philanthropy. Don’t differentiate between these terms. Getting your female prospects involved in your orga-nization is one of the best strategies for cultivating toward a major commitment.

05 Volunteering leads to giving. Women like to see/feel/experience/imagine change. The giving will follow when the outcome feels certain.

06 Do not underestimate the role women play in deter-mining the philanthropic activity of a family. Whenever possible, include the spouse of the donor when culti-vating and negotiating gifts. This goes both ways, but since women often control the “purchasing power” at the household level, it makes sense to include a male prospect’s wife in the discussion. She will feel respect-ed and included, and can likely influence the outcome of the request. If you are conducting a feasibility study, schedule the interview with both spouses.

07 Women value education, and comparisons in their philanthropic behavior among the top colleges reveal higher performance in many categories. Be fearless and unapologetic in soliciting gifts to support education for women and girls.

08 Women tend to be less transactional, more experiential in their philanthropic detail. Leave time for gestation.

FAST FACTSophia Smith was the first woman in America to endow a college for women out of her own

resources(through a bequest in her will in 1870). Smith College opened in 1875.

Rapid technological change is impacting on the philanthropic sector as much as it is on the way in which we connect in our work lives, personal relationships and more. We know that demograph-ics are also affecting the charitable sector, the busi-ness world, travel and leisure, housing, healthcare and more. The Baby Boomers are the largest de-mographic group in North America and they are heading into retirement (or already there). As one of the healthiest and longest-working generations in history, many are moving into their golden years with different aims than others before them. Con-trast the Boomers with Generation Y and it is clear that charities are going to have to work at figuring out how to communicate, inspire, engage and in-volve donors and volunteers (and staff) of different cohorts. What else is going to define our future as we ponder the coming decade?

Defining the Next Decade By Robin Fowler

Women Gaining Ground In 2008, the United Way of Greater Toronto launched a professional women’s giving network - Women Gaining Ground. The focus of this group was to bring women together, focused on a specific community issue and create opportunities for them to learn about the issue and to assist with the solution through philan-thropy and volunteering. There was also a networking component to the group. The program targeted senior professional women with the capacity to give at a ma-jor gift level ($10,000+). The initial group was approximately 20 women and this year it will probably double in size.

Beth Wilson, Canadian Managing Partner, Regions and Enterprise, KPMG LLP is a co-chair of this initiative:

I believe that by giving back to society, I gain much more than I give. It gives me a great feeling of accomplishment to see the recipients of my efforts so happy and thankful. To me it is worth every single penny and hour spent. It is important to find the charity or cause that sparks pas-sion and commitment – for me, I have found this in education and children. To be truly philanthropic the giving should come from the heart and be driven by a pure sense of helping others with no thought for self. It is through these acts of giving – financial, volunteer or otherwise – that we build a stronger and gentler society.

Olga Assaly, Chair, Lower Canada College Parents’ Association

…charities need to have a presence in social media - not just to advertise, but to communicate and mostimportantly to listen.

Doug Reid, Associate Professor & Distinguished Faculty Fellow in Strategy

The Big 10 THINGS WE THINK YOU SHOULD WATCH IN THE COMING DECADE:

Gender pay gap persists.

Despite the fact that women make up 67% of AFP’s membership, men still continue to earn more. In the USA, the gap has, for the last 7 years, consistently been ap-proximately $20,000 annually. In Canada, the gap has (for the same 7-year period 2002-2008) been approximately$15,000 - $18,000 (except for 2007 when it narrowed to $3,353).

From 2009 AFP Compensation and Benefits Study

Many of my female colleagues and friends are interested in philanthropy and volunteering - but we all have many competing priorities for our time, our leadership and our resources. The Wom-en Gaining Ground initiative at United Way Toronto provides an ideal opportunity to engage around a cause of shared inter-est, and have a real impact in my community. The women in this initiative are smart, inter-ested in learning more about community priorities and really passionate about providing solutions - through resources and through leadership. It has been a very galvanizing experi-ence that continues to grow.

Ka-Boom

Boom-generation women (between ages 46-63) are the largest generational cohort in history with nearly 78 million people “Pay attention: those boomer ladies represent your best hope.” Canadian Fundraising & Philanthropy eNews. 15 April 2007.

Three quarters of women over the age of 85 are widowed,and they are often left to disperse not only their own assets, but also their partner’s. Swank K. “What Women Want.” Target Analytics. March 2009, P.3.

Boomers have donated the most to charities of any generation.Millennials (born after 1981) are the largest generation and are already philanthropic. They are better educated and have great earning potential and their sense of welfare extends to the world, largely because technology (the Internet) makes the world seem like their community. Lagasse P. “At Any Age” How to engage tomorrow’s philanthropists-today.” Advancing Philanthropy. May/June 2009, P.16 &P. 18

•

•

•

It’s more the younger women – the 50 and under women – that we’re seeing making their own decisions without discussing with their spouses – they’re just doing what they want. For these women, it’s probably a reflectionof the fact that they’re very well-educated,have their own successful careers, have had their families later, and are taking on leadership roles along with their business and family lives (and they’re used to making big decisions).

Alayne Metrick, FAHP, President, St. Michael’s Hospital Foundation.

•

01 Demographic changes

The rise of women as leaders in philanthropy (as staff, volunteers and donors) and an aging population with younger, more entrepreneurial/investor donors (see Ka-boom left bottom)

02 The continuing challenge of the Canadian health care system and sustainability issues

In 2007, Canadian surgery wait times reached an all-time high of 18.3 weeksEsmail N. “Why are we waiting?” The National Post. 17 October 2007.

The average wait time in the Emergency Department (ED), defined as the time from when the patient first presented in the ED to the time of discharge, is 9 hours. Wait Time Alliance Report Card, Unfinished Business: Report Card on Wait Times in Canada. June 2009.

It is estimated that by 2025, the province of Ontario will devote 55% of its expenses to support the public health care system. Dhalla I. “Canada’s health care system and the sustainability paradox.” CMAJ. 2007:177:51-53.

03 Volunteerism – is it in decline or are there great opportunities ahead?

47% of Canadian women volunteered in 2007, compared with 45% of men. Statistics Canada, Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, 2007.

2007 showed that the number of hours volunteered increases with age, but the number of volunteers decreases. While only 36% of people aged 65 and over volunteered (compared to 58% of individuals aged 15-24), the same age group volunteered an average of 218 hours (compared to an average of only 138 hours for individuals aged 15-24).Statistics Canada, Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, 2007.

Nearly 12.3 million Canadians (46% of the population over the age of 15) volunteered almost 2.1 billion hours in 2007, up 4.7% since 2004.Statistics Canada, Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, 2007.

04 Human resources – there are issues of both talent and supply in the philanthropic sector

Within the next decade, charitable organizations will have to fill 640,000 management spositions - 2.4 times the number of individuals that are currently employed.Tierney TJ. “The Nonprofit’s Leadership Deficit: Executive Summary.” The Bridgespan Group. 19 Jun 2006.

It is estimated that by the end of 2009, there will be 24,000 senior management vacancies in the USA’s nonprofit sector.“Finding Leaders for America’s Nonprofits.” The Bridgespan Group. 20 April 2009.

05 Decline of traditional media – are newspapers really going to disappear?

Between 2004 and 2007, Canadians’ consumption of traditional media sources (TV and newspaper) dropped 10%, while time in front of a computer increased by 30%.Canadian Internet Project. 24 September 2008.

06 Technology – managing with new technologies - the “Obama” effect continues to tease but can it be replicated?

In 2007, 27% of credit card, debit card or authorized account deductions were donated via the Internet. Statistics Canada, Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, 2007.

10% of Canadian volunteers (approximately 1.25 million) used the Internet to search for volunteering opportunities in 2007.Statistics Canada, Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, 2007.

07 Will traditional charity business practices (direct mail, phonathons, telethons, events, etc.) survive in this technological age?

Charitable organizations will cut their direct mail spending by 40% over the next five years.Borrell Associates Study, May 28, 2009.

08 Spirituality/humanism in an aging society – will spirituality and organized religion see a surge or decline?

Between 2001 and 2007, the charitable market share ($ raised) for religious organizations decreased while social services/welfare and healthcare charities saw their dollars increase.

09 Global instability/geopolitics and the environment

Four of five Canadians list ‘environmental impact’ as an important product purchasing consideration. Bensimon Byrne Consumerology Report, 2008.

50% of Canadians prefer to support businesses that are actively environmentally-responsible.The Ipsos Reid Green Financial Products & Services Syndicated Study, 2008.

Humanity’s footprint [its environmental demand] is 21.9 hectares per person while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person.United Nations Environment Programme, Global Environment Outlook: Environment for Development (GEO4), 2007.

Toronto is anticipated to nearly double in size in the next 20-25 years, which will create enormous pressures on infrastructure to keep up with the growth. From our viewpoint, our ability to integrate these immigrants and exploit their connections with their home countries could create huge opportunities for Toronto to become a major hub of international trade, commerce and finance.Bruce Lawson, Executive Director, The Counselling Foundation of Canada

10 Shifting personal priorities for social change – are priorities changing?

44.5% of Millennials cite to “make world better” as their motivation to donate, and 55.5% give to “Umbrella” organizations -- their sense of welfare extends to the world, largely because technology (the Internet) make the world seem like their community.The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Generational Differences in Charitable Giving and in Motivations for Giving. May 2008.

I have a lot of confidence in the teenage demographic in this country – rise of the youth nation-I believe the causes they care about will define the future of philanthropy. They are more acutely aware of the sustainability issues of the world than any other generation of our lifetime, and they have the most to lose if these global issues are not urgently addressed.Valerie McMurtry, President & CEO, Bloorview Kids Foundation

opinions

with impact

CRA Guidance on Fundraising: AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE FUNDRAISING PRACTICES IN THE SECTOR

by Mark Blumberg

The discourse in Canada has largely been between many members of the public or do-nors who want to see limited fundraising or “overhead costs” on the one hand, and on the other hand some professional fundrais-ers who seem to espouse the view that there should be no legally mandated upward limit on fundraising costs. It is important that the debate move towards the middle – there are certain “core costs” (including fundraising and administration) that will be incurred by most charities to properly conduct their charitable programs.

Although it is the board of directors that is ultimately responsible for the fundraising practices of a charity, it is incumbent on fundraisers to alert the board to the issues raised by the guidance. Canadian chari-ties should review their policies, practices, templates and contracts, to make sure that they are in line with CRA’s new Guidance on Fundraising.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) recently released new guidance on fundraising entitled “Guidance - Fundraising by Registered Charities” (CPS-028, available on their website at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-028-eng.html). Fundraising is a critical component of the work of most charities and it is useful that CRA is provid-ing Canadian charities with guidance on what is expected from them in this regard. Inappropriate or poorly handled fundraising can devastate a charity – whether it re-sults in lack of needed revenue or negative publicity. It also reduces public confidence in the charitable sector as a whole. When the public does not have confidence in charities, it makes the job of both the charity and its fundraisers all the more difficult.

The new fundraising guidance will not have much effect on prudent and careful charities. For others, it will require some adjustments.

The new fundraising guidance is aimed at charities that either spend an excessive amount of their resources (time and money) on fundraising or are deceptive in their fundraising practices.

Mark Blumberg is a lawyer at Blumberg Segal LLP in Toronto, Ontario. He can be contacted at mark@blumbergs.ca or at 416-361-1982 x. 237. To find out more about legal services that Blumbergs provides to Canadian charities and non-prof-its please visit the Blumbergs’ Non-Profit and Charities page at www.blumbergs.ca/non_profit.php or www.globalphilanthropy.ca

This article is for information purposes only. It is not intended to be legal advice. You should not act or abstain from acting based upon such information without first consulting a legal professional.

Some of CRA’s indicators of concern include:

Sole-source fundraising contracts without proof of fair market value.

Non-arm’s length fundraising contracts without proof of fair market value.

Fundraising initiatives or arrangements that are not well-documented.

Fundraising merchandise purchases(ie: gift incentives, donor premiums, etc.) that are not at arm’s length, not at fair market value, or not purchased to increase fundraising revenue.

Activities where most of the gross revenues go to contracted non-charitable parties.

Commission-based fundraiser remuneration or payment of fundraisers based on amount or number of donations.

Total resources devoted to fundraising exceeding total resources devoted to program activities.

Misrepresentations in fundraising solicitations or in disclosures about fundraising or financial performance.

Main points made by CRA include:

While fundraising is important, it is not charitable:

Certain conduct is prohibited (that which is illegal or contrary to public policy; when fundraising is a main or independent purpose of the charity; when there is significant private benefit; when fundraising is misleading or deceptive);

Only appropriate allocations may be made be-tween charitable and fundraising expenditures for a particular event;

The onus is on charities to justify the appropri-ateness of fundraising activities and they should evaluate their fundraising activities;

A high ratio of costs to revenue over a fiscal period can result in greater scrutiny and loss of charitable status if the ratio is very high without adequate explanation; (under 35% will not gener-ally generate any questions or concerns; at 35% and over, the CRA will examine the average ra-tio to determine trends and determine whether a more detailed assessment is required; at 70% and above, the CRA will be concerned and the charity must be able to provide an explanation and rationale – otherwise, it will not be acceptable)

Prudent planning processes.

Appropriate procurement processes. (ie: charities should have good processes to identify and select suppliers to provide required goods/services required, so proper requests for proposals, contracts, etc.)

Good staffing processes. (Salary and/or benefits for any fundraising position should never exceed the fair market value for the services provided.)

Ongoing management and supervision of fundraising practices.

Adequate evaluation processes.(Registered charities should strive to spend no more on fundraising than is required, and should review cost-effectiveness as well as outcomes in assessing performance.)

Appropriate use made of volunteer time and volunteered services or resources.

Disclosure of fundraising costs, revenues, and practice (including cause-related or social marketing arrangements). (All registered charities must complete and submit an annual Form T3010B with certain mandatory information on their fundraising and finances. Failure to file an information return will lead to revocation of charitable status.)

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

Highlights - 7 “Best Practices”

Are your costs over

70% of your revenue?

FEMALE LEADERSHIP IN PROFILE: A Q&A with Judy Davis, CFRE, CEO, Hospitals of Regina Foundation

A profession in the nonprofit sector has long claimed to be a rewarding, fulfilling career. It seems that for a fundraiser, it is not just a claim, but rather a collective truth! U.S. News and World Report ranks fundraising as one of the best careers, scoring solid straight A’s in all the categories included in the review process.“Fundraising Remains a Top Career Choice.”- Advancing Philanthropy. July/August 2009, Page 10.

High net worth individuals are becoming increasingly active philanthropists and now seek to solve rather than simply to support.”Barclays Wealth, Tomorrow’s Philanthropist, 2009.

01 What do you think are the critical elements of fundraising success today (and are they different from previous years, as we are coming out of a period of recession)?

In addition to a strong and robust donor pool, relationship management will impact greatly the outcomes that are achieved. Constant, planned donor stewardship will lead to more and bigger gifts.

02 Why do you think there are so many more women than men working in the charitable sector?

I think many women, perhaps as a second household job, found work with charities by helping with events, door-to-door canvassing and general office administration. Over time the charity, their role and the business itself expanded. With exposure to conferences, professional development and fundraising certification this has become a career for many. Personally, when I started with HRF I had no idea my career would be defined in this sector.

03 How are you developing and building leadership capacity in your organization?

We have treated capacity building as a priority for a few years. Operating in a medium-sized market requires that we develop and retain talent. A great deal of focus is placed on individual development planning augmented with professional development. Certification is a goal for all fundraisers. We are also seeing an interest in our sector from early retirees looking for second careers – especially if they worked in the customer service sector, like banking.

04 How are you building your community (of volunteers, donors, others) for future fundraising success?

Last year we undertook donor and community research to determine the interest in supporting our hospitals. The response was overwhelmingly in support of transformational changes. So we believe that the right case and vision will attract enthusiastic community support.

05 What are your most serious management challenges?

Human resource management. This consumes the majority of my time and no matter what I do it does not go away. It is definitely the one thing a leader has to handle – like it or not. My strength is fundraising and it is frus-trating at times to be pulled away from that.

06 Are you seeing more charities being concerned about “environmental” issues? Is the Hospitals of Regina Foundation implementing any “green” changes?

We haven’t adopted a green strategy as such. As a society we have become pre-occupied with “green,” which is okay. We will have no choice but to follow. The bulk of the green/lean will be evident in any capital projects undertaken within our hospitals and we will support their endeavours.

2fast facts

HER biography

As a passionate advocate for healthcare, Judy Davis has led the Hospitals of Regina Foun-dation (HRF) to become a leader in healthcare philanthropy. Judy first started at the HRF as a volunteer board member and then joined the staff in 1996 as Director of Develop-ment. She received her professional Certified Fundraising Executive (CFRE) designation in 2003 and was appointed Chief Executive Of-ficer in 2004. Recognized for her fundrais-ing achievements, Judy was a recipient of the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Regina Chapter, Outstanding Fundrais-ing Executive Award. Judy is a former nation-al board member of the Canadian Associa-tion of Gift Planners (CAGP●ACPDP™). She was awarded Friend of CAGP●ACPDP™ for her significant contribution to gift planning and being instrumental in the development of the national Leave a Legacy™ program. Always supportive of the community, Judy is also a member of the Rotary Club of Regina.

01

02

If 80% of Canadians list ‘environmental impact’ in their product purchasing considerations and one half of all consumers favour businesses that employ environmentally responsible initiatives, it is perhaps time for Canadian charitable organizations to make more significant investments in better environmental practices.

Given that Canada is a nation with some 82,000 charities all vying for donations from the public, incorporating consumer trends should be an important facet of a charity’s marketability. It appears that when it comes to socially-responsible messaging, Canadian charities can take some lessons from the corporate world. If the for-profit sector sees value in investing in ‘greening’ their business practices to attract and retain customer support, why shouldn’t charities - the very organiza-tions that exist for the purpose of public benefit- embrace environmental policies as standards of practice?

With increasing scrutiny placed on charitable organizations’ operational efficien-cy, it is not surprising that many non-environmental charities shy away from em-ploying green initiatives in their fundraising activities. Although environmental measures are often perceived as costly and thus not a justifiable expense for many charities, there are many that are not only affordable, costing little or nothing at all, but may also inevitably result in cost savings.

CONSIDER CERTIFICATION

GreenNonprofits (www.jolera.com/greennonprofits/default.htm) is an online re-source based in Washington dedicated to greening the charitable sector by educating, assisting and certifying organizations that are keen to become green. By adopting necessary, environmental business changes (such as those mentioned in the sec-tion Adopt New Habits), an organization works its way up through a points system. Earning the necessary 100 points for certification can be a challenging, lengthy process. But by becoming certified, an organization will not only make a significant difference environmentally, it will also demonstrate to its donors and supporters that- in addition to its own mission- it is invested in a solution to a cause that we should all be concerned about: the current environmental crisis. 1% for the Planet (www.onepercentfortheplanet.org) is another organization that exists to build and support an alliance of businesses and nonprofits financially committed to creating a healthy planet. By joining, 1% for the Planet enables businesses and charities to take a lead role in being environmental stewards – members clearly believe that the sustainability of the environment is fundamental to the sustainability of their work.

At the office, a charitable organiza-tion can quite easily adopt greener habits in order to establish itself as an environmentally-conscious enterprise. Although some habits require some initial upfront costs, such as switching light bulbs, they are investment pur-chases that will translate into eventual cost savings. The following are some straight-forward, common sense prac-tices worth implementing:

IN SUMMARY

Consumer purchasing decisions are powerful and DO influ-ence marketplace trends. Whether for the charity’s own sake or for our shared environment, it is undeniably time for all Canadian nonprofits to join the green movement. Given the current environmental crisis, Canadian consumers are eval-uating businesses and organizations alike in terms of their green initiatives (or lack thereof) when they buy, invest, or choose to align themselves with a brand in any way. Since en-vironmental sustainability has become an important part of the socially-responsible investor’s decision-making process, charitable organizations need to be at the front of this prog-ress, certainly not dawdling behind. Would you want your charity to be labeled as the socially-irresponsible charity?

01 Good to Great by Jim Collins – visit your local library or bookstore and online at www.jimcollins.com – in this book, Collins identifies 3 significant factors for running a great business and discusses the importance of ethical behaviour and leadership.

02 Monocle magazine – check it out at your local library/book-store and online – www.monocle.com – an upscale briefing on global affairs, business, culture and design; focuses on finding great stories around the world without using any celebrities (read no “star” writers; no photos with bylines)

03 www.onepercentfortheplanet.org – its mission is simple: “1% for the Planet exists to build and support an alli-ance of businesses financially committed to creating a healthy planet.” To date, almost 200 businesses and 200 non-profits in Canada are among its members. Take a look – maybe we should all be there.

04 Reinventing Fundraising –Realizing the Potential of Women’s Fundraising. By Sandra Shaw and Martha Taylor - an engaging read that demonstrates the long history of U.S. women’s philanthropy. Drawing on interviews with 150 women philanthropists and fundraising professionals, new program models are provided.

05 Women’s Philanthropy Institute –www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Philanthrop-icServices/WPI/ –the Institute endeavours to further the understanding of women’s philanthropy through research, education, and knowledge dissemination. “Check out their inspiring Stories from the Field.” (mostly U.S. content)

TOP PICKS & Topics The Offord Group recommends these inspiring reads & sites

06 Women in Philanthropy – a newly archived (2009) online resource that lists dissertations, books and articles, as well as lists of women philanthropists and lots of net resources (mostly U.S. content) http://www.women-philanthropy.umich.edu/index.html

07 www.womenmovingmillions.net– a partnership of visionary donors and the Women’s Funding Network (www.womensfundingnetwork.org, a global movement of more than 145 women’s foundations on six continents, all with a shared commitment to creating lasting social change by unleashing the power and potential of women and girls). The investments made by women to women’s nonprofits help to empower women glob-ally and tackle some of today’s most pressing social issues.

08 Philanthrocapitalism –How the rich can save the world.Matthew Bishop and Michael Green’s book published in November 2009 (Bloomsbury USA publisher) discusses “philanthrocapitalism”, a term used to describe how the new generation of billionaires approaches philanthropy with a business mind. They have the means to meaningfully help, but approach support opportunities very strategically. They consider charitable gifts as “social investments” and expect results and accountability. Individuals like Bill Gates are dedicating their wealth and capitalist talents to champion social and welfare changes. This book affirms that despite the recent unstable economic climate, philanthrocapitalists are determined to inspire change. Book available online at www.philanthrocapitalism.net.

�� ���� � ������ ����� ���� ������� �������� ��� ���� �����’� ������� ����� ������

Should you or shouldn’t you?Go and launch your own businessFrom Kamchatka to Gothenburg to Seattle – Monocle revealsa HOST OF OPPORTUNITIES for anyone who’s been thinkingof packing up and jacking in corporate life

� �������� �� ������ �������, ��������, ������� & ������

issue �� . volume ���������� ��

AFFAIRS Europe’s lastAfrican colonial outpost

BUSINESS Sail of the century:time to buy a boat?

CULTUREHow to build yourown band in a downloadworld

DESIGNA perfectly crafted tourof Swedish classics

EDITSA nice Naplesneighbourhood and theworld’s toastiest blankets

EXPO IsTanegashima the nextCape Canaveral?

GOT ABRIGHTBUSINESSIDEA?

INTRODUCING THEMONOCLE GUIDE TOSMALL BUSINESSA new 36-page supplement

WHY THE CLIMATE HASNEVER BEEN BETTERTO LAUNCH YOUROWN COMPANYpage ���

THE BEST COMMUNITIESTO SUPPORT A NEWVENTUREpage ���

FINDING THE FUNDS:HOW TO SECUREINVESTMENT FOR YOURNEW START-UPpage ���

TEN INSPIRATIONALSTORIES FROM TINYENTERPRISESpage ���

HOW TOSET UPSHOPpage ���

BUILD AHANDSOMEOFFICEpage ���

02

01

04

03

08

07

Why go Green? by Diane Scrafield

There are some ‘greening’ practices that are indeed more costly. However, such things as Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper, water-free printing, or organic, local food at events may be considered appropriate expenses by your community of staff, Board and donors.

As light can account for up to 35% of the office’s energy use, switch to more energy efficient CFL light bulbs

Turn off equipment at night and use power saver features

Develop employee carpooling programs

Set up secure bicycle parking

Choose suppliers who collect packaging for reuse

Encourage communications by email

If printing is necessary, produce double-sided documents

Ensure recycling bins are plentiful and located throughout the office and other spaces

Lower the heat in the winter, use fans in the summer, and encourage staff to dress in layers

01

02

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

Adopt New

Habits

Diane Scrafield is a recent graduate of the Humber College Fundraising & Volunteer Management program and recently completed a successful intership with The Offord Group.

Increasing numbers of donors are asking questions of the organizations they support. As consumers adopt greener habits and expect more from the products they buy, they will expect the charities they support to be greening their practices as well.” Gerald Butts, President & CEO, World Wildlife Fund Canada

“

350 Bay Street, Suite 300 Toronto, ON M5H 2S6 416 640 4135 info@theoffordgroup.com www.theoffordgroup.com

M A Y A A N G E L O U

WOMEN AND PHILANTHROPYGender differences in charitable giving

PLUS + The Next Decade’s Trends

Volume 04 NOVEMBER • DECEMBER 09