RANDOM NOTES----- are contained here.. eventually this page will be streamlined to give clear information on AF. THERE IS INFORMATION TAKEN FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THIS PAGE CURRENTLY HOPEFULLY THESE PAGES WILL BECOME MORE OUTLINED

 

AF - The Ashley Foundation (Philanthropic Organization (social programs)

SOCIAL

SOCIAL - AF - The Ashley Foundation (Philanthropic Organization (social programs)

this as af this is what actions are required.. These are things we feel obligated to do The Ashley Foundation can hopefully serve as a not for profit method.

 

________________________________

 

THE ASHLEY FOUNDATION -  

 "For the World" is our Motto and represents the dedication to making a better place for all humanity to live.

To raise humanity: For the world, For human spirit, For the future, For this moment.

THE CORE BELIEFS OF AF are nurturing social cohesion to bring peace and understanding; and develop economic cycles that are renewable. AF seeks to realistically develop innovate programs for social involvement that encompass mind body spirit approach to life and living.

This organization in fundamental can be seen as an environmental organization. AF deals with the current sociopolitical environment and does not aim to attack any parties. It is inclined to, in our daily lives, beautify our environment and start trends which better the living standards for everyone. The scope is not environmental alone; training and awareness initiatives aim to make us more capable, and to create greater standards for human life through "base" cultural initiatives. Other areas which may be of interest to others are: Meditation, Arts, Martial Arts, other health & wellness related items. The idea is to create an open community with a positive and proactive mindset. AF also aims to facilitate awareness of social issues and create a solid base for sustenance of human necessities.

 

A nonprofit organization/corporation for improving our quality of life.    To support information and develop capabilities. Being capable is the first step, grace is the second. By capable we mean: 'having the skills and knowledge'. By grace we mean: 'having the acceptance of those we interacte with. Insuring that the social, and physical environmental conditions are suitable to act with.  Everything we do in the world is a social action manifesting through a physical act stemming from our mental core.

strengthen social and cultural awareness

Projects

Project Information + Creation and maitnence of a central database including plant specimens 

Project Life Insurances - project to make life insurance policies for organ donors.

Project Human Soils - a project to implement night soil projects as part of a new waste reduction program.

Project Cleanup Beautification inititatives- reduction of industrial wastes such as litter.

Project ReRead -a project to transfer hardcopy books, papers etc.. over to electronic format.

Projects Special Constructs - a project for support of underground housing as a new medium for urban development.

 Urban Growth- planting, local resource assements, education, and development.

Fundamental Education- bringing awareness of base humanities preculture and early cultural systems and development and current sociopolitical environment.

 

NEWS

LINKS

__________________________________________

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

af emergency situations coordination

af environmental development

af health services development

af information technoogy development

af public capacity development

af public resource development

______________________________________

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

af cultural awareness

af education awareness

af human rights awareness

af world peace awareness

______________________________________

 

 

______________________________________

INFORMATION ON NOT FOR PROFIT

about non profit oragnizations

about workcamps

activitities

af donate material objects

af donating land or facilities usage

af donating money

af donate time

af fundraising

af general information

af get involved

af international development organizations

af volunteering

af volunteering organizations

contacting an organisation

AF lines

LIST: organization emails // list of qualifications // volunteering website links

 

AF SPECIFIC INFORMATION
administrators
af application
af contact information
af how to help us
af main objectives
af other information
af our history
af partnerships
af personnel search
af planning projects
af projects run
af qualifications
af resources


AF TODO
ashley foundation todo

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS:

 

Approval and clasification of projects housed in WASAP.

Keeping a record of all projects either related in the core or in the subgroup.

Maintaining communications records, membership info, contact information, calender and any other communications/planning related items.

 

 

OLD WASAP TO BE INTEGRATED

William Ashley's Social Awareness Project (WASAP)

WASAP was an orginization founded March 5th 2004 to act as an philanthropic segement of William Ashley interaction with the world outside of business ethics(not for profit organization). WASAP has changed its name and broadened it's mission.

William Ashley started WASAP for extending awarenss and knowledge about environmental and social cohesion  as keys for interactions with the world community.

The organization aims to be aware of society based interests and to keep on a good basis of communication with entities which seem to have an interest in focus areas that are common with AF..

 

Commitment Communication Coordination Consensus Cooperation Creation

Commitment is dedication to the cause.

Communication is sharing your beliefs

Coordination is using communication for initiatives

Consensus is to have an agreement on the initiatives with the whole of the organization

Cooperation is working together to acheive results

Creation is making it happen and achieving what we set out to do.

 

WASAP's Mission is to bring awareness to key issues on a regional, continental and global level, and to coordinate and facilitate resolution to key issues.

 

The method used to accomplish our mission is by connecting, planning and action.

Contact: w_ashley@rogers.com

Some Key Points:

 

How it we handle membership

 

Send an email or letter or talk with a member

 

you can show up at 111 Dover St. Waterloo ON n2j 1z2 Canada at the following times to speak directly with William Ashley.

MONDAY: 1pm - 5pm

TUESADAY: 1pm - 10pm
WEDNESDAY: 1pm - 5pm
THURSDAY: 1pm - 5pm
FRIDAY: 1pm - 10pm

SATURDAY: 1pm - 10pm

SUNDAY:1pm - 10pm

Membership is open to all ages and all walks of life there are no requirements for joining equality on all fronts is a strong value of the organization.

 Membership procedure you can pledge your suppport information on relavent projects will be shared either orally or written, if you have an internet connection you will be able to search online for this information. Meetings are announced by any member and are always optional. The organization is two prong the first is the core structure projects which are ongoing and have the support of all members, the second part is work groups these groups are responsible for smaller projects or ones that all members are not in support of. Membership issues are currently handled by the board which currently only has one seat of the three. If you have any concerns you are suggested to arange a discusion group on the issue and notify the board of directors.

 

 

AF INFORMATION FOCUS AREAS

 

 

 

NOTES POINTS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE AND EXPANSION:

educational seminars,

retrats

public speaking engagement

article writing

volunteer service

delegations wtih synagogues, jewish community centers

 

committted to the conservation of the nevironment

fair trade

improvement of living standards

 

www.alliancebroad.com

outbound@alliancebroad.com

amaudouk@btconnect.com

 

 

awareness raising

assisting volunteers

resources such as medical supplies

information and technology

 

create a world of healthly , educationed and happy cvhildren

clean water to drink

fresh air to breath

 

financial

technical

voluneteer support

 

regional voluneteer training and information packagers

leadership training.

 

info@amigoslink.org

www.amigoslink.org

www.amizade.org

volunteer@amizade.org

 

 

educational adventures

allternative college breaks

alternative family vacations

 

public demonstrations

letter writting

human rights education

fundrasing

indivdiaul appeals

global appeals

deal with the needs of victims of disasters

training for self reliance and self asteem

 

www.amurt.net

amurtglobal@amurt.net

 

paritent healthcare management, rehabilityation, staff trainng.

affordable medication

healthy rural environment...

 

surgical, paediatric wards, theatre

teach and train by apprentiships cooperatives and exchanges

familaiarity with tropical (regional) diseases.

surgeons (orthopaedic, consultant/ surgeon able to perform corrective surgeris for children, manage close and open fractures.. teach and train young genreal practitioners for continuity.

tahbb@yahoo.com

 

 

 

survival health and well being of refugees, displaced persons

rebuild productive lives of dignity and purpose

 

archq@archq.org

www.archq.org

 

info@australianvolunteers.org

 

www.australianvolunteers.org

alleviate poverty among the rural poor.

construction of health posts

bridges,

culverts??? what is a culvert?

schools

community halls

 

www.beso.org

www.bms.org.uk

www.bmsworldmission.org/shortterm

working for peace

advocating justice

www.brethrenvolunteerservice.org

human resource development (disadvantaged children / youth in deprived rural areas

sports

literacy

Information Communication and Technology (ict)

youth sports development resource center (gymnasium , library,  ICT training unit)

environmental management and protection

www.africatrust.gi

mentorship programs

www.grassrootsbridges.org

www.bunac.org

www.bunac.org.uk

study tours

UNESCO

 

?

professional skills for the future

www.cwy-jmc.org

cwy-jmc@www.cwy-jmc.org

www.cciorg.ca

info@cciorg.ca

www.care.org

www.casadelosamigos.org

 

help farmers find markets for products.

 

set up hiv/aids counselling services

 

 

 

 

 

 

avso@bigfoot.com

www.avso.org

(disabled, socially / economically disadvantaged, ethic minorities)

AYAD@austraining.com.au

www.ausaid.gov.au/youtham

 

social reconstruction / renewal

 

March 2005: Volunteers and the Law in Alberta still available

A necessary resource for Alberta non-profits! Volunteers and the Law in Alberta is an essential resource developed to increase awareness of the legal issues involved in incorporating volunteers into your organization. Volunteers and the Law is intended to give you a simple and general overview of the various areas of law and how these areas relate to your volunteer programs, your Board of Directors, and to the volunteers themselves.

Topics include:

• How the Law Can Apply to Volunteers
• Legal Status of a Volunteer
• Use of Special Volunteers (Children, Offenders, Volunteers with Disabilities, Clients as Volunteers, Immigrants and Refugees)
• Legal Responsibilities – Negligence and Limiting Liability to your organization
• Special Care in Special Circumstances (Caring for Children, Giving Advice, Outdoor and Adventure Recreation, Driving, Special Events and Fundraisers)
• Legal Responsibilities of Volunteer Board Members
• Insurance
• Confidentiality
• Human Rights Issues
• Guidelines for Managers of Volunteers


A limited number of books are available from Volunteer Alberta. To order your copy at a cost of $10 (including GST and mailing), please call, or email or fax:

Volunteer Alberta
-Toll Free: 1-877-915-6336
-In the Edmonton and region 780.482.3300
-Email: volab@volunteeralberta.ab.ca


March 2005: Information Sessions delivered by the Charities Directorate (Roadshow)

Charities will be receiving an invitation to the information sessions delivered by the Charities Directorate (the Roadshow) for 2005. The sessions will focus on the Registered Charity Information Return, form T3010A, which has been significantly revised to reflect the changes in the spring 2004 budget and pending legislative changes. In particular, there have been significant changes to the way the disbursement quota is calculated, and these will be covered in these sessions. This year we will also be covering new regulations and sanctions, and new receipting rules and gifting. Updated information on the Roadshow will be added to the CRA website at www.cra.gc.ca/tax/charities/roadshow as it becomes available. There is no charge to attend. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/roadshow/

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate


March 2005: Legalese for charities

Cy-près - Where property is given in trust for a particular charitable purpose and it is or becomes impossible, impractical, or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, the trust will not necessarily fail if the intention of the trust is to devote the property to charitable purposes. The court can apply the cy-près doctrine and direct the property to some charitable purpose that falls within the general charitable intention of the trust.

Fiduciary - Relationship between a trustee/director and a charity.

Fiduciary duty - A duty to act for someone else's benefit exclusively. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g., trustee, guardian). For charities, this means to accept and hold a public trust to maintain, preserve, and develop the organization's resources to be used for charitable purposes, to ensure that the organization's activities remain charitable, and to manage the organization for the benefit of the public.

Charitable trusts - A legal relationship created for the benefit of a class or the public generally, and established for charitable purposes (e.g., religious, edeucational).

Estoppel - The doctrine under which a person cannot change previously made statements, acknowledged facts or conduct if doing so would be detrimental to another person who has acted on those statements, facts, or conduct.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorateffice and recording studio


March 2005: Can we transfer gifts donated for a specific purpose to our general funds?

If a charity has raised funds or accepted a donation for one of its specific purposes, it cannot simply use these funds for another purpose. However, the charity may transfer funds raised if it clearly indicated while soliciting from donors that excess funds which cannot be used for a particular purpose may be used for another purpose.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate


March 2005: What is an "ecological gift"?

For tax purposes, an ecological gift is defined to be a gift of land, including a covenant or an easement, or, in the case of land in Quebec, a real servitude. The land must be certified by the Minister of the Environment or a person designated by the Minister to be ecologically sensitive land whose conservation and protection is important to preserving Canada's environmental heritage. The recipient of the gift must be Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, a municipality in Canada (including, for gifts made after May 8, 2000, a municipal or public body performing a function of government in Canada), or a registered charity that has been approved by the Minister of the Environment.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate

Not-for-Profits and Charities

1. What is a Non-profit?

2. Can Expenses be paid?

3. Are all Non-profits the same?

4. What are the contractual or legislative restrictions?

5. What is a charity?

6. Who regulates Non-profits?

7. Are there things that Non-profits should not do?

 

Liability: The General Part

1. What is liability?

2. What are the sources of liability

3. What kinds of liabilities can arise under Contract?

4. What kinds of liability can arise under Statute?

5. What kinds of liabilities can arise under Tort?

6. What does Limited Liability mean?

7. What about the personal liability of directors?

8. What is the role of insurance?

9. Can insurance be purchased to cover all kinds of liability?

10. What else can be done?

Liability Unique to Non-Profits and Charities

1. Is liability for non-profits and charities any different?

2. Why look to statutes?

3. But what Acts apply to my organization?

4. Under what Act is your organization incorporated?

5. Are there other liabilities under incorporation statutes?

6. What are returns under the Income Tax Act ?

7. Other liabilities under the Income Tax Act?

8. Does the Employment Standards Code apply?

9. What does the Charitable Fund-raising Act cover?

10. How do non-profits and charities keep track of their liabilities?

Charitable Status

1. How does an organization become a charity?

2. Why should an organization become a charity?

3. What are some of the other rules?

4. Are there different kinds of charities?

5. What is a charitable organization?

6. What is arm's length?

7. What are qualified donees?

8. What is a gift?

9. What is a revocation?

10. Further References

Registered Charities: Advocacy and Political Activities

1. Why is it so difficult for charities to speak out for what they believe?

2. What are the general rules?

3. What does political mean in charity law?

4. But surely some of this kind of activity is allowed?

5. What is a Partisan Political Activity?

6. What is the 10% Rule?

7. But what if advocating changes to conditions will further my charity's purposes?

8. What would be an acceptable political activity?

9. But what about getting a request from some level of government to comment on laws and policies?

10. So how does all this affect the disbursement quota?

NEW CRA POLICY ON APPLICANTS ASSISTING ETHNOCULTURAL COMMUNITIES

By Terrance S. Carter, B.A., LL.B.
Assisted by Derek B. M. Ross, LL.B. Candidate
 

A. INTRODUCTION

In June 2005, Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") released a policy statement entitled "Applicants Assisting Ethnocultural Communities" (the "Policy"). The Policy sets out detailed guidelines on attaining charitable status for community organizations that assist ethnocultural communities in Canada. This policy will be of significance to both current registered charities and potential applicants, as it outlines CRA's requirements for attaining registered charitable status under the Income Tax Act (the "ITA"), and indicates which activities it will accept as charitable for that purpose. This Charity Law Bulletin ("Bulletin") summarizes the content of the Policy and comments on some its more important aspects. The Policy is available on CRA's website at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/ethno-e.html.

B. BACKGROUND TO THE POLICY

The Policy was released on June 30, 2005, after CRA solicited comments from the draft guidelines released in September 2004. The Policy acknowledges that ethnocultural groups are an important segment of the Canadian demographic and recognizes the importance of organizations that assist these groups in facing their challenges and disadvantages. The purpose of the Policy is to inform such organizations of the framework within which they can attain charitable status for the purpose of the ITA. The Policy provides the following definitions:

An ethnocultural community or group is defined by the shared characteristics unique to, and recognized by, that group. This includes characteristics such as cultural traditions, ancestry, language, national identity, country of origin and/or physical traits. To the extent that religion is inextricably linked to the group's racial or cultural identity, it can also be recognized as a defining characteristic. In some cases, a group may view its common origin as pan-national, or it may be based on geographic region of origin. These characteristics are the basis on which, generally speaking, one group culturally distinguishes itself from another.

Disadvantage - This is reflected in the barriers some groups face to full and equal participation in Canadian society. They may be disadvantaged socially, politically, educationally, as well as economically. Not all ethnocultural communities in Canada will face disadvantage, nor will ethnocultural communities experience exclusion in the same way.

Ethnocultural work - This term describes the range of activities undertaken by an ethnocultural community, as well as by organizations helping an ethnocultural community or group of communities. It includes helping individuals, as well as addressing systemic issues.


C. REGISTRATION GUIDELINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS ASSISTING DISADVANTAGED ETHNOCULTURAL COMMUNITIES

The fact that an organization assists a disadvantaged ethnocultural group does not automatically render it charitable for the purposes of the ITA. The Policy does not create special status for such organizations, nor does it establish a separate charitable category for ethnocultural work. Rather, organizations engaged in ethnocultural work, along with all other applicants, must show that their purposes and activities fall within one, or a combination, of the four recognized categories of charity: "relief of poverty," "advancement of education," "advancement of religion," and "other purposes beneficial to the community." These must be the exclusive purposes of the organization and should be clearly set out in its governing documents.

Applicants will also be required to show that they confer a tangible benefit to the public at large, either directly or indirectly (referred to as the "Public Benefit Test"). At first glance, this requirement appears problematic for organizations engaged in ethnocultural work, as the scope of their services is naturally restricted to a specific group of people. However, the Policy recognizes this and allows for organizations to focus their services on one ethnospecific group's needs, so long as there is a logical connection between the focus and the benefit provided, the benefit is explained in the application for charitable status, and they do not exclude some individuals or parts of the community with the identified need. In some (but few) circumstances, CRA will allow an absolute restriction of services, but the organization will need to show that such a restriction is directly linked to the charitable purpose and provide research that supports the existence of the unique need.

Note that the public benefit test, the source of much confusion amongst charitable organizations and legal scholars alike, was extensively addressed by CRA in its proposed policy: Guidelines for Registering a Charity: Meeting the Public Benefit Test.1 For the purposes of this Bulletin, it is important to note that the extent and nature of the requirements for the public benefit test may vary according to an organization's charitable purpose as it falls within one of the four recognized categories, as discussed in the following sections.

1. Relief of Poverty

The "relief of poverty" category covers programs or services that have the purpose of alleviating poverty, and it is assumed that such services benefit the public. Under this category, CRA allows the restriction of beneficiaries "according to almost any criteria" so long as the service provides the necessities of life (such as clothing, food, and shelter) or even amenities, which most people take for granted (such as summer camps) to individuals who are economically disadvantaged. Providing services beyond this (i.e. assistance not considered a necessity, amenities not available to most people) or to individuals who are not considered "poor" are examples of unacceptable programs under this category. Organizations, such as community services (e.g. food banks and shelters), ethnocultural organizations and settlement organizations, all of which focus on alleviating the poverty of particular ethnocultural groups, would fall within this category.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "relief of poverty":

- easing or alleviating poverty through the provision of the necessities of life, limited to ethnocultural communities who are poor;
- providing access to the amenities of life that most people take for granted, for those facing exclusion because of poverty;
- providing employment assistance or undertaking community economic development initiatives where most of the members of the community are living below the poverty line;
- helping refugees (considered poor by definition);
- helping immigrants who are poor, and;
- helping those considered hard to employ, specifically refugees, or where the members of the group to be served are living below the poverty line.

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "relief of poverty" category include:

- providing any assistance that is not considered a necessity, or providing access to amenities beyond those which most people take for granted, would not be considered the relief of poverty; and
- providing services to beneficiaries who are not poor.

c) Acceptable Charitable Objects

CRA provides the following example of an acceptable "relief of poverty" object:

To relieve poverty by providing food and other basic supplies to persons of low income, by establishing, operating, and maintaining shelters for the homeless, and by providing counselling and other similar programs to relieve poverty.

2. Advancement of Education

In order for a purpose or activity to qualify as charitable under the "advancing education" category, there needs to be a proper educational forum and the content must be delivered in a structured manner. According to the Policy, groups that may fall into this category include community services providing educational activities to assist disadvantaged ethnocultural groups, or settlement organizations that train and/or educate refugees and immigrants to help foster their integration into Canadian society. Ethnocultural organizations that educate about intercultural relations, or educate the public about a particular culture can also be recognized as charitable under this category. However, CRA draws an important distinction between raising awareness about a particular culture (which is an acceptable charitable activity) and promoting a culture (which is not considered charitable). According to the Policy, inward-focussing activities that are exclusively provided to an ethnospecific group (i.e. for the purpose of preserving language or cultural practices, or those structured as social events/celebrations) lack the requisite "public character" element of a charity and are thus unacceptable programs under this category.

The distinction between "increasing the public's appreciation" and "promotion" of a culture seems to be a blurry, if not arbitrary one, but CRA asserts that it can be determined by looking at the purpose or general orientation of the organization, the activities, and who will benefit from the program. Thus, the Policy suggests that applicants clearly demonstrate how their activities would enhance knowledge or further education for the benefit of the public as a whole.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "advancing education":

- public education and research;
- literacy education;
- employment education/job readiness training;
- cross-cultural education;
- structured life skills training to increase or better realize the capacities or abilities of members of a disadvantaged community;
- increasing the public's knowledge and appreciation of the art, history, language, culture, and traditions of a particular ethnocultural group (or groups), which can include such things as heritage language training and performing groups that are structured as educational;
- cultural centres and festivals, structured to educate (or raise the artistic tastes of) the public about an ethnospecific group or multiple cultures;
- summer camps where the purpose is to teach children about the heritage and ancestral culture of a particular ethnocultural group;
- courses in English or French as a second language;
- citizenship courses;
- other training related to assisting new immigrants or refugees to settle; and
- educating about racial and/or ethnic discrimination or about positive relations.

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "advancing education" category include:

- furthering the interests of a particular culture or community (unless this is an incidental part of fulfilling a group's broader charitable purposes); and
- an ethnocultural festival, cultural centre or summer camp not structured as educational (i.e. those structured as social events or celebrations).

3. Advancement of Religion

An earlier draft of the Policy held that, under this category, if an organization's "undertaking promote[d] the spiritual teachings of the religion concerned, public benefit is usually assumed." However, that assumption could be challenged if the organization's purposes were "more secular than theological," so that opposing abortion and promoting or opposing same sex marriage were listed as examples of non-charitable purposes.

Several groups expressed concern that these sections of the proposed policy statement could be interpreted to mean that activities undertaken for the purpose of advancing religion, but which could also be viewed by some as having a secular purpose, would be characterized by CRA as not fitting within the category of activities that advance religion. Additionally, the earlier draft did not explain the extent to which secular purposes could be pursued, how to distinguish between a secular purpose and a theological purpose, and what the implications would be if a purpose was identified as being both secular and theological in nature. The proposed policy could possibly have had the effect of narrowing the scope within which religion could be advanced and, therefore, might have resulted in a narrowing of the activities and ventures that current religious charities could undertake. It could also have provided an obstacle for new religious charities attempting to qualify for charitable status under the ITA. In response to these concerns, CRA removed these passages and replaced them with the following description of the Advancing Religion head of charity:

42. This category refers to promoting the spiritual teachings of a religious body, and maintaining the doctrines and spiritual observances on which those teachings are based. A religious body is considered charitable when its activities serve religious purposes for the public good. An example of accepted wording for this category would be "to advance and teach the religious tenets, doctrines, observances and culture associated with the (specify faith or religion) faith."
43. Religious worship focused on a specific linguistic community would be acceptable.

These revisions, which represent a more balanced view of the Advancing Religion category of charity, are welcome and presumably will be followed by CRA whend it drafts its policy statement on advancement of religion. A more extensive discussion on Advancing Religion as a head of charity can be found in Charity Law Bulletin No. 58, entitled "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?",2 as well as the paper "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?"3

4. Other purposes beneficial to the community

This category covers a broad range of programs, and as a result will cover the work of many organizations providing services to ethnocultural communities. Such organizations may include: community services or ethnocultural organizations engaged in community capacity-building efforts, and settlement organizations which facilitate the integration of refugees and immigrants into Canadian society. The policy also mentions that both types of umbrella organizations would fall into this category: those that work to improve the effectiveness of other charities, and those established to further a particular charitable purpose. However, CRA notes that activities and services under this heading are generally expected to be open to the public at large.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "other purposes beneficial to the community":

- support activities to strengthen disadvantaged communities, i.e. by building their capacity to identify and eliminate barriers to full participation in society;
- social, health, legal, and other community services and outreach to help disadvantaged communities;
- self-help groups;
- advocacy work, such as helping disadvantaged individuals to gain access to entitled services and activities;
- resource libraries;
- senior's residences and services for a specific ethnocultural group, when such a need exists;
- employment preparation, including services designed to help specific groups in need of these services, i.e. foreign-trained immigrants facing barriers to employment in the occupations;
- relieving and preventing unemployment; and
- eliminating racial (including ethnic) discrimination or promoting positive relations in such communities;

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category include:

- promoting multiculturalism, which is considered too broad a concept, and therefore, not accepted as a charitable purpose (although aspects of furthering the purposes of multiculturalism are acceptable);
- social events as a purpose; and
- providing assistance to those not facing disadvantage (i.e. employment assistance to immigrants not in need of such services).

c) Acceptable Charitable Objects

The following charitable object would be considered to be acceptable by CRA under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category:

To "provide education, counselling and other support services for immigrants and refugees in need, including language instruction, employment training, job search activities, translation services and information programs on Canadian culture and life."


D. PROMOTING MULTICULTURALISM AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE?

The Policy makes an important clarification regarding the promotion of multiculturalism. It affirms that promoting multiculturalism is not a charitable purpose. The notion of promoting multiculturalism is a vague and expansive one, and may encompass a wide range of purposes, programs, and activities that could not be considered charitable. The Policy provides the example of an organization seeking to promote a particular culture. Certainly, such an object would fall within the definition of promoting multiculturalism. However, it would lack the necessary element of altruism for it to qualify as a charitable purpose. Thus, the Policy warns that applicants who include the "promotion of multiculturalism" as their purpose will not be eligible for registration. However, it does recognize that many potentially charitable purposes will have the effect of furthering multiculturalism, and this will not disqualify an organization from attaining registered status. Examples include those that increase the public's knowledge and appreciation of a particular group's art, culture, language, and traditions. These examples are outlined in more detail in CRA's Policy Statement: Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality,3 and readers are encouraged to consult Charity Law Bulletin No 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality" for more information.4

E. ADVOCACY

The Policy also provides guidance for organizations engaged in advocacy work. It asserts that some forms of advocacy are acceptable, so long as the advocacy is connected to the charity's purposes and the work for the issue is only a minor focus of the organization. Charities have the freedom to speak out on issues related to their purposes, but the Policy cautions them to consider whether such activities are charitable, political, or prohibited. For example, where the subject matter is connected to the charity's purposes and based on a well-reasoned position, the charity may engage in a wide range of activities which will still be considered charitable, such as joining a government advisory panel, or distributing research results to the media or Parliament. Even some political activities, such as encouraging the public to contact officials and urging them to change or oppose a law, may be allowable so long as the above requirements are fulfilled and only a limited percentage of the charity's resources are devoted to them. These issues are further dealt with in another CRA policy: Political Activities,5 which is the subject of Charity Law Bulletin No. 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities."6

F. CONCLUSION

The Policy represents an important clarification of what is considered charitable by specifically extending charitable status to organizations assisting ethnocultural communities in Canada. The Policy will affect the way in which the organization's Letters Patent is drafted or amended, and the way in which its application for charitable status is completed. The Policy is welcome, in that it helps to distinguish between charitable ethno-cultural work and the promotion of multiculturalism. This distinction alerts ethnospecific organizations to the fact that, contrary to what may be believed, the promotion of multiculturalism is not in and of itself, charitable. In addition, the Policy provides confirmation that programs and facilities operated for the benefit of persons of a particular ethnic group will also be seen as charitable without necessarily contravening the relevant human rights legislation. Although the Policy is purely administrative, and not binding on the Courts, it will still serve as a valuable guide for both new organizations seeking charitable status, and existing organizations that do or wish to carry out ethnocultural work but may be unsure of whether or not such activities will be considered by CRA to be charitable.

Endnotes:

1 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/consultations/publicbenefit-e.html.
2 Terrance S. Carter and Jacqueline M. Connor. "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?" Church Law Bulletin No. 6 (November 2004) available at http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb06.pdf. Terrance S. Carter, assisted by Anne Marie Langan, "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?" (Paper presented to the Ontario Bar Association and the Continuing Legal Committee of the Canadian Bar Association, May 2005) [unpublished]. The paper is available online at http://www.carters.ca/pub/article/charity/2005/tsc0506.pdf.
3 Available at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/cps/cps-021-e.html
4 Terrance S. Carter and Suzanne White. "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities." Charity Law Bulletin No. 26 (November 2003). http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2003/chylb26.htm.
5 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/csp/csp-p02-e.html.
6 Supra, note 4.

SOME QUESTIONS


What responsibilities do funders have to ensure
that projects are equipped to continue when
funding ends?
What are the sustainability expectations that
funders and grantees should have as they
approach an initiative?
How does the design of the initiative—its
duration, size, target issue—contribute to the
ability of participants to sustain it?
How do the sustainability issues vary in
instances of multiple-site initiatives, as opposed
to the funding of a single project or organization?
How does the structure of initiative funding—
required match, local funding partner, size of
grant—influence ownership and post-initiative
planning?
How do the characteristics of the grantee or lead
organization—size, maturity, capacity, structure
—influence the initiative’s continuation
opportunities?
How do the characteristics of the foundation—
local, community, national—affect the sustainability
challenge?
Does the traditional model—a demonstration
proves its worth and is then adopted by a new
funder—still work and, if so, under what
circumstances?

Differing perspectives on the role of foundations
Questions of what “sustainability” means and
what ought to be sustained
Special problems of comprehensive community
initiatives
Foundation actions that bear on sustainability
Suggestions for better ways to achieve sustainability

“Who should
be responsible for sustainability?” often raised
another: “What should be sustained?”

Be  explicit about foundation and grantee commitments

Set clear and realistic expectations

Build capacity

Reduce foundation identification

funding structure

Actively pursue the resources needed

to ensure sustainability

Be more intentional about public funding

sustainability plan

 is there an expectation that the effort will be continued after foundation funds end;

Propose a generalized theory of sustainability for the initiative; Require a localized sustainability plan from applicant sites;

 

Assuming acceptable results, and assuming that

the task will not be fully completed at the end

of the grant period, is it expected that this

initiative will continue beyond the period for

which funding is available?

If so, what level of financial and other resources

will be needed to continue?

What capacity-building measures are needed to

make this initiative sustainable, and how will

those measures be implemented?

What is it about this initiative that is likely to

attract interest and elicit support? (Hint: If this

project is “successful,” whose problems would it

help alleviate, whose mission would be advanced,

who would have a vested interest in seeing it

continue?)

Who are the most likely future funders? (Be

specific. If government, what level of government,

what agency, what funding stream? If private,

which foundation or other source?)

Is there a history of this entity supporting efforts

(a) of this sort and (b) of this size?

Would success in this effort obviate the need to

spend resources on something else, and could

that money be diverted to this effort? How?

Who within the anticipated funding organization

would have to decide

 

 

ACTIVITIES

Secure staff

Organize the community

Create interagency coalition

Hold block meetings

Create a neighborhood watch program

Establish baseline crime data

Improve communication with community police

Create after-school and evening programming

Establish communications with substance abuse

treatment center for outreach programming

 

 

INTERIM BENCHMARKS

Increased community awareness, involvement

Improved coordination with police and treatment resources

OUTCOMES

Lower crime rate

Increased community capacity to solve problems

Improved optimism about the future of the community

SUSTAINING THE EFFORT

Given the goals and approaches outlined, the most

likely funding sources for continuation in City X are:

City CDBG

United Way

Police department

Community foundation

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN: TIMELINE

January: Meet with representatives of likely funding sources; establish

clear understanding about initiative needs and funder processes

March: Make CDBG application

Quarterly: Invite representatives to block meetings

Send data reports and follow up

Gear public relations plan to the need for continuation

Does the potential successor funder agree that it

should be seen in this way?

Under what conditions does it believe future

funding is most likely?

What achievements by the initiative would most

likely lead to future support?

What is the most likely source of that support;

what funding stream, department, pot of money

would most likely be tapped?

What might be a reasonable expectation of the

duration of support?

 

 

 

Organizations and Invidiuals

Cindy Ballard, Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth

Mike Bailin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Carol Berde, McKnight Foundation

Nick Bollman, California Center for Regional Leadership

Linda Bowen, National Funding Collaborative on Violence

Pru Brown, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago

Elizabeth Burke Bryant, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT

Judy Chynoweth, Foundation Consortium

Tom David, California Wellness Foundation

Sid Gardner, Center for Collaboration for Children

Robert Granger, William T. Grant Foundation

Andy Hahn, Brandeis University

Sandy Jibrell, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Otis Johnson, Savannah State University

Ann Kubisch, Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Sally Leiderman, Center for Assessment and Policy Development

Dorothy Meehan, Sierra Health Foundation

Maria Mohica, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund

Susan Notkin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Lori Villarosa, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation

Heather Weiss, Harvard Family Research Project

Mike Weber, Volunteers of America of Minnesota

Garland Yates, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Jan B. Yost, Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts

 

 

 

Books

 

Backer, T. E. Strengthening Nonprofits: Capacity-Building and

Philanthropy. Report prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. Encino, Calif.: Human Interaction

Research Institute, March 2000.

Brown, P., A. Branch, and J. Lee. The Neighborhood Partners

Initiative: A Report on the Start-Up Period. Chicago: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago,

December 1998. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

Brown, P., and S. Garg. Foundations and Comprehensive

Community Initiatives: The Challenges of Partnership. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago, April 1997. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

California Wellness Foundation. 1999 Annual Report.

Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.tcwf.org/annual_1999/.

California Wellness Foundation. Reflections on Our First

Initiatives. Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, September 1999.

Available online: www.tcwf.org/reflections/1999/fall/.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and M. L. Joseph.

The Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family Initiative. The

Challenge of Sustainability: An Interim Report Covering the

Period January 1995–October 1996. Chicago: Chapin Hall

Center for Children at the University of Chicago, July 1997.

Available online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and C. J. Richards.

The Neighborhood and Family Initiative. Entering the Final

Phase: An Interim Report Covering the Period November

1996–December 1998. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for

Children at the University of Chicago, August 1999. Available

online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. President’s Essay, 1998.

Gardner, S., et al. The Case for a “Theory of Resources” as a

Tool to Assist CCIs. Fullerton, Calif.: Center for Collaboration

for Children, California State University, 1997.

Hahn, A. Doing Social Change for a Living. Waltham, Mass.:

Policylink and Brandeis University, August 2000.

Hamilton, R., and M. Shark. A Scan of Membership and the

Field. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute on Comprehensive

Community Initiatives, April 2000.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Evaluation Handbook. Battle

Creek, Mich.: Author. January 1998. Available online:

www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Pubs/.

Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for

Children and Families. Voices from the Field: Learning from

the Early Work of Comprehensive Community Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1997.

Sierra Health Foundation. CPHC Status Report 2000.

Sacramento, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.sierrahealth.org/pdf/status2000.pdf.

Wandersman, A., and J. B. Yost. Results-Oriented

Grantmaking: A Strategy for Foundations to Increase the

Evaluation Capacity of Grantees. Worcester, Mass.: Health

Foundation of Central Massachusetts, November 2000.

Weiss, H. B., and M. E. Lopez. New Strategies in Foundation

What can we do?   programs this group supports Sector: This section helps show the scope of the organisations' actions by describing the sectors in which the organisations operate.  easy to see how many sectors overlap a project that works with the rights of women can be considered to be working in the sectors of women's issues, education, human rights, child welfare, skills training, and even agriculture.

 

what actions need to be taken to meet asp requirements?

 

 

BRIEF NOTE:

IMPLEMENTS the strategies of ASP and facilitates the needs of allied societies as to strengthen them to political allies. THE SOCIAL NEEDS OF ASP. PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INTO POLITICAL PARTNERS, PROGRAMS TO SOLIDIFY POLITICAL ALLIES TO IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES

THESE PROGRAMS INCLUDE PRIMARILY ONGOING INFORMATION ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT DEVELOP FROM THE GENERAL IDEAS.

AF formed out of the diverging aspects of ASP. Where ASP is now more so proposed initiatives. AF actually is the bodies for civil action. Where ICCD and any other nation states which it has interaction, is to implement it's policies on a state level. The two entitiies are different as each deals with a different aspect of the process of social organization. ASP is representative and opinion based; where as AF is informative and social and economic development for baseline social requirements.. ICCD on the otherhand is generally fundamental and sustaining based WI on contrary is a for profit consultancy advisory based, service oriented economic developmental business.

Grantmaking for Children and Youth. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard Family Research Project, 1999.

 

ions of a particular ethnocultural group (or groups), which can include such things as heritage language training and performing groups that are structured as educational;
- cultural centres and festivals, structured to educate (or raise the artistic tastes of) the public about an ethnospecific group or multiple cultures;
- summer camps where the purpose is to teach children about the heritage and ancestral culture of a particular ethnocultural group;
- courses in English or French as a second language;
- citizenship courses;
- other training related to assisting new immigrants or refugees to settle; and
- educating about racial and/or ethnic discrimination or about positive relations.

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "advancing education" category include:

- furthering the interests of a particular culture or community (unless this is an incidental part of fulfilling a group's broader charitable purposes); and
- an ethnocultural festival, cultural centre or summer camp not structured as educational (i.e. those structured as social events or celebrations).

3. Advancement of Religion

An earlier draft of the Policy held that, under this category, if an organization's "undertaking promote[d] the spiritual teachings of the religion concerned, public benefit is usually assumed." However, that assumption could be challenged if the organization's purposes were "more secular than theological," so that opposing abortion and promoting or opposing same sex marriage were listed as examples of non-charitable purposes.

Several groups expressed concern that these sections of the proposed policy statement could be interpreted to mean that activities undertaken for the purpose of advancing religion, but which could also be viewed by some as having a secular purpose, would be characterized by CRA as not fitting within the category of activities that advance religion. Additionally, the earlier draft did not explain the extent to which secular purposes could be pursued, how to distinguish between a secular purpose and a theological purpose, and what the implications would be if a purpose was identified as being both secular and theological in nature. The proposed policy could possibly have had the effect of narrowing the scope within which religion could be advanced and, therefore, might have resulted in a narrowing of the activities and ventures that current religious charities could undertake. It could also have provided an obstacle for new religious charities attempting to qualify for charitable status under the ITA. In response to these concerns, CRA removed these passages and replaced them with the following description of the Advancing Religion head of charity:

42. This category refers to promoting the spiritual teachings of a religious body, and maintaining the doctrines and spiritual observances on which those teachings are based. A religious body is considered charitable when its activities serve religious purposes for the public good. An example of accepted wording for this category would be "to advance and teach the religious tenets, doctrines, observances and culture associated with the (specify faith or religion) faith."
43. Religious worship focused on a specific linguistic community would be acceptable.

These revisions, which represent a more balanced view of the Advancing Religion category of charity, are welcome and presumably will be followed by CRA whend it drafts its policy statement on advancement of religion. A more extensive discussion on Advancing Religion as a head of charity can be found in Charity Law Bulletin No. 58, entitled "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?",2 as well as the paper "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?"3

4. Other purposes beneficial to the community

This category covers a broad range of programs, and as a result will cover the work of many organizations providing services to ethnocultural communities. Such organizations may include: community services or ethnocultural organizations engaged in community capacity-building efforts, and settlement organizations which facilitate the integration of refugees and immigrants into Canadian society. The policy also mentions that both types of umbrella organizations would fall into this category: those that work to improve the effectiveness of other charities, and those established to further a particular charitable purpose. However, CRA notes that activities and services under this heading are generally expected to be open to the public at large.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "other purposes beneficial to the community":

- support activities to strengthen disadvantaged communities, i.e. by building their capacity to identify and eliminate barriers to full participation in society;
- social, health, legal, and other community services and outreach to help disadvantaged communities;
- self-help groups;
- advocacy work, such as helping disadvantaged individuals to gain access to entitled services and activities;
- resource libraries;
- senior's residences and services for a specific ethnocultural group, when such a need exists;
- employment preparation, including services designed to help specific groups in need of these services, i.e. foreign-trained immigrants facing barriers to employment in the occupations;
- relieving and preventing unemployment; and
- eliminating racial (including ethnic) discrimination or promoting positive relations in such communities;

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category include:

- promoting multiculturalism, which is considered too broad a concept, and therefore, not accepted as a charitable purpose (although aspects of furthering the purposes of multiculturalism are acceptable);
- social events as a purpose; and
- providing assistance to those not facing disadvantage (i.e. employment assistance to immigrants not in need of such services).

c) Acceptable Charitable Objects

The following charitable object would be considered to be acceptable by CRA under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category:

To "provide education, counselling and other support services for immigrants and refugees in need, including language instruction, employment training, job search activities, translation services and information programs on Canadian culture and life."


D. PROMOTING MULTICULTURALISM AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE?

The Policy makes an important clarification regarding the promotion of multiculturalism. It affirms that promoting multiculturalism is not a charitable purpose. The notion of promoting multiculturalism is a vague and expansive one, and may encompass a wide range of purposes, programs, and activities that could not be considered charitable. The Policy provides the example of an organization seeking to promote a particular culture. Certainly, such an object would fall within the definition of promoting multiculturalism. However, it would lack the necessary element of altruism for it to qualify as a charitable purpose. Thus, the Policy warns that applicants who include the "promotion of multiculturalism" as their purpose will not be eligible for registration. However, it does recognize that many potentially charitable purposes will have the effect of furthering multiculturalism, and this will not disqualify an organization from attaining registered status. Examples include those that increase the public's knowledge and appreciation of a particular group's art, culture, language, and traditions. These examples are outlined in more detail in CRA's Policy Statement: Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality,3 and readers are encouraged to consult Charity Law Bulletin No 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality" for more information.4

E. ADVOCACY

The Policy also provides guidance for organizations engaged in advocacy work. It asserts that some forms of advocacy are acceptable, so long as the advocacy is connected to the charity's purposes and the work for the issue is only a minor focus of the organization. Charities have the freedom to speak out on issues related to their purposes, but the Policy cautions them to consider whether such activities are charitable, political, or prohibited. For example, where the subject matter is connected to the charity's purposes and based on a well-reasoned position, the charity may engage in a wide range of activities which will still be considered charitable, such as joining a government advisory panel, or distributing research results to the media or Parliament. Even some political activities, such as encouraging the public to contact officials and urging them to change or oppose a law, may be allowable so long as the above requirements are fulfilled and only a limited percentage of the charity's resources are devoted to them. These issues are further dealt with in another CRA policy: Political Activities,5 which is the subject of Charity Law Bulletin No. 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities."6

F. CONCLUSION

The Policy represents an important clarification of what is considered charitable by specifically extending charitable status to organizations assisting ethnocultural communities in Canada. The Policy will affect the way in which the organization's Letters Patent is drafted or amended, and the way in which its application for charitable status is completed. The Policy is welcome, in that it helps to distinguish between charitable ethno-cultural work and the promotion of multiculturalism. This distinction alerts ethnospecific organizations to the fact that, contrary to what may be believed, the promotion of multiculturalism is not in and of itself, charitable. In addition, the Policy provides confirmation that programs and facilities operated for the benefit of persons of a particular ethnic group will also be seen as charitable without necessarily contravening the relevant human rights legislation. Although the Policy is purely administrative, and not binding on the Courts, it will still serve as a valuable guide for both new organizations seeking charitable status, and existing organizations that do or wish to carry out ethnocultural work but may be unsure of whether or not such activities will be considered by CRA to be charitable.

Endnotes:

1 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/consultations/publicbenefit-e.html.
2 Terrance S. Carter and Jacqueline M. Connor. "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?" Church Law Bulletin No. 6 (November 2004) available at http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb06.pdf. Terrance S. Carter, assisted by Anne Marie Langan, "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?" (Paper presented to the Ontario Bar Association and the Continuing Legal Committee of the Canadian Bar Association, May 2005) [unpublished]. The paper is available online at http://www.carters.ca/pub/article/charity/2005/tsc0506.pdf.
3 Available at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/cps/cps-021-e.html
4 Terrance S. Carter and Suzanne White. "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities." Charity Law Bulletin No. 26 (November 2003). http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2003/chylb26.htm.
5 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/csp/csp-p02-e.html.
6 Supra, note 4.

SOME QUESTIONS


What responsibilities do funders have to ensure
that projects are equipped to continue when
funding ends?
What are the sustainability expectations that
funders and grantees should have as they
approach an initiative?
How does the design of the initiative—its
duration, size, target issue—contribute to the
ability of participants to sustain it?
How do the sustainability issues vary in
instances of multiple-site initiatives, as opposed
to the funding of a single project or organization?
How does the structure of initiative funding—
required match, local funding partner, size of
grant—influence ownership and post-initiative
planning?
How do the characteristics of the grantee or lead
organization—size, maturity, capacity, structure
—influence the initiative’s continuation
opportunities?
How do the characteristics of the foundation—
local, community, national—affect the sustainability
challenge?
Does the traditional model—a demonstration
proves its worth and is then adopted by a new
funder—still work and, if so, under what
circumstances?

Differing perspectives on the role of foundations
Questions of what “sustainability” means and
what ought to be sustained
Special problems of comprehensive community
initiatives
Foundation actions that bear on sustainability
Suggestions for better ways to achieve sustainability

“Who should
be responsible for sustainability?” often raised
another: “What should be sustained?”

Be  explicit about foundation and grantee commitments

Set clear and realistic expectations

Build capacity

Reduce foundation identification

funding structure

Actively pursue the resources needed

to ensure sustainability

Be more intentional about public funding

sustainability plan

 is there an expectation that the effort will be continued after foundation funds end;

Propose a generalized theory of sustainability for the initiative; Require a localized sustainability plan from applicant sites;

 

Assuming acceptable results, and assuming that

the task will not be fully completed at the end

of the grant period, is it expected that this

initiative will continue beyond the period for

which funding is available?

If so, what level of financial and other resources

will be needed to continue?

What capacity-building measures are needed to

make this initiative sustainable, and how will

those measures be implemented?

What is it about this initiative that is likely to

attract interest and elicit support? (Hint: If this

project is “successful,” whose problems would it

help alleviate, whose mission would be advanced,

who would have a vested interest in seeing it

continue?)

Who are the most likely future funders? (Be

specific. If government, what level of government,

what agency, what funding stream? If private,

which foundation or other source?)

Is there a history of this entity supporting efforts

(a) of this sort and (b) of this size?

Would success in this effort obviate the need to

spend resources on something else, and could

that money be diverted to this effort? How?

Who within the anticipated funding organization

would have to decide

 

 

ACTIVITIES

Secure staff

Organize the community

Create interagency coalition

Hold block meetings

Create a neighborhood watch program

Establish baseline crime data

Improve communication with community police

Create after-school and evening programming

Establish communications with substance abuse

treatment center for outreach programming

 

 

INTERIM BENCHMARKS

Increased community awareness, involvement

Improved coordination with police and treatment resources

OUTCOMES

Lower crime rate

Increased community capacity to solve problems

Improved optimism about the future of the community

SUSTAINING THE EFFORT

Given the goals and approaches outlined, the most

likely funding sources for continuation in City X are:

City CDBG

United Way

Police department

Community foundation

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN: TIMELINE

January: Meet with representatives of likely funding sources; establish

clear understanding about initiative needs and funder processes

March: Make CDBG application

Quarterly: Invite representatives to block meetings

Send data reports and follow up

Gear public relations plan to the need for continuation

Does the potential successor funder agree that it

should be seen in this way?

Under what conditions does it believe future

funding is most likely?

What achievements by the initiative would most

likely lead to future support?

What is the most likely source of that support;

what funding stream, department, pot of money

would most likely be tapped?

What might be a reasonable expectation of the

duration of support?

 

 

 

Organizations and Invidiuals

Cindy Ballard, Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth

Mike Bailin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Carol Berde, McKnight Foundation

Nick Bollman, California Center for Regional Leadership

Linda Bowen, National Funding Collaborative on Violence

Pru Brown, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago

Elizabeth Burke Bryant, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT

Judy Chynoweth, Foundation Consortium

Tom David, California Wellness Foundation

Sid Gardner, Center for Collaboration for Children

Robert Granger, William T. Grant Foundation

Andy Hahn, Brandeis University

Sandy Jibrell, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Otis Johnson, Savannah State University

Ann Kubisch, Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Sally Leiderman, Center for Assessment and Policy Development

Dorothy Meehan, Sierra Health Foundation

Maria Mohica, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund

Susan Notkin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Lori Villarosa, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation

Heather Weiss, Harvard Family Research Project

Mike Weber, Volunteers of America of Minnesota

Garland Yates, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Jan B. Yost, Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts

 

 

 

Books

 

Backer, T. E. Strengthening Nonprofits: Capacity-Building and

Philanthropy. Report prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. Encino, Calif.: Human Interaction

Research Institute, March 2000.

Brown, P., A. Branch, and J. Lee. The Neighborhood Partners

Initiative: A Report on the Start-Up Period. Chicago: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago,

December 1998. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

Brown, P., and S. Garg. Foundations and Comprehensive

Community Initiatives: The Challenges of Partnership. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago, April 1997. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

California Wellness Foundation. 1999 Annual Report.

Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.tcwf.org/annual_1999/.

California Wellness Foundation. Reflections on Our First

Initiatives. Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, September 1999.

Available online: www.tcwf.org/reflections/1999/fall/.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and M. L. Joseph.

The Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family Initiative. The

Challenge of Sustainability: An Interim Report Covering the

Period January 1995–October 1996. Chicago: Chapin Hall

Center for Children at the University of Chicago, July 1997.

Available online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and C. J. Richards.

The Neighborhood and Family Initiative. Entering the Final

Phase: An Interim Report Covering the Period November

1996–December 1998. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for

Children at the University of Chicago, August 1999. Available

online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. President’s Essay, 1998.

Gardner, S., et al. The Case for a “Theory of Resources” as a

Tool to Assist CCIs. Fullerton, Calif.: Center for Collaboration

for Children, California State University, 1997.

Hahn, A. Doing Social Change for a Living. Waltham, Mass.:

Policylink and Brandeis University, August 2000.

Hamilton, R., and M. Shark. A Scan of Membership and the

Field. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute on Comprehensive

Community Initiatives, April 2000.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Evaluation Handbook. Battle

Creek, Mich.: Author. January 1998. Available online:

www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Pubs/.

Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for

Children and Families. Voices from the Field: Learning from

the Early Work of Comprehensive Community Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1997.

Sierra Health Foundation. CPHC Status Report 2000.

Sacramento, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.sierrahealth.org/pdf/status2000.pdf.

Wandersman, A., and J. B. Yost. Results-Oriented

Grantmaking: A Strategy for Foundations to Increase the

Evaluation Capacity of Grantees. Worcester, Mass.: Health

Foundation of Central Massachusetts, November 2000.

Weiss, H. B., and M. E. Lopez. New Strategies in Foundation

What can we do?   programs this group supports Sector: This section helps show the scope of the organisations' actions by describing the sectors in which the organisations operate.  easy to see how many sectors overlap a project that works with the rights of women can be considered to be working in the sectors of women's issues, education, human rights, child welfare, skills training, and even agriculture.

 

what actions need to be taken to meet asp requirements?

 

 

BRIEF NOTE:

IMPLEMENTS the strategies of ASP and facilitates the needs of allied societies as to strengthen them to political allies. THE SOCIAL NEEDS OF ASP. PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INTO POLITICAL PARTNERS, PROGRAMS TO SOLIDIFY POLITICAL ALLIES TO IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES

THESE PROGRAMS INCLUDE PRIMARILY ONGOING INFORMATION ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT DEVELOP FROM THE GENERAL IDEAS.

AF formed out of the diverging aspects of ASP. Where ASP is now more so proposed initiatives. AF actually is the bodies for civil action. Where ICCD and any other nation states which it has interaction, is to implement it's policies on a state level. The two entitiies are different as each deals with a different aspect of the process of social organization. ASP is representative and opinion based; where as AF is informative and social and economic development for baseline social requirements.. ICCD on the otherhand is generally fundamental and sustaining based WI on contrary is a for profit consultancy advisory based, service oriented economic developmental business.

Grantmaking for Children and Youth. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard Family Research Project, 1999.

 

pdf"> http://www.carters.ca/pub/article/charity/2005/tsc0506.pdf.
3 Available at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/cps/cps-021-e.html
4 Terrance S. Carter and Suzanne White. "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities." Charity Law Bulletin No. 26 (November 2003). http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2003/chylb26.htm.
5 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/csp/csp-p02-e.html.
6 Supra, note 4.

SOME QUESTIONS


What responsibilities do funders have to ensure
that projects are equipped to continue when
funding ends?
What are the sustainability expectations that
funders and grantees should have as they
approach an initiative?
How does the design of the initiative—its
duration, size, target issue—contribute to the
ability of participants to sustain it?
How do the sustainability issues vary in
instances of multiple-site initiatives, as opposed
to the funding of a single project or organization?
How does the structure of initiative funding—
required match, local funding partner, size of
grant—influence ownership and post-initiative
planning?
How do the characteristics of the grantee or lead
organization—size, maturity, capacity, structure
—influence the initiative’s continuation
opportunities?
How do the characteristics of the foundation—
local, community, national—affect the sustainability
challenge?
Does the traditional model—a demonstration
proves its worth and is then adopted by a new
funder—still work and, if so, under what
circumstances?

Differing perspectives on the role of foundations
Questions of what “sustainability” means and
what ought to be sustained
Special problems of comprehensive community
initiatives
Foundation actions that bear on sustainability
Suggestions for better ways to achieve sustainability

“Who should
be responsible for sustainability?” often raised
another: “What should be sustained?”

Be  explicit about foundation and grantee commitments

Set clear and realistic expectations

Build capacity

Reduce foundation identification

funding structure

Actively pursue the resources needed

to ensure sustainability

Be more intentional about public funding

sustainability plan

 is there an expectation that the effort will be continued after foundation funds end;

Propose a generalized theory of sustainability for the initiative; Require a localized sustainability plan from applicant sites;

 

Assuming acceptable results, and assuming that

the task will not be fully completed at the end

of the grant period, is it expected that this

initiative will continue beyond the period for

which funding is available?

If so, what level of financial and other resources

will be needed to continue?

What capacity-building measures are needed to

make this initiative sustainable, and how will

those measures be implemented?

What is it about this initiative that is likely to

attract interest and elicit support? (Hint: If this

project is “successful,” whose problems would it

help alleviate, whose mission would be advanced,

who would have a vested interest in seeing it

continue?)

Who are the most likely future funders? (Be

specific. If government, what level of government,

what agency, what funding stream? If private,

which foundation or other source?)

Is there a history of this entity supporting efforts

(a) of this sort and (b) of this size?

Would success in this effort obviate the need to

spend resources on something else, and could

that money be diverted to this effort? How?

Who within the anticipated funding organization

would have to decide

 

 

ACTIVITIES

Secure staff

Organize the community

Create interagency coalition

Hold block meetings

Create a neighborhood watch program

Establish baseline crime data

Improve communication with community police

Create after-school and evening programming

Establish communications with substance abuse

treatment center for outreach programming

 

 

INTERIM BENCHMARKS

Increased community awareness, involvement

Improved coordination with police and treatment resources

OUTCOMES

Lower crime rate

Increased community capacity to solve problems

Improved optimism about the future of the community

SUSTAINING THE EFFORT

Given the goals and approaches outlined, the most

likely funding sources for continuation in City X are:

City CDBG

United Way

Police department

Community foundation

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN: TIMELINE

January: Meet with representatives of likely funding sources; establish

clear understanding about initiative needs and funder processes

March: Make CDBG application

Quarterly: Invite representatives to block meetings

Send data reports and follow up

Gear public relations plan to the need for continuation

Does the potential successor funder agree that it

should be seen in this way?

Under what conditions does it believe future

funding is most likely?

What achievements by the initiative would most

likely lead to future support?

What is the most likely source of that support;

what funding stream, department, pot of money

would most likely be tapped?

What might be a reasonable expectation of the

duration of support?

 

 

 

Organizations and Invidiuals

Cindy Ballard, Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth

Mike Bailin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Carol Berde, McKnight Foundation

Nick Bollman, California Center for Regional Leadership

Linda Bowen, National Funding Collaborative on Violence

Pru Brown, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago

Elizabeth Burke Bryant, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT

Judy Chynoweth, Foundation Consortium

Tom David, California Wellness Foundation

Sid Gardner, Center for Collaboration for Children

Robert Granger, William T. Grant Foundation

Andy Hahn, Brandeis University

Sandy Jibrell, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Otis Johnson, Savannah State University

Ann Kubisch, Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Sally Leiderman, Center for Assessment and Policy Development

Dorothy Meehan, Sierra Health Foundation

Maria Mohica, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund

Susan Notkin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Lori Villarosa, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation

Heather Weiss, Harvard Family Research Project

Mike Weber, Volunteers of America of Minnesota

Garland Yates, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Jan B. Yost, Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts

 

 

 

Books

 

Backer, T. E. Strengthening Nonprofits: Capacity-Building and

Philanthropy. Report prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. Encino, Calif.: Human Interaction

Research Institute, March 2000.

Brown, P., A. Branch, and J. Lee. The Neighborhood Partners

Initiative: A Report on the Start-Up Period. Chicago: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago,

December 1998. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

Brown, P., and S. Garg. Foundations and Comprehensive

Community Initiatives: The Challenges of Partnership. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago, April 1997. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

California Wellness Foundation. 1999 Annual Report.

Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.tcwf.org/annual_1999/.

California Wellness Foundation. Reflections on Our First

Initiatives. Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, September 1999.

Available online: www.tcwf.org/reflections/1999/fall/.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and M. L. Joseph.

The Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family Initiative. The

Challenge of Sustainability: An Interim Report Covering the

Period January 1995–October 1996. Chicago: Chapin Hall

Center for Children at the University of Chicago, July 1997.

Available online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and C. J. Richards.

The Neighborhood and Family Initiative. Entering the Final

Phase: An Interim Report Covering the Period November

1996–December 1998. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for

Children at the University of Chicago, August 1999. Available

online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. President’s Essay, 1998.

Gardner, S., et al. The Case for a “Theory of Resources” as a

Tool to Assist CCIs. Fullerton, Calif.: Center for Collaboration

for Children, California State University, 1997.

Hahn, A. Doing Social Change for a Living. Waltham, Mass.:

Policylink and Brandeis University, August 2000.

Hamilton, R., and M. Shark. A Scan of Membership and the

Field. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute on Comprehensive

Community Initiatives, April 2000.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Evaluation Handbook. Battle

Creek, Mich.: Author. January 1998. Available online:

www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Pubs/.

Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for

Children and Families. Voices from the Field: Learning from

the Early Work of Comprehensive Community Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1997.

Sierra Health Foundation. CPHC Status Report 2000.

Sacramento, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.sierrahealth.org/pdf/status2000.pdf.

Wandersman, A., and J. B. Yost. Results-Oriented

Grantmaking: A Strategy for Foundations to Increase the

Evaluation Capacity of Grantees. Worcester, Mass.: Health

Foundation of Central Massachusetts, November 2000.

Weiss, H. B., and M. E. Lopez. New Strategies in Foundation

What can we do?   programs this group supports Sector: This section helps show the scope of the organisations' actions by describing the sectors in which the organisations operate.  easy to see how many sectors overlap a project that works with the rights of women can be considered to be working in the sectors of women's issues, education, human rights, child welfare, skills training, and even agriculture.

 

what actions need to be taken to meet asp requirements?

 

 

BRIEF NOTE:

IMPLEMENTS the strategies of ASP and facilitates the needs of allied societies as to strengthen them to political allies. THE SOCIAL NEEDS OF ASP. PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INTO POLITICAL PARTNERS, PROGRAMS TO SOLIDIFY POLITICAL ALLIES TO IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES

THESE PROGRAMS INCLUDE PRIMARILY ONGOING INFORMATION ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT DEVELOP FROM THE GENERAL IDEAS.

AF formed out of the diverging aspects of ASP. Where ASP is now more so proposed initiatives. AF actually is the bodies for civil action. Where ICCD and any other nation states which it has interaction, is to implement it's policies on a state level. The two entitiies are different as each deals with a different aspect of the process of social organization. ASP is representative and opinion based; where as AF is informative and social and economic development for baseline social requirements.. ICCD on the otherhand is generally fundamental and sustaining based WI on contrary is a for profit consultancy advisory based, service oriented economic developmental business.

Grantmaking for Children and Youth. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard Family Research Project, 1999.

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

af emergency situations coordination

af environmental development

af health services development

af information technoogy development

af public capacity development

af public resource development

______________________________________

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

af cultural awareness

af education awareness

af human rights awareness

af world peace awareness

______________________________________

 

 

______________________________________

 

 

INFORMATION ON NOT FOR PROFIT

about non profit oragnizations

about workcamps

activitities

af donate material objects

af donating land or facilities usage

af donating money

af donate time

af fundraising

af general information

af get involved

af international development organizations

af volunteering

af volunteering organizations

contacting an organisation

AF lines

LIST: organization emails // list of qualifications // volunteering website links

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS:

 

Approval and clasification of projects housed in WASAP.

Keeping a record of all projects either related in the core or in the subgroup.

Maintaining communications records, membership info, contact information, calender and any other communications/planning related items.

 

 

OLD WASAP TO BE INTEGRATED

William Ashley's Social Awareness Project (WASAP)

WASAP was an orginization founded March 5th 2004 to act as an philanthropic segement of William Ashley interaction with the world outside of business ethics(not for profit organization). WASAP has changed its name and broadened it's mission.

William Ashley started WASAP for extending awarenss and knowledge about environmental and social cohesion  as keys for interactions with the world community.

The organization aims to be aware of society based interests and to keep on a good basis of communication with entities which seem to have an interest in focus areas that are common with AF..

 

Commitment Communication Coordination Consensus Cooperation Creation

Commitment is dedication to the cause.

Communication is sharing your beliefs

Coordination is using communication for initiatives

Consensus is to have an agreement on the initiatives with the whole of the organization

Cooperation is working together to acheive results

Creation is making it happen and achieving what we set out to do.

 

WASAP's Mission is to bring awareness to key issues on a regional, continental and global level, and to coordinate and facilitate resolution to key issues.

 

The method used to accomplish our mission is by connecting, planning and action.

Contact: w_ashley@rogers.com

Some Key Points:

 

How it we handle membership

 

Send an email or letter or talk with a member

 

you can show up at 111 Dover St. Waterloo ON n2j 1z2 Canada at the following times to speak directly with William Ashley.

MONDAY: 1pm - 5pm

TUESADAY: 1pm - 10pm
WEDNESDAY: 1pm - 5pm
THURSDAY: 1pm - 5pm
FRIDAY: 1pm - 10pm

SATURDAY: 1pm - 10pm

SUNDAY:1pm - 10pm

Membership is open to all ages and all walks of life there are no requirements for joining equality on all fronts is a strong value of the organization.

 Membership procedure you can pledge your suppport information on relavent projects will be shared either orally or written, if you have an internet connection you will be able to search online for this information. Meetings are announced by any member and are always optional. The organization is two prong the first is the core structure projects which are ongoing and have the support of all members, the second part is work groups these groups are responsible for smaller projects or ones that all members are not in support of. Membership issues are currently handled by the board which currently only has one seat of the three. If you have any concerns you are suggested to arange a discusion group on the issue and notify the board of directors.

 

 

AF INFORMATION FOCUS AREAS

 

 

 

NOTES POINTS FOR FUTURE REFERENCE AND EXPANSION:

educational seminars,

retrats

public speaking engagement

article writing

volunteer service

delegations wtih synagogues, jewish community centers

 

committted to the conservation of the nevironment

fair trade

improvement of living standards

 

www.alliancebroad.com

outbound@alliancebroad.com

amaudouk@btconnect.com

 

 

awareness raising

assisting volunteers

resources such as medical supplies

information and technology

 

create a world of healthly , educationed and happy cvhildren

clean water to drink

fresh air to breath

 

financial

technical

voluneteer support

 

regional voluneteer training and information packagers

leadership training.

 

info@amigoslink.org

www.amigoslink.org

www.amizade.org

volunteer@amizade.org

 

 

educational adventures

allternative college breaks

alternative family vacations

 

public demonstrations

letter writting

human rights education

fundrasing

indivdiaul appeals

global appeals

deal with the needs of victims of disasters

training for self reliance and self asteem

 

www.amurt.net

amurtglobal@amurt.net

 

paritent healthcare management, rehabilityation, staff trainng.

affordable medication

healthy rural environment...

 

surgical, paediatric wards, theatre

teach and train by apprentiships cooperatives and exchanges

familaiarity with tropical (regional) diseases.

surgeons (orthopaedic, consultant/ surgeon able to perform corrective surgeris for children, manage close and open fractures.. teach and train young genreal practitioners for continuity.

tahbb@yahoo.com

 

 

 

survival health and well being of refugees, displaced persons

rebuild productive lives of dignity and purpose

 

archq@archq.org

www.archq.org

 

info@australianvolunteers.org

 

www.australianvolunteers.org

alleviate poverty among the rural poor.

construction of health posts

bridges,

culverts??? what is a culvert?

schools

community halls

 

www.beso.org

www.bms.org.uk

www.bmsworldmission.org/shortterm

working for peace

advocating justice

www.brethrenvolunteerservice.org

human resource development (disadvantaged children / youth in deprived rural areas

sports

literacy

Information Communication and Technology (ict)

youth sports development resource center (gymnasium , library,  ICT training unit)

environmental management and protection

www.africatrust.gi

mentorship programs

www.grassrootsbridges.org

www.bunac.org

www.bunac.org.uk

study tours

UNESCO

 

?

professional skills for the future

www.cwy-jmc.org

cwy-jmc@www.cwy-jmc.org

www.cciorg.ca

info@cciorg.ca

www.care.org

www.casadelosamigos.org

 

help farmers find markets for products.

 

set up hiv/aids counselling services

 

 

 

 

 

 

avso@bigfoot.com

www.avso.org

(disabled, socially / economically disadvantaged, ethic minorities)

AYAD@austraining.com.au

www.ausaid.gov.au/youtham

 

social reconstruction / renewal

 

March 2005: Volunteers and the Law in Alberta still available

A necessary resource for Alberta non-profits! Volunteers and the Law in Alberta is an essential resource developed to increase awareness of the legal issues involved in incorporating volunteers into your organization. Volunteers and the Law is intended to give you a simple and general overview of the various areas of law and how these areas relate to your volunteer programs, your Board of Directors, and to the volunteers themselves.

Topics include:

• How the Law Can Apply to Volunteers
• Legal Status of a Volunteer
• Use of Special Volunteers (Children, Offenders, Volunteers with Disabilities, Clients as Volunteers, Immigrants and Refugees)
• Legal Responsibilities – Negligence and Limiting Liability to your organization
• Special Care in Special Circumstances (Caring for Children, Giving Advice, Outdoor and Adventure Recreation, Driving, Special Events and Fundraisers)
• Legal Responsibilities of Volunteer Board Members
• Insurance
• Confidentiality
• Human Rights Issues
• Guidelines for Managers of Volunteers


A limited number of books are available from Volunteer Alberta. To order your copy at a cost of $10 (including GST and mailing), please call, or email or fax:

Volunteer Alberta
-Toll Free: 1-877-915-6336
-In the Edmonton and region 780.482.3300
-Email: volab@volunteeralberta.ab.ca


March 2005: Information Sessions delivered by the Charities Directorate (Roadshow)

Charities will be receiving an invitation to the information sessions delivered by the Charities Directorate (the Roadshow) for 2005. The sessions will focus on the Registered Charity Information Return, form T3010A, which has been significantly revised to reflect the changes in the spring 2004 budget and pending legislative changes. In particular, there have been significant changes to the way the disbursement quota is calculated, and these will be covered in these sessions. This year we will also be covering new regulations and sanctions, and new receipting rules and gifting. Updated information on the Roadshow will be added to the CRA website at www.cra.gc.ca/tax/charities/roadshow as it becomes available. There is no charge to attend. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/roadshow/

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate


March 2005: Legalese for charities

Cy-près - Where property is given in trust for a particular charitable purpose and it is or becomes impossible, impractical, or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, the trust will not necessarily fail if the intention of the trust is to devote the property to charitable purposes. The court can apply the cy-près doctrine and direct the property to some charitable purpose that falls within the general charitable intention of the trust.

Fiduciary - Relationship between a trustee/director and a charity.

Fiduciary duty - A duty to act for someone else's benefit exclusively. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law (e.g., trustee, guardian). For charities, this means to accept and hold a public trust to maintain, preserve, and develop the organization's resources to be used for charitable purposes, to ensure that the organization's activities remain charitable, and to manage the organization for the benefit of the public.

Charitable trusts - A legal relationship created for the benefit of a class or the public generally, and established for charitable purposes (e.g., religious, edeucational).

Estoppel - The doctrine under which a person cannot change previously made statements, acknowledged facts or conduct if doing so would be detrimental to another person who has acted on those statements, facts, or conduct.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorateffice and recording studio


March 2005: Can we transfer gifts donated for a specific purpose to our general funds?

If a charity has raised funds or accepted a donation for one of its specific purposes, it cannot simply use these funds for another purpose. However, the charity may transfer funds raised if it clearly indicated while soliciting from donors that excess funds which cannot be used for a particular purpose may be used for another purpose.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate


March 2005: What is an "ecological gift"?

For tax purposes, an ecological gift is defined to be a gift of land, including a covenant or an easement, or, in the case of land in Quebec, a real servitude. The land must be certified by the Minister of the Environment or a person designated by the Minister to be ecologically sensitive land whose conservation and protection is important to preserving Canada's environmental heritage. The recipient of the gift must be Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, a municipality in Canada (including, for gifts made after May 8, 2000, a municipal or public body performing a function of government in Canada), or a registered charity that has been approved by the Minister of the Environment.

Canada Revenue Agency, Charities Directorate

Not-for-Profits and Charities

1. What is a Non-profit?

2. Can Expenses be paid?

3. Are all Non-profits the same?

4. What are the contractual or legislative restrictions?

5. What is a charity?

6. Who regulates Non-profits?

7. Are there things that Non-profits should not do?

 

Liability: The General Part

1. What is liability?

2. What are the sources of liability

3. What kinds of liabilities can arise under Contract?

4. What kinds of liability can arise under Statute?

5. What kinds of liabilities can arise under Tort?

6. What does Limited Liability mean?

7. What about the personal liability of directors?

8. What is the role of insurance?

9. Can insurance be purchased to cover all kinds of liability?

10. What else can be done?

Liability Unique to Non-Profits and Charities

1. Is liability for non-profits and charities any different?

2. Why look to statutes?

3. But what Acts apply to my organization?

4. Under what Act is your organization incorporated?

5. Are there other liabilities under incorporation statutes?

6. What are returns under the Income Tax Act ?

7. Other liabilities under the Income Tax Act?

8. Does the Employment Standards Code apply?

9. What does the Charitable Fund-raising Act cover?

10. How do non-profits and charities keep track of their liabilities?

Charitable Status

1. How does an organization become a charity?

2. Why should an organization become a charity?

3. What are some of the other rules?

4. Are there different kinds of charities?

5. What is a charitable organization?

6. What is arm's length?

7. What are qualified donees?

8. What is a gift?

9. What is a revocation?

10. Further References

Registered Charities: Advocacy and Political Activities

1. Why is it so difficult for charities to speak out for what they believe?

2. What are the general rules?

3. What does political mean in charity law?

4. But surely some of this kind of activity is allowed?

5. What is a Partisan Political Activity?

6. What is the 10% Rule?

7. But what if advocating changes to conditions will further my charity's purposes?

8. What would be an acceptable political activity?

9. But what about getting a request from some level of government to comment on laws and policies?

10. So how does all this affect the disbursement quota?

NEW CRA POLICY ON APPLICANTS ASSISTING ETHNOCULTURAL COMMUNITIES

By Terrance S. Carter, B.A., LL.B.
Assisted by Derek B. M. Ross, LL.B. Candidate
 

A. INTRODUCTION

In June 2005, Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") released a policy statement entitled "Applicants Assisting Ethnocultural Communities" (the "Policy"). The Policy sets out detailed guidelines on attaining charitable status for community organizations that assist ethnocultural communities in Canada. This policy will be of significance to both current registered charities and potential applicants, as it outlines CRA's requirements for attaining registered charitable status under the Income Tax Act (the "ITA"), and indicates which activities it will accept as charitable for that purpose. This Charity Law Bulletin ("Bulletin") summarizes the content of the Policy and comments on some its more important aspects. The Policy is available on CRA's website at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/ethno-e.html.

B. BACKGROUND TO THE POLICY

The Policy was released on June 30, 2005, after CRA solicited comments from the draft guidelines released in September 2004. The Policy acknowledges that ethnocultural groups are an important segment of the Canadian demographic and recognizes the importance of organizations that assist these groups in facing their challenges and disadvantages. The purpose of the Policy is to inform such organizations of the framework within which they can attain charitable status for the purpose of the ITA. The Policy provides the following definitions:

An ethnocultural community or group is defined by the shared characteristics unique to, and recognized by, that group. This includes characteristics such as cultural traditions, ancestry, language, national identity, country of origin and/or physical traits. To the extent that religion is inextricably linked to the group's racial or cultural identity, it can also be recognized as a defining characteristic. In some cases, a group may view its common origin as pan-national, or it may be based on geographic region of origin. These characteristics are the basis on which, generally speaking, one group culturally distinguishes itself from another.

Disadvantage - This is reflected in the barriers some groups face to full and equal participation in Canadian society. They may be disadvantaged socially, politically, educationally, as well as economically. Not all ethnocultural communities in Canada will face disadvantage, nor will ethnocultural communities experience exclusion in the same way.

Ethnocultural work - This term describes the range of activities undertaken by an ethnocultural community, as well as by organizations helping an ethnocultural community or group of communities. It includes helping individuals, as well as addressing systemic issues.


C. REGISTRATION GUIDELINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS ASSISTING DISADVANTAGED ETHNOCULTURAL COMMUNITIES

The fact that an organization assists a disadvantaged ethnocultural group does not automatically render it charitable for the purposes of the ITA. The Policy does not create special status for such organizations, nor does it establish a separate charitable category for ethnocultural work. Rather, organizations engaged in ethnocultural work, along with all other applicants, must show that their purposes and activities fall within one, or a combination, of the four recognized categories of charity: "relief of poverty," "advancement of education," "advancement of religion," and "other purposes beneficial to the community." These must be the exclusive purposes of the organization and should be clearly set out in its governing documents.

Applicants will also be required to show that they confer a tangible benefit to the public at large, either directly or indirectly (referred to as the "Public Benefit Test"). At first glance, this requirement appears problematic for organizations engaged in ethnocultural work, as the scope of their services is naturally restricted to a specific group of people. However, the Policy recognizes this and allows for organizations to focus their services on one ethnospecific group's needs, so long as there is a logical connection between the focus and the benefit provided, the benefit is explained in the application for charitable status, and they do not exclude some individuals or parts of the community with the identified need. In some (but few) circumstances, CRA will allow an absolute restriction of services, but the organization will need to show that such a restriction is directly linked to the charitable purpose and provide research that supports the existence of the unique need.

Note that the public benefit test, the source of much confusion amongst charitable organizations and legal scholars alike, was extensively addressed by CRA in its proposed policy: Guidelines for Registering a Charity: Meeting the Public Benefit Test.1 For the purposes of this Bulletin, it is important to note that the extent and nature of the requirements for the public benefit test may vary according to an organization's charitable purpose as it falls within one of the four recognized categories, as discussed in the following sections.

1. Relief of Poverty

The "relief of poverty" category covers programs or services that have the purpose of alleviating poverty, and it is assumed that such services benefit the public. Under this category, CRA allows the restriction of beneficiaries "according to almost any criteria" so long as the service provides the necessities of life (such as clothing, food, and shelter) or even amenities, which most people take for granted (such as summer camps) to individuals who are economically disadvantaged. Providing services beyond this (i.e. assistance not considered a necessity, amenities not available to most people) or to individuals who are not considered "poor" are examples of unacceptable programs under this category. Organizations, such as community services (e.g. food banks and shelters), ethnocultural organizations and settlement organizations, all of which focus on alleviating the poverty of particular ethnocultural groups, would fall within this category.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "relief of poverty":

- easing or alleviating poverty through the provision of the necessities of life, limited to ethnocultural communities who are poor;
- providing access to the amenities of life that most people take for granted, for those facing exclusion because of poverty;
- providing employment assistance or undertaking community economic development initiatives where most of the members of the community are living below the poverty line;
- helping refugees (considered poor by definition);
- helping immigrants who are poor, and;
- helping those considered hard to employ, specifically refugees, or where the members of the group to be served are living below the poverty line.

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "relief of poverty" category include:

- providing any assistance that is not considered a necessity, or providing access to amenities beyond those which most people take for granted, would not be considered the relief of poverty; and
- providing services to beneficiaries who are not poor.

c) Acceptable Charitable Objects

CRA provides the following example of an acceptable "relief of poverty" object:

To relieve poverty by providing food and other basic supplies to persons of low income, by establishing, operating, and maintaining shelters for the homeless, and by providing counselling and other similar programs to relieve poverty.

2. Advancement of Education

In order for a purpose or activity to qualify as charitable under the "advancing education" category, there needs to be a proper educational forum and the content must be delivered in a structured manner. According to the Policy, groups that may fall into this category include community services providing educational activities to assist disadvantaged ethnocultural groups, or settlement organizations that train and/or educate refugees and immigrants to help foster their integration into Canadian society. Ethnocultural organizations that educate about intercultural relations, or educate the public about a particular culture can also be recognized as charitable under this category. However, CRA draws an important distinction between raising awareness about a particular culture (which is an acceptable charitable activity) and promoting a culture (which is not considered charitable). According to the Policy, inward-focussing activities that are exclusively provided to an ethnospecific group (i.e. for the purpose of preserving language or cultural practices, or those structured as social events/celebrations) lack the requisite "public character" element of a charity and are thus unacceptable programs under this category.

The distinction between "increasing the public's appreciation" and "promotion" of a culture seems to be a blurry, if not arbitrary one, but CRA asserts that it can be determined by looking at the purpose or general orientation of the organization, the activities, and who will benefit from the program. Thus, the Policy suggests that applicants clearly demonstrate how their activities would enhance knowledge or further education for the benefit of the public as a whole.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "advancing education":

- public education and research;
- literacy education;
- employment education/job readiness training;
- cross-cultural education;
- structured life skills training to increase or better realize the capacities or abilities of members of a disadvantaged community;
- increasing the public's knowledge and appreciation of the art, history, language, culture, and traditions of a particular ethnocultural group (or groups), which can include such things as heritage language training and performing groups that are structured as educational;
- cultural centres and festivals, structured to educate (or raise the artistic tastes of) the public about an ethnospecific group or multiple cultures;
- summer camps where the purpose is to teach children about the heritage and ancestral culture of a particular ethnocultural group;
- courses in English or French as a second language;
- citizenship courses;
- other training related to assisting new immigrants or refugees to settle; and
- educating about racial and/or ethnic discrimination or about positive relations.

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "advancing education" category include:

- furthering the interests of a particular culture or community (unless this is an incidental part of fulfilling a group's broader charitable purposes); and
- an ethnocultural festival, cultural centre or summer camp not structured as educational (i.e. those structured as social events or celebrations).

3. Advancement of Religion

An earlier draft of the Policy held that, under this category, if an organization's "undertaking promote[d] the spiritual teachings of the religion concerned, public benefit is usually assumed." However, that assumption could be challenged if the organization's purposes were "more secular than theological," so that opposing abortion and promoting or opposing same sex marriage were listed as examples of non-charitable purposes.

Several groups expressed concern that these sections of the proposed policy statement could be interpreted to mean that activities undertaken for the purpose of advancing religion, but which could also be viewed by some as having a secular purpose, would be characterized by CRA as not fitting within the category of activities that advance religion. Additionally, the earlier draft did not explain the extent to which secular purposes could be pursued, how to distinguish between a secular purpose and a theological purpose, and what the implications would be if a purpose was identified as being both secular and theological in nature. The proposed policy could possibly have had the effect of narrowing the scope within which religion could be advanced and, therefore, might have resulted in a narrowing of the activities and ventures that current religious charities could undertake. It could also have provided an obstacle for new religious charities attempting to qualify for charitable status under the ITA. In response to these concerns, CRA removed these passages and replaced them with the following description of the Advancing Religion head of charity:

42. This category refers to promoting the spiritual teachings of a religious body, and maintaining the doctrines and spiritual observances on which those teachings are based. A religious body is considered charitable when its activities serve religious purposes for the public good. An example of accepted wording for this category would be "to advance and teach the religious tenets, doctrines, observances and culture associated with the (specify faith or religion) faith."
43. Religious worship focused on a specific linguistic community would be acceptable.

These revisions, which represent a more balanced view of the Advancing Religion category of charity, are welcome and presumably will be followed by CRA whend it drafts its policy statement on advancement of religion. A more extensive discussion on Advancing Religion as a head of charity can be found in Charity Law Bulletin No. 58, entitled "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?",2 as well as the paper "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?"3

4. Other purposes beneficial to the community

This category covers a broad range of programs, and as a result will cover the work of many organizations providing services to ethnocultural communities. Such organizations may include: community services or ethnocultural organizations engaged in community capacity-building efforts, and settlement organizations which facilitate the integration of refugees and immigrants into Canadian society. The policy also mentions that both types of umbrella organizations would fall into this category: those that work to improve the effectiveness of other charities, and those established to further a particular charitable purpose. However, CRA notes that activities and services under this heading are generally expected to be open to the public at large.

a) Acceptable Activities

CRA has provided the following examples as acceptable programs and activities under the category of "other purposes beneficial to the community":

- support activities to strengthen disadvantaged communities, i.e. by building their capacity to identify and eliminate barriers to full participation in society;
- social, health, legal, and other community services and outreach to help disadvantaged communities;
- self-help groups;
- advocacy work, such as helping disadvantaged individuals to gain access to entitled services and activities;
- resource libraries;
- senior's residences and services for a specific ethnocultural group, when such a need exists;
- employment preparation, including services designed to help specific groups in need of these services, i.e. foreign-trained immigrants facing barriers to employment in the occupations;
- relieving and preventing unemployment; and
- eliminating racial (including ethnic) discrimination or promoting positive relations in such communities;

b) Unacceptable Activities

Examples of activities that would be considered unacceptable under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category include:

- promoting multiculturalism, which is considered too broad a concept, and therefore, not accepted as a charitable purpose (although aspects of furthering the purposes of multiculturalism are acceptable);
- social events as a purpose; and
- providing assistance to those not facing disadvantage (i.e. employment assistance to immigrants not in need of such services).

c) Acceptable Charitable Objects

The following charitable object would be considered to be acceptable by CRA under the "other purposes beneficial to the community" category:

To "provide education, counselling and other support services for immigrants and refugees in need, including language instruction, employment training, job search activities, translation services and information programs on Canadian culture and life."


D. PROMOTING MULTICULTURALISM AS A CHARITABLE PURPOSE?

The Policy makes an important clarification regarding the promotion of multiculturalism. It affirms that promoting multiculturalism is not a charitable purpose. The notion of promoting multiculturalism is a vague and expansive one, and may encompass a wide range of purposes, programs, and activities that could not be considered charitable. The Policy provides the example of an organization seeking to promote a particular culture. Certainly, such an object would fall within the definition of promoting multiculturalism. However, it would lack the necessary element of altruism for it to qualify as a charitable purpose. Thus, the Policy warns that applicants who include the "promotion of multiculturalism" as their purpose will not be eligible for registration. However, it does recognize that many potentially charitable purposes will have the effect of furthering multiculturalism, and this will not disqualify an organization from attaining registered status. Examples include those that increase the public's knowledge and appreciation of a particular group's art, culture, language, and traditions. These examples are outlined in more detail in CRA's Policy Statement: Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality,3 and readers are encouraged to consult Charity Law Bulletin No 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality" for more information.4

E. ADVOCACY

The Policy also provides guidance for organizations engaged in advocacy work. It asserts that some forms of advocacy are acceptable, so long as the advocacy is connected to the charity's purposes and the work for the issue is only a minor focus of the organization. Charities have the freedom to speak out on issues related to their purposes, but the Policy cautions them to consider whether such activities are charitable, political, or prohibited. For example, where the subject matter is connected to the charity's purposes and based on a well-reasoned position, the charity may engage in a wide range of activities which will still be considered charitable, such as joining a government advisory panel, or distributing research results to the media or Parliament. Even some political activities, such as encouraging the public to contact officials and urging them to change or oppose a law, may be allowable so long as the above requirements are fulfilled and only a limited percentage of the charity's resources are devoted to them. These issues are further dealt with in another CRA policy: Political Activities,5 which is the subject of Charity Law Bulletin No. 26, entitled "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities."6

F. CONCLUSION

The Policy represents an important clarification of what is considered charitable by specifically extending charitable status to organizations assisting ethnocultural communities in Canada. The Policy will affect the way in which the organization's Letters Patent is drafted or amended, and the way in which its application for charitable status is completed. The Policy is welcome, in that it helps to distinguish between charitable ethno-cultural work and the promotion of multiculturalism. This distinction alerts ethnospecific organizations to the fact that, contrary to what may be believed, the promotion of multiculturalism is not in and of itself, charitable. In addition, the Policy provides confirmation that programs and facilities operated for the benefit of persons of a particular ethnic group will also be seen as charitable without necessarily contravening the relevant human rights legislation. Although the Policy is purely administrative, and not binding on the Courts, it will still serve as a valuable guide for both new organizations seeking charitable status, and existing organizations that do or wish to carry out ethnocultural work but may be unsure of whether or not such activities will be considered by CRA to be charitable.

Endnotes:

1 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/consultations/publicbenefit-e.html.
2 Terrance S. Carter and Jacqueline M. Connor. "Advancing Religion as a Charity: Is it Losing Ground?" Church Law Bulletin No. 6 (November 2004) available at http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb06.pdf. Terrance S. Carter, assisted by Anne Marie Langan, "Advancing Religion as a Head of Charity: What are the Boundaries?" (Paper presented to the Ontario Bar Association and the Continuing Legal Committee of the Canadian Bar Association, May 2005) [unpublished]. The paper is available online at http://www.carters.ca/pub/article/charity/2005/tsc0506.pdf.
3 Available at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/cps/cps-021-e.html
4 Terrance S. Carter and Suzanne White. "New CCRA Policy Statement on Political Activities." Charity Law Bulletin No. 26 (November 2003). http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2003/chylb26.htm.
5 Available online at http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tax/charities/policy/csp/csp-p02-e.html.
6 Supra, note 4.

SOME QUESTIONS


What responsibilities do funders have to ensure
that projects are equipped to continue when
funding ends?
What are the sustainability expectations that
funders and grantees should have as they
approach an initiative?
How does the design of the initiative—its
duration, size, target issue—contribute to the
ability of participants to sustain it?
How do the sustainability issues vary in
instances of multiple-site initiatives, as opposed
to the funding of a single project or organization?
How does the structure of initiative funding—
required match, local funding partner, size of
grant—influence ownership and post-initiative
planning?
How do the characteristics of the grantee or lead
organization—size, maturity, capacity, structure
—influence the initiative’s continuation
opportunities?
How do the characteristics of the foundation—
local, community, national—affect the sustainability
challenge?
Does the traditional model—a demonstration
proves its worth and is then adopted by a new
funder—still work and, if so, under what
circumstances?

Differing perspectives on the role of foundations
Questions of what “sustainability” means and
what ought to be sustained
Special problems of comprehensive community
initiatives
Foundation actions that bear on sustainability
Suggestions for better ways to achieve sustainability

“Who should
be responsible for sustainability?” often raised
another: “What should be sustained?”

Be  explicit about foundation and grantee commitments

Set clear and realistic expectations

Build capacity

Reduce foundation identification

funding structure

Actively pursue the resources needed

to ensure sustainability

Be more intentional about public funding

sustainability plan

 is there an expectation that the effort will be continued after foundation funds end;

Propose a generalized theory of sustainability for the initiative; Require a localized sustainability plan from applicant sites;

 

Assuming acceptable results, and assuming that

the task will not be fully completed at the end

of the grant period, is it expected that this

initiative will continue beyond the period for

which funding is available?

If so, what level of financial and other resources

will be needed to continue?

What capacity-building measures are needed to

make this initiative sustainable, and how will

those measures be implemented?

What is it about this initiative that is likely to

attract interest and elicit support? (Hint: If this

project is “successful,” whose problems would it

help alleviate, whose mission would be advanced,

who would have a vested interest in seeing it

continue?)

Who are the most likely future funders? (Be

specific. If government, what level of government,

what agency, what funding stream? If private,

which foundation or other source?)

Is there a history of this entity supporting efforts

(a) of this sort and (b) of this size?

Would success in this effort obviate the need to

spend resources on something else, and could

that money be diverted to this effort? How?

Who within the anticipated funding organization

would have to decide

 

 

ACTIVITIES

Secure staff

Organize the community

Create interagency coalition

Hold block meetings

Create a neighborhood watch program

Establish baseline crime data

Improve communication with community police

Create after-school and evening programming

Establish communications with substance abuse

treatment center for outreach programming

 

 

INTERIM BENCHMARKS

Increased community awareness, involvement

Improved coordination with police and treatment resources

OUTCOMES

Lower crime rate

Increased community capacity to solve problems

Improved optimism about the future of the community

SUSTAINING THE EFFORT

Given the goals and approaches outlined, the most

likely funding sources for continuation in City X are:

City CDBG

United Way

Police department

Community foundation

SUSTAINABILITY PLAN: TIMELINE

January: Meet with representatives of likely funding sources; establish

clear understanding about initiative needs and funder processes

March: Make CDBG application

Quarterly: Invite representatives to block meetings

Send data reports and follow up

Gear public relations plan to the need for continuation

Does the potential successor funder agree that it

should be seen in this way?

Under what conditions does it believe future

funding is most likely?

What achievements by the initiative would most

likely lead to future support?

What is the most likely source of that support;

what funding stream, department, pot of money

would most likely be tapped?

What might be a reasonable expectation of the

duration of support?

 

 

 

Organizations and Invidiuals

Cindy Ballard, Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth

Mike Bailin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Carol Berde, McKnight Foundation

Nick Bollman, California Center for Regional Leadership

Linda Bowen, National Funding Collaborative on Violence

Pru Brown, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago

Elizabeth Burke Bryant, Rhode Island KIDS COUNT

Judy Chynoweth, Foundation Consortium

Tom David, California Wellness Foundation

Sid Gardner, Center for Collaboration for Children

Robert Granger, William T. Grant Foundation

Andy Hahn, Brandeis University

Sandy Jibrell, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Otis Johnson, Savannah State University

Ann Kubisch, Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Sally Leiderman, Center for Assessment and Policy Development

Dorothy Meehan, Sierra Health Foundation

Maria Mohica, William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund

Susan Notkin, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation

Lori Villarosa, Charles Stuart Mott Foundation

Heather Weiss, Harvard Family Research Project

Mike Weber, Volunteers of America of Minnesota

Garland Yates, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Jan B. Yost, Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts

 

 

 

Books

 

Backer, T. E. Strengthening Nonprofits: Capacity-Building and

Philanthropy. Report prepared for the John S. and James L.

Knight Foundation. Encino, Calif.: Human Interaction

Research Institute, March 2000.

Brown, P., A. Branch, and J. Lee. The Neighborhood Partners

Initiative: A Report on the Start-Up Period. Chicago: Chapin

Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago,

December 1998. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

Brown, P., and S. Garg. Foundations and Comprehensive

Community Initiatives: The Challenges of Partnership. Chicago:

Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago, April 1997. Available online: www2-chc.spc.

uchicago.edu/index.html.

California Wellness Foundation. 1999 Annual Report.

Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.tcwf.org/annual_1999/.

California Wellness Foundation. Reflections on Our First

Initiatives. Woodland Hills, Calif.: Author, September 1999.

Available online: www.tcwf.org/reflections/1999/fall/.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and M. L. Joseph.

The Ford Foundation’s Neighborhood and Family Initiative. The

Challenge of Sustainability: An Interim Report Covering the

Period January 1995–October 1996. Chicago: Chapin Hall

Center for Children at the University of Chicago, July 1997.

Available online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Chaskin, R. J., S. Chipenda-Dansokho, and C. J. Richards.

The Neighborhood and Family Initiative. Entering the Final

Phase: An Interim Report Covering the Period November

1996–December 1998. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for

Children at the University of Chicago, August 1999. Available

online: www2-chc.spc.uchicago.edu/index.html.

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. President’s Essay, 1998.

Gardner, S., et al. The Case for a “Theory of Resources” as a

Tool to Assist CCIs. Fullerton, Calif.: Center for Collaboration

for Children, California State University, 1997.

Hahn, A. Doing Social Change for a Living. Waltham, Mass.:

Policylink and Brandeis University, August 2000.

Hamilton, R., and M. Shark. A Scan of Membership and the

Field. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute on Comprehensive

Community Initiatives, April 2000.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Evaluation Handbook. Battle

Creek, Mich.: Author. January 1998. Available online:

www.wkkf.org/Knowledgebase/Pubs/.

Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for

Children and Families. Voices from the Field: Learning from

the Early Work of Comprehensive Community Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1997.

Sierra Health Foundation. CPHC Status Report 2000.

Sacramento, Calif.: Author, 2000. Available online:

www.sierrahealth.org/pdf/status2000.pdf.

Wandersman, A., and J. B. Yost. Results-Oriented

Grantmaking: A Strategy for Foundations to Increase the

Evaluation Capacity of Grantees. Worcester, Mass.: Health

Foundation of Central Massachusetts, November 2000.

Weiss, H. B., and M. E. Lopez. New Strategies in Foundation

What can we do?   programs this group supports Sector: This section helps show the scope of the organisations' actions by describing the sectors in which the organisations operate.  easy to see how many sectors overlap a project that works with the rights of women can be considered to be working in the sectors of women's issues, education, human rights, child welfare, skills training, and even agriculture.

 

what actions need to be taken to meet asp requirements?

 

 

BRIEF NOTE:

IMPLEMENTS the strategies of ASP and facilitates the needs of allied societies as to strengthen them to political allies. THE SOCIAL NEEDS OF ASP. PROGRAMS TO STRENGTHEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES INTO POLITICAL PARTNERS, PROGRAMS TO SOLIDIFY POLITICAL ALLIES TO IDEOLOGICAL ALLIES

THESE PROGRAMS INCLUDE PRIMARILY ONGOING INFORMATION ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT DEVELOP FROM THE GENERAL IDEAS.

AF formed out of the diverging aspects of ASP. Where ASP is now more so proposed initiatives. AF actually is the bodies for civil action. Where ICCD and any other nation states which it has interaction, is to implement it's policies on a state level. The two entitiies are different as each deals with a different aspect of the process of social organization. ASP is representative and opinion based; where as AF is informative and social and economic development for baseline social requirements.. ICCD on the otherhand is generally fundamental and sustaining based WI on contrary is a for profit consultancy advisory based, service oriented economic developmental business.

Grantmaking for Children and Youth. Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard Family Research Project, 1999.