Interviews A Vision for the Future: Aneil Gokhale Aneil Gokhale Jun 17, 2022 8 mins read News & Insights Interviews A Vision for the Future: Aneil Gokhale As the world changes, the non-profit and charitable social sector is adapting, and so must philanthropy. Our sector is a fundamental aspect of civil society, but reform is paramount. The status quo is not sufficient. Inequity is rampant in our communities, and there are global challenges we must step up to meet. In our new series, A Vision for the Future, PFC has asked non-profit leaders to share their understandings of where our sector is today, what its role is, and where we need to go. We’ll be sharing new contributions regularly, both in blog and podcast format, throughout spring 2022. What three things motivate you today about the charitable and nonprofit sector? First, I would say the incredible commitment of staff in the non-profit sector to the important work they do. Second, the spirit of the community-oriented frontline staff. They are continually facing roadblocks and people depend on them so much. They also, more often than not, represent and support marginalized and racialized communities. And third, the openness of more and more donors to consider changing their ways and shifting their philanthropy away from traditional patterns. What three things need to evolve to create a more sustainable philanthropic community for all people in Canada ? For me it’s where money is given, what is prioritized, and who has the control and power. In Canada 66% of charitable resources go to 1% of charities, which are usually the biggest ones–the hospitals, churches, and universities. The 1% is important, but we need to look at the issues they are addressing more holistically. In health, community organizations in Toronto like TAIBU or Anishinaabe Health are downstream local organizations (supporting communities that are often ignored) that are essential to reducing the need for reliance on hospitals. With an education example, Visions of Science is another. They advance the educational achievements and development of youth from low-income and marginalized communities through meaningful engagement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)fields and research. If a donor is interested in advancing higher education, they should think about giving beyond just higher education institutions. They need to think about the downstream, because as it stands now, most kids in those communities will not even see post-secondary education as something that is attainable. In terms of who has control, we know philanthropy is a tool of capitalism. We are doing things within the structures that exist, but an important change that is required is for more money to be given away in an uncontrolled way, so that the community can do with it with what is needed. In terms of who has power, I’m thinking of boards and the C-suite. They are comprised of lots of white men and women, who are able-bodied and cis gender. There are changes happening, but philanthropy is still not reflected by people in the communities being served. This is particularly relevant in the bigger philanthropic and non-profit institutions. Yes, there is increasingly lots of diversity but not at the leadership and decision-maker level. The reality is that decisions being made are affected by the life experiences of those who made them, so without diversity at those decision-making tables, diversity will not be considered. As we continue to battle COVID, what gives you hope? It is hard at times to have hope, to be honest! You can go down in spirals in the wrong way and get frustrated by all the work happening and lack of changes being made as quickly as we need. So many issues have been stagnant or are getting worse. But for me what gives me hope are the one-off examples where deep, meaningful change is happening. And I hope that these examples can provide jumping-off points for more opportunities in the future. Toronto Foundation’s Black and Indigenous Futures Fund is one example. It’s a grant program that was created by Black and Indigenous leaders, with decisions made by those communities as to where the funding goes, including funding to non-qualified donees–essential community groups making a real difference but that do not have charitable status. One of the hallmarks of this program was also taking control of nearly $1.0 million over 3 years from donors and then reallocating those funds to communities of highest need and leveraging those funds for matching gifts as well. Also, I am encouraged by the ways endowments are increasingly being invested, from SRI[social return on investment] and ESG [environmental, social and governance] lenses. That is getting me hopeful. If the purchasing power of foundations is shifting, that will have some positive impacts. And on the ground, the continuous work of staff in community gives me hope. Their efforts drive me and people like me to keep going, because our work will continue to support them. So, all the power to them. If you could change one thing about the nonprofit sector, what would it be? What would you keep the same? For me, it’s the inequity in the sector. Specifically, where the attention, money and power go. There are certain things–healthcare, education, housing, etc.–that government should be able to support but they are not doing so adequately. If they were, the resources available for the sector could then be going more to other important areas affecting quality of life, rather than overwhelmingly to basic human needs. So, for me, it does beg the question: is there a world where advocacy can play a greater role in our sector? How can philanthropists bring their voices together and leverage better support for some of these critical issues? There is something to be said for philanthropists advocating to ensure that basic human needs are met, in particular because most philanthropists will never have to worry about their own basic human needs not being met. When you look at the country from coast to coast to coast, many of the quality-of-life issues that we have been dealing with for decades are still prevalent and are not getting better. We need to start acting and doing differently, because to date, it’s been a lot of the same ideas and solutions (maybe with some small tweaks), but the results are, frustratingly, the same. So, I’m not sure there is much I would keep the same. The same has resulted in what we have today, which is not good enough. How important are Canada’s foundations to the well-being of Canadians? I am not sure that Canadians know about our role. But frankly, in reality Canada’sfoundationsare an extra step between opportunity and aspiring towards opportunity. The sector at times feels like an extra layer. In an ideal world the foundation world, in some of the ways that it currently exists, should not have to. Foundations represent power, and power that governments listen to. If we have change that is wanted, how can foundations advocate for the change that we really need? To underscore the change is needed by many populations that don’t have power. So, if those with power advocated for them, that could result in a real difference! In addition, it’s important to say that change should require those with power to give up some of that power. When it actually hurts a little bit (or more), then it’s more meaningful and will make a difference. What are the most pressing issues that government needs to be paying attention to right now when it comes to the philanthropic sector? The inequity in giving and the concentration of power. The leaders in philanthropy have power over those philanthropic assets. They might be educated and have the biggest hearts in the world, but they are not living in those situations or circumstances of people living in RegentPark in Toronto or East Hastings in Vancouver. They just don’t know. They can’t. In the way the system is currently structured, there is a huge gap between those with power and those without. What are the most important regulatory reforms for the philanthropic sector that government could implement now to ensure the biggest or most important impact? I don’t know. One thing is that foundations need to have more diversity at the leadership level. What are the possible regulatory reforms to make sure that happens? And if this does happen, we might start seeing some of those changes at the decision-making level that will change the way foundational power is wielded. Complete these sentences: The philanthropic sector of the future should look like… It cannot look like it currently does. Prominent foundations and local community groups need to be much better connected. For philanthropy to renew its social contract with Canadians, what needs to happen is… For me there is a feeling where these days it is very easy and common to have strong opinions and feelings. Trust must not be eroded, and those who steward philanthropic assets need to be comfortable to know that those closest to being impacted by decisions should be making the decisions. That would result is better decisions and better outcomes. Share This Article Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email
Remembering Murray Sinclair, and his impact on philanthropic foundations in Canada PFC News 3 mins read