Author: administrator

text-align: right;

In February 2006, The Economist heralded a new era of giving it called philanthrocapitalism. #_edn2″ name=”_ednref2″ style=”color: #999999; 2  Baby Boomers do good giving differently. Their way is a stark contrast to rich donors of the traditional Silent Generation. The Silent Generation typically defers to authority and gives by the established rules. #_edn4″ name=”_ednref4″ style=”color: #999999; 4 A judge hears the reasons and decides if it merits an investigation. In denying Faas’ case to proceed, Morgan writes
text-align: center; ” #_edn6″ name=”_ednref6″ style=”color: #999999; 6 Transparency is the cornerstone of investing. It requires clear and meaningful financial disclosure. In vying for Baby Boomer dollars, charities bandy around business terms like ‘return on investment’ and ‘impact’. Yet charities rarely report the meaningful information an investor needs to assess such impact or returns.
It comes down to defining “meaningful transparency”. Professionals across broad industries, like lawyers, mechanics, counsellors, and engineers, provide spending breakdowns. For example, legal bills show costs like billable hours, those of partners, associates and clerks, and other costs. This is common practice. Charities are not held to this professional standard. Unless there is fraud, Morgan finds such “granular” details excessive.
#_edn8″ name=”_ednref8″ style=”color: #999999; 8
 
Raising more questions about misappropriated donations
Beyond financial transparency, it is unclear how Morgan’s ruling affects restricted donations. Restricted donations are very popular. Donors like giving to a particular purpose – a scholarship, a new building, even goats. Charities are keen to woo donors. Fundraisers offer specific purposes and programs as a powerful incentive to get donations. #_edn10″ name=”_ednref10″ style=”color: #999999; 10 Given these severe penalties, charities must have stringent internal controls to handle restricted donations.
According to experienced philanthropic advisor, Doug White, donations for special purposes are often misappropriated. He urges donors to “be far more diligent in tracking how their money is used. They need to hold the charity to account.” #_edn12″ name=”_ednref12″ style=”color: #999999; 12 Ontario’s Charities Accountability Act does not explicitly define this “public interest”. This is up to a judge’s discretion. Morgan refers to case law to suss out what the public interest is – and what it is not. One donor’s appeal for transparency does not merit an investigation. Public interest must be more than news headlines. #_edn14″ name=”_ednref14″ style=”color: #999999; 14 it “should not be initiated lightly. Charities …should not quickly be subjected to the disruption and expense of such an inquiry”. #_edn16″ name=”_ednref16″ style=”color: #999999; 16 In Ontario, where the Charities Accounting Act applies, 2,135,570 donors gave $3.9 billion to charity in 2016. #_edn18″ name=”_ednref18″ style=”color: #999999; 18 They have unanswered questions about how charities spend money.

Uncertainty around charity spending is undermining public confidence and support. This harms charities too. Perhaps addressing this is in the public interest.
Donors with a “bad gut-feel” about how their donation was actually spent rarely seek justice. Most stick to the upper-class code of silence about all things unpleasant.Read More

text-align: right; Kate Bahen
text-align: right; May 2, 2018
Year Two Highlights: 
$2 million in new donations and/or interest earned on unspent fund balance brings total funds available for disaster response to $325 million. This is a slight increase from $323 million reported in April 2017.
$291 million “spent and committed” over the past two years compares with $244 million last year. Relative to the total funds of $325 million, Canadian Red Cross (CRC) has an additional $34 million to spend.
In Year Two, CRC spent and committed $47 million (15% of total funds). The largest areas of spending and committing in Year Two:

• $30 million to help individuals and families
• $16 million for local charities.
• $0.5 million allocated to fundraising costs. This is simply accounting, not actual spending on fundraising. CRC matches costs with spending. CRC reports $6.2 million in fundraising costs, 66% of the total $9.4 million budgeted.

2. Local charities and community partnerships: $16 million in Year 2.
In June 2016 shortly after the Fort McMurray fire, Canadian Red Cross committed $50 million to local charities and community partners to help them recover. Nearly two years on, Canadian Red Cross has granted and committed $40 million, fulfilling 80% of its pledge to date. After a slow start only granting $8.1 million before March 2017, Canadian Red Cross has accelerated its grants to local charities and organizations.
In Year Two, Canadian Red Cross granted $16 million to 26 local charities and community partners, 19 were first-time grants, 7 charities and community groups received additional grants. CRC announced a total of 29 new grants. The average grant size was $552,000, the largest average grant size yet. CRC’s donor report highlights its support of Indigenous groups. No additional information is provided on how much each charity or group received. 


Other Charity Intelligence’s reports on Fort McMurray Fire:

 the money was spent and –   – : Charity Intelligence researches Canadian charities for donors to be informed and give intelligently. Charity Intelligence’s website posts free reports on more than 700 Canadian charities, as well as in-depth primers on philanthropic sectors like Canada’s environment, cancer, and homelessness. Today over 325,000 Canadians use Charity Intelligence’s website as a go-to source for information on Canadian charities reading over 1.3 million charity reports. Through rigorous and independent research, Charity Intelligence aims to assist Canada’s dynamic charitable sector in being more transparent, accountable and focused on results.
Be Informed. Give Intelligently. Have Impact.
Charitable Registration Number: 80340 7956 RR0001 

We’re sorry. We didn’t find the charity you are looking for. We have reports on over 750 charities, but not the one you asked for. This matters to us and we are working hard to research more charities. If you are interested, please  class=”lnk lnk-miscforms modal” component/miscforms/charityrequest?tmpl=component fill out this form with the charity’s name and your email address and we can contact you when the report is ready.

Donor Reports: https://www.issuelab.org/resource/save-the-children-s-earthquake-response-in-nepal-a-special-one-year-progress-report.html Save the Children’s Earthquake Response in Nepal: A Special One-Year Progress Report
Raised: No information found
Spending: No information found
Expertise: Development – focus on children, child protection

Additional sources:
Save the Children

Read More

 
Update: June 12, 2018 Justice Morgan denied a donor’s appeal for investigation into how a charity spent money in Faas v. CAMH.
Learn more: Charity Intelligence’s review:  https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/265-donor-legal-rights-to-be-seen-not-heard Donor Legal Rights, To be seen, not heard.
In Canada, Carters Law believes a gift agreement is legally enforceable on the charity when the gift involves restrictions. Canadian donors can restrict their gifts by time or purpose. Donations can go towards a specific purpose, like a building campaign, a disaster appeal to a specific country, or a program.
Ontario’s laws on abusing restricted gifts are very severe. Charity directors are responsible for fulfilling the donor restrictions. If the court finds restricted money was misspent, the directors of the charity being found in breach of trust, can be fined, and even face a maximum of a year in jail.
Unlike in the US where recent court decisions have upheld donor intent, Canada lacks court decisions. With donors reluctant to take charities to court, or unable to pay what can be exorbitant legal fees challenging goliath universities and hospitals, Canadian case law in the charity sector moves at a “glacial pace”. Canadian public opinion strongly support donor rights. This leaves a gap between public expectations and case law.
We may have the opportunity to see if Canadian donor rights are protected, or are all bark and no bite. There is a current challenge to donor rights preparing for trial. The Faas Foundation is currently challenging CAMH Foundation about a restricted donation covered in the media. 
Faas is not the only donor upset with CAMH Foundation’s transparency on how it specifically spends restricted donations. David Bird donated $400,000 to CAMH Foundation in 2012. Bird says his gut instinct was to stop payment partway through his commitment, if it had not been made in memory of his 22-year-old son, Graeme. “It’s the reporting that hasn’t been forthcoming. I couldn’t have told you what the money has been spent for.”
Experienced philanthropic advisor, Doug White has seen “misappropriation” of funds from donor restricted gifts many times. His books on giving list many examples.

text-align: right; Doug White
Traditionally donors have not had remedies. This is changing in the US. The Garth Brooks case in 2012 saw a jury reimburse the original donation and also award damages. 

To learn more about donor legal rights:
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/266-abusing-donor-intent-the-robertson-s-epic-lawsuit-against-princeton-university-by-doug-white Abusing Donor Intent: The Epic Lawsuit between the Robertson Family and Princeton University – a review of Doug White’s book
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/589-lessons-learnt-the-hard-way-doug-white-s-recommendations-for-donors-in-making-restricted-gift Lessons learnt the hard way: Doug White’s recommendations for donors in making restricted gifts
https://www.charityintelligence.ca/research-and-news/ci-views/33-donor-giving/265-donor-legal-rights-to-be-seen-not-heard Ontario court decision 2018 To be seen, but not heard
Read More