A 2026 report offers the first research in Canada about the strained relationship between DAF foundations and operating charities – and what to do about it. is 60 pages and was written by Dr. Sharilyn Hale and Keith SjĂśgren. It’s based on 60 interviews with leaders at DAF foundations and operating charities in Canada and on data from a survey of 1,000 registered charities, as well as data from tax filings with Canada Revenue Agency. Up to 25,000 charities in Canada are benefiting each year from at least one gift from a DAF. The report is essential reading for executives of operating charities and foundations that provide DAFs.

The surveyed approximately 1,000 registered charities in Canada on March 11, 2026, and found that more than half received DAF grants or gifts in the past year. Their report, titled , explores charities’ relationships with DAFs and how these funds are shaping parts of the philanthropic landscape. The report contains six graphs of data and two pages of anonymous, DAF-related quotes from charities.

(2025), a paper by for the Pemsel Case Foundation, examines DAFs and proposes ways to address transparency, oversight and governance issues while preserving DAFs’ philanthropic benefits. The Pemsel Case Foundation is mandated to undertake research, education and litigation interventions to help clarify and develop the law related to Canadian charities.

(2025), by Dr. Sharilyn Hale and Keith Sjogren at Watermark Philanthropic Counsel, for TwinRiver Capital, answers the question: If given the opportunity, is there a desire from philanthropic actors to generate social/environmental returns now while making decisions about future giving in Canada? A is available, as is the .

(2025) is from a working group of the Canadian Association of Gift Planners co-chaired by and , with Keith SjĂśgren, the lead author. The report offers a comprehensive overview of current practices and common issues that are often experienced by foundation and charity executives, fundraisers, donors and professional advisors. The CAGP Foundation offers a suite of five practical resources, including a comprehensive guide.

, by the US-based Donor Advised Fund Research Collaborative (DAFRC), draws on data from Internal Revenue Service Form 990, Schedule D, for fiscal year 2024, and provides aggregate data on the number of DAF accounts, contributions to DAFs, grants from DAFs, DAF assets, payout rate and average account size in the US.

is one of many reports from the US-based Donor Advised Fund Research Collaborative (DAFRC). The report draws on interviews with 46 professional fundraisers, and offers practical strategies for identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding DAF donors. focuses on Macro Trends, Donor Behavior and Management & Policy.

Influence, Affluence & Opportunity: Donor-Advised Funds in Canada (2023), a report from KCI and the CAGP Foundation, examines the relationships between charities and DAF donors and the foundations that act as intermediaries between them. It suggests strategies for charities and financial advisors to ensure they maximize engagement of DAF donors, and it identifies key areas for improvement in how DAF foundations can support donors and charities. It also quantifies the increasing contribution of DAF donors to the charitable sector in Canada and examines the challenges, criticisms and misconceptions around DAFs.

Donor-Advised Funds: 2023 Outlook, an essay for PANL Perspectives by Keith Sjogren, discusses what’s influencing DAF increases, changes in share within the DAF community, grants from DAFs and which charities benefit from DAFs.

A 2026 report about donor-advised funds (DAFs) offers the first research in Canada about the strained relationship between DAF foundations and operating charities – and what to do about it. “” is by Dr. Sharilyn Hale and Keith Sjögren. The report builds on “,” from CAGP in 2023 and on “,” their study from 2025. 

Sharilyn is the Founder and Principal of Watermark Philanthropic Counsel. Her career spans the charitable sector, as does her research and work with generous people and families, and social purpose organizations. Keith is a Research Partner and brings expertise and rigour from the world of management consulting and wealth management.

Keith SjĂśgren, former Managing Director at Investor Economics, a leading provider of research and advisory services to the financial services industry in Canada

Research is a core pillar for Watermark. “” is based on 60 interviews with leaders at DAF foundations and operating charities in Canada, as well as data from a survey of 1,000 registered charities and data from tax filings with Canada Revenue Agency – and data and information from the US and six other countries.

Why are you releasing this report now?

Keith: This is the first piece of research on the topic in Canada. It’s timely because the relationship between DAF foundations and operating charities has been somewhat strained as the result of the rapid growth of donor-advised funds (DAFs) and the ability of charities to adapt to this new giving vehicle. Each year, an increasing number of charities receive gifts from DAFs, which are the fastest growing giving vehicle in North America and in other major economies, such as Australia and the UK. The friction between DAF foundations and receiving charities needs to be dealt with if the flow of capital is to be improved.

The report is essential reading for executives of both operating charities and foundations that provide DAFs. Up to 25,000 charities in Canada are benefiting each year from at least one gift from a donor-advised fund, and we expect that number to grow. So, if you’re in the fundraising business, and all operating charities are, it’s critical to understand this emerging source of funding.

Sharilyn:  Given the continued growth of DAFs in Canada, I don’t think most charities have the luxury of ignoring them anymore.

One of the things that jumped out for me in the data, but also in the conversations, is that people were candid and also constructive about being able to work together more effectively, more collaboratively — for the benefit of philanthropy. The report provides critical information, as well as possible solutions, that will inform a dialogue aimed at resolving issues, for both DAF foundations and operating charities.

What are your sources of data?

Sharilyn:  We conducted about 40 interviews with leaders at operating charities and executives from DAF foundations, as well as other content experts. And a significant data source came from a partnership with the Charity Insights Canada Project (CICP), at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University, which surveyed about 1,000 charities specifically about their experience with DAFs — charities that had never been surveyed before about DAFs.

Keith: Also, we looked at data from T3010 filings and aggregate personal tax data available through Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). We used data from those public databases to support points that came out in interviews and through the survey or to challenge assumptions that were made by both groups.

What are a few insights from the report?

Sharilyn: One of the most surprising things for me, and one of the key findings of the report, is how big the DAF-knowledge gap is within the charitable sector. DAFs are not new and have been around for quite some time. However, 30% of Canadian charities claim to have no knowledge of DAFs, and a similar number report not receiving funding from DAFs. Our position in the report is we can’t do better until we know better.

Keith: In addition, we found that within DAF foundations there was a lack of knowledge how charities work. If you’re a DAF foundation, you may be recruiting new employees who have no background in the charitable sector, or have no personal insights into how charities operate or what funding structures are in place. On top of that, you get a set of beliefs at some DAF foundations that don’t represent reality.

People said, “Oh, DAFs are a game changer, they’re transformational,” but if you look at total funding sources, the importance of DAFs is relatively low. Many DAF foundations see themselves as transforming funding for charities in Canada, and it’s simply not the case.

What are the issues related to donors being anonymous, an issue you analyze in the report?

“We think more nuanced conversations are needed with fund holders around, not only their options, but around the implications and opportunities of each of those options.” –Dr. Sharily Hale

Sharilyn: From a charity’s perspective, the disconnect between themselves and a donor who gives through a DAF foundation is significant, relative to what is understand to be professional fundraising practice. The inability to identify, cultivate, solicit or steward donors and potential donors is one of the biggest challenges that charities face as they work with DAFs. However, there’s a delta between sharing the name of a donor and full anonymity. There was a call from charities to fix that.

The DAF foundations point out that not all donors want a relationship with every charitable partner, and there are many reasons why a donor may want to be completely anonymous (such as concern around public recognition and receiving too many solicitations from charities). So, DAF foundations are often balancing the needs of charities and the interests of donors.

Your report dives into concerns about “idle capital” and DAFs. Can you summarize some of those concerns?

Keith: Charities are aware that there are billions of dollars being held in DAFs – that a lot of capital isn’t flowing at the rate that charities need. That’s a concern, and they blame DAF foundations for this “idle capital.” Charities note that taxpayers have subsidized donations to DAFs.

My estimate is that taxpayers subsidized DAF donations by $500 million in 2024, and that doesn’t include the capital gains exemptions that are associated with gifts of appreciated securities. The concern is that most of the capital is sitting in an investment account being managed for a DAF foundation and that most of the donations aren’t being put to use for charitable purposes.

That said, the distribution rate of DAFs, on average, is twice that of private foundations. The issue of “idle capital” isn’t only a DAF foundation matter but extends to all types of foundations.

Which DAF foundations are doing it right in terms of relationships?

For more reports about DAFs in our sector, see PANL Perspectives’ page, “Reports about Donor-Advised Funds”: /panl/2026/donor-advised-funds

Keith: DAF foundations vary widely. There are community foundations, such as , and there are DAF foundations at mature institutions, . They each have more than a billion dollars in assets held in DAFs. Their ability to engage with charities is different than smaller, internet-based foundations that are more transactional. Some of the smaller foundations, like and , are taking deliberate steps to work with charities because they realize that their foundations are an intermediary and represent the interests of both the donor and the recipient charities.

There are definitely some foundations that are strongly biased towards the donor, and I think that’s part of the problem. They don’t see themselves as an essential intermediary serving the needs of both philanthropists and charities. They see themselves as an agent of the donor, with limited responsibilities to the operating charities. And that’s an irritant, to the charities.

Dr. Sharilyn Hale. Photos and courtesy of John McArthur and Unsplash.

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.

In general, do disability communities in Canada collaborate much?

Bill Adair

Bill Adair: It’s heartbreaking that the disability community is 27% of Canada’s population and we don’t have a united front to represent our collective needs in a powerful way — to drive change. We did for a moment in time, creating the in 2019, but what’s stopping us now?

Question: How did nonprofit organizations successfully collaborate to create the ACA?

Bill Adair: ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ eight years ago, the Government of Canada, under the leadership of Minister Carla Qualtrough, funded eight organizations to identify barriers that people in their communities were facing. We kind of knew what the barriers were, but the initiative was a real effort to reach out to people who usually aren’t involved in consultations and don’t have a strong voice. The organizations each wrote a report and presented them to Minister Qualtrough. She wanted advice on what should be put into Bill C-81, which ended up being the ACA when it became law. After the government received the reports, it asked the same organizations to reach out across the country to get recommendations for the draft legislation.

Gillian Lynne-Davies

Gillian Lynne-Davies: Not everybody with a disability is, or wants, to be part of an organization. And it’s difficult to bring disability organizations together, because in some cases, there are trust issues. Often organizations are competing for the same funding dollars. So, we felt that the only real way to collaborate was digitally. We set up Include Me, a website, so that no one organization was the main voice. Include Me provided a neutral voice. We made it a little more edgy than an organization could be, because no organization could talk smack to people the way Include Me could. We started with maybe 50 organizations, and by the time it ended, we were 11,000 organizations and individuals.

What were some of the eye-opening benefits of collaboration?

From left to right: Jim Munson (Senator at the time), Jane Arkell (FALA Project Director), Carla Qualtrough (Minister at the time), Gillian Lynne-Davies and Bill Adair.

Gillian Lynne-Davies: Include Me became an online community of people with disabilities who gave their advice and were active. For example, at one point, the Conservatives were filibustering in the House of Commons, because of other issues in the government at the time, and they were supposed to be passing the Bill C-81, the Act. The Include Me network told each other what was going on in real time, and shared emails of Conservative Party members. There was a big online push from our community to have the Conservative members change their behaviour in the House. It was massive. A Conservative member asked us, “Can you please make it stop?” The House ended up passing the legislation unanimously. It was fantastic.

And, through Include Me, we heard things that we’d never heard before. Individuals who were hard to reach were included. They told us about their experiences. Like, one woman said her kids had disabilities, and she was in an army family. Every time their family was transferred to a new location, they got put at the bottom of the waiting list for services. This information was new to us, and we took that issue and many others to the government. We worked in partnership with the government, and could directly feed suggestions to them, whereas that individual would never have had that opportunity.

For all 10 stories in our “Making Canada Accessible” series, go to: /panl/accessibility.
For the series, Daryl Rock and Calum Carmichael invited a range of charitable and nonprofit organizations to outline their innovative work in reducing barriers and increasing accessibility.

Bill Adair: One story that I think exemplifies the power of the community coming together was when we asked the government to include requirements for the use of American Sign Language (ASL) and Langue des signes quĂŠbĂŠcoise (LSQ) in the legislation. The Canadian Association of the Deaf and a few other organizations had been lobbying to include these languages, and the government had been saying, “No, no, no.” Working with our colleagues, we took the issue to the entire disability community, to the 11,000 contacts, and said, “We need your support. This isn’t relevant necessarily to your focused issues, but it’s relevant to our disability community.” People sent thousands and thousands of letters. And the government came through – they included ASL and LSQ — and not only that, but Indigenous Sign Language, ISL, as well. There were some disappointments in terms of follow-through after the legislation passed, but the fact that we all came together to get this done and said, “We all want this,” and the government said, “Okay,” was a really good thing.

What happened with Include Me, with that community of 11,000 people and organizations?

Gillian Lynne-Davies: It had amazing potential, and the community shut it down, and the government shut it down. Government staff said to Bill, “Once this grant is over, this is over.” I think they didn’t keep it going because, while it had the ability to work with government, it also had the ability to point out government’s failures. Maybe that’s why they refused to fund anything that had to do with Include Me.

And among the organizations, nobody had money to put into it, and maybe it was a turf thing. Include Me was under the direction of Spinal Cord Injury Canada, and people started saying, “Well, the site is proprietary. Do they really care about anything other than spinal cord injury?”

It’s not that people don’t collaborate, because since then, there has been collaboration, but it’s still a club in the nonprofit sector. It’s still, “Who will we let into the club?” Include Me ended, even though hundreds of people signed agreements saying they wanted to partner and continue. It’s unfortunate. Every time there’s a new issue, the disability community starts all over again, with a small little group. It’s sad. I think not using Include Me was a lost opportunity to join together and create real change.

What would you recommend to the organizations involved in cross-disability collaboration or community building?

Bill Adair: I recommend that the community looks at what’s worked in the past. How did we gain ground in disability rights and access and inclusion in general? What worked?

Gillian Lynne-Davies: And let’s look at the past calls-to-action, the digital resources, the hubs that worked. If you look historically, with National Access Awareness Week, for example, that started with transportation, housing, employment, recreation and education. Those were basic places to start, as far as the issues went, and they were good hubs for people to visit, give input, find resources and see what they could do. That created trust, provided feedback and generated cross-sector calls-to-action. A digital application makes input much easier across the country.

Patricia Bradshaw, author of “Concise Introduction to Nonprofit Governance.”

, Professor Emerita at Saint Mary’s University (in Nova Scotia, Canada), has just published a book, “,” that provides an overview of governance in the nonprofit sector, including board responsibilities. The book draws on interpretive, structural and political perspectives on nonprofit governance and examines contingency factors, including how the external environment impacts governance. She spoke to PANL Perspectives about the value of her book and how it helps with organizational challenges.

Question: Your book is an important contribution to the nonprofit field. What’s the crux of it?

Patricia Bradshaw: The book challenges us to think about the difference between governance, leadership and management. It also looks at some of the processes and dynamics of governing at different systems levels. We’re seeing now that you govern boards and govern organizations, but there’s also a function for governance at different systems levels, such as network governance, social systems governance, global governance and even AI governance.

Governance is the function of challenging how we make sense of what’s happening around us. In a world often characterized by multiple and sometimes fractured interpretations and even distortions of reality, where does that function come in to say, “Are we telling the right story? Are there alternate stories that need to be told?” For me, that’s where governance best contributes and is what I call, in my own vernacular, “a loving challenge.”

Question: What governance trend have you noticed, and how does the book address it?

Patricia Bradshaw: The book looks at various theoretical perspectives of governance and looks at the roles, functions and responsibilities of boards. It also explores how we select governance models in different nonprofits. There’s a trend that I believe is driving the corporatization of the sector — a push to say that there’s one, best way — so the book celebrates the multiplicity of different ways of governing.

The book is based on Contingency Theory — the idea that there’s no one, best model — and it examines different contingency factors. So, what’s the best governance model? Well, it all depends, says Contingency Theory. There’s a place, in times of more complexity, for alternative models of organizing.  for instance, is looking at reimagining governance. There are exciting models that are looking at more flexible, more dynamic, more entrepreneurial models of governance.

The choice of governance model depends on the history of a nonprofit, on what stage in the life cycle the board is at, on values and mission, on external environments and on other variables.

I’m trying to challenge the dominant model and create space for innovation and alternatives but to do it in a way that’s theoretically grounded. Let’s have some fun. Let’s not be afraid of questioning this governance thing. Let’s keep it adapting to fit the circumstances that we’re in.

Question: Are organizations and the sector in Canada struggling with governance?

Read “Real-Life ‘Succession’,” a discussion with Cathy Barr and Susanna Kislenko about their report, “Good Governance and Leadership in Founder-led Organizations” (2025). It offers guidance for building effective boards, managing founder transitions and avoiding Founder’s Syndrome.

Patricia Bradshaw: I do think that we’re nervous about having candid conversations at the level of boards. For example: “We have a founder who’s dominating the board. We have different ideological perspectives. We have a lack of commitment.”  Board members often tend to silence or avoid discussions of interest, conflict, power and different models of working. If we can have frank and honest conversations, I think we can start to have more meaningful governance.

In the book, I talk about latent conflicts; for example, fundamental disagreements and different perspectives, that stay under the surface and then eventually blow up. If we don’t normalize conversations about multiple constituents, multiple meanings and interpretations of reality, and different conflicting interests, we can’t have good governance.

Question: Why talk about power when looking at governance and boards of directors?

Patricia Bradshaw: I’ve frequently felt like the work that the nonprofit sector does is informed by good intentions — the charitable model, that desire for making a difference in the world — but unless we talk about power, inequality and systemic oppression, we’re not going to get to the kind of meaningful change we want.

There’s nothing wrong with power. Power is the ability to get things done. It’s when we don’t talk about power, don’t talk about who’s got the power and what interests their power is being used to advance, and have those conversations that are frank and honest, we’re not going to get to the place where we need to be resilient and move forward.

So, it’s having the courage to surface those conversations, because they’re tough ones: you’re right into talking about oppression, racism, white supremacy and a lot of topics that we’re sometimes veering away from.

Patricia Bradshaw . She suggests considering buying the e-book rather than the paperback:

Dr. Susan L. Hardie.

, is the Executive Director of Winnipeg-based , which has worked for more than three decades in the cross-disability and mental health fields. She has been instrumental in establishing Eviance as a national organization that models an intersectional, human rights–based and reflexive approach, champions meaningful engagement, and facilitates collaborations with persons with disabilities, disability communities and allies across diverse locations. This Q&A with Dr. Hardie is part of the PANL Perspectives “Making Canada Accessible” series.

Question: How does Eviance increase accessibility?

Susan Lynn Hardie: Our Vision at is to realize an inclusive, equitable and accessible society that’s sustainable for all – with accessibility being one of three high-level themes. We unpack accessibility discourses and make visible the historic and current roots of cross-disability movements – the roots of social exclusion and social, economic and political inequities and injustices, as well as collective systemic actions. Our Mission is to serve as a facilitator of knowledge-to-action, bringing people and knowledge together on cross-disability issues to affect behavioural and system-level change.

Our high-level themes that will increase inclusion, equity and accessibility (IEA) in all realms of society are: (1) community-based projects; (2) co-creating with diverse disability networks; and (3) knowledge-to-action activities. Permeating the themes is an , human rights and (IHRR) approach in everything we do. We’re an Organization of Persons with Disabilities, an organization of 80% staff and volunteers being persons with disabilities.

Question: How are the three themes related to accessibility?

Susan Lynn Hardie: With community-based projects, the first of our three high-level themes, we hope that organizations working with Eviance will increase capacity to develop and embed processes, policies and practices aligned with an , human rights and (IHRR) approach. Ultimately, our projects and programs aim to enhance inclusion, equity and accessibility in a sustainable way and to significantly influence policy in Canada.

With the second theme (co-creating with diverse disability networks), we work with allies, individuals and diverse disability communities to strengthen capacity development in IHRR. Essential skills include active listening, power analysis, systems thinking, consciousness raising, self-awareness and ethical leadership.

It’s our hope that the third theme, knowledge-to-action activities, will help individuals and diverse disability communities to build confidence in applying IHRR approaches in civil society. Ambitiously, we hope that individuals and diverse disability communities will increasingly inform ongoing work on the and implement and monitor the and other UN conventions and treaties. One of the greatest challenges we face is making the UNCRPD understandable as a strategic, system-change tool.

Eviance embraces, at minimum, , while continually aspiring to realize a human rights model whenever possible.

Question: What programs does Eviance run with youth with diverse disabilities?

Susan Lynn Hardie: We operate . While working with youth with disabilities, we became aware of the daily isolation they experience while navigating complex social, health care, education and employment systems. We also learned about the initiatives youth were co-creating to address issues important to them (e.g., mutual aid, climate action, just care and other systemic injustices). Our hope is that the YStar Fellowship is in itself an intervention that counters youth isolation by providing opportunities and resources for Fellows to engage in Eviance’s learning opportunities and in self-directed activities that connect with individuals and initiatives in areas of interest – and thus, they’re not “alone.”

As a leader within the cross-disability movement, I commit to working to remove systemic and behavioural barriers that prevent youth from being meaningfully engaged in federal processes. It’s essential that we learn together how to respond effectively to ongoing requests for disability “representation” and “consultation” — whether local, provincial, territorial, federal or international — so that these efforts reflect collective, meaningful, intergenerational strategic action with a shared vision.

Another project is the “,” which addresses the complex interaction between climate action and disability, with a specific focus on six of the United Nations’ SDGs. Historically, , and our project is one means to address such exclusion. The project fosters knowledge exchange via a network, and supports ten disability and climate action initiatives — all with a vision of co-creating a “National Strategy on Disability and Climate Change.”

Question: Do you think people should disclose their disabilities to employers?

Susan Lynn Hardie: When I first became involved in grassroots organizing, drawing on my lived experiences of systemic violence, I was very naĂŻve in seeing the short-term impact of sharing a personal narrative of justice, courage and hope in overcoming systemic violence. My colleague and I, who co-presented for the first time, had no idea of the impact that presentation would have on my life — particularly on my health, well-being and work opportunities. More than once, my colleague witnessed the escalation of discrimination and the limits placed on opportunities because of that sharing. As they moved on in their career, the last thing my colleague said to me was, “I am so sorry.”

My decision to disclose was what I now call a “constrained” choice. When people are surviving and getting on their feet, it’s not the time to invite them to share their personal narrative. If disclosure is invited, I argue that it’s ethically essential to support individuals through an informed, decision-making process that includes awareness of self, power analysis (fiscal or positional power, or lack thereof), and understanding the short- and long-term impacts of the choice.

From my personal and professional journey with disclosure, I’ve learned to emphasize the importance of being aware of one’s power. I explore with individuals the short- and long-term impacts of disclosure, and I’m honest with them: if they don’t have access to fiscal or positional power, I encourage them to seriously consider not disclosing until these realities change. This encouragement is contrary to current practices in the psychosocial disability sector (i.e., mental health sector), which often encourages disclosure.

“Reflexivity” is about connecting our personal biases and privilege with a larger picture, and taking actions that reflect the self-awareness and realizations. Eviance provides a video to explain the concept in more detail: https://www.eviance.ca/videos.

I do support the strategic “use of self” to affect systemic change — but only if individuals with diverse disabilities have been supported through a quality that facilitates an informed choice. It is important to note that some people with visible disabilities may feel they have no choice. Yet, even then, I believe they can choose to disclose their lived experiences strategically to effect systemic change.

The cross-disability movement has always been about “informed choice” and “inclusion”, and these principles apply to disclosure and the sharing of one’s narrative.

Early in my career, I came across the saying: “A society will be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable.” At Eviance, our hope is that through our IHRR approach — and our collective vision of realizing an accessible, equitable and inclusive society — we can help to build a future that’s sustainable for all.

Our vision is embraced within the cross-disability sector, yet I sense we still have work to do to ensure that all persons with disabilities, diversely-located and across lifespans, are valued and recognized as essential in society more broadly.

Eviance is on .

Thank you to IG Private Wealth Management for a grant to make the PhilanthroThink Podcast series possible.

ARCH: a specialty legal clinic

ARCH provides free legal services to persons with disabilities to help reduce barriers and improve accessibility in Ontario. For more than 45 years, ARCH has been a leader in both and , with the aim toward the full of inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Through our , we offer free, confidential legal advice by phone to persons with disabilities in the areas of law that ARCH practices, and we provide disability accommodations, as needed, to access this service.

More broadly, we offer public legal education on different areas of law — through webinars, podcasts and presentations for persons with disabilities, lawyers and paralegals, in addition to fact sheets, guides, tool kits and videos. These resources are advertised and available .

Obstacles we’ve faced

One key obstacle ARCH experiences is the high demand for disability-related legal services, alongside the limited capacity within the clinic system to meet all needs. Many people with disabilities face legal issues in different areas of law simultaneously. The complexity and volume of these issues can sometimes exceed our capacity.

In addition, we receive inquiries outside our areas of practice, such as housing or income support, on which we cannot advise.

ARCH attempts to overcome these challenges by prioritizing cases that have the potential to create systemic change, and by offering accessible legal education and materials to people with a disability in an effort to increase their own understanding of both the issues they face and their legal rights.

Openings we’ve found

ARCH has built strong relationships with other community legal clinics in Ontario and expanded our and our programs in an effort to connect people with a disability to the wider range of legal expertise. Under these programs, we refer individuals to other clinics and to private bar lawyers when their legal issues fall outside our scope of practice, and we collaborate with community organizations on projects, law reform work and public legal education.

We also support legal professionals with a free .

These partnerships and connections expand our reach, strengthen our collective capacity, and help people with disabilities gain access to a broader set of legal supports.

For those dealing with disability rights law

A member of Respecting Rights Toronto, an ARCH project led by people with disabilities, assesses a ramp in Toronto’s underground PATH during a Map Mission event for National AccessAbility Week.

Our experience highlights the importance of legal clinics, law professionals and community organizations identifying what supports and services are available to people with disabilities, and then creating meaningful partnerships with one another for the benefit of the people we support.

Organizations and legal professionals can collaborate and thereby respond more effectively to legal issues and better assist people with disabilities in navigating what can be a complex system. Establishing partnerships and learning how to work together might not necessarily be easy, but they are essential steps to providing sustainable, accessible, person-centred services.

For people without a disability who want to promote accessibility

Respecting Rights members and the Project Coordinator after delivering a Public Legal Education presentation on decision-making rights for persons with disabilities in Toronto.

It’s important to acknowledge, recognize and learn about the different types of barriers that prevent people with disabilities from full participation in society. These types include but are not limited to physical, communication, attitudinal and systemic barriers. It’s important to include persons with disabilities in discussions and in efforts to identify and remove such barriers. Input from persons with lived experience is critical to creating meaningful change in society.

Lastly, become involved with local advocacy groups and organizations working to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. Your active involvement can help create a more inclusive and equitable society for everyone.

Jessica Field is on , as is . Photos and graphics are courtesy of ARCH.

Authors Cathy Barr and Susanna Kislenko.

(Senior Advisor of Research & Data at Imagine Canada) and (Director of The Founder Leadership Research Lab at the University of Oxford, and Adjunct Professor at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University) have published a guide, . The report () offers guidance for building effective boards, managing founder transitions and avoiding Founder’s Syndrome, which occurs when founders retain too much control over their organization. They interviewed 34 founders and board members of founder-led organizations, but both researchers have decades of experience working with many more founders around the world – and Susanna wrote her PhD dissertation about Founder’s Syndrome in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. The two spoke to PANL Perspectives about why the sector needs this guide now and what they hope to accomplish, given how difficult it is to discuss issues with many founders and boards of directors in Canada.

What inspired both of you to write now?

Susanna Kislenko: I was inspired to study how boards of directors could have a stronger effect on some of the negative consequences of Founder’s Syndrome. But if you really want to know how Cathy and I first started, it was right after the WE Charity scandal happened – and there were larger questions being asked. Cathy, what do you think?

Cathy Barr: Yes, totally. We didn’t even know each other before we came together to work on this project. We were connected by a mutual acquaintance on Imagine Canada’s board. With this guide, we want to look at how board members — in particular board chairs — can mitigate the impact of Founder’s Syndrome. Susanna is the expert on that. My background is more about governance and Imagine Canada’s . We got talking about how if everybody just followed the standards, then Founder’s Syndrome and possibly bigger scandals shouldn’t happen.

What do you hope people will get out of ?

Cathy Barr: We wrote the guide for both founders and board members to understand what good governance and leadership look like.

The guide isn’t in your face about Founder’s Syndrome. That’s on purpose, because a lot of people who have Founder’s Syndrome don’t know it, or wouldn’t necessarily seek out a guide for how to deal with it, so we focused on good governance, succession planning and things that, if you do them well, will mitigate the impact of Founder’s Syndrome. –Cathy Barr

Susanna Kislenko:   The biggest finding from our study was that board members don’t know what their responsibilities actually are and what their role is supposed to be, or what they’re supposed to be doing in their role. But at the same time, founders without Founder’s Syndrome — so the founders who do want to set up good succession practices — also don’t know often. This might be their first organization they started, but even if it isn’t, there aren’t many places you can go to really understand how do you set it up? How do you set up your organization for long-term success from the governance perspective? There’s not that many places you can go. So, we’re, first of all, hoping people will feel less alone.

Second, we’re hoping that people will start conversations, will ask questions, about governance and succession policies that need to be put in place within their organizations.

Third, we want to empower board members. Many board members come into an organization because they’re passionate about the mission, or the founder, or both. But, at the end of the day, they might become disillusioned because they’re not supported in their roles. This guide tries to empower them. –Susanna Kislenko

Cathy Barr: ‘Empower’ is an important word. Sometimes, founders purposely try to make sure that board members don’t know what the board should be doing. The guide fills a knowledge gap about the real duties and responsibilities of board members, and also hopefully, gives them confidence to speak up, to challenge the founder, or to rein in a founder who’s behaving inappropriately – and ultimately to empower board members to do the right thing. For example, why didn’t the board exercise their power before the WE Charity scandal? More broadly, why are board chairs at some organizations afraid to discuss succession planning with 80-year-old founders? It’s ridiculous, but it’s common.

After the Hockey Canada fiasco and WE Charity scandal a few years ago, did you see major changes in leadership or governance in the nonprofit sector?

Read “The Hockey Canada Fiasco,” by Yves Savoie, for a review of the serious lessons learned about nonprofit governance and boards of directors, issues that are still relevant today: /panl/2022/the-hockey-canada-fiasco-governance-lessons-for-nonprofits-in-canada.

Cathy Barr: I don’t think much changed on a grand scale. There were specific organizations that made changes. Well, I know of at least one, and my guess is there have been others. Imagine Canada saw a bit of an upsurge in interest in the . I think, though, that part of the challenge was those events happened at a very challenging time in the sector, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scandals did create a lot of ripples in the short run, but I think those ripples dissipated fairly quickly.

My interpretation is that it’s the pressure of the urgent over the important. However, if leaders actually got their houses in order, they’d maybe be in a better position to deal with short-term challenges.

It takes a special leader to pull back and say, “No, we need to do this, because this is important.” Sometimes it’s a CEO. Sometimes it’s a board chair. There has to be a champion who believes in that sort of thing, who sees the value. –Cathy Barr

Susanna Kislenko: These sorts of questions should be weaved through all levels of education that’s about leadership in this sector. The whole reason we did this study, the whole reason we did this guide, was to say, you’re not powerless. Both as a founder and as a board member, you’re not powerless, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it has to be intentional, and it has to be consistent.

Cathy Barr: And it’s not easy.  I mean, most board members are volunteers, and they didn’t join the board to get into a drag-it-out fight with the founder. A leader really has to believe in this stuff.

and are on LinkedIn. Read their article, “,” in The Philanthropist Journal, in which they summarize their research and list common indicators of founder’s syndrome.