Jodene Baker, Vice President of Research, Advocacy & External Relations at Imagine Canada.

Jodene Baker, Vice President of Research, Advocacy & External Relations at , says that multicultural Canadians hold relatively positive views of nonprofits. In two recent studies from Imagine Canada, two thirds of respondents express favourable views of charitable organizations and only 2% hold negative views. Baker spoke to PANL Perspectives about the giving behaviours of multicultural Canadians, including their donation motivations and methods. Below, the Q&A and video are part of the PANL Perspectives series, “Putting Empathy Into Action: Building a Broader, Stonger Culture of Philanthropy in Canada.”

Why do multicultural Canadians engage in philanthropy?

Jodene Baker: These communities are generous. Eighty percent of respondents report giving in the last year, and they’re giving generously. The average donation amount was close to $800. That’s a significant contribution.

In terms of why they give, the motivations overwhelmingly seem to be values-driven — that giving is the right thing to do and that people want to show compassion. These values-driven motivations are stronger among immigrants, compared to those born in Canada

We also found a strong community and relationship dimension. For example, being asked by someone you know was a strong motivator for why they give.

Overall, generosity among these ethnocultural communities is rooted in relationships, community connections and a sense of shared responsibility. There does seem to be an opportunity here for charities to explore building engagement in new ways.

Our reports surveyed 3,000 people from South Asian, Chinese, Afro-Caribbean, African, Filipino, Arab and West Asian communities — and use Statistics Canada data as well.

Do you distinguish between “giving” and “philanthropy”?

Jodene Baker: With our research, we want to capture “generosity” among Canadians, especially ethnocultural Canadians. The word “philanthropy” can bring up traditional forms of fundraising, like a formal charitable donation where you’re getting a tax receipt, or an institutional fundraising approach, or mail-and-phone campaigns. Our research looks at volunteering and other ways of giving, such supporting community networks or giving money, time and resources in response to a personal request — giving as relational or community-oriented, as opposed to giving that’s transactional, giving that might not have been captured if we’d stuck with a formal definition of philanthropy.

Overall, how do ethnocultural Canadians give?

Jodene Baker: One of the clearest findings is around the importance of place-based giving: 51% of our respondents said they give through one or more place-based channels. We’re talking about physical places, and the most commonly mentioned were places of worship, workplaces and schools. Place-based giving shows connections between giving and community.

Our reports have been resonating with people, and we’ve had many conversations related to them, maybe because of the awareness that, overall, donor participation rates are declining in Canada in terms of CRA-tax-receipted donations. This decline is making it necessary for fundraisers and charities to revisit their approaches to fundraising and to identify new opportunities.

How can charities build a stronger culture of philanthropy among multicultural Canadians?

Jodene Baker: They could think differently about their fundraising approaches — and really lean into the idea of relationship or community-based engagement. One thing we asked about in the surveys was communication. Having materials in a community’s language makes it accessible for newcomers or immigrants to engage with those charities. Multicultural Canadians tend to have somewhat more favourable views of charities that advertise through multicultural media outlets, use materials in their native language, and depict individuals from their ethnocultural group.

Also, maybe reach out, be out, in communities more — and not rely just on email, phone or snail mail. Time needs to be taken to build meaningful relationships — going to communities, going to places where they’re gathering, where they’re going to school, work and faith-based institutions. That builds meaningful, authentic relationships and natural points of alignment.

Imagine Canada is .

Calum Carmichael, an Editor of “PANL Perspectives”

How can we gauge a culture of philanthropy in Canada? As noted in the introduction to this series on PANL Perspectives, we use the term “culture of philanthropy” not as it’s been used elsewhere to describe or the . Instead, we mean something much wider: the ongoing set of behavioural norms within a society that encourages and normalizes a personal and collective responsibility for empathy and action. Here, empathy refers to our regard for those in need and those with whom we differ. And action refers to our learning about those needs and differences, together with our assisting or defending the people involved.

Such a culture can be seen in a variety of ways, whether in our readiness to help, say by voluntarism or charitable donations, or in our readiness to understand and respect the priorities of others, despite not sharing those priorities. However, on both fronts – our readiness to help and our readiness to understand and respect – we see mixed signals in Canada.

Before considering why we should build a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy, let’s first set the context by reviewing the concerns outlined in the introduction – concerns that stem from the mixed signals we see.

A strong history of donating and trusting

In terms of our readiness to help, Canada has a strong history and practice of voluntarism and donation, and by some measures, these practices are growing. Contributions made through are increasing across a range of donor types and causes. And over the 25 years from 1998 to 2023, the increased in real terms from $8 billion (2023 dollars) to $12.7 billion: an overall growth of 60%.

In terms of respecting and accepting those with whom we differ, across recent international polls, Canadians rank high on questions about most people in their country, believing them to be , and in not thinking that being born in the country is necessary to .

Canada has experienced some troubling trends with donations and volunteering

In terms of our readiness to help, donations appear to have become less of a society-wide phenomenon from 1998 to 2023. The number of tax filers claiming charitable donations – a drop attributable to the number of men claiming donations falling by 18%. As a consequence, by 2023, fewer than 17% of all filers donated, compared with 26% in 1998. Between those years, donations became more a practice of older Canadians: the of donors increased from 51 to 56 years. And it became of Canadians with mid and lower incomes. Although very large donations skewed averages upward, the average donation claimed by tax filers grew at annual rate of only 0.4% in real terms, whereas the median donation grew only 0.1%. Overall, as a share of , charitable donations fell from 0.8% to 0.7% (from 80 to 70 cents per $100).

These figures align with those from the . From 2013 to 2023, the number of donors to charities and nonprofits fell by nearly 6.3 million, such that the percentage of Canadians donating declined from 82% to 54%. Over the same decade, volunteer hours received annually by charities and nonprofits fell by 800 million hours, and the percentage of Canadians volunteering declined from 44% to 32%. In part – but only in part – these declines can be explained by the financial and time pressures felt by so many Canadian families. We suggest, however, that more is at play than just limited income and time.

Understanding and respect seems to have fallen, while hate crimes have risen

Polarization appears to have , although remains . On many issues, Canadians have become more dogmatic in their beliefs and less accepting of people with whom they differ or disagree. This plays out across many issues: ; ; ; and a confidence in . We witness this on university campuses, when debates default to simplification and categorical claims. We hear it in public discourse, when identity becomes a criterion for endorsing or dismissing a position – such that “who” matters more than the “what,” or emotions displace reason. We recognize it being stoked by and that equip political communicators with the abilities to target segmented audiences with issues and language that holds attention, reinforces beliefs and offers gratification. We also experience the dogmatism and intolerance in the toward politicians becoming more frequent. And we fear it in the vilification that might underlie the growth of hate crimes, most of which target minorities defined by race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. Such crimes reported by police more than , having spiked in both 2016 and 2022, a rise in populist politics and inflammatory rhetoric.

Canadian philanthropy is at an inflection point

It’s time for us to examine how to build a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy in Canada – not as a cure-all for the developments noted above, but as a way to counteract them by preserving if not increasing our society’s empathy and action in support of both those in need and those with whom we differ.

We treat this not as an effort to adopt the culture of another country or to revive some culture from our past. Rather, we treat this as a new undertaking to protect a culture that would remain distinctively Canadian but that would recognize and respond proactively to major changes that our society is now facing, whether demographic, economic, technological, informational or political.

Such changes alter some of the basics of philanthropy – attitudes, expectations, incentives, ways of communicating and ways of giving. There’s much we don’t know about the extent and effects of such changes in our current context. But they at least point to our need to identify our knowledge gaps, treating this as a first step toward building a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy – one that could thrive alongside change, not simply survive it.

How would a strong culture of philanthropy improve the lives of individuals?

Responding to the needs of others is associated with better mental and physical health. Numerous studies have measured greater and better and health outcomes for individuals who give their time, income or attention to the well-being of others. Despite some in these outcomes across age categories and gender, they underlie proposals that initiatives to encourage volunteering, for example, be considered .

Responding also enables individuals to live in accordance with many or spiritual traditions. Indigenous traditions emphasize the interconnection of all life, and the importance of in giving and receiving to sustain our universal family. Western religious traditions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, Islam) centre on living in a right relationship with a creator God who has given us life and the material means to support it. Philanthropic behaviour, then, enables us to celebrate and practice those divine acts by sharing the means of life with others. Eastern traditions (e.g., Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism) involve following a way of life that avoids suffering, in part by detaching ourselves from things that are impermanent – including material possessions. At different stages of our lives, then, philanthropy provides a means of such detachment.

Relatedly, philanthropy enables the individuals who practice it to live in accordance with many ethical frameworks. Of these, the three major ones tie the ethical merit of human behaviour to whether the consequences it generates are good (consequentialism), the duties it fulfills are foremost (deontology), or the character motivating it is virtuous (virtue ethics). For example, philanthropy that protects sentient life could fit the first set of criteria; philanthropy that promotes human rights and compensates those whose rights have been violated could fit the second; and philanthropy that draws upon and nurtures kindness, generosity and humility could fit the third.

And finally, philanthropy directly improves the well-being of those receiving it. Whether it’s the lost and bewildered tourist who receives your spontaneous assistance, or the family in sub-Saharan Africa who receives malaria vaccinations due to your donation, or the homeless youth who receives lunch at the shelter where you volunteer, or the cancer patient who received treatment from the MRI you helped sponsor – your responsiveness to the needs of others benefits them.

Sure enough, the type or scale of benefits from, say, a $1,000 donation, would depending on what it provides, through what channels and to whom. Consider, for example, that donation providing more jars of peanut butter to persons in low income through a food bank in Winnipeg, versus additional reparative surgery performed on Sudanese children by Doctors without Borders, versus an enhanced Canadian Opera Company production as seen by theatre goers in Toronto. Despite the differences involved in these three examples, the same $1,000 donation would improve, sustain or enrich the lives of others.

How could a culture of philanthropy improve community?

To consider this question, we need a few more definitions. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “Community” is a condition or state of “social cohesion; mutual support and affinity,” and underlying it is something attitudinal: a “sense of community,” which has been as a feeling of belonging among members of a group, and a feeling that those members matter to one another and that their needs will be met by their commitment to be together. There are indications that sense of community has declined among Canadians. According to a national survey, the number of people reporting a strong sense of belonging has from 2013 to 2022, and is lowest among those who are financially insecure, have experienced discrimination or are part of single-parent, as opposed to two-parent, households.

The groups composing Canadian society could be based on their members sharing, say, a location, concern, set of values or goals, history, ethnicity or identity. As a consequence, each group having a sense of community could work toward either , depending on how far-reaching, permeable and overlapping their boundaries are. Here, a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy could make a difference toward greater social cohesion across Canada by encouraging the members of a given group to be more aware of and responsive to those beyond it who either need their support or offer them support.

Moreover, by encouraging donations and voluntarism such a culture would strengthen the capacity of organizations that offer assistance and opportunities for engagement at the local level, thereby fostering feelings of belonging and countering the effects of social isolation.

Admittedly, social cohesion, as reinforced by a sense of community, doesn’t eradicate dispute, strife or social isolation. But it would enable a society composed of multiple groups to better cope with such things without losing sight of its common purpose and collective well-being, its spirit of allegiance and identification, its willingness to compromise and assist, and its reluctance to vilify or overlook.

What types of philanthropy would have the greatest potential?

Cross-Canada donations supported communities displaced by the 2016 fire in Fort McMurray and 2013 flooding in Calgary and Bow River. Photo credit: DarrenRD.

Philanthropy in which many participate both as givers and receivers is a good start. The integration and fulfillment of members’ needs help to a sense of community. Philanthropy that’s widespread and reciprocal, providing chances to both give and receive, contributes to integration on a societal level by demonstrating that individual groups have allies beyond them. Moreover, as noted above, an increase in overall donations and voluntarism would of local organizations to counter social isolation.

Philanthropy that deliberately reaches across groups and populations had great potential. Consider, for example, religious groups. Although much of their philanthropy remains insular, greater religious observance coincides with more giving to secular causes. Moreover, many religious organizations have affiliates that deliver services to populations regardless of faith: services such as or medical care to , or advice and assistance to . As another example, consider university graduates who fund bursaries in support of persons otherwise underrepresented in student populations, working either through their or through independent funding . Alternatively, consider the cross-Canada donations in support of the communities displaced by the in Fort McMurray and the in Calgary and Bow River.

Philanthropy that shares or shifts decision-making power between those who give and those who receive turns “beneficiaries” into partners or co-creators. Some charitable foundations see the sharing and shifting of power as whether by countering the effects of colonization, or giving the recipient groups greater control over their own futures. For others, it’s a . Still for others, it offers a more effective by providing opportunities for recipient groups to apply their own assets of money, skills, knowledge and networks, thereby kindling local leadership and buy-in. Such strategies would feature practices associated with that forge collaboration and mutual accountability. For example, long-term, unrestricted funding gives recipients the flexibility to plan and adapt, streamlines paperwork, or creates two-way consultation to avoid mission drift. Such practices enable charities and nonprofits to and fund things that governments or the private sector won’t, thus widening the scope for discovery, innovation and social change.

How could a culture of philanthropy improve democratic resilience?

Only recently have “democracy” and “resilience” been combined to form “,” a term now used to describe the ability of a democratic political system to prevent or recover from shocks to its priorities, processes and principles. Resilience different areas of the political system: institutions (e.g., parliaments, administrative departments, courts), as well as legitimizing procedures (e.g., electoral system); political intermediaries (e.g., parties, elected officials, civil society); society as a whole (e.g., the values, attitudes and behaviours of elites and citizens); and the affective political environment (e.g., feelings of belonging and affiliation, the extent of social cohesion).

A broad and strong culture of philanthropy could contribute to Canada’s democratic resilience by cultivating greater empathy and action in support of those whose circumstances or outlooks differ from our own – an empathy that would discourage our ignoring or demonizing them on the basis of those differences.

The culture could work through the affective political environment. Building bridges between different communities could temper their inward-looking sense of community that could fragment society, and widen their outward-looking sense that could unify it. Such a culture would increase our awareness of and responsiveness to the challenging circumstances of others. And it would lead us to be more understanding and respectful of the outlooks and priorities of others despite our not sharing them. As a consequence, it could defuse the types of political rhetoric that castigates the circumstances or outlooks of some in order to justify the acquisition of additional powers, the compromising of human rights, or the suppression of alternative points of view.

Compared to people elsewhere, Canadians appear more disposed toward not perceiving differences as threats and thus more open to the influences of a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy. As noted above: in a series of recent international polls, of the Canadians surveyed believed their fellow citizens to be morally good (highest among 25 countries surveyed), felt that most people in their country could be trusted (third highest among 25), and only thought being born in the country was very important to truly belong (third lowest among 36). The corresponding figures for the Americans surveyed were 47%, 55% and 24%.

By weakening the power of divisive rhetoric, a broad and strong culture of philanthropy could support greater confidence in democracy overall, without necessarily discouraging institutional or procedural reform. Canadians appear more disposed toward such confidence and thus more open to the influence of a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy. In recent international polls, of the Canadians surveyed were satisfied with the way their democracy was working (fourth highest among the 23 countries surveyed), were content with the status quo (fourth highest among 24), and were proud of their political system (third highest among 25). The corresponding figures for the Americans surveyed were 38%, 23% and 8%.

Moreover, to the extent that a culture of philanthropy would increase the support of the charities, nonprofits and networks that compose civil society, it would further strengthen democratic resilience by strengthening the work of these entities in mobilizing citizens, voicing their perspectives in the political arena and facilitating public policy dialogue.

Political intermediaries could help. Former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper have political opponents in Canada aren’t enemies: instead of being consumed or divided by “ideological tangents,” they typically assume, despite their rivalry and disagreement, that all will uphold democracy and under it, seek to serve their country and their constituents. To the extent that this observation holds true, political opponents in Canada would also appear open to the influence of a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy. Efforts not simply to criticize but demean or demonize opponents would remain rare in Canada and repugnant to many. In addition, there would remain a greater likelihood of cross-party collaboration around difficult issues such as economic development, trade policy, health care, housing, immigration or climate change.

This is not the case in the US, where many Democrats and Republicans now consider each other not opponents but . Each party sees the other as , say, by undercutting judicial or administrative neutrality, or by dismantling individual freedoms and the American way of life. Whether or not those perceived threats are warranted, the current extent of partisan polarization and the confidence placed in it, whether by contributing to , or by or that the other parties – violate the principles of electoral fairness – in order to win.

The rationale for this PANL Perspectives series about a strong culture of philanthropy

By some measures – such as charitable donations and hours volunteered – philanthropy appears to be declining as a society-wide phenomenon in Canada, thereby reducing the benefits to both those who give and those who receive. And by some measures, the extent of polarization is increasing, potentially challenging both our social cohesion and democratic resilience.

I’ve tried to lay out a rationale for how a broader, stronger culture of philanthropy could counteract both of these developments. But this leaves open the question of how.

What are the knowledge gaps we face in understanding how societal changes will affect incentives to give and to trust? How can we at least identify some of those gaps, treating this as a first step toward broadening and strengthening the behavioural norms that would encourage our empathy and action in support of those in need and those with whom we differ?

In this new series on PANL Perspectives, we’ll examine these questions from a variety of viewpoints. And we’ll look for some answers. What do existing data tell us or not tell us? How might we deepen a culture of philanthropy in future generations or across the current generation at all income levels? What we might learn from the cultures of philanthropy in faith communities, multicultural communities and Indigenous communities — and possibly apply more generally? How might women or younger generations be driving change in philanthropy, and to what effect? How might the media’s depiction of philanthropy be shaping our behavioural norms toward it? And what should be the role of public policy in broadening, strengthening and modernizing the culture in Canada?

We hope you’ll follow this series and join us as we examine these questions, look for answers and think about what we could do individually and collectively to practice and promote a broader and stronger culture of philanthropy in our country. Please send comments to panl@carleton.ca.

Banner photo is courtesy of Samuel Cruz.