Restrictions on advocacy?

The restrictions on ‘advocacy’ by Canadian charities were greatly relaxed in 2018 when the federal government amended the Income Tax Act to do away with a quantitative test of how much of a charity’s resources could be devoted to ‘political activities.’  Under the guidance that followed from the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), charities can engage in unlimited nonpartisan provided these activities further their charitable purposes.

Are Canadian charities taking a more active role in policy development and advocacy following this sweeping regulatory change? To explore this, the Charity Insights Canada Project (CICP) conducted a series of surveys in 2023-2024 assessing the state of advocacy across the sector and how it is adapting to the new PPDDA regime.

Five years later, there is little change

Most Canadian charities do not engage in advocacy and there has been little change in the five years since the regulations were relaxed; 43% of charities report no change in their advocacy activities, and 37% note that advocacy is not relevant to their missions in the first place. Only 1% have greatly increased advocacy, while 5% have had some increase and 1% a slight decrease under the new guidance.

Survey , February 2023

Less than half (42%) of the charities in the CICP February 2023 survey (; N = 695) indicated they engage in advocacy ‘to change laws, rules or programs,’ while 50% said they do not, and 8% were not sure. When we asked the same question 18 months later in July 2024 (), there had been a slight uptick in overall advocacy engagement, with 50% of charities (N = 795) involved in advocacy efforts, up by 8%.

Charities’ advocacy engagement in 2023 and 2024
Survey , February 2023	Survey , July 2024

The overwhelming reason that charities are not active in policy dialogue and advocacy is that they do not see advocacy as relevant to their mission (45%).[1] The other main reasons for avoiding policy engagement fall into three categories (, February 2023):[2]

• Other organizations advocate on their behalf (36%);
• Lack of time (29%), expertise (26%) or financial resources (23%); and
• Fear of losing support from governments (13%), other funders (10%) or the public (8%).

The February 2024 survey reinforced resource limitations (cited by 51%), but it also surfaced two additional challenges: difficulty engaging with policymakers (33%) and difficulty identifying other organizations’ concerns and connecting with larger advocacy networks (20%).

“We used to be more involved in advocacy, but working hard without seeing any policy changes has made us refocus our energy.”

Survey , February 2023

Survey , February 2024

Interestingly, 10% – and a year later, 12% – raised concerns about violating CRA rules that could lead to a loss of charitable status. This is a misperception of the current regulation that has not dissipated over time. It suggests that many charities do not pay attention to their regulatory environment and that CRA needs to extend education and awareness of the PPDDA guidance.

“We must avoid advocacy as a charity but can educate or provide information. We have a hard time because we know we need to be careful not to cross into lobbying.”

“We need government to understand the challenges of our sector, but there’s a fear of advocating or lobbying because we don’t want to endanger our charitable status. It feels like we’re between a rock and a hard place.”

The How of policy participation: A limited toolbox

How charities engage in policy dialogue governments may range from more passive to more activist and mutual approaches:

• Passive: responding to requests for information and informal interactions with public officials (e.g., meeting elected officials in their ridings);
• Preparatory: sharing research; using social media and other communications to raise awareness and/or change perceptions of issues; encouraging others to action;
• Lobbying: meeting with elected officials and public servants; presenting briefs to Parliamentary committees; and advocating for or against a program or legislation;
• Co-production: working in an ongoing, interactive manner with government officials by serving on planning or advisory councils to co-create policy or co-produce implementation.

While 48% of Canadian charities indicate they formally meet (sometimes, often or always) with government officials, many of these discussions focus on obtaining grants or contracts. In effect, they serve an organizational self-interest rather than provide input into public policy more generally.

In general, charities tend to take passive approaches to policy such as responding to government requests for information and interacting socially with government officials. Only 22% indicate they sometimes, and only 4% often advocate for or against a bill, and only 15% have presented to parliamentary committees. There is also limited encouragement of collective action: only 26% encourage their members to contact policymakers, and only 22% release research reports that might be used by others.

In sum, policy participation by Canadian charities is bifurcated: about half engage in policy and half do not. For the half with some level of involvement, we need to question the seriousness of that involvement, given the limited array of participation tools used, particularly those aimed at influencing existing policies.

Charities value greater policy participation

Although policy participation may be limited, a strong majority of charities (76%) – including those not currently active (July 2024) – say it is important that their organizations increase their participation in PPDDAs: only 12% consider this to be not important, and 11% are unsure or have no opinion.

Survey , July 2024

When asked how charities might advocate for policy changes, there is a strong preference for relationship-building and collective action through coalitions (; N = 623). A mismatch of recommended and actual approaches is evident, however, as only 15% of charities indicate they often meet with policymakers. There seems to be a line drawn between meeting with government officials and direct lobbying, as 69% recommend relationship-building but only 39% suggest direct lobbying. There is also a distinction between sharing data, recommended by 48%, and conducting policy research (recommended by 25%). This likely reflects a lack of research capacity in most charities, as only 5% report they often release research reports.

Time to come out of the cold

Despite arguments that charities have a to participate in the development of public policy, the sector is widely for having “lost its sense of urgency, too meekly becoming a pale vessel for service delivery.” This meekness is often attributed to the ‘advocacy chill’ created by the government of Stephen Harper. While a chill may have been deepened by the Harper government, we can’t simply look back a decade to explain the current reluctance to be policy advocates, a reluctance which the CICP surveys show exists.

Fostering meaningful participation in policy dialogue for Canadian charities goes beyond recent regulatory reform. Rather, the organizational, funding and sector environments in which charities operate implicitly shape strategic decisions to avoid policy participation.

Internal barriers – lack of time, expertise and resources – prevent charities from engaging in advocacy. But, they are also constrained by their perceptions of themselves: the sense that policy engagement and advocacy are not relevant to their missions. In addition, 1 in 10 charities do not know that current regulations are very permissive in the extent of advocacy allowed. For all the talk about trust-based philanthropy, funders, including governments, foundations and individual donors, spark fears that being activist will result in lost support. The lack of coordination and collaboration by the sector itself further inhibits policy engagement. The charitable sector could help itself by sharing information about charities’ policy concerns and facilitating stronger networks and coalitions.

Finally, governments make it difficult to engage. Effective policy dialogue and development should not be an adversarial process but one that has benefits for governments in developing and implementing more informed, cost-effective, and regional- and community-sensitive policies and programs. Charities are uniquely positioned to be reliable sources of such information if they could come out from the cold.

Want to receive blog posts from Charity Insights Canada Project directly to your email? Sign-up for our newsletter at the following link, and follow us on social-media for regular project updates:

Newsletter sign up:

Website: /cicp-pcpob/

LinkedIn:

Twitter: @CICP_PCPOB

Instagram: @CICP_PCPOB

Facebook: @CICP.PCPOB

—

[1] This finding mirrors a 2023 US that found 56% of nonprofits not engaged in policy work reported that  advocacy was not relevant to their missions. The July 2024 CICP survey replicated some of the questions of the US study, with similar findings.

[2] Participants could list more than one reason.

Question: We’re well into the CICP-PCPOB’s second year of data collection, analysis and dissemination. What are you focussing on?

Mathieson: In 2024, the team is re-visiting and expanding on themes that we looked at in the first year, such as the effects of inflation and economic issues on charities, factors related to government funding, issues related to equity, diversity and inclusion, and other themes.

We’re coming out with more publications as well — in both French and English. You’ll be able to see these on our website, in the Research and Data section, as well as in blogs that analyze some of the data. The blogs offer insights that dig a little deeper than the weekly reports, and they’re less formal, more accessible, than the graphs and reports to date.

We’re also rolling out our new dashboard for the website, for the year-one data. The dashboard will be publicly available. People will be able to filter the data and see it in graph form — filter it by area of location, by size of organization, by sector of activity and by other filter options. The new dashboard will give people the ability to not only see stagnant graphs, but also unique graphs that they’ll be able to work with. That could be an exciting initiative, especially for smaller organizations. Later, we’ll do the same for year-two data. It’s important for organizations to look for data that’s relevant to them, that they can compare themselves to.

And the bilingual weekly reports are still coming out, about different topics. We recently looked at uncompensated overtime in the sector, and some of those figures are wild; executive staff are basically, on average, providing an entirely extra week of unpaid work each month in the nonprofit sector. These are things that people who have worked in the sector have known about for a while, and now, we have consolidated data to show what’s happening.

Also, our next Data Summit will take place at ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University, in Ottawa, on Thursday, November 14, 2024. It will be a deep dive into the findings this year and will feature panel discussions and opportunities for the public to be involved. We’ll roll out more information about it closer to the day.

Q: Who’s providing the data for the weekly surveys this year? And what’s the weekly response rate?

Mathieson: Late last year, we began recruitment for approximately 1,100 panelists, and we started collecting weekly data in early January. We now have about 1,100 to 1,200 registered charities represented, and about a fifth of them are returning panellists from 2023, which is nice, because of the continuity. So, 900 to 1,000 charities, or panellists, are new this year, in 2024. And our response rates have been great this year. So far, 80 or 81% of panellists respond to weekly questions.

Q: The modules in the Community Education Centre (CEC) are changing. What are your plans for them?

Mathieson: The CEC is a pillar of the CICP-PCPOB and promotes understanding of the data collected about the sector. We started with Data Literacy courses. Module 1 is “Introduction to Data Literacy,” and includes three capsules, including “Understanding Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom.” The CEC revamp is an exciting initiative as we reimagine and expand these and the remaining modules.

Initially, for example, we aimed to do videos for every single module, and tried to make them as easy to interpret as possible, which we’re still doing, but we’ll add more text to supplement the videos. One new thing we’d like to add to module one is a focus on data in the nonprofit sector — giving people an idea of what that data looks like and how it can be used in the section. In addition, we’d like to add something about methods of collecting data and different data sources, as well as an introduction to data analysis and interpretation and how to use data for decision making in our sector. Those are just some of the topics we’d like to cover in module one.

Q: CICP-PCPOB is now running monthly discussion sessions. Can you explain what these are?

Mathieson: The live sessions are chats about the CICP-PCPOB’s latest data, including hearing people’s reactions and ideas. There are three organized so far. Dr. Paloma Raggo is leading those, starting on March 20, April 10 and May 8, 2024. People can register to participate at no cost, and a link will be emailed to participants after registration.

To receive the CICP-PCPOB’s data and publications (in French or English), please .

The event, on Nov. 9, 2023, provided a deep dive into CICP-PCPOB’s findings this year and spotlighted the data needs of the charitable sector in Canada. The surveys, reports and other resources of the Charity Insights Canada Project (CICP) / Projet Canada perspectives des organismes de bienfaisance (PCPOB) offer an overview of the trends, challenges and opportunities facing the sector.

Keynote Address: “Empowering the Charitable Sector with Data: Navigating New Frontiers in the Age of Data”

Wendy H. Wong

By Wendy H. Wong, Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia, and author of

In an era where data has become the lifeblood of decision-making, the charitable sector stands at a crucial juncture. Wong highlighted the transformative potential of data-driven approaches, addressing both the challenges and opportunities they present.

Key areas of focus included the ethical considerations surrounding data use, privacy concerns, and the digital divide. As data literacy becomes ever more vital, this keynote address shed light on how the charitable sector can navigate these complexities, ensuring that both practitioners and their beneficiaries aren’t left behind in the digital revolution.

Panel: “Knowledge Infrastructure in Canada: Current Landscape and the Path Ahead”

Presenters: Michael Lenczer (Ajah), Cathy Barr and David Lasby (both with Imagine Canada), and .

David Lasby

Cathy Barr

Michael Lenczner

The panel looked at Canada’s knowledge infrastructure, examining the existing frameworks, platforms and tools that underpin data-driven initiatives across sectors.

Sharmila Khare

Panellists discussed strengths and gaps, highlighting the needs of the charitable sector and beyond. The conversation extended to envisioning the future trajectory of Canada’s knowledge infrastructure, providing insights into potential innovations, collaborations and strategies that could shape a more integrated and robust data ecosystem for the nation.

Session: “CICP Data Summit — Unveiling Key Insights and Future Directions Beyond CICP’s Inaugural Year”

Presented by the CICP Team and Bob Wyatt (the Muttart Foundation).

Bob Wyatt

Bob Wyatt, CEO of the Muttart Foundation, spearheaded the initial discussions for the CICP-PCPOB project. He jump-started the summit’s discussion. Afterwards, CICP-PBPOB’s core research team presented the project’s foundational motivations and methodological choices, and discussed the project’s primary findings, which span governance, management, equity, Artificial Intelligence, cybersecurity, public policy, funding and collaboration. One of the project’s panelists was invited to share their experience with the project and the motivations behind their participation in a year-long study.

Armchair Discussion: “Navigating the Data Horizon — Conversations on the Charitable Sector’s Future”

Concluding our summit was a dynamic and interactive panel meant to engage deeply with attendees and foster a collaborative atmosphere. Panellists explored the current data landscape, deliberating on the implications and prospects of data use within the charitable sector and extrapolating lessons from other industries. The discussion centred on pivotal considerations: What should we prioritize? Where should we tread cautiously? How can we engage diverse voices? How can CICP-PCPOB further evolve to be an invaluable asset for practitioners and policymakers alike?

Please subscribe to the CICP-PCPOB newsletter if you haven’t already.

[Cette page est disponible en français.]

Q: How are you selecting the charities that will participate in the survey?

Raggo: Using a variety of parameters, we’re randomly selecting more than 1,000 charities, in both French and English, from across the country. We’ll have replacements for the charities that drop out, a list of similar charities that we can switch out. We’re overestimating during recruitment, knowing that we’re going to have attrition.

Q: What’s the process to choose questions for the survey that goes to 1,000 charities each week?

Raggo: We’re recruiting a 15-member Advisory Committee of people from the charitable sector at-large, such as people who work in registered charities, people who are either activists or prominent stakeholders, people from different backgrounds culturally and academically. Our goal doesn’t involve asking only questions that we find interesting, but also co-constructing questions with members of the community. Ideally, the Advisory Committee will meet every two months to prepare questions for subsequent months, so that we’re always prepared for the next cycle.

Q: What’s the timeline for collection and roll-out of surveys and data?

Raggo: Each week, on a Wednesday, we’ll send the survey out (with only a few questions per week). The next day, we’ll collect the results, and, on a Friday, we’ll publish the results on . The weekly results will also be shared with participating charities via email on the Monday following the closing of each survey. Also, a pdf of the results will be downloaded by anyone. So, data from this rapid response panel will be made available in near real-time. An analysis of the data will likely happen monthly and quarterly.

Q: What sort of questions are you considering for the weekly survey?

Raggo: The following are drafts we need to present to the Advisory Committee; we put these together after brainstorming. For example:

1. What would make the greatest difference in helping your organization get better at what it does?
2. How prepared would you feel if a crisis like the Covid pandemic were to happen again today?
3. Please tell us about the average salaries in your organization: entry, mid, management.
4. How would you characterize your relationship with your main donor?
5. What type of donation/funding would best help you to achieve your mission?
6. What level of government do you collaborate and interact with the most and the least?
7. What, if any steps, have you taken in your organization towards truth and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples?

For more information about CICP-PCPOB, visit this site for English details and this site for French. Results are available each week at .

Starting this summer, a group of Canadian charities will participate in a pilot project that might transform how the sector uses data. This pilot is part of a $3.5-million, five-year initiative called the Charity Insights Canada Project—Projet Canada Perspectives des Organismes de Bienfaisance (CICP-PCPOB). It took a significant leap of faith from the donors — the Muttart, Lawson, Vancouver, and Metcalf foundations, plus one anonymous donor — to invest in creating a recurring near-real-time survey about charities and, eventually, non-profits. dove into details with Paloma Raggo, assistant professor at the School of Public Policy and Administration at ÐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University and director of the CICP-PCPOB.

Photo of Parliament, in Ottawa, is courtesy of Robbie Palmer.