|
Mesdames et messieurs, Bonjour. C’est avec grand plaisir que je suis de retour
dans la belle ville de Quebec.
Good morning. I’m delighted to be a part of this panel, joining sector experts
Marcel Lauziere and Elan Garonzik, and of course Anne Smith, who was a
respected colleague during my years at United Way.
As Marcel has pointed out, changes in funding patterns over the last decade
have had a significant impact in the voluntary sector. All grantmakers have been
re-thinking our roles. So this discussion today is very timely.
I’d certainly like to acknowledge the relevance of the “Funding Matters” report,
and to thank Marcel and the CCSD for it. As I’ve said to Marcel before, the
research is very helpful, but my major regret is that the paper did not adequately
include the perspective of funders. Why do we fund the way we do? What
precisely is our role and responsibility? I believe that discussions like this one
today will help us move our thinking forward.
In talking about role clarification, I’m reminded of the children’s story of the little
red hen. Perhaps you remember it.
Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched around the barnyard
until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called the other barnyard
animals and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will
help me plant it?"
But none of the other animals was willing to help.
"It’s not in my job description," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
So the little red hen planted the grains herself and in time the wheat grew tall and
ripened into golden grain.
But when she asked for help to reap the wheat, once again, none of the animals
was willing to assist her, so the little red hen did the job herself. At last it came
time to bake the bread.
"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
Now we all know how the story ends. When it came time to eat the bread,
suddenly all the other animals were eager to be included, each demanding a
share of the food.
I tell this story this morning because as funders, we are all conscious about how
the bread needs to be distributed equitably.
But also, as funders, we grapple with questions about role and responsibility.
This past week I have been dealing with a complaint from an unsuccessful grant
applicant. The tone of their complaint is that they have nowhere else to go, and
surely we have a responsibility to sustain them.
To explore the issue at hand, I’d like to share with you a couple of examples of
how we have attempted to work with organizations to help build their
sustainability over the longer term.
But first, for anyone unfamiliar with the Ontario Trillium Foundation, a few words
about who we are.
The Foundation is an agency of Ontario’s Ministry of Culture, funded entirely by
the Government of Ontario. Our annual funding is generated through Ontario's
charity casino initiative.
We award grants in the Arts and Culture, Environment, Social Services, and
Sports and Recreation sectors. Our grantees can be large provincial
associations or small grassroots, volunteer-run organizations.
And we are proud of our long association with the Community Foundation
movement in Ontario, with capacity-building grants of $3.5 million in grants to
local community foundations and to Ontario’s provincial network, in the last five
years.
As is the case with community foundations, volunteer decision-making is an integral component of the way we work. We have 16 local grant review committees across Ontario. These volunteer committees are a critical component of our staying connected to local communities, and trying to understand community needs – a point I will come back to.
Another similarity with most community foundations is that we are not in the business of providing ongoing operating funding. But I believe we can help to ensure the sustainability of organizations by assisting them in pursuing initiatives and partnerships that can help build capacity, and effectiveness, over the long term.
Let me give you an example in which we have found this capacity-building approach has proved to be very successful.
In 2000, we awarded the Niagara Symphony Association a grant for $168,500 over three years.
A couple of years earlier, this organization had experienced a funding and governance crisis, and our grant was intended to fund a variety of capacity-building initiatives, including new audience development, strengthening core operations, and increasing the organization's visibility.
In effect, it provided the organization with some stability over a three-year period, to allow them to get their house in order, and to build on the many strong assets they already had.
Today, the Niagara Symphony has a full program that includes varied concert series, summer concerts at Niagara’s Grape and Wine Festival; youth programming, and a a summer camp for children.
In addition, the Niagara Symphony Association and Brock University have formed a strategic partnership, making Niagara the first "Symphony in Residence" at a Canadian university.
Under the agreement, the Symphony gets free office rent and administrative services and provides a variety of musical programs for the university.
The Symphony has also entered into partnerships with two area wineries and with Casino Niagara. This diversity of local partnerships has helped the Symphony to establish a strong connection with the community.
Finally, the Symphony’s annual revenue, from box office receipts, government grants and sponsorships, has increased steadily in each of the last three years and the organization is looking toward the future with renewed confidence.
Clearly, a success story.
My second example refers to a grant application we received from a small artist-run gallery. They were looking for several years of funding, to support staffing and ongoing operations.
Upon meeting with the applicant, we discovered some challenges –weak accountability structures, poor internal communications, strained community relationships, and uneven leadership.
On the other hand, the gallery’s programming was respected, and the local talent that emerged was very strong.
We suggested two options. One, they could submit their original application, and risk it being declined altogether. Or, they could apply for a smaller amount to conduct a comprehensive organizational review, which would provide them with recommendations for strengthening the organization. With reluctance, they chose the second option.
The review by an external consultant resulted in recommendations for dramatic organizational overhaul. However, the gallery Board felt the review was too critical, and rejected the report. Three months later, the organization almost had to close its doors.
Since then, however, there has been turnover on the Board, and things are starting to turn around. With new volunteers, they are re-building relationships with key stakeholders, raising community funding through art exhibits, and experiencing renewed energy.
Now, two years after the organizational review, they are finally looking at implementing its recommendations.
As funders, I think there are a number of constructive learnings to be derived from these two stories. Let me summarize a few.:
1. While a strong case exists for the importance of core operating funding, this does not mean it is the only way a funder can have meaningful impact.
In some cases, when an organization is weak or ineffective, core operating funding, year after year, may be a case of pouring good money after bad.
2. Some of the dialogue on the funding issue seems to imply that "the sector" knows what it is doing, and if only funders would get their acts together -- by providing the types of funding that organizations really want -- everything would be fine.
This is not necessarily the case. A capacity-building grant that helps to
overcome challenges and to identify opportunities, might be much more
impactful in the long run.
3. If an organization is not ready or willing to build its capacity, it may be a mistake for us to force them to do so, or to sustain their existing model.
4. It’s a fine line we tread, between providing advice and being seen as being paternalistic. There are no easy answers here, but it’s critical that we watch out for the pitfalls.
5. And this is perhaps my most important point – while I believe we do indeed have a responsibility to finance the voluntary sector, it is not our only responsibility. It may not even be our primary responsibility.
Our primary responsibility, I would argue, is to the communities we serve. Having a responsibility to participate in the building of healthy and vibrant communities means that we must look beyond an applicant organization – or the existing voluntary sector organizations in our communities – to the broader communities we serve. We need to consider whether a community is well served by the “voluntary sector” as it exists today.
One of the ways we do this at the Ontario Trillium Foundation, as I referred to earlier, is by drawing upon the knowledge of our local volunteer grant review committees. A comprehensive reference checking system has also helped us enormously.
I’d like to conclude with some final thoughts.
Responsibility for financing the voluntary sector falls on many shoulders -- government, community foundations, United Ways, the corporate sector, private foundations and donors, as well as members of the community of interest.
But responsibility also falls on the shoulders of the sector itself. The funding community and the voluntary sector bear a joint responsibility to work together to understand one another -- it's a two-way street. Of course, we have an important role to play in fostering that understanding – a role we cannot shirk.
To fulfil our roles responsibly, we need to balance the sometimes competing needs of our donors, our organizational missions, our grant applicants and grantees -- and the broader communities we serve.
Thank you. |