Advertisement

Canadian Leapfrog: From Regulating Charitable Fundraising to Co-Regulating Good Governance

  • Susan D. PhillipsEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

The regulation of charitable fundraising is no longer just about the regulation of fundraising but about good governance, and increasingly involves co-regulatory regimes which blend elements of self- and state regulation. Canada’s charitable sector has undertaken a bold experiment in creating a comprehensive certification system for good governance, including fundraising, which reframes the target of regulation from the informed donor to the well-performing charity and has the ambitious goal of building a community of practice for self-improvement. At the same time, the federal government has introduced new guidance on fundraising that not only outlines accepted cost to revenue ratios but also specifies standards of good governance. It is an open question as to whether this new self- and state regulation will remain as dual systems or evolve into a hybrid co-regulatory regime in which government integrates sector certification into its own risk management.

Keywords

Charitable fundraising Co-regulation Self-regulation Meta-regulation Canadian charities 

Résumé

La régulation de la collecte de fonds caritative n’a plus seulement trait à ladite collecte mais traite de la bonne gouvernance, et implique de manière croissante des régimes co-régulateurs associant des éléments d’autorégulation comme de régulation par l’état.  Le secteur caritatif du Canada a initié une expérience audacieuse avec la création d’un système exhaustif de certification pour une bonne gouvernance, incluant la collecte de fonds. Le cadre de la régulation se voit modifié pour cibler non plus un donateur informé mais une organisation caritative au fonctionnement adéquat, et il a pour objectif ambitieux de construire une communauté de pratique visant à l’amélioration propre. Le gouvernement fédéral a concomitamment introduit des directives nouvelles quant à la collecte de fonds qui exposent non seulement les ratios charges/produits acceptés mais précisent les normes de bonne gouvernance. La question reste ouverte de savoir si cette nouvelle autorégulation comme cette régulation par l’état demeureront en tant que systèmes doubles ou évolueront en un régime co-régulateur hybride dans lequel le gouvernement intègre la certification du secteur au sein de sa propre gestion du risque.

Zusammenfassung

Die Regulierung der Geldmittelbeschaffung für gemeinnützige Zwecke dreht sich nicht mehr ausschließlich um die Regelung der Geldmittelbeschaffung, sondern auch um eine erfolgreiche Steuerung und umfasst zunehmend ein co-regulatorisches System, das Elemente der Selbst- sowie der staatlichen Regulierung vereint. Der Wohltätigkeitssektor in Kanada hat ein gewagtes Experiment durchgeführt und ein umfassendes Zertifizierungssystem für eine erfolgreiche Steuerung, einschließlich der Geldmittelbeschaffung, entworfen, das das Regulierungsobjekt vom informierten Spender zur gut funktionierenden Wohltätigkeitseinrichtung verlagert und das ergeizige Ziel verfolgt, eine praxisbezogene Gemeinschaft zur Selbstverbesserung zu entwickeln. Gleichzeitig hat die Bundesregierung neue Richtlinien zur Geldmittelbeschaffung eingeführt, die nicht nur das Verhältnis zwischen genehmigten Kosten und Einnahmen abdecken, sondern auch die Standards einer erfolgreichen Steuerung festlegen. Es bleibt die Frage offen, ob diese Selbst- und staatliche Regulierung als Dualsysteme bestehen bleiben oder sich in ein vereintes co-regulatorisches System entwickeln, in dem die Steuerung die Sektorzertifizierung in ihr eigenes Risikomanagement integriert.

Resumen

La regulación de la recaudación de fondos con fines benéficos ya no tiene que ver solamente con la regulación de la recaudación de fondos sino con la buena gobernanza, e implica cada vez más regímenes correguladores que mezclan elementos de auto-regulación y de regulación estatal. El sector benéfico de Canadá ha emprendido un audaz experimento creando un sistema de certificación integral para la buena gobernanza, incluida la recaudación de fondos, que redefine el objetivo de regulación desde el donante informado a la organización benéfica competente y tiene la ambiciosa meta de edificar una comunidad de práctica para la auto-superación. Al mismo tiempo, el gobierno federal ha introducido nuevas orientaciones sobre la recaudación de fondos que no solamente esbozan los ratios aceptados costes/ingresos sino que especifican normas de buena gobernanza. Resulta discutible si estas nuevas auto-regulación y regulación estatal seguirán siendo sistemas duales o evolucionarán hacia un régimen corregulador híbrido en el que el gobierno integre la certificación del sector en su propia gestión del riesgo.

摘要

慈善筹款的监管不再仅限于筹款本身的监管,并且包括妥善的治理结构以及融合各种自我和国家调控的共同监管制度。加拿大的慈善机构对于建立良好治理结构的综合认证系统(包括筹款)进行了大胆尝试,重新规划捐助人及运营良好慈善机构的监管目标以及希望建立自我改善环境的宏伟目标。与此同时,联邦政府已经推出了新的筹款指导,规定了合理的成本收入比,还定义了良好治理的标准。这一新的自我和国家调控系统是否会作为双系统保留还是会演变成一种混合的共同监管制度(政府将部门认证整合到风险管理中)还未可知。

要約

慈善活動における資金調達に関する規制は、資金調達の規制だけでなく良き統治であるといえる。これはさらに自主規制と州の規制を混合する共同の規制制度に関与している。カナダの慈善活動部門は、資金調達を含む総合的な認証システムを作成するという大胆な実験に着手しているが、そのシステムでは知識があるドナーから実践的な慈善事業までの規制目標を見直して、自己改善のために実践共同体を構築する意欲的な目標を持つことができる。同時に連邦政府は、資金調達における収入比の認証費用について概説するだけではなく、良き統治の基準を特定する新しいガイダンスを導入している。この新しい自主規制と州の規則が二重構造として残るか、もしくは政府がセクターの認証をリスク管理と統合するハイブリッド共同規定の政権に発展するかについては議論の余地がある。

ملخص

قواعد جمع التبرعات الخيرية لم تعد فقط عن قواعد لجمع التبرعات بل عن الحكم الرشيد، تشمل بشكل متزايد المشاركة في لوائح الأنظمة التي تمزج عناصر من الذات – و قواعد الدولة. لقد أجرى قطاع كندا الخيري تجربة جريئة في خلق نظام شهادة شامل لحكم رشيد، بما في ذلك جمع التبرعات، الذي يعيد صياغة الهدف من القواعد من الجهة المانحة المستنيرة للجمعية الخيرية ذات الأداء الجيد ولها هدف طموح لبناء مجتمع ممارسة للتحسين الذاتي. في الوقت نفسه، أدخلت الحكومة الفيدرالية توجيهات جديدة لجمع التبرعات التي ليس فقط تحدد نسب التكلفة للإيرادات المقبول و لكن تحدد معايير الحكم الرشيد. إنها سؤال مفتوح حول ما إذا كان التنظيم الذاتي الجديد- تنظيم الدولة سيبقى كنظم مزدوجة أو يتطور إلى لوائح نظام تعاون مختلط الذي فيه الحكومة تدمج قطاع الشهادة في إدارة المخاطر الخاصة بها.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Appreciation to Peter Broder of the Muttart Foundation for detailed comments on an early draft of this article and Myles McGregor-Lowndes and participants at the Reforming Fundraising Regulation Conference hosted by the Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology for further ideas.

References

  1. Accountability Reference Group (ARG). (2007). Can standards help charities to achieve their mission? A Discussion Paper, Imagine Canada, Toronto.Google Scholar
  2. Auld, G., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2010). Transparency in nonstate certification: Consequences for accountability and legitimacy. Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 97–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. L. (2008). Certification schemes and the impacts on forests and forestry. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 33, 187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayer, S. M., Hall, M. H., & Vodarek, L. (2009). Perspectives on Fundraising: What charities report to the Canada Revenue Agency. Toronto: Imagine Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Ayres, I., & Braitwaite, J. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, P. (2011). Regulation of charitable solicitations in the United States of America. Paper presented to the conference on Reforming Fundraising Regulation, Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, April.Google Scholar
  7. Bartley, T. (2007). How foundations shape social movements: The construction of an organizational field and the rise of forest certification. Social Problems, 54(3), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2007). Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1, 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bhagat, V., Johnston, M., Persaud, S., Bickford, D., & Willis, J. (2010). The next generation of Canadian giving. Toronto: HJC, Convio and Stratcom.Google Scholar
  10. Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1057–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blumberg, M. (2011a). CBC report on Canadian Cancer Society—thoughts on transparency, media coverage, + fundraising costs. Globalphilanthropy.ca. http://www.globalphilanthropy.ca/index.php/blog/comments/cbc_report_on_canadian_cancer_society_-thoughts_on_transparency_media_cover/. Accessed July 8, 2011.
  12. Blumberg, M. (2011b). Bill C-470 dealing with charity compensation disclosure dies on the order paper with election call. Globalphilanthropy.ca http://www.globalphilanthropy.ca/index.php/blog/comments/bill_c-470_dealing_with_charity_compensation_disclosure_dies_on_the_order_p/. Accessed June 10, 2011.
  13. Bothwell, R. O. (2000). Trends in self-regulation and transparency of nonprofits in the U.S. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 2(3):604–622. http://www.icnl.org/knowledge/ijnl/vol2iss3/sg_1.htm. Accessed April 2, 2009.
  14. Bourgeouis, D. J. (2010). Eliminating the disbursement quota: Gold or fool’s gold? The Philanthropist, 23(2), 184–189.Google Scholar
  15. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Rewards and regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 29(1), 12–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Breen, O. (2009). Regulating charitable solicitation practices—the search for a hybrid solution. Financial Accountability and Management, 25(1), 115–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Breen, O. (2011). The perks and perils of non-statutory fundraising regulatory regimes: An Anglo-Irish Perspective. Paper presented to the Conference on Reforming Fundraising Regulation, Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, April.Google Scholar
  18. Broder, P., & Conley, L. (2010). Fundraising by registered charities: the basics, Slides for a Webinair, Charity Central, March 24. http://www.charitycentral.ca/node/6. Accessed June 1, 2010.
  19. Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). (2009). Guidance: Fundraising by Registered Charities—CPS 028, Canada Revenue Agency, Ottawa. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-028-eng.html. Accessed May 30, 2010.
  20. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coglianese, C., & Mendelson, E. (2010). Meta-regulation and self-regulation. In R. Baldwin, M. Cave, & M. Lodge (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of regulation (p. 1079). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Donovan, K. (2007). Charity scams bust public trust. Toronto Star, June 2. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/220756. Accessed August 15, 2007.
  23. Flack, T. (2004). The mandatory disclosure of cost of fundraising ratios: does it achieve the regulators’ purposes? Working Paper No. CPNS26, Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Ford, C. (2011). Macro and micro level effects on responsive financial regulation. University of British Columbia Law Review, 44. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1773098.
  25. Gilad, S. (2010). It runs in the family: Meta-regulation and its siblings. Regulation & Governance, 4, 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2005). Explaining different approaches to voluntary standards: A study of forest certification choices in Norway and Sweden. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(1), 4–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gunningham, N. (2009). The new collaborative environmental governance: The localization of regulation. Journal of Law and Society, 36(1), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2010). Integrative regulation: a principle-based approach to environmental policy. Australian Centre for Environmental Law, Australian National University, Canberra. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=212608, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.212608. Accessed March 11, 2011.
  29. Hall, M., et al. (2005). The Canadian nonprofit and voluntary sector in comparative perspective. Toronto: Imagine Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Harrow, J. (2006). Chasing shadows? Perspectives on self-regulation in UK charity fundraising. Public Policy and Administration, 21(3), 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hawara, C. (2011). What’s new at the Charities Directorate? Presentation to the charity and not-for-profit law seminar, Ottawa, February 15. http://www.carters.ca/pub/seminar/chrchlaw/ott/11/ch0216.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2011.
  32. Imagine Canada. (2008). Ethical code handbook. Toronto: Imagine Canada.Google Scholar
  33. Jordana, J., & Levi-Faur, D. (2004). The politics of regulation in the age of governance. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation: Institutions and regulatory reforms for the age of governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Knill, C., & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). Private actors and the state: Internationalization and changing patterns of governance. Governance, 15(1), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koehler, D. A. (2007). Effectiveness of voluntary environmental programs—a policy at a crossroads? The Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 689–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kollman, K., & Prakash, A. (2002). EMS-based environmental regimes as club goods: Examining variations in firm-level adoption of ISO 14001 and EMAS in UK, US, and Germany. Policy Sciences, 35, 4–67.Google Scholar
  37. Kysar, D. A. (2010). Regulating from nowhere: Environmental law and the search for objectivity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Minister of Finance, Canada. (2011). The Budget Plan, tabled June 6, 2011, Public Works and Governments Services Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  39. Morris, D. (2010). The case of England and Wales: Striking the right balance of ‘hard’ law versus ‘soft’ law. In S. D. Phillips & S. Rathgeb Smith (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector: International perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Muttart Foundation. (2008). Talking about Charities 2008. Edmonton, AB: Muttart Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. O’Halloran, K., McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Simon, K. W. (2008). Charity law and social policy. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Office of the Auditor General (OAG). (2010). Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General.Google Scholar
  43. Panel on Accountability, Governance in the Voluntary Sector (PAGVS). (1999). Building on strength: improving governance and accountability in Canada’s voluntary sector. Ottawa: Voluntary Sector Roundtable.Google Scholar
  44. Parker, C. (2007). Self-regulation and the not-for-profit sector, Legal Studies research paper 372, University of Melbourne Law School, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  45. Phillips, S. D. (2011). Incrementalism at its best, and worst: Regulatory reform and relational governance in Canada. In S. D. Phillips & S. Rathgeb Smith (Eds.), Governance and Regulation in the third sector: International perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Potoski, M., & Prakash, A. (2009). Voluntary programs: A club theory perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Trust but verify? Voluntary regulation programs in the nonprofit sector. Regulation and Governance, 4(1), 22–47.Google Scholar
  48. Sargeant, A., Jay, E., & Lee, S. (2008). The true cost of fundraising: Should donors care? Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(4), 34–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, C. (2004). Regulation in the age of governance: The rise of the post-regulatory state. In J. Jordana & D. Levi-Faur (Eds.), The politics of regulation. CRC Series on Competition, Regulation and Development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  50. Sidel, M. (2005). The guardians guarding themselves: Comparative perspectives on nonprofit self-regulation. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 80, 803–835.Google Scholar
  51. Sidel, M. (2010). The promise and limits of collective action for nonprofit self-regulation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(6), 1039–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sloan, M. F. (2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 220–236.Google Scholar
  53. Standards Steering Committee. (2009). A proposal to implement voluntary standards of excellence in Canada’s voluntary sector. http://www.imaginecanada.ca/files/www/en/standards/standards_proposal_july_2009.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2010.
  54. Steinberg, R., & Morris, D. (2010). Ratio discrimination in charity fundraising: The inappropriate use of cost ratios has harmful side-effects. Voluntary Sector Review, 1(1), 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Szper, R., & Prakash, A. (2011). Charity watchdogs and the limits of information based regulation. Voluntas, 22, 112–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Webb, K. (2004). Understanding the voluntary codes phenomenon. In K. Webb (Ed.), Voluntary codes: Private governance, the public interest and innovation, CRUISE, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University, Ottawa. http://www1.carleton.ca/sppa/ccms/wp-content/ccms-files/contents.pdf. Accessed January 8, 2010.
  57. Weil, D., Fung, A., Graham, M., & Fagotto, E. (2006). The effectiveness of regulatory disclosure policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 155–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wyatt, B. (2009). Letters to (not always of) joy. Edmonton: Muttart Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public Policy and AdministrationCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Charitable Giving and Philanthropy, Cass Business SchoolCity University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations