Read the articles and write a personal reflection on them.

timer Asked: Dec 14th, 2017
account_balance_wallet $10

Question description

Please read the following articles and write a personal reflection on them (the word file has suggested questions and sources to use).

Showing critical thinking, moving from experience to critical reflection on ideas and issues.

- Approximately 3-4 pages, double spaced (about 700 words).

- Make sure to use the proper citations (source).

- No Plagiarism.

Journals are a learning tool, a powerful way for you to clarify your own experiences and observations and connect them to new concepts.

Journal is an opportunity to explore hunches, questions, and associations with less emphasis on meeting the polished standards of formal writing.

Some starting points for personal responses & critical responses:

- An example from my own experience of one of the key points here is...

- Some questions raised for me are...

- A quotation that is important for me is... because...

- A new insight I had is...

- A pattern I notice is...

- It is ironic that...

- Some things I didn’t understand are...

- A point I particularly disagree with in this article / our discussion is... because...

- I agree that... because...

- One assumption that... makes is... evident in...

- Some limitations and problems I see are...

- This material is similar to or different from... because...

Suggested questions:

- What is (are) the main point(s) of the article? What are the key ideas?

- What ideas were new / startling / changed your thinking about non-profit organizations?

- What questions did the article raise for you – things that you want to understand or discuss?

Readings: Brock (pdf), DeSantis (pdf). Recommended: Evans & Shields (2014, pdf). More on the issue of advocacy: Woolford & Curran, Mule Some questions for the journal: 1. What does it mean to be a volunteer? Who volunteers, and why? 2. How important are volunteers to our way of life? 3. Do we differ from other countries (such as the U.S. or Europe the developing world)? 4. To what extent should federal and provincial governments compel or encourage citizens or corporations to participate in and support the voluntary sector? 5. What is the role of nonprofit organizations in contributing to the development of social policy? 6. What are some implications of limiting the advocacy activities of nonprofit organizations? DeSantis link: Advocacy Issue Woolford & Curran
ARTICLE PROMOTING VOLUNTARY ACTION AND CIVIL SOCIETY THROUGH THE STATE RÉSUMÉ ❿ On presse les gouvernements de promouvoir le ABSTRACT ❿ Governments are under pressure to promote bénévolat, mais devraient-ils agir comme animateurs de la société volunteer activity, but should governments act as animators of civil civile ou plutôt adopter un rôle plus actif et imposer le bénévolat society or adopt a stronger role, compelling action on the part of tant chez les citoyens qu’au sein des entreprises ? Comment leurs citizens and corporations? How do the roles complement or rôles se complètent-ils ou se contrarient-ils ? Le bénévolat exigé par contradict each other? Does volunteer activity mandated by the l’État sape-t-il la nature même du bénévolat ou contrarie-t-il les State undercut the very nature of voluntary action or thwart the objectifs mêmes qu’il devrait atteindre ? Le présent article examine very objectives it is intended to achieve? This article looks at plusieurs cas où les gouvernements du Canada et de l’Ontario specific examples in which the Canadian and Ontario governments agissent soit pour favoriser le bénévolat soit pour l’imposer, et have acted as enablers and enforcers of volunteer activity, évalue les avantages et les échecs de ces programmes face à leurs assessing the merits and drawbacks of these programs in achieving objectifs. L’article se termine par une brève évaluation : les their objectives. It concludes with a short evaluation of when gouvernements devraient-ils faciliter ou imposer le bénévolat ? governments should act in an enforcing or enabling capacity. Contrairement à la croyance populaire, le bénévolat obligé peut Contrary to popular wisdom, enforced voluntarism may be more donner de meilleurs résultats avec les entreprises qu’avec le successful with corporations than at the citizen level, particularly if citoyen, surtout s’il s’inscrit dans un contexte global. À mesure que it is pursued in the global context. As governments become more les gouvernements s’impliquent de plus en plus dans la promotion involved in promoting volunteer activities, they should be careful du bénévolat, il leur faut veiller à ce que des actions bien that well-intended actions do not inadvertently contribute to a intentionnées ne contribuent pas par ailleurs à détériorer le tissu deterioration of the social fabric. social. (Traduction : isuma 53 ILLUSTRATION: NORMAND COUSINEAU BY KATHY L. BROCK promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state T he contraction of the State has caused the role of societal organizations in the public policy process to become a matter of debate and concern. As governments expect more of the third sector in servicing society and in maintaining the social fabric, the twin issues of the state of the voluntary sector and the obligations of government to that sector have emerged in this debate.1 Civil society under siege, governments under pressure Why have these two issues emerged in policy debates now? First, recent studies have documented the benefits of a vibrant civil society and citizen participation in organized and informal activities. High levels of voluntary activity promote a general sense of social responsibility, build social ties and contribute to a healthy society.2 Governments have a stake in promoting this civic awareness through voluntarism. Second, recent studies have recorded a sharp decline in voluntary activity and the sense of social responsibility on the part of citizens. In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam offers a compelling account of the withdrawal of citizens in the United States from political, social and religious organizations with negative consequences for the health of the individual and society alike. Although the evidence is somewhat more mixed in Canada, there are some signs that the number of people volunteering and the amount of time they give is beginning to decline, particularly among youth.3 Given that volunteer activities early in life promote civic engagement at all levels later in life, this perceived trend bodes ill for the future of civil society and democratic life. Third, the blurring of lines between the government, non-profit and corporate sectors has caused commentators to question the relationship among the three sectors and to suspect that corporations may not be sharing the burden of building a healthy society. As the disparity between corporate statements about public responsibility and corporate decisions is documented, the pressure on governments 54 to encourage a sense of corporate social responsibility increases. International bodies have responded by investigating ways of ensuring corporate responsibility for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and environmental standards.4 In Canada and the United States, governments have considered options such as tax measures, codes of ethics, social audits, partnering and legislation and encouraged partnerships between corporations and community organizations. The question becomes: To what extent should the federal and provincial governments compel or encourage corporations to support and reinvigorate the third sector? These three sets of concerns have induced governments to adopt a more active posture toward civil society. There are two basic attitudes that governments might assume if they are to attempt to invigorate civil society and its institutions. One option is for governments to serve as enablers of civil society, offering incentives for citizens or corporations to become involved in charitable activities. Government inducements could include tax incentives, subsidies to charities and local citizen organizations, the creation of agencies to provide social services and the establishment of volunteer programs. Governments could promote knowledge about the sector and facilitate the transfer of information within the sector. They could also sponsor and provide support for partnerships between the private sector and nonprofit organizations that are to their mutual benefit or offer tax relief for employee volunteer programs. These actions encourage or inspire citizens to give of themselves and their time but allow the choice to rest with the individual or organization. A second option for governments is to require voluntary activity on behalf of particular citizen groups or corporations. “Enforced voluntarism” could entail legislation which directs citizens that they must serve the community in particular contexts or which requires social activity on the part of corporations. The former type of legislation could include mandated volunteer work of prisoners or students, for example. The latter might include legislation requiring social audits or outlining tax penalties where a corporation fails to conform to certain standards or values. The critical point is that these measures mandate participation in what are often thought to be voluntary activities. Choice is removed. Both approaches are being used in Canada. Canada and Ontario take action In an effort to eliminate public deficits, many governments have devolved services and programs previously offered by the public sector to the private and non-profit sectors. As governments have become more enmeshed with the voluntary sector in the delivery of services, as civic trust has declined, and as the strains on the sector have become more pronounced, governments and organizations have turned their attention to building the capacity of the sector and promoting voluntarism in Canada. Three examples of government action are explored here: the initiative being jointly developed by the federal government and voluntary sector organizations; community service in the Ontario schools; and corporate voluntarism. Each is meant to strengthen the voluntary sector and enrich democracy. The first provides an example of the federal government acting as enabler. The second example illustrates the role of the Ontario government as enforcer. In the third case, action is only being contemplated and may involve the federal government acting as either an enforcer or enabler of voluntary activity. The Voluntary Sector Initiative 5 The Canadian government has been at the forefront of the move to build capacity within the third sector and to encourage a spirit of voluntarism among Canadians. Most prominent is the recent initiative, undertaken jointly with voluntary sector organizations, to develop a strategy to reconstruct the relationship between the federal government and the community. In June 2000, the federal government committed $94.6 million to Summer • Été 2001 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state the Voluntary Sector Initiative (vsi) five-year plan with the objective of improving service delivery and government programs through increased support to the sector and increasing the capacity of the sector to meet demands placed on it. The vsi will advise on relationship-building measures including the development of an accord between government and the sector ($10 million); capacity-building measures ($25 million, of which $10 million is earmarked for information generation and Internet use in the sector), a triennial national survey of giving, volunteering and participating as well as specific measures to recruit and train volunteers and staff; and regulatory measures ($7 million) including fairer and more transparent registration of charities, the examination of models for the reform of regulatory institutions and of the restrictions on advocacy within the sector. The government has allocated $30 million to examine means of involving the voluntary sector more effectively in the development of government policies and programs. Structured to ensure efficacy, the vsi is under the stewardship of the Reference Group of Cabinet Ministers selected by the Prime Minister and chaired by the President of the Treasury Board. This group will coordinate government activities with respect to the voluntary sector and advance the dialogue with the sector. A Senior Steering committee composed of members of the Voluntary Sector Roundtable and other voluntary organizations is the sector’s counterpart to the Reference Group. The co-ordinating body for the vsi comprises 16 members, eight being senior officials from the federal government and eight selected by an independent committee of sector representatives in an open process. This committee acts as a liaison and managing body by overseeing the public consultation process, providing feedback to the government and voluntary sector, and by assisting government departments, the sector and the Joint Tables in harmonizing their efforts. Two broad purpose joint tables (working groups with co-chairs isuma Recent studies document a sharp decline in voluntary activity and the sense of social responsibility on the part of citizens. and members drawn equally from government and the sector) ensure maximum collaboration on issues relating to capacity and regulation. Project-specific joint tables advise on matters such as the development of the accord, the National Voluntarism Initiative, information technology and others as needed. To ensure inclusiveness, individual volunteers, smaller organizations and other stakeholders and citizens can engage in the dialogue on the relationship through a Web site and phone line. For the first time in Canadian history, the Canadian government is reaching beyond the department level of interaction to engage the voluntary sector community at a more strategic level. While the two sides are not quite equals in the vsi ( the government retains primary control over areas such as the functioning of the Reference Group of Ministers and the development of legislation ( the vsi enables the voluntary sector to affect substantively policy development and government design. Whether the vsi will be an effective vehicle for reform rests in part on the continuing commitment of the federal government and on the possible future involvement of provincial governments. At this stage, the provinces are being kept informed but are not officially involved, and the ability of the federal government to redefine the relationship is restricted by its limited constitutional authority for the sector. In this process, the federal government is acting as an enabler. It is providing the support and means for the voluntary sector to become involved in a redefinition of the relationship. However, it also is building the capacity of the sector through facilitating the use of technology, generating and transmitting information on the sector and issues within it, helping to recruit and train people through university programs as well as internships, and enhancing accountability mechanisms. In turn, this will build a more robust sector that can reinforce social trust, social networks and common values, and provide support to individuals and a sense of common purpose for citizens. This approach also helps the sector to meet the challenges of the 21st century including globalization, technological changes and the importance of social capital (the capacity and willingness of people to engage in collective, civic activities) to overall prosperity, and to respond to public expectations that the public, private and voluntary sector should work more collaboratively on increasingly complex social and economic issues.6 Although the government retains control over the implementation and legislative definition of suggested reforms, the sector is empowered by 55 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state the process and retains control over the nature of its participation. Community service The Ontario government has also realized the importance of building capacity within the third sector in recent years. In Sustaining a Civic Society (1997), the Premier’s Advisory Board on the Voluntary Sector advised the government to take a more active role in promoting and supporting the voluntary sector within the province. Among its key recommendations were the construction of a new relationship with the voluntary sector through public forums where the sector’s concerns could be heard; the creation of a round table with representatives from government, the sector and other stakeholders; the appointment of a minister responsible for voluntary action; the provision of support to the sector through a community-driven fund, strategic funding decisions and legislative initiatives; and the augmentation of the volunteer force through tax incentives to encourage employers to enable workers to volunteer as part of their jobs and through revisions to the school curriculum to impart the value of voluntary action to youth. The provincial government responded with a series of enabling measures.7 These include the Premier’s Roundtable on Voluntary Action (1998); the Ontario Voluntary Forum to consult with the community leaders on five key themes for the future of the sector (1998); Volunteer Action online to help volunteer organizations use technology more effectively; recognition of volunteer work through Volunteer Service Awards; a screening initiative for volunteers to ensure the safety of vulnerable recipients of services; and $100 million in annual funding to eligible Ontario charities and not-for-profit groups for community and province-wide projects. However, the more dominant view of the provincial government is as one of enforcer owing to two recent, controversial measures. The Ontario government has mandated voluntarism in the secondary school system in two ways. First, the proposed Education Accountability Act sets province-wide standards for instructional time in secondary schools, provides greater accountability to parents and taxpayers, ensures the provision of co-instructional activities, and reduces average class sizes. The Act provides government with Governments and organizations have turned their attention to building the capacity of the sector and promoting voluntarism in Canada. 56 the authority to force teachers to supervise extracurricular student activities as part of their regular duties. The government justified the Act as necessary for increasing the quality of the student experience in light of the recent refusal of teachers to continue full voluntary participation in these activities as a means of protesting government reforms increasing instructional time. The measure extends teachers’ responsibilities to include a former volunteer activity without extra remuneration — enforced voluntarism. Teachers have been publicly protesting the measure as draconian.8 In January 2001, the Minister of Education took a step toward requiring this activity by teachers when she announced the appointment of a five-member advisory group to recommend measures to ensure Ontario students have improved access to these co-instructional activities. Second, and more significantly, the government responded to the 1994 Royal Commission on Learning and the 1997 Premier’s Advisory Board by introducing a requirement in the curriculum for students to volunteer. The Royal Commission emphasized the place of schools within the community and the need to create stronger linkages between schools and community organizations and residents. The Advisory Board recommended that the provincial govern ment introduce Voluntary Action Learning into the schools through means such as a compulsory course credit with an experiential learning component, an optional course, curriculum components and professional development for teachers on volunteer action learning. Voluntary action (community service) learning became part of the provincial secondary school curriculum reforms.9 Since1999, students now must complete 40 hours of community involvement activities as part of the requirements for graduation from high school. Students may choose their own activities according to school guidelines and must track their own activities. Upon completion of the requirement, students submit a form signed by one parent and the sponsor or Summer • Été 2001 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state supervisor of the activity. According to the guidelines, “The purpose of the community involvement requirement is to encourage students to develop awareness and understanding of civic responsibility and of the role they can play and the contributions they can make in supporting and strengthening their communities.” Speaking to the Ontario legislature in November 1999, the Minister of Education emphasized that the purpose of mandatory community involvement is to promote good citizenship but that it also helps students to learn about career choices and establish connections for future employment. The program blends altruism with self-interest. Through these measures, the Ontario government is acting as an enforcer of voluntarism. In both the case of the teachers and the students, it has removed the right of choice from the individual and mandated their activity. The justification of both activities is the enhancement of the educational experience. Corporate voluntarism and social audits Of the three cases discussed here, corporate voluntarism seems least likely to fit the mould of volunteer activity. However, as governments in Canada have begun to revisit their role with respect to the volunteer community and non-profit sector, the relationship of the profit sector has surfaced as an important factor in building civil society. One of the most obvious ways of charting the relationship is through the tax system since charitable donations are tax deductible. Similarly, we have seen the call of the Advisory Board to the Ontario Premier for the introduction of tax incentives to corporations to allow employees to volunteer on company time. A more innovative measure arose in the recommendations of the national Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector (pagvs) chaired by Ed Broadbent. The pagvs forged a strong connection between corporate self-interest and a concern for civil society: “A lively and strong civil society that is built on the trust and cooperation creisuma ated by citizens helping each other and working together has been shown to be linked to stronger economic performance.” The Report notes that although some corporations have been strong supporters of the sector, on the whole, corporation donations to charities only furnish a surprisingly low 1.5 percent of the total charitable revenues. pagvs suggested corporations could meet their responsibility toward the sector by meeting Imagine’s giving target of one percent of pre-tax profits; implementing policies of pure philanthropy not just cause marketing; lending expertise and other forms of in-kind support; providing or assisting with training programs; creating genuine partnerships with voluntary organizations; supporting voluntarism by employees; enhancing dialogue with the sector; and conducting model social audits.10 pagvs observed that the corporations could report their in-kind or financial contributions to the third sector in their annual reports. To this extent, the activity of government would be limited or absent. If it were to act as an enabler, it could provide tax incentives to corporations to promote donations and employee voluntarism or it might provide information to the corporate sector on the voluntary sector and its needs. Similarly, it could encourage corporations to sponsor youth volunteers through a matching program. A stronger measure would involve the use of social audits by corporations. Governments could act as an enabler by promoting knowledge of social audits, pointing out the commercial benefits of being socially responsible, or by shaming corporations with poor records of community participation and social conscience. However, if governments wished to take stronger action still, they could pass legislation requiring social audits. Ed Broadbent calls upon the federal government to serve in this role in his recent study of the democratic accountability of corporations.11 He suggests the federal government should amend the Canada Business Corporation Act to require companies beyond a certain size to undertake social audits that would be available to the public. The requirements of the audits could be developed through consultations with business, labour and non-governmental actors. Compliance could be ensured through financial penalties or sanctions. The social audit is designed to achieve two broad objectives. First, it ensures that the voluntary sector receives investments in financial and human resources it requires for a healthy existence. Second, the audit engages the corporate sector in the maintenance and promotion of the social and civic fabric of society. Community bonds may be strengthened as a result. The federal government has not taken significant steps in this direction. If it does, it must choose whether it wishes to act as an enabler or an enforcer. Fostering civic engagement and democratic responsibility? The question is, do such types of government actions as outlined above bolster the capacity of the non-profit sector and create a more robust civil society? Civil Society and citizen participation Do any or all of these activities achieve the goals of creating a general sense of social responsibility, building social ties and fostering a healthy society? Certainly, the vsi has a strong potential of achieving these goals. First, collaboration between the federal government and the voluntary sector contributes to the fostering of a healthy society. Non-profit sector organizations are participating freely in the process of redefining the relationship, building capacity and redesigning the regulatory framework. Government is providing financial support and building infrastructure within the community to help organizations develop their ability to contribute to the immediate process, to participate in future policy development and to deliver services and programs more effectively. This is invigorating organizations and their volunteers. 57 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state Social audits engage the corporate sector in the maintenance and promotion of the social and civic fabric of society. Second, the vsi process respects diversity within the sector and beyond. The selection process for the vsi was open. Applications for the positions on the joint tables were solicited widely within the voluntary sector and considered by an independent panel. The open phone and Web lines of communication create an opportunity for diverse views to be expressed. Third, the vsi fosters an attachment to the democratic institutions of governance by providing access to policy makers, developing an understanding within the sector of the meaning of the evolution of policy for organizations and how to effect policy changes, and by promising to reform existing institutions to make the decision-making process more transparent and thus credible. The process also brings policy makers at the strategic levels of government into touch with the community, thus sensitizing them to community needs, strengths and weaknesses as they develop programs and devolve authority to the sector. However, there are two dangers which the vsi must be vigilant to avoid. First, as governments and organizations negotiate, an organizational imperative may arise which serves participants from the two sectors well but does not significantly improve services or quality of life. Citizen voices and community-based organizations need to be heard in a meaningful way and not just collected through public access phone lines and Web sites with key decisions being made by the joint table participants as 58 part of their negotiations. Balancing responsiveness with decision making is no mean feat. Second, and perhaps too obvious to point out, intermediary and larger organizations tend to drive the process with smaller organizations dependent on their good will. As the former become stakeholders in the process and the final product, a gulf may open between those agencies and smaller or weaker ones lacking the resources or size to be heard. This could cause a rift in the sector or result in smaller and less central organizations protesting the arrangements as unrepresentative. Some organizations may feel compelled to resort to sensationalist tactics to ensure their perspective is heard more widely. Polarization within the community might damage citizen perceptions and confidence in the third sector and government. The benefits of requiring voluntary action are even less clear. u.s. studies record that while voluntary action learning boosts student self-esteem and personal and social responsibility, its effects on civic participation, political efficacy, democratic values and subsequent volunteer participation rates are inconclusive. Much can depend on the nature of the volunteer experience.12 The experiences are most successful in promoting civic attachment and a likelihood to sustained volunteer activity later in life when the volunteer service is combined with pedagogy that draws the connection between the acts of community service and broader societal values. Given that the Ontario program is loosely structured with the teaching component not strictly tied to the experience, voluntary action learning may not achieve its desired effects. There may be two unintended consequences of mandating community involvement in the schools. First, the u.s. experience has resulted in legal challenges to programs making volunteer work mandatory on the grounds that it violated the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition against involuntary servitude. This challenge is echoed by arguments being made by teachers in Ontario today regarding forced unpaid supervision of extracurricular activities. Whether a legal challenge will arise waits to be seen in the case of teachers or students. Beyond the legal concern, this attitude may reveal an underlying uneasiness that requiring enforced voluntarism is inconsistent with u.s. and Canadian political values, particularly freedom of thought and action. And in the Canadian case, in particular, it might cause citizens to regard the State as forcing actions rather than as acting for citizens. This view of the State is antithetical to the Canadian parliamentary system and more reflective of the u.s. separation of powers. Second, if community service is justified as a means of improving employment prospects, as has been done by the Ontario Minister of Education, it encourages a more selfinterested, if not cynical, approach to volunteering rather than one based on altruism and a sense of social responsibility. While the two may not be exclusive, it might not be desirable to connect them too tightly in the minds of young people. Finally, is 40 hours too much or too little time? Some students argue that it will negatively affect study and work time. However, school administrators have responded that spread over four years, the requirement is not too onerous. A more troubling consideration is whether it is sufficient to inculcate a spirit of voluntarism or to allow for proper training. Indeed, the u.s. studies have shown that sustained community involvement combined with classroom instruction on the experience is Summer • Été 2001 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state associated with the greatest improvements in civic participation. The jury is still out on the effectiveness of social audits in contributing to a healthy social community.13 First, measurement techniques are questionable. Rather than fostering responsible social behaviour, audits may be measuring the perceptions of stakeholders or may be improperly constructed. Second, implementation and monitoring can prove difficult. Third, there is a lack of consensus about what to measure. Despite these concerns, which tend to be technical in nature, there is a growing awareness in Europe, but also Canada and the United States, of the need for social audits as well as a greater corporate role in promoting human rights and fostering civic identity and responsibility. A social audit can enhance a corporation’s reputation and give it a critical edge in international competition as Thomas d’Aquino, President and ceo of the Business Council on National Issues observed to the Broadbent commission. u.s. survey data revealed that 70 percent of the public rate corporate social responsibility as important and 75 percent would pay slightly more for a shirt if they knew that it was not the product of child labour or sweatshops.14 Social audits requiring employee community service enhance the sense of community need and strengthen the basic unit of community, the family.15 Fostering these ties creates a sense of longer-term responsibility in the corporation to its resident community and to the legal norms of the State. While corporations are realizing the benefits of social audits (that include community involvement and volunteer components) to the community, country and to their bottom line, government legislation might expedite the process of implementation of social audits. Legislation could require audits and could establish common standards that have proved elusive to the American corporate community in its attempts to develop a common social audit instrument since the 1970s. This speaks to a need for governments to act as enforcers rather than enablers if isuma social audits are to be adopted by Canadian corporations on the whole. Voluntary activity and the sense of social responsibility on the part of citizens. The vsi is designed to contribute to an expansion of the voluntary sector in the longer term. Specific measures include training and recruiting volunteers, increasing awareness of the sector and opportunities within it, and enhancing the technological capacity of the sector. These measures are particularly vital to maintaining lifelong volunteering. Increased financial and technical support can only assist in this regard. The proposed National Survey on Giving and Volunteering will provide valuable information to governments for when they need to intercede to maintain and promote donations or civic-minded action. For example, the nsgvp indicated that youth volunteering in Quebec is down relative to other provinces. This provides essential knowledge for a strategic intervention by that provincial government. The effects of requiring volunteer action in schools on promoting voluntarism and sustaining a life-long pattern of volunteering are not clear as indicated above. Two additional points need to be made. First, action by the Ontario government may be unnecessary. The stereotype of u.s. youth as being apathetic or unwilling to volunteer and plagued by social challenges was not replicated in the Canadian National Survey which found a two-and-a-half-fold increase in volunteer rates among youth since 1987. Further examination of the beliefs among youth reveal that while they might be critical of politics (92%), they feel better about their communities (33%) and believe they will volunteer at some point (66%).16 The perception of the need for mandated voluntarism to reinforce a sense of social responsibility might be exaggerated in the Ontario case. Second, conflicting policies on the part of the Ontario government aimed at enhancing the quality of education may undercut its objective of encouraging lifelong volunteering on the part of students. As the studies cited above show, students’ future desires to volunteer will be negatively affected if they feel constrained in their volunteer activities or forced to engage in community service activities at variance with their personal preferences. The Ontario program might be avoiding this pitfall by providing flexibility of choice within its requirement for community service. However, a negative effect might still be produced by the powerful example of the struggle between the government and the teachers over mandated extracurricular supervision. Students may receive an inconsistent message regarding the nature of voluntary activities. When governments act as enforcers, they should be careful to ensure that their actions do not act at cross purposes. Social audits of corporations may expand the volunteer force in the short and long term. If legislation requires corporations to account for employee time donated to charitable and community organizations then a ready pool of labour for the sector is created. Similarly, if corporate executives see the advantages to community involvement in recruiting the best and the brightest as Sagawa and Segal suggest, then the basis is created for a longerterm commitment to volunteering.17 Corporations may not be sharing the burden of building a healthy society. The influence of social audits on the corporate contribution to a healthy society requires little more discussion except to note the potency of partnerships and the interrelationship between corporate giving and the vsi and mandatory community service of students. If governments are to pursue the legislative option of a social audit, then they must be very cautious with respect to requiring corporate– nonprofit partnering in the delivery of services and building capacity of the sector. Mandated corporate– nonprofit partnerships are only successful if they are in the best interests of both parties, otherwise they might skew the values and missions of either or both organizations. Further, corporate– non-profit partnerships are most 59 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state likely to occur between larger and better-resourced entities which may increase inequities in the sector and reinforce social problems rather than strengthening the social fabric. Partnerships between corporations and smaller organizations will require a longer-term and more substantial investment by the corporate partner. If the government is to act either as an enabler or enforcer of a social audit that includes these partnerships, then it must tread carefully. The vsi and community service in the schools may have a positive effect on the contribution of corporations to a healthy society. First, the information generation and gathering techniques proposed by the vsi should help increase corporate awareness and understanding of the voluntary sector. As corporations move toward adopting social audits, this information will be valuable to them in making their contributions to the sector. However, it may have a negative consequence if corporations choose to focus their donations to the sector too narrowly, in which case inequities in the sector and social problems could be exacerbated. This was the accusation made at Nortel Networks when it reduced its commitment to the United Way and began targeting its contributions to specific organizations in the science and technology fields. Second, should students choose corporations as the locus for their activities, they will strengthen the ethos of volunteering in those corporations by their example. Conversely, corporate sponsorships of students should help train and develop the potential of our young people for the future. Sponsorships of students could be one measure of social responsibility in the audit. Conclusion: Good intentions... In conclusion, two questions remain to be addressed. When is it preferable for governments to act as enablers or enforcers? The foremost answer is that governments should be hesitant to act as enforcers unless there is some evidence that their actions will contribute to building a healthy society, strengthening the ethos of volunteering and promoting social cohesion. The vsi demonstrates the benefits of government acting in an enabling capacity. Positive action without threats of legislative requirements may significantly enhance the capacity and future health of the voluntary sector. Collaboration works because it is consistent with the values animating the sector. The Ontario example of community service illustrates the dangers of acting to enforce voluntary action. Directed voluntary action may backfire as in the case of the teachers or where students feel compelled to serve. However, in some cases, voluntary action learning may contribute to building both a healthy society and strong volunteer force. For this to occur, governments must be careful to tailor programs to limit unintended consequences. It is not clear whether the Ontario community involvement The perception that mandated voluntarism is needed to reinforce a sense of social responsibility might be exaggerated in the case of Ontario. 60 program is indeed crafted with the required circumspection. Finally, the example of social audit reveals that while enabling actions might be positive, governments may be able to expedite a positive process by taking stronger action and enforcing social responsibility through legislation and tax penalties. A hierarchical, command authority is not antithetical to the traditional values of the corporate sector. Legislation, coupled with consultation over the standards and mechanisms for social audits, may be accepted more readily than expected, particularly when corporations realize the benefits in terms of their economic interests. Do these roles of enabling and enforcing played by governments reinforce or undercut each other? It is clear from the discussion of the role of corporations in building civil society, that both elected programs such as the vsi and directed programs such as community involvement could complement either a voluntary or legislated program such as a social audit. Context affects compatibility. However, when government takes a strong stand and acts as an enforcer, then that stance might overshadow other actions which are gentler and encourage voluntary action as happened in the case of Ontario where the actions with students and teachers dominate over its other initiatives. This may have a subtle negative effect on the relationship between the State and sector. Similarly, the unintended consequence of requiring teacher supervision of extracurricular activities may be that students question a longer-term commitment to volunteering. Governments should be careful to measure programs against one another when intending to act, particularly where the means are stronger as in the case of enforced voluntarism. Governments can play a lead role in supporting and promoting the voluntary sector in Canada. This role may assume the shape of enforcing volunteer principles or simply encouraging them through financial and other forms of support. While governments may require stronger measures with the corporate sector to push it in Summer • Été 2001 promoting voluntary action and civil society through the state the direction that is just now appearing to be beneficial to corporations, governments should tend toward a co-operative approach with individuals and the voluntary sector itself. There, exhortations may be more effective. Above all else, when defining their role in promoting a strong civic culture and improving the quality of life for Canadians, governments should hesitate to adopt coercive measures unless the action is sure to produce a result consistent with the values that have always animated the voluntary sector. Kathy L. Brock is Associate Professor at the School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University Kingston ( This is an abbreviated version of a paper presented to ARNOVA, New Orleans, November 16, 2000. I would like to thank Sara Beekencamp for her excellent research assistance, and the students of my graduate Third Sector seminar, particularly Darren MacDonald, who made me think about the state of youth today and the effects of community service on future generations of students. Endnotes 1. See P. Hudson, “The Voluntary Sector, The State and Citizenship in the u.k.,” in D. Broad and W. Antony (eds.), Citizens or Consumers: Social Policy in a Market Society (Halifax: Fernwood, 1999), pp. 212–24; S.D. Phillips, “Refining Government Relationships with the Voluntary Sector: On Great Expectations and Sense and Sensibility,” Paper presented to the Voluntary Sector Roundtable, November 1995, pp. 1–17; R.D. Putnam, The Decline of Civil Society: How Come? So What? (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development, 1996); J. Rekart, Public Funds, Private Provision: The Role of the Voluntary Sector (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1993); L. Salamon, Partners in Public Service: Government — Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995); J. Wolch, The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary State in Transition (New York: The Foundation Center, 1990). 2. R.D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000). 3. P.B. Reed and V.J. Howe, Voluntary Organizations in Ontario in the 1990s (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Nonprofit Sector Knowledge Base Project, 1999); See also P.B. Reed and L.K. Selbee, Volunteering in Canada in the 1990s: Change and Stasis (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Nonprofit Sector Knowledge Base Project, 2000). isuma 4. J.R. Danley, The Role of the Modern Corporation in a Free Society (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994); C. Forcese, Commerce with Conscience? (Montreal: International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, 1997); D. Held et al., Global Transformations (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999); L.V. Ryan, “Ethics Codes and British Companies,” Business Ethics, Vol. 3, no. 1 (1995); A. Taylor, “The Company and Society: Investing in the Future,” (The Wilder Penfield Lecture, Montreal, 1994). 5. For more information on the vsi, see documents provided by the federal government, National Voluntary Organizations, Voluntary Sector Roundtable and the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy at the following Web sites: http://www.pco– volunteer/reports/ , http://www.nvo– main–e.html , http://www.vsr–, 6. Canada, Voluntary Sector Task Force, Partnering for the Benefit of Canadians: Government of Canada Voluntary Sector Initiative (Ottawa: Privy Council Office, June 2000). 7. For recent initiatives, see index.html. 8. For two sides of the issue, see http://www. nr0005.html and www/issues/eaa2000/brief.html. 9. For details of the requirement, see Ontario Ministry of Education, Policy/Program Memorandum No. 124A, April 27, 1999 at 124a.html. 10. The Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector (pagvs) was established by national voluntary organizations (Voluntary Sector Roundtable) and released its report, Building on Strength: Improving Governance and Accountability in Canada’s Voluntary Sector in February 1999, recommending measures to improve accountability within the sector and strengthen the relationship with the federal government. In turn, the federal government created the Voluntary Sector Task Force (vstf) within the prestigious Privy Council Office, to create a joint tables process with representatives from the sector. This led to the vsi. 11. E. Broadbent, “Democracy and Corporations: What’s Gone Wrong?” The Corry Lecture, Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario, March 14, 2000). He is currently pursuing this issue as a member of the Canadian Democracy and Corporate Accountability project which will survey individuals within the corporate sector, governments, unions, activist groups and the public on the social responsibility of corporations. See www.corporate– 12. For a sampling of the studies, see M.W. Smith, “Community Service Learning: Striking the Chord of Citizenship,” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1994), pp. 37–43; S.G. Forman and L. Wilkinson, “Educational Policy through Service Learning: Reparation for Citizenship and Civic Participation,” Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 21, no. 4 (Summer 1997), pp. 275–286; J.R. Chapin, “Missing Pieces in the Service Learning Puzzle,” Educational Horizons, Vol. 77, no. 4 (Summer 1999), pp. 202–207; A.A. Stukas, M. Snyder and E.G. Clary, “The Effects of ‘Mandatory Voluntarism’ on Intentions to Volunteer,” Educational Horizons, Vol. 77, no. 4 (Summer 1999), pp. 194–201; B. Wildavsky, “Is there harm in having to do good? Mandatory Voluntarism,” American Enterprise, Vol. 2, no. 5 (Sept/Oct 1991), pp. 64–71. 13. See for example, J. Sachs, “Cracking the Shell Game: Implementing Debt Relief for the HIPCs,” Social Development Review, Vol. 3, no. 3 (September 1999); W. M. Lemon, “Social Auditing: Let’s Be Clear What We Mean,” Management Ethics (December 1998); R.B. Dunham and J.L. Pierce, Management (Glenview: Scott Foreman and Co., 1989), pp. 96–131. 14. D. Selley, “Social Accounting and Auditing: Has the Time Come at Last?” Management Ethics (December 1998). 15. S. Sagawa and E. Segal, Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value through Business and Social Sector Partnerships (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2000), pp. 16–17; 36–41. 16. R. Barnard and J. Welsh, Chips & Pop: Decoding the Nexus Generation (Toronto: Malcolm Lester Books, 1998), pp. 14–24; 244–47. 17. Sagawa and Segal, op. cit., note 15. 61
Available online at ScienceDirect Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 Nonprofit engagement with provincial policy officials: The case of NGO policy voice in Canadian immigrant settlement services Bryan Evans *, John Shields 1 Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3 Abstract This paper explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the public policy process in three Canadian provinces. Drawing on thirty one (31) semi-structured interviews with nonprofit and mid-level policy officials (working for a provincial government) in three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan), the place of nonprofit agencies in providing input and voice to policy issues in the area of settlement and integration services is presented. Issues regarding the willingness to use advocacy/voice with government funders, the usefulness of government consultations, strategies used in approaching government, the role of research in making evidence-based cases regarding policy and program change, among other considerations are examined. The assessments provided by key nonprofit actors and government policy officials are used to bring better understanding of the perceived roles of nonprofit organizations in the daily work of policy. # 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction: research context This article explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the public policy process in three of Canada’s provinces. Using semi-structured interviews with non-government and mid-level provincial government policy workers in three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan) the real influence of non-governmental agencies in providing input and voice to policy issues in this policy field at the sub-national level is presented. This study seeks to critically examine the assumption of New Public Governance (NPG) theory that frames policy work as a multi-actor exercise through an exploration of advocacy/voice by nonprofit agencies, the effectiveness of government policy consultations, strategies used by nonprofit agencies in opening policy dialogue with government, and the role of evidence-based research in policy and program change. The assessments of key non-governmental actors and government policy officials of these policy advocacy activities are used to bring better understanding of the role of NGOs in the daily work of policy engagement with provincial governments. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x4199. E-mail addresses: (B. Evans), (J. Shields). 1 Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x6167. 1449-4035/# 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 118 B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 2. Immigrant settlement and integration services The focus of this case study is immigrant settlement and integration services provided by the province but delivered by nonprofit service providers. This makes a particularly compelling case study because there has been a long relationship between government in Canada and nonprofit organizations in the provision of supports for newcomers to this country. This Canadian model of settlement services has generated considerable interest internationally, and has often been seen as a case of best practice. The reshaping of this NGO-government relationship, within the context of New Public Management (NPM) reforms, has in more recent years placed more strain on this form of NGOgovernment ‘partnership’ (Halligan, 2011; Richmond & Shields, 2005). Historically this policy area (settlement services) has been the primary domain of the Federal Government. Even though immigration is one of those constitutionally shared areas of jurisdiction the federal government has led the development of settlement services. A more substantive provincial role, beyond the special role the Province of Quebec has assumed beginning in the late 1960s, in direct support for immigrant settlement within their territory is of more recent origin (Atkinson et al., 2013, 14–15). The greater provincial presence in this policy area has emerged for a variety of reasons. Primary among these have been the impact of neoliberal governance models which have centered on devolving responsibilities. The provincial involvement in these services has however developed unevenly and the place and impact of immigration varies considerably across provinces. Both Ontario and British Columbia have been long standing traditional locations of newcomer settlement, particularly the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver which continue to receive the largest share of incoming immigrants. In fact, more than 70% of the foreign born population in Canada is found in these two provinces (Statistics Canada, 2013, 9). By contrast, Saskatchewan, until recently, struggled to maintain even its domestically born population base, has begun to attract a newcomer population and has undertaken more aggressive recruiting to feed the province’s rapidly expanding labor market. Its share of the annual landings of newcomers, while still very modest, increased from 1.5% (4835) to 2.7% (6890) of Canada’s total between 2007 and 2009 (Saskatchewan Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration, 2009, 4). Overall, Canada according to our latest 2011 Census enjoys the highest proportion of foreign born population among the G8 rich nations at 20.8% (CBC, 2013). While historically immigration and settlement policy in Canada has been largely set nationally, settlement and integration remains inherently a process that takes place at the sub-national level (Vengroff, 2013) this helps to explain why locally-based NGOs have taken the lead in settlement provision. The density and range of NGO settlement service providers in BC and Ontario, particularly in the larger urban areas, have been considerable and the development of settlement infrastructure took strong roots in these provinces by the 1970s (Biles, Tolley, Andrew, Esses, & Burstein, 2011; Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011). Saskatchewan developed much later in this regard and are only now building capacity (Garcea, 2011). Sector wide umbrella organizations in settlement formed at the provincial level in BC (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC (AMSSA)) and Ontario (Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)) in the late 1970s and took a decade longer to emerge in Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant and Settlement Integration Agencies (SAISIA)). Their role in research, policy development and direct mandates for political advocacy varies as well. OCASI embraces all three roles, AMSAA does not do political advocacy, and SAISIA does not have a mandate for either research or political advocacy, although they all do engage in other collective voice and government engagement functions (OCASI & CISSA, 2014: 32, 2–6). The Province of BC was one of the earlier sub-national governments to take on a greater role in settlement and immigration. This was greatly facilitated by an agreement between BC and the Federal Government which started in 1998 to devolve with funding settlement services to the province (Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011, 82–83). Currently however, as part of wide ranging set of Federal reforms to immigration policy this agreement has been canceled and settlement is being ‘repatriated’ back to the national government. This has caused considerable anxiety and confusion among settlement organizations in the province. The Province of Ontario also got a settlement devolution agreement with the Federal Government but the national government has refused to renew this 5 year arrangement. Ontario has had for a considerable period of time a separate department, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), which handles immigration issues (Biles et al., 2011). Saskatchewan by contrast has never had a settlement agreement with the Federal Government and the immigration portfolio has regularly shifted between different ministries (Garcea, 2011). Settlement services are about providing various forms of support and assistance to immigrant populations which help newcomers get established in, and meet their core needs/requirements, for their integration into their new B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 119 homeland. The goal of settlement services is to support immigrants’ short and longer-term needs to make the transitions toward being able to fully participate in the economy and society. Immigrant settlement and integration, and the services associated with these goals are characterized by the following: - Adjustment: acclimatization and getting use to the new culture, language, people and environment or coping with the situation. - Adaptation: learning and managing the situation without a great deal of help. - Integration: actively participating, getting involved and contributing as citizen of a new country (OCASI & COSTI, 1999: Chapter 2, 1). Settlement services tend to be focused in the areas of: (1) language acquisition and proficiency; (2) employmentrelated services; (3) housing; and (4) information workshops and settlement counseling services. Settlement and integration policies are more than just administrative decisions, they are also established programs and practices that provide a general reflection of what the society believes should be the place of immigrants in their communities (Siemiatycki & Triadafilopoulos, 2010). Moreover, these policies point to the warmth of the newcomers welcome (Reitz, 1998) to their new society, and the policies provide something of a blueprint regarding how and by what paths immigrants will be supported in their journey toward accommodation, acceptance and integration. Given that newcomers constitute a vulnerable population, especially since some 70% of them are identifiable minorities, nonprofit organizations and frontline agencies that service this population have a special role to play in giving voice to newcomer concerns and interests to government policymakers. 3. Context setting: NGO advocacy and developments in governance and public administration – a brief overview Advocacy is one of the key roles that nonprofit NGOs play within modern society. Providing a voice to the communities they serve, especially vulnerable ones, is important for democracy and, in the case of immigrants, for their effective integration into society (Evans & Shields, 2010; Richmond & Shields, 2005; Shragge, 2013, 47). Laforest (2001, 8) has defined advocacy broadly as ‘‘the act of voicing the concerns and needs of the constituency, conveying their opinion and representing their interest to the state’’. Carter, Plewes, and Echenberg (2005, 6) have categorized the policy voice role of nonprofit organizations as involving the following categories: ‘‘(1) identifying issues on the policy agenda; (2) developing policy solutions through research and analysis, i.e. policy-ready research; and (3) promoting particular policy solutions’’ which includes mobilizing, protesting and demonstrating, lobbying government and other forms of advocacy including dialoguing with government. One useful way of thinking about nonprofit advocacy is what Creese has called ‘big advocacy’ versus ‘small advocacy’. Big advocacy involves employing a more public form to addressing policy change which includes ‘‘challenging government programs and policies that affect immigrants, refugees and settlement workers’’ (1998, 28). ‘Small advocacy’ concerns activities that involve more ‘behind the scenes’, day to day interface and ‘consultation’ that occurs between state officials and NGO personnel (Creese, 1998, 27). The advocacy on the part of nonprofits that takes place here means taking on something of an insider role where educating officials rather than confronting the state becomes the focus. Of course, as Gormley and Cymrot note, the effectiveness of insider strategies rests on the presumption that meaningful access to government exists and that the NGOs are listened to and have a reasonable ability to actually influence the policy and programming (2006, 104). This study is particularly centered around examining the ‘small advocacy’ role of nonprofits in settlement and integration policy. Wayland reminds us that nonprofit advocacy is about relationships that involve engagement with the state resulting in ‘‘both collaboration and conflict’’ (Wayland, 2006: 1). Insider strategies rest upon a collaboration focus. Jedwab, for one, maintains that in the immigration field that the best and most successful relationships between nonprofits and governments have been constructed upon the foundations of consultation and consensus building rather than competition and conflict (Jedwab, 2002, 77). This, however, presupposes openness and the state accepting nonprofit organizations as partners in a larger policy process. Numerous analysts do not see such an approach as matching current reality (Caragata & Basu, 2013, 329–330; Shragge, 2013), while others see more openness in the Canadian policy process (Burstein, 2010; Tolley, Biles, Vineberg, Burstein, & Frideres, 2011). 120 B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 Clearly the dominant governance paradigm concerning state–society relationships, policy development and state– nonprofit relationships are important for determining the kind of interaction that is likely to shape nonprofit voice. Contemporary Canadian public policy has been guided by neoliberalism which has structured public administration through the adoption of NPM (Shields & Evans, 1998). One significant result has been a marketization of the state– nonprofit relationship where noprofits have been recast as an alternative service delivery agent (Alford & O’Flynn, 2012; Kelly & Caputo, 2012; Shields & Evans, 1998). This relationship has been particularly governed by the state’s use of short term contract financing of programs which nonprofit organizations are compelled to compete for. The relationship between the state and nonprofit service providers is reframed less around policy co-production (Alford, 2002) toward one built on vertical control and accountabilities which actually extend the government regulation of the sector (Phillips and Smith, 2011, 3). Thus, government-funded nonprofits have been characterized as the ‘shadow civil service’ (Laforest, 2011, 37). The use of contract financing has created competitive quasi-markets for service delivery (Mclaughlin, Osborne, & Ferlie, 2002). While this has succeeded in restructuring the nonprofit service sector along quasi-market lines, from a community perspective, many negative consequences have resulted entailing unintended and undesirable outcomes. Examples include competition that leads to significant fragmentation of services; insufficient nonprofit providers to promote effective competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 3); the short-term nature of contracts and their under-financing which compromises the ongoing viability of delivery organizations (Eakin, 2005); and excessive accountability rules that result in more compliant agencies, at the price of excessive administrative costs and the stifling of innovation; all of which seriously compromises optimal service provision. Problems of administrative ‘red tape’ have been identified as helping to ‘kill the nonprofit golden goose’ (Smith & Smyth, 2010). Such administrative accountability challenges have been forcefully raised by the Federal Government’s Blue Ribbon Panel on Grants and Contributions which is supported by the nonprofit sector (Burstein, 2010: 3) but little in the way of adoption of these reforms have yet been forthcoming, especially at the national level. A significant consequence of the contract funding regime for settlement services is that nonprofit NGOs have very limited resources with which to take on their advocacy role. The agencies are further required to engage in competitive bidding against each other in order to win a contract. And there is the additional tension created where there is a ‘‘desire to engage in effective advocacy, with the government as their primary target, yet they depend heavily on government funding’’ (Wayland, 2006, 3). This can result in ‘advocacy chill’. At the Federal level in particular there has been evidence of such a chill and even threats to the charitable status of some vocal NGO advocates (Douglas, 2012; Tides Canada, 2012). Andrew Griffith, a former CIC senior official, makes note of how political staff in Ottawa have been looking closely at nonprofit service providers to ensure that they are not misaligned with the policy priorities of the government (Griffith, 2013). The economic crisis of 2008 which has brought forward a wide ranging austerity agenda has placed additional stress on the NGO settlement sector. Rising levels of unemployment and social dislocation among newcomers has increased demand for services at the very time that settlement funding is being cut (Shields, 2014). This is promoting a widespread restructuring and ‘rationalization’ of government settlement support (Burstein, 2010: 2) which has further taxed the capacity of the sector. Thus the neoliberalization of the nonprofit sector discourages traditional advocacy roles which become framed by government as special interest activities (Evans & Shields, 2010). But the decentralization and devolution of the state has opened up gaps which NGOs can fill. Specifically, as the state’s research capacities have been diminished and the state may be compelled to rely upon more outside input in developing public policy. Within public administration, the limitations of NPM have spurred the promotion of the New Public Governance (NPG) model of an emerging pluralist relationship between the state and non-governmental actors (Osborne, 2010). NPG identifies the need for a shift to horizontal accountability and co-governance while moving away from narrow command and control, rule compliant structures. The end result is policy co-production marked by collaborative relationships in which power is shared and where the advocacy role of nonprofit providers is recognized as an important function (Baldwin & Black, 2008). NPG includes enhanced and more flexible funding supports that have longer time horizons and which promote networks over cut-throat competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 4–6). A consequence of the shrinkage of state policy capacity is the need for a more collaborative and inclusive practice of policymaking (Baskoy, Evans, & Shields, 2011). Partnerships within the nonprofit sector are based on mutual trust and power sharing. However, competitive contractualization and the resulting marketization of the sector has transformed this culture. The movement toward NPG would go some distance in constructing more equitable partnerships and more meaningful and less disruptive B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 121 Table 1 Distribution of settlement services policy officials interviews. Government officials Ontario British Columbia Saskatchewan Total Nonprofit officials 5 5 4 6 6 5 14 17 = 31 accountability measures. The question remains as to whether there is evidence of such a shift toward this NPG paradigm. Examining the nature of the interaction between mid-level government policy officials and NGO policy actors, and the scope given to nonprofit voices in policy, is the focus of this study. The extent and quality of policy interaction at this level should provide some measure of the uptake of NPG approaches to policy governance in the sub-national immigrant services arena. Our findings suggest, however, that meaningful policy engagement between provincial governments and the NGO settlement sector remains limited. 4. Methodology The research presented here employed 31 semi-structured interviews with key informants working for non-profit immigrant settlement services agencies and with policy workers in the provincial government ministry responsible for co-ordinating and developing policy affecting the sector. Consult Table 1 for the breakdown of interviews conducted by province. The government-based interviews were drawn from public servants occupying the ranks of policy and program advisors, analysts and managers involved in various dimensions of immigrant settlement and integration activities. The nongovernmental participants came from a range of not-for-profit organizations whose work engaged immigrant populations as it related to settlement and integration. These nonprofit organizations ranged from smaller frontline immigrants settlement service agencies to large multi-service organizations to organizations with a more explicit research, planning and advocacy mandate. An internet search was used to find potential interview subjects and referrals from earlier interviewees were sometimes used to identify other potential interview candidates. This was a nonrandom sample. The interviews were conducted between the summer of 2012 and May 2013. The interview questions followed a semi-structured format but the interviewer was free to pursue lines of inquiry that arose during the discussion. The interviews were about one hour in length. All transcriptions were coded to identify key themes and issues using a double blind coding procedure. The interviews were not designed to be a statistically representative sample but they do enable us to identify and explore overarching themes, issues and perspectives derived directly from actors engaged in various positions in the policy process. This provides us with a unique opportunity to capture the lived policy experience of these actors and develop a rich and deep level of analysis of the content of the interviews. While the policy capacity of government has been challenged by the shrinkage in the size and resources of the civil service (Baskoy et al., 2011), the advocacy, research and policy capacities of nonprofit organizations have been even more constrained due to strict funding rules and funding cutbacks by governments who are the key source of financing of human and social service nonprofit agencies (Evans, Richmond, & Shields, 2005). Given the lean nonprofit workforce this entails and the continuous pressure to do ever more with less, few nonprofit organizations have the ability to devote staff to dedicated policy positions. Indeed, in the three provinces examined here, 67.2% of NGOs were found to have no staff dedicated exclusively to policy work. In contrast, only 14.5% of government respondents indicated that there were no dedicated policy staff (Evans & Wellstead, 2013, 71). Consequently, for NGOs, policy work is very often performed ‘on the side of the desk’. 5. A qualitative examination of policy interaction in settlement services: emerging themes and issues under ‘voice’ The interviews probed the theme of the place and role of the voice of NGOs in immigrant settlement and integration policy. The goal was to give scope to the voices of those who have experience in engaging with the public policy 122 B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 process. This allowed the identification of a number of sub-themes and issues related to the overarching theme of nonprofit agency voice. While there were different experiences and observations regarding nonprofit actors’ engagement with provincial policy officials, there is also considerable consensus relating to these experiences. Listening to these voices allow for the exploration of a deeper understanding of themes and issues which are not able to be fully captured in the raw numbers of surveys. Interviews can provide us with a sense of the meaning behind and seeing beyond the numbers. In addressing the question of nonprofit voice, the interviews focused on those from the NGO community. However, we also looked at the government perspective. These interviews provide insight into the government understanding and purpose of consultations with non-governmental organizations. To better understand public servants’ perspectives on such issues is important in order to comprehend how closely government and nonprofit-based views correspond, as well as to assess the overall possibilities and limitations regarding the policy impact of nonprofit voice in government. 6. What is consultation with external groups for? Is it effective? (government practitioner perspectives) Gaining a perspective on what government policy officials believe the purpose and objectives of external policy consultation is and how they assess the effectiveness of such, is of immense practical importance for NGOs. Consultations are used for a variety of purposes in government. In some cases they are genuinely about gathering information to inform and shape policy innovation. In other cases, policy directions have been predetermined and the consultation process is more about discovering and overcoming possible obstacles to the already decided direction of government policy. If the consultation takes place late in the policy cycle it is almost always of the later type. Still, it is clear that consultation with the settlement service sector is seen by government policy workers as an important activity. The information and front-line knowledge of settlement services NGOs is viewed by government as very useful to them. These agencies are strategically positioned to observe the needs and conditions of newcomer populations and to enjoy a connectedness and trust in the community in a way that government is not positioned to realize. Interviews with provincial government policy workers testify to this and the complexity of the relationship. A BC government informant acknowledged the value of NGO front-line knowledge noting that the agencies ‘‘have access to a lot of information that we sitting here in our offices typing away’’ do not possess (BCGOV3). An Ontario informant understood consultation with agencies as being useful but cautioned that the government objectives in conducting such consultations may not be aligned to the agencies’ objectives. They observed that the effectiveness of the process ‘‘depends to a certain extent, if you genuinely have been given the mandate to involve stakeholders and have discussions with them’’, this can be ‘‘very helpful in terms of coming to grips with complicated or sensitive policy issues’’. But ‘‘if it is just a kind of tell us where the land mines are, it is less valuable’’ (OntGov1). A second Ontario informant added that a key shortcoming was that these consultations are sometimes intended to meet ‘‘internal needs’’ of the government and serve only to better inform deputy ministers and ministers rather than to inform policy innovation and solve a problem (OntGov2). The interviews with government policy officials did not provide strong evidence of a robust new public governance approach to seeking outside advice in shaping policy. Still, according to government-based interviews, openings do exist in the system where consultation can have an effect and the information about clients and programs remains valuable to policy officials in helping them shape their own construction policy advice. 7. Is the policy consultation process open or predetermined? (nonprofit practitioners) Interviews with settlement agency informants reveal a set of perspectives on the nature and effectiveness of their engagement with government policy officials. With regard to the nature of the policy consultation process virtually all of the agency-based interviewees were of the view that policy consultations were largely predetermined or that there was only ‘‘a very limited degree of openness’’ (OntNGO8). Their experience of policy engagement with government was often simply frustrating. Despite providing what they viewed as relevant information and perspectives that would benefit policy design, this was too often not heeded. NGO informants across all three provinces shared similar observations. A BC informant understood consultation as less than sincere as key issues respecting policy design were ‘‘pre-determined’’ and the only genuine aspect of consultation was concerned with the remaining ‘‘minutiae’’ (BCNGO4). An Ontario informant saw such processes as tightly controlled where the government was not interested ‘‘genuine consultation and partnership’’ (OntNGO8). And a Saskatchewan agency worker did not see any form of B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 123 engagement with the government but rather the relationship was one of command and control where service providers are ‘‘told what to do and that is what we must do’’ (SKNGO1). There appeared to be some provincial variation regarding the level of consultation with BC displaying a greater propensity to engage the service agencies in policy discussions and Saskatchewan the least so. In terms of the NPG image of open and meaningful consultation, the interviews suggest this is far from the reality in the three Canadian provinces. 8. What is more important the political or bureaucratic part of government in the policy process? (nonprofit practitioners) When the question of whether the public service or political side of government is more important in the policy process, the prevailing view from the service agencies was that the political side of government was a more important actor in the policy process than the public service. This conclusion derives from a keen awareness of the political nature of policy-making and the realization that political factors can trump all else. When probed more deeply, however, beyond single statement responses, many service agency respondents provide a more complex answer. A more strategic understanding emerges where identifying which level within government is to be approached, the public service or the political, becomes dependent upon the issue. There is also a realization that while politicians and political staff tend to have relatively short tenure with a policy portfolio, the public service is a constant, and hence it is important to develop good working relationships with them. Which side was more influential varied by province but some balancing of efforts between public service and the political arm was the prevailing view. Ontario respondents, for example, identified the political side as most influential but also acknowledged the public service contribution. One Ontario interviewee responded: ‘‘Political. But bureaucrats are also important as they have influence and they’re more accessible’’ (OntNGO10). A countering view was expressed by a BC agency worker: ‘‘We have found that our ability to engage at the senior civil servant level can, depending on the circumstance, have more influence than going the political route’’ (BCNGO2). Another confirmed this, stating ‘‘the bureaucratic level it is very important’’ (BCNGO1). However, a shift in focus in BC may be underway as another BC respondent observed: ‘‘NGOs in the general area in settlement services have begun to pay more attention to trying to build links with political staff more than public servants’’ (BCNGO5). The difference in views between BC and Ontario interviewees may be explained by the efforts the Ontario government since the Liberals entered government in 2003 to engage the non-profit sector in a cooperative relationship with the Ontario Government. This was formalized in 2010 with the launch by the Liberal Government of the Partnership Project which is promoting mutual respect and more flexible and sustaining partnering with nonprofit providers (Ontario Trillium Foundation and Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, 2011). 9. Use of coalition advocacy (nonprofit practitioners) Settlement service agencies can amplify their voice by joining together within sector wide umbrella organizations. Province-wide umbrella associations for the sector speak with a collective voice for the sector’s service providing agencies. Each of the three provinces have such sector-wide organizations. These sector-wide organizations are generally more effective in gaining access to government as established lines of communication are already in place. It is also easier for government to deal with a single sector voice when consulting on an issue rather than attempting to coordinate consultation with multiple settlement service agencies. A BC informant captured this succinctly saying: ‘‘So the policy engagement work, if it is to be effective, has to be undertaken in more collaborative ways, using provincial umbrella associations and other bodies to promote and engage and set priorities. The effectiveness of developing common messaging or common policy areas within the sector means that it is easier for government to hear what we have to say’’ (BCNGO2). In addition, an important consideration for individual service agencies is that they are not singularly attached to particular positions. Their role as a service provider is typically financed, in whole or in part, through government funds. Being identified as an advocate of a particular policy alternative may make them vulnerable to government sanction. The umbrella organizations are also better placed in terms of employing dedicated staff and resources to enhance capacity for effective advocacy and research – such a level of advocacy capacity is beyond the reach of most service 124 B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 providing organizations. Organizational scale and capacity are related. As a Saskatchewan based informant observed: ‘‘As you are larger you have more voice . . . I believe that you are more noticed yes, or we are more considered, yes. But is it because people are more sensitive or because government is more sensitive or is it because we are bigger? I would say it is mostly because we are bigger’’ (SKNGO1). Moreover, in terms of the external forms of advocacy, so-called ‘Big Advocacy’, that involves public education campaigns, the use of media, and other public oriented activities, the sector wide organizations, for the reasons expressed above, are simply better placed to engage with government. Of course the ‘Small Advocacy’, involving nonpublic and direct communication with government, is less overtly ‘political’ and is a tactic which both sector wide and service organizations engage in. In Canada umbrella organizations in the settlement field are, however, also reliant on government for much of their funding resources, in some cases up to 70% from the CIC alone (information from correspondence with CIC official December 18, 2013; also see Biles et al., 2011: 231). Such funding dependence can make even umbrella organizations feel constrained in their ability to criticize state funders. One point of tension identified in the interviews, was the erosion of trust between service agencies as a consequence of competitive contracting for government funds. ‘‘There’s also the fear of . . . the competition, of we are all fighting for the same money, so you are trying to share a common voice, but then we are trying to steal your funding at the same time’’ (OntNGO10). The tension arises out of the challenge of coming up with a common voice when at the same time settlement agencies are in competition with one another for the same government funding. The short-term project based funding model used in settlement services and elsewhere by government compels organizations to compete with one another for limited funds. As these funds have been cut back further as a consequence of austerity, the competition has become fiercer. This makes it difficult for agencies to cooperate on other fronts. 10. Role of research (nonprofit practitioners) The place of research in policy advocacy was given less emphasis by service agency personnel interviewed here. In contrast, they identified networking to strengthen their influence on policymaking as their most important activity (Evans & Wellstead, 2013, 78). Service provider agencies very often simply lack the capacity to undertake their own research. As one interviewee stated, it was a rather simple reality service agencies in the sector confront: ‘‘the reality being that we have minimal [research] capacity’’ (BCNGO5). This is particularly true for smaller NGOs in the sector, hence their reliance on umbrella organizations to take on such roles. However, the interviews with agency respondents clearly expressed that research was still viewed as valuable, even if it was produced outside of the sector: ‘‘it is difficult for us to come up with research from our organization because we don’t have a research budget . . . so we depend on research that is done by the academics’’ (SKNGO2, 5). One interviewee stressed the importance for the sector to develop an ‘‘evidence based advocacy’’ approach in exercising their policy voice role: ‘‘it’s incumbent on civil society to not fall into the trap of just sort of using opinion and rhetoric, that it is important to have . . . evidence based advocacy’’ (OntNGO8). There was broad recognition of the value that government places on interventions on policy issues that are informed by strong research. It was equally clear that many agencies recognized and lamented their lack of capacity to be more effective in this regard: ‘‘We would wish to have more money for research that we could engage with’’ (BCNGO3). It is significant that it is only the Quebec Government that provides direct funding to NGOs to do research and advocacy so that they can ‘‘carry out social action for purposes of change’’ (OCASI & CISSA, 2014: 15). Other levels of government have been called upon to adopt funding reforms which would support the enhancement of the sector’s research and voice capacities to more effectively engage with government (Burstein, 2010: 2–3). An interesting and important development within the nonprofit sector regarding the research dimension is how many nonprofit organizations have developed links to university research and researchers. The vast majority of the interviewed nonprofit informants indicated that their organizations made active use of university research work that helped inform their advocacy with government. As one informant stated: ‘‘We’re able to access that research [academic collaboration with Metropolis researchers looking at resettled refugees] to help us in the formulation or input of policy development related work’’ (BCNGO2). Moreover, a good number of these organizations have actually joined with academic researchers to conduct their own studies. The work of Metropolis Canada and its regionally based centers of excellence on immigration and settlement was especially singled out as an important source of relevant research and a focal point for nonprofit– academic research partnerships. The Metropolis network composed of immigration scholars and government policy B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 125 and NGO settlement practitioners has been important for deepening the connections between the sectors (Shields & Evans, 2012). The value of university research to the sector is significant. The view of one Saskatchewan respondent is equally representative of views held across provinces: ‘‘If there is a possibility to connect with the university so that we can give more credibility to the research we will do that’’ (SASKNGO3). The benefits to service agencies in the sector are multi-fold. First, given the limited independent research capacity, the ability to make use of existing research and to even partner with academics for targeted studies works to enable service agencies to bring research into their voice role and augmenting their limited capacity. Second, by connecting to university research agencies are acknowledging that their interventions with government are enhanced by adding a stronger research dimension. And finally, by linking with university research, agencies are able to better position themselves in an effort to enhance the validity and effectiveness of their voice in government. In terms of validity of voice this is enhanced because the university connection counter balances, at least to some degree, the idea often held in government that nonprofit views are not well informed by evidence and are value charged and self-interested. Consequently, the interest on the part of agencies to connect with university researchers has become increasingly important. 11. Concluding observations Interviewed public servants and NGO personal report that consulting with non-government agencies, like the NGOs themselves, play a rather constrained role in the formulation of public policy in immigrant settlement services. The experience of settlement services NGOs suggests that policy consultation with government results in only very limited possibilities to influence policy. In the NGO view, most decisions have already been made prior to their becoming engaged in the process. Nonetheless, all sides still see value in NGO-government consultation as it keeps lines of communication open, government policy officials receive important information on newcomer communities and their settlement and integration, and NGOs can have important impacts in shaping program design and delivery at the operational level. NGOs recognize that the policy process is inherently political in nature. In fact it is this political character which makes the exercise of NGO voice in the public arena highly problematic. Since settlement sector NGOs are dependent on government funding for program delivery NGOs are very hesitant to bite the hand that funds them. The restructuring of government financial support for settlement agencies into a competitive contract funding model guided by NPM axioms has stripped away much NGO capacity to make independent decisions with respect to spending. Nonprofit bodies too often come to be seen as ‘special interest’ organizations and government consultations with the NGO sector are often hollowed out as a consequence. The cold hand of advocacy chill remains very evident among settlement sector organizations. While developments, such as the weakening of government policy capacity and the hesitant and limited take up of NPG ideas in government policy circles, has sometimes made outreach to and consultation with NGOs somewhat more desirable, the structures of neoliberal governance models remain embedded in Canadian provincial government and consequently NGO voice remains muffled. There is, however, a strong desire among nonprofit immigrant settlement organizations to amplify this voice in the service of the communities they serve. They have worked to do this by greater use of coalition advocacy through sector wide umbrella organizations and partnering with academics to bring more of an evidence-based approach to amplify their voice. These measures have been limited in their effectiveness, however, because of the enduring legacy of neoliberal governance. Service provider agencies, nonetheless, continue to value the importance of their voice role. Much of this voice is, however, expressed through the use of ‘small advocacy’ activities over more public and critical ‘big advocacy’ approaches. Nonprofit organizations have attempted to amplify their voice by adopting collective voice strategies such as the utilization of umbrella organizations for advocacy. They are also seeking to augment their research capacity by partnering with university researchers. Both government policy workers and their agency-based counterparts recognize the value of research for evidenceinformed policy advice. Settlement sector organizations remain very interested in and have made investments, even with their limited resources, in research in an effort to enhance their capacity to engage in more strategic policy interventions with government. As noted in the interviews. NGOs make use of research including qualitative evidence in their policy interventions. The use of more evidence-based advocacy interventions is also helpful in mitigating the claim that they are value charged ‘special interest’ policy interventions. 126 B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 The NGO settlement sector has a policy voice which it is attempting to amplify. This effort, however, is restrained by a number of factors. This includes the enduring legacy if NPM, an austerity agenda which threatens NGO government financing, the considerable level of restructuring of the settlement service delivery, and the rapid and significant changes to immigration policy at the Federal level in Ottawa that has been bereft of consultations with the public or government and NGO stakeholders (Alboim and Cohl, 2012; Aliweiwi and Laforest, 2009). Some opportunities exist to increase the volume and effectiveness of NGO voice in policy in immigrant settlement. There is increasing dialogue within some policy and government circles regarding the need to engage more widely and in more meaningful ways with actors in policymaking, with sub-national levels of government often leading the way. Early evidence of this can be found in forums such as the National Settlement Council and after a 10 year absence the ‘‘Vision 2020 National Settlement Conference’’ (2013, a national conference involving multilevel stakeholders with the purpose of discussion possible future pathways to settlement programming in the context of immigration reform. The annual National Metropolis Conference is also a forum where government policy officials and NGOs are able to connect on safe neutral ground to build connections and share ideas (Shields & Evans, 2012). It is also important to note that the grounded knowledge that nonprofit organizations hold about immigrant newcomers and their settlement and integration in Canada and in local settings means that nonprofit settlement sector organizations will remain important to the policy process. This is particularly the case at the provincial level of government given that immigration will continue to be central to regional economic development and demographic sustainability objectives and that immigrant settlement and integration occurs at the sub-national level. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for generously funding this research project as well as the contributions of our Research Assistants, Olivia Cimo and Farah Prasadcolah. References Alboim, N., & Cohl, K. (2012, October). Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies. Toronto: Maytree. Alford, J. L. (2002). The necessity and difficulty of trust in partnerships between government and non-government organisations. International conference on knowledge, networks and joined-up government, International Political Science Association: Research Committee on Structure and Organisation of Government, Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Centre for Public Policy39–56. Alford, J. L., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Aliweiwi, J., & Laforest, R. (2009). Citizenship, immigration and the new conservative agenda. In R. Laforest (Ed.), The new federal policy agenda and the voluntary sector: On the cutting edge (pp. 137–153). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Atkinson, M., Béland, D., Marchildon, G. P., McNutt, K., Phillips, P. W. P., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Governance and public policy in Canada: A view from the provinces. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Review, 71(1), 59–94. Baskoy, T., Evans, B., & Shields, J. (2011). Assessing policy capacity in Canada’s public services: Perspectives of deputy and assistant deputy ministers. Canadian Public Administration, 54(2), 217–234. Biles, J., Tolley, E., Andrew, C., Esses, V., & Burstein, M. (2011). In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 195–246). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Burstein, M. (2010). Reconfiguring settlement and integration: A service provider strategy for innovation and results. Ottawa: CISSA/ACSEI Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance Alliance canadienne du secteur de l’établissement des immigrants. infocentre/2010/007_1e.pdf. Caragata, L., & Basu, S. (2013). Civil society and the vibrancy of Canadian citizens Canadian studies in the new millennium, (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press304–345. Carter, S., Plewes, B., & Echenberg, H. (2005). Civil society and public choice: A directory of non-profit organizations engaged in public policy. Toronto: Maytree. CBC. (2013). Canada’s foreign-born population soars to 6.8 million. CBC News, May 8. Creese, G. (1998). Government restructuring and immigrant/refugee settlement work: Bringing advocacy back in. RIIM Working Paper Series, No. 98-12. Douglas, D. (2012). Thoughts on advocacy and the role of service organizations. CERIS Blog, November 7, 2012/11/07/advocacy-service-organizations/. Eakin, L. (2005, March). The policy and practice gap: Federal government practices regarding administrative costs when funding voluntary sector organizations. Ottawa, ON: Voluntary Sector Forum. B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127 127 Evans, B., & Shields, J. (2010). The third sector and the provision of public good: Partnerships, contracting and the neo-liberal state. In C. Dunn (Ed.), The handbook of Canadian public administration (2nd ed., pp. 305–318). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Evans, B., & Wellstead, A. (2013). Policy dialogue and engagement between non-government organizations and government: A survey of processes and instruments of Canadian policy workers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 60–87. Evans, B., Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). Structuring neoliberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging new modes of control and the marketization of service delivery. Policy and Society, 24(1), 73–97. Garcea, J. (2011). Settlement and integration in Saskatchewan: Evolution of organizational roles, completeness and capacity. In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 133–164). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Cymrot, H. (2006, March). Strategic choice of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122. Griffith, A. (2013). Policy arrogance or innocent bias: Resetting citizenship and multiculturalism. Toronto: Anar Press. Halligan, J. (2011). NPM in Anglo-Saxon countries. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 83–96). Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co. Hiebert, D., & Sherrell, K. (2011). The integration and inclusion if newcomers in British Columbia. In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 77–101). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Jedwab, J. (2002). Representing identity: Non-formal political participation and the role of the state in Canada. Bringing worlds together seminar proceedings (pp. 73–94). Kelly, K., & Caputo, T. (2012). Community: A contemporary analysis of policies, programs and practices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Laforest, R. (2001). Funding policy capacity. 30th annual ARNOVA conference. Laforest, R. (2011). Voluntary sector organizations and the state: Building new relations. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Mclaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2002). New public management: Current trends and future prospects. London: Routledge. OCASI & CISSA. (2014). The role of immigrant and refugee serving umbrella organizations in settlement and integration. Toronto: OCASI. February 6. Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) & COSTI. (1999). The development of service and sectoral standards for the immigrant services sector: Discussion document Retrieved from: Ontario Trillium Foundation & Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. (2011). The partnership project: An Ontario government project to create a stronger partnership with the not-for-profit sector. Toronto: Government of Ontario. partnership_project_report.pdf. Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge. Phillips, S., & Smith, S. R. (2011). Between governance and regulation: Evolving government-third sector relationships. In S. D. Phillips & S. R. Smith (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector: International perspectives (pp. 1–36). New York: Routledge. Reitz, J. G. (1998). Warmth of the Welcome: The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). NGO-government relations and immigrant services: Contradictions and challenges. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 6(Summer/Fall (3/4)), 513–526. Saskatchewan Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration. (2009). Saskatchewan statistical immigration report. Regina: Government of Saskatchewan. Shields, J. (2014). Constructing and ‘liberating’ temporariness in the Canadian nonprofit sector: Neoliberalism and nonprofit service providers. In R. Latham, V. Preston, & L. Vosko (Eds.), Liberating temporariness? Migration, work and citizenship in and age of insecurity (pp. 255–281). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Shields, J., & Evans, B. (1998). Shrinking the state: Globalization and the ‘‘reform’’ of public administration. Halifax: Fernwood. Shields, J., & Evans, B. (2012). Building a policy-oriented research partnership for knowledge mobilization and knowledge transfer: The case of the Canadian metropolis project. Administrative Sciences, 2, 250–272. Shragge, E. (2013). Activism and social change: Lessons for community organizing (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Siemiatycki, M., & Triadafilopoulos, T. (2010). International perspectives on immigrant service provision. Toronto: Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto. Smith, S. R., & Smyth, J. (2010). The governance of contracting relationships: ‘Killing the golden goose’. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 270–300). London: Routledge. Statistics Canada. (2013). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada: National household survey, 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Catalogue No. 99-010-X2011001: Tides Canada. (2012). Defending advocacy and dissent in Canada. Tides Canada, September 27: Tolley, E., Biles, J., Vineberg, R., Burstein, M., & Frideres, J. (2011). Introduction: Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada. In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 1–16). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Vengroff, R. (2013). Implementing immigration policy: Provinces and states in comparative perspective. Public lecture for the Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy, Saskatchewan March 6; u-tube video: Wayland, S. V. (2006). Collaboration and conflict: Immigration and settlement-related. Advocacy in Canada. Policy Matters, No. 26 Toronto: CERIS, June.
Mulé (2011) Vol. 2, No 1 Spring / Printemps 2011 5 – 23 Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l’économie sociale Advocacy Limitations on Gender and Sexually Diverse Activist Organizations in Canada’s Voluntary Sector Nick J. Mulé York University ABSTRACT Registered charities are restricted when engaging in advocacy, whereas Canadian nonprofits face a far more difficult time when fundraising. The impact of such limitations on Canadian gender and sexually diverse1 activist organizations is one example of the implications on Canada’s democratization process. Despite the efforts of the Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI), and updated political activity policies, Canada lags behind both the U.K. and U.S. in recognizing and legitimizing advocacy as an important contribution to its democratic process. An organized challenge of the system at the political and legal level is called for to address this issue. RÉSUMÉ Les organismes de bienfaisance enregistrés font face à des contraintes lorsqu’ils défendent une cause, tandis que les organismes sans but lucratif rencontrent de nombreuses difficultés pour amasser des fonds. L’impact de ces contraintes sur les organisations militantes de genre et de sexualité diversifiés n’est qu’un exemple de répercussion sur le procédé de démocratisation du Canada. Malgré les efforts déployés par l’Initiative sur le secteur bénévole et communautaire (ISBC) et malgré la mise à jour de politiques sur l’activité politique, le gouvernement du Canada a du retard par rapport à ceux du RoyaumeUni et des États-Unis en matière de reconnaissance et de légitimation de la défense de causes en tant que contribution importante à son processus démocratique. Pour aborder cette question, nous sommes amenés à remettre en question le système de façon méthodique sur les plans politique et juridique. Keywords / Mots clés Activism; Advocacy; Gender and sexually diverse populations; Voluntary sector Militantisme; Défense d’une cause; Populations de genre et de sexualité; Secteur bénévole 5 Mulé (2011) INTRODUCTION This article looks at how Canada regulates the voluntary sector with regard to charitable purpose and political activities in determining charitable status and the ability to advocate for social change. Viewing advocacy as an integral aspect of the concept of charity, I explore how such a premise is aggravated by the doctrine of political purposes. The Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI) in which the Canadian government engaged in joint talks with the voluntary sector is referenced, and updated political activity policies by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) are examined and analyzed. The population focus is specific to Canadian gender and sexually diverse activist organizations, yet the findings have implications across the voluntary sector. Through interviews and content analysis, this paper exposes the limitations placed on Canada’s voluntary sector regarding advocacy due to restrictive regulations (Brooks, 2001; Hall et al., 2005; Pross & Webb, 2003; Scott, 2003; Webb, 2000) and how gender and sexually diverse advocacy groups are disadvantaged regardless of voluntary sector status. Organized efforts to advocate and lobby for social change in Canadian society on the part of minority and disenfranchised groups in the voluntary sector are limited by regulation (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, 2003a). The legal status of voluntary organizations (e.g., charitable, or nonprofit incorporated) constrains the extent to which they may advocate or lobby for change.2 Although it has been argued that charitable regulations have expanded to include clarification on permitted political activities (Elson, 2007/2008), I contend that these changes represent incremental improvements at best, while limitations persist. Underscoring such limitations is what is termed in the legal literature as the “Doctrine of Political Purposes.” This doctrine draws a fine line between political and charitable purposes, deeming the latter ineligible for charitable status if its objects are heavily based upon the former (Parachin, 2008). A critical deconstruction of a series of historical judgments on legal cases of this matter have been critiqued for falling short of legal justification (Brooks, 1983; Carter & Crawshaw, 1929; Gladstone, 1982; Michell, 1995; Parachin, 2008; Webb, 2000; Wright, 1937), particularly with regard to charities’ advocacy work in furthering public benefit (Cotterrell, 1975; Dunn, 2008; Fridman, 1953; Ontario Law Reform Commission, 1996; Parachin, 2008; Sheridan, 1973). Ultimately, what I bring into question are the limitations placed on charities, and by extension nonprofits, in the voluntary sector. Regulatory constraints concerning political speech and expression based on charitable works limit participation in the political process of democracy (Dunn, 1996). So, why are charitable activities delineated from political purposes such as reforming the law (Dunn, 2008)? This paper is predicated on the role of charity as involved in community engagement and the creation of a civic voice that is permitted to enter the political engagement process on a level playing field, both within the voluntary sector and between sectors (e.g., private sector) as part of a healthy democracy. Such a premise questions why civil society–based organizations that wish to advocate within a social justice mandate are not permitted to do so within the context of registered charity status and its associated benefits. NONPROFIT ADVOCACY Two role dichotomies have been identified within the voluntary sector: an increased role in service delivery, much of it redirected from the public sector; and the role of organizations that challenge the system (government) through social change and associated funding concerns (Lindsay, 2001; O’Connell, 1996). Yet, because there is a voluntary sector dependency on private sector, and particularly public sector, funding of core activities and projects, the level of advocacy activities is limited. This is further exacerbated 6 Mulé (2011) for state “advocacy structures” (i.e., arm’s-length governmental bodies) due to a conflict between program effectiveness and repeated program mandate changes by government funders (Malloy, 1999). Even when there is a delineated difference between the voluntary sector group and the state, partnerships that form between the two create an environment in which advocacy activities become muted. This is due to voluntary sector “community” partners, who are awarded service provision contracts that make them accountable to both service recipients and the state (Basok & Ilcan, 2003; Walzer, 1995). Voluntary organizations enter contractual agreements that impose restrictive governance (Phillips & Levasseur, 2004), in essence institutionalizing the relationship with negative implications on advocacy and autonomy (Laforest & Phillips, 2001). The subsequent impact is one in which actors within the voluntary sector increasingly become overly responsible service providers at the expense of being advocates for social justice (Ilcan & Basok, 2004; Laforest & Orsini, 2005). Some such actors form collective identities representing agreed-upon interests, creating political agencies that counter dominant groups and political discourse (Jenson, 1993, 1995; Kymlicka, 1996). Such collective voices demand a form of citizenship that includes not only benefits but also a right of representation both to and by the state (Jenson & Phillips, 1996). The gender and sexually diverse populations have formulated such groups in Canada, with many having attained charitable status. Historically, Canadian lesbian and gay activists have had to carefully weigh their strategies between philosophical leanings and pragmatic achievements (Adam, 1995; Rayside, 1998; Ross, 1995; Warner, 2002). Regardless of which strategies are chosen, the concept of explicit representation (Jenson, 1995) is an important one to the gender and sexually diverse movement (Mulé, 2006; Smith, 2005a), reflected in the demand for infused recognition in policy (Mulé, 2005). Distinct from the legal justice of human rights protections for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals—yet still absent for transsexuals, transgenders, and intersex3—there is much to focus on with regard to social justice for all these populations (Kinsman, 1987, 2006; Mulé, 2006; Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002). The legalization of same-sex marriage and the right to adopt can create a false impression of “equality,” particularly when the gender and sexually diverse face and experience numerous social justice issues. These social justice issues include bullying and bashings, stigmatization and low self-esteem, and employment barriers; STIs such as HIV/AIDS; and broad health concerns such as depression, substance use, addictions, and risk of suicide. Intersectional concerns may be age-based, involving children, youth, adults, and seniors who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT); ethno-racial cultural conflicts; (dis)ability challenges; and religious-based crises. The current neoliberal environment discourages local gender and sexually diverse organizations from engaging in advocacy activities, creating a focus on service provision (Carroll & Ratner, 2001; Smith 2005a, 2005b). The gender and sexually diverse movement at the federal level has taken a legal approach, reinforcing individualism and class politics in line with neoliberalism (Smith, 2005b). Thus, despite legal recognition for some,4 the specified and particularized needs of the gender and sexually diverse communities from a social justice perspective continue, and as such full citizenship in civil society remains elusive (Sears, 2005). Social justice work by NGOs is often hampered by capacity concerns (Laforest & Orsini, 2005) of which gender and sexually diverse social justice groups are not exempt, operating in under-resourced environments in terms of funding, personnel, volunteers, and time. This can have a negative impact on their capacity to address policy concerns in a timely and appropriate fashion. This neoliberal environment, coupled with a history of oppression and disenfranchisement (Adam, 1995; 7 Mulé (2011) Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002), has resulted in a systemic lack of recognition in policy (Mulé, 2005, 2007), reinforcing the marginalization of gender and sexually diverse populations. Critical social work theories (Fook, 1993; Moreau, 1979, 1990; Moreau & Leonard, 1989; Mullaly, 2007) recognize the dialectical relationship between the state and its structures with individuals and their communities in that both benefits and oppression can be experienced (Allan, 2003; Pease & Fook, 1999). On the one hand there is the attainment of recognition (via charitable and/or nonprofit incorporated status) to address a social issue via service delivery. On the other hand there is the frustration of not being able to address the “causes of the causes” due to limited advocacy opportunities. Specific to gender and sexually diverse populations, queer liberation theory (Altman, 1971; Bronski, 1998; Vaid, 1995; Warner, 1999; Warner, 2002) speaks to agency utilized by individuals and organized social movements that recognizes, respects, and dignifies their difference as a valid contribution to the diversity of society, contributing to a project of emancipation as undertaken by progressive members of the LGBT communities. This liberation strategy is distinct from the norm within the membership of the LGBT communities who are inclined to work within structured systems toward neoliberalized notions of acceptance and respectability (Duggan, 2003; Richardson, 2005) and are thus far less inclined to question such systemic structures and their implications on cultural diversity (Mulé, 2006, 2008). A fused critical queer liberation and critical theory lens identifies limitations, questions the status quo, and seeks systemic change through emancipation. Premised on such a lens, what is the impact of existing CRA policies on advocacy/political activities on charities, and by extension, nonprofit civil society organizations such as those in gender and sexually diverse communities? METHODOLOGY Data gathered for content analysis in this study targeted existing policies, standards, and guidelines reviewed from a structural systemic perspective inclusive of current regulations on the Canadian voluntary sector particular to advocacy, political activities, and recognition of diversity in Canada between April 2001 and May 2010. The Internet served as a major source in the gathering of these data. This critical discourse analysis focuses on interviews conducted with leading Canadian gender and sexually diverse social justice organizations and how they are implicated by the regulation of Canadian charities.5 “ADVOCACY” AND THE CONCEPT OF CHARITY At the core of the relationship between charity and social justice is the legitimacy of advocacy activities. The extent of advocacy activity by charities has been historically and legally restricted based on the doctrine of political purposes. What is argued in this paper is that if charities are to effectively address their mandates they must take on the “causes of the causes” that frustrate their ultimate purpose, and this requires the ability to advocate for social reforms. By placing advocacy restrictions on charities, their work is often reduced to service provision, and the capacity to affect the social changes required to adequately address the very issues the charity has been created to address is lost. Thus, I will argue that restricting nonpartisan advocacy is antithetical to a charity’s capacity to fully carry out its good works. From a legal perspective, the doctrine of political purposes has enormous influence on this issue, establishing the principle that advocacy activities by charities are incongruous. Doctrine arguments are based on tradition and legal authority, the incapacity of the judiciary to rule on public benefit as derived from political purposes (Drassinower, 2001), and the ascription of differentiation between charity and politics (Parachin, 2008). Such arguments conceptualize charities as needing, for the most part, to 8 Mulé (2011) separate themselves from political matters. Political matters are often controversial, as though charities and their good works are incompatible with controversy (Harvie, 2002; Sacks, 1960). The very essence of issues experienced by the gender and sexually diverse communities has been seen by many as political and controversial, yet these communities are not alone in the voluntary sector as being deemed as such. What is posited here is a concept of charity that permits nonpartisan political activity involving advocacy that is in keeping with a charity’s purposes. This argument is premised on the principle that, based on the importance and relevance of their work, charities have a valuable voice to contribute to society through the democratic process. Placing advocacy restrictions on such charities, regardless of their mission or where they are positioned on the political spectrum, limits their freedom of speech and expression, and curtails their ability within the democratic process to reform law (Dunn, 1996, 2008) or engage in influencing social change. CRA POLICIES In 2003, the CCRA implemented a new policy statement, Political Activities, that defines advocacy as, “demonstrated support for a cause or particular point of view. Advocacy is not necessarily a political activity, but it sometimes can be” (CCRA, 2003a, p. 15). Political purposes in this policy is based on the legal definitions, “to support a political party or candidate for public office; or to seek to retain, oppose, or change the law or policy or decisions of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country” (CCRA, 2003a, p. 16). The policy extends to political activities, giving charities more leeway in conducting public awareness programs. This includes explicit communications, calls for political action, and intentions of activity toward retaining, opposing, or changing a law, policy, or decision at any level of the Canadian government or a foreign country (CCRA, 2003a). Also, this policy implemented a sliding scale of expenditures for political activities ranging from 10% to 20%, based upon revenue levels of charitable organizations. Charities with revenues in excess of $200,000 are capped at 10% and otherwise vary with income down to the lowest category (less than $25,000) at 20% (CCRA, 2003a). This change contrasts with the previous across-the-board 10% expenditure limit. The CCRA subsequently issued a policy statement Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality (CCRA, 2003b) that essentially broadens the definition of charitable purposes to include organizations that promote or educate about racial equality, work to eliminate racial discrimination, and foster positive race relations in Canada. Thus, the promotion of racial equality is now recognized by the CRA as analogous to mental and moral improvement, which falls under the fourth charitable purpose of “other purposes beneficial to the community.” Organizations could also qualify under the purpose of “advancement of education.” The rationale provided in the policy for this expansion cites both U.K. and U.S. policies, but selectively zeroes in on race relations issues, ignoring the broader anti-discrimination policies that exist in both countries. More recently, the CRA issued another guidance document, Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (2010), in which upholding human rights is considered charitable under all four heads (see above) and can be considered a charitable purpose in its own right under the fourth head, “other purposes beneficial to the community that are considered charitable at law.” At the outset, this guidance appears to be more comprehensive than the more specified focus of “promoting racial equality,” yet it too has its limitations. Three gender and sexually diverse organizations in Canada, each operating with different nonprofit models, offer insights into how they function under voluntary sector regulations. Their respective mandates and means of pursuing social justice for the gender and sexually diverse dictated which model 9 Mulé (2011) each settled for in order to meet their purposes. Egale Canada is a national multi-issue LGBT rights nonprofit organization, which set up a charitable arm to allow it to pursue its advocacy work under the former and public education work under the latter in order to reap the benefits of the charity system. This model notwithstanding, the restrictions on advocacy are no less felt: I mean it’s—obviously it’s a headache. And it’s an administrative headache, in terms of having to run parallel organizations when you have limited resources. So, there are huge issues with respect to it. And the tax receipts, the filing, the administrative stuff is a nightmare … It restricts what we can do as an organization … Because when you want to raise money for a court case, people don’t get a tax receipt, and a lot of people donate because of tax receipts … It takes us away from our advocacy work, because we constantly have to figure out where we’re going to get our next dollar in order to advance LGBT rights … So, I think it’s another way of tying our hands, with respect to advocating for LGBT rights in Canada … we’re certainly not given any encouragement or help from government in advancing human rights. (Egale Canada Representative, September 9, 2010) The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (CRHC), also a national LGBT rights organization with a focus on the broad health and well-being issues of these populations, sought and received registered charity status. From its process in attaining such status to its ability to carry out its purposes, the role of advocacy has been impacted: [O]ne of the problems that we ran into initially was in our application for charitable status with Revenue Canada. We had to end up changing some of our purposes to remove terms like “advocacy,” so we had to change that to “educate” in order to get our charitable tax status … Certainly it affected the language and in some ways it seemed to me to be a little petty to change the word “advocate” to “educate,” to basically say the same thing, just a change of word … the problem we had around our mandates and mission statements with Revenue Canada certainly delayed us getting charitable tax status so that was problematic … It certainly causes us to be careful about the advocacy work we do I mean, certainly, when we’re dealing with government, and I think that we’ve tried to do a bit of advocacy with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to again get them to address the health issues. And there are Revenue Canada’s rules that one has to be careful around the amount of lobbying that they do, certainly political lobbying or what they consider to be political lobbying … I think at times that they’re problematic. We work with our community to solve our own issues; but governments at all levels also have the responsibility to address our populations’ issues, so I think at times the [political activity] rules have the capability of hamstringing organizations. (Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition Representative, May 22, 2009) The provincially based Queer Ontario (successor to the now dissolved Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario [CLGRO]) is a multi-issue progressive, radical nonprofit group that advocates for LGBTQ Ontarians’ rights. Strong adherence to their mandate for advocacy and political activities have caused CLGRO/Queer Ontario to question how the voluntary sector is structured and critique the inherent limitations placed on social justice groups: 10 Mulé (2011) You see this is how groups such as our predecessor CLGRO and our current entity Queer Ontario came to the decision to be nonprofit organizations and not formally seek charitable status. These organizations both had “advocacy” right in their respective mission statements. Both were and are highly principled organizations that are strongly committed to their goals and values. We always had a strong sense then, when we were CLGRO, and even now as Queer Ontario, that we will not compromise on advocating for the rights of LGBT people from a progressive queer perspective. Thus, we were not prepared to reshape ourselves to fit governmental regulations at the expense of our work. Now, this is not to say the consideration of becoming a charity wasn’t taken up, because it was within CLGRO but ultimately not pursued because it was apparent our mission statement would raise red flags with CRA. It was at this point that CLGRO started raising questions about the system. Why is advocacy, or does advocacy raise alarm bells for the government? Why would fighting for the rights of LGBT people in Ontario not be seen as charitable? Is this not a human rights issue? Why are human rights issues not a concern? (Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario/Queer Ontario Representative, October 3, 2010) As is further discussed in the next section, the intricacies and nuances of Canada’s charity policies maintain a conservative ideology that does not necessarily embrace change. It can at minimum contain, if not outright constrain, the progressive dynamic voices of its voluntary sector, regardless of whether those voices are coming from the conservative or liberal ends of the political spectrum, as all are restricted by the doctrine of political purposes affecting the sector. DISCUSSION Operating from the premise that the voluntary sector (and the varying organizations therein: charities, nonprofits, etc.) has an important role to play in contributing to social justice, critical social work theory calls on actors in civil society to be accountable to those whom they serve (Dominelli, 1997; Fook, 1993; Mullaly, 2002). Such accountability is not reserved for service provision only, but includes addressing systemic and structural issues that can create and perpetuate social injustices for individuals and communities (Carniol, 2010; Adams, Dominelli, Payne, 2009; Mullaly, 1998). This is a deeper level of accountability that goes beyond merely tending to the symptoms of social problems known as “band aid solutions” and getting to the root of issues known as the “causes of the causes” via advocacy for social change. Yet, it is precisely at this juncture that the values of social justice conflict with current CRA policies. Social justice, which values fairness, equality, equity, dignity, and diversity, for example, is not always aligned with the parameters of legal justice. This is not to say the pursuit of social justice (i.e., human rights) is uncontroversial, but rather part of the role of civil society in a democracy is to identify, raise, and educate about such issues and to grapple with them as a charitable purpose that will ultimately benefit society. Canada’s parliamentary democracy neither facilitates nor encourages political activism, particularly when compared to the U.S. republican democracy (Belfall, 1995). The structural apparatus that underpins the voluntary sector, in essence, restricts the extent to which charities may undertake advocacy activities. By extension, the resources of nonprofits are restricted as they cannot issue tax receipts for donations, negatively implicating their ability to fundraise. 11 Mulé (2011) These systemic limitations are of particular relevance to the gender and sexually diverse communities who only attained legal recognition in human rights legislation based on sexual orientation (Adam, 1995; Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002) over the past 35 years in Canada but are still pursuing gender identity rights. Long-fought advocacy achieved these legal victories, but now with most human rights battles having been won on the legal justice front, there are many more challenges on the social justice front. Complicating these challenges is the observation that the gender and sexually diverse communities are non-monolithic. Queer liberationists (e.g., Queer Ontario) are considered the most progressive segment of the gender and sexually diverse communities for their discontent with the status quo, their challenging of heterosexist hegemony, and their demand for recognition and legitimization based on difference. As such, advocating for a liberationist type of social justice within a larger neoliberalized gender and sexually diverse community (Duggan, 2003; Richards, 2005; Smith, 2005b)—Egale Canada, for example—that seeks acceptance, respect, and the opportunity to assimilate (hence working with the system) proves challenging (Mulé, 2006) for queer liberationists. The latter find themselves contesting the very political activity restrictions the CRA outlines by undertaking such social justice advocacy. Although the federal government is slowly broadening its interpretation of the four heads of charity, and particularly of purposes beneficial to the community, the CRA’s means of doing so continues to be conservative and restrictive. The 2003 policy document Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality (CCRA) was curious in that this commendable guidance was nevertheless limited to the one social location in the absence of so many others in multicultural Canada. What underscores the design and development of this policy is an implicit ideologically driven heterosexist discourse that fails to acknowledge or recognize gender and sexually diverse populations. It would be another seven years before the CRA would issue its document Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (2010). In both cases the jurisdictions of the U.K. and U.S. are cited as having similar policies and in both cases the CRA was selective in what it chose to highlight. Given that legal precedent establishes that charitable purposes are premised upon the formal policy acknowledgment of an accepted public benefit, and that generalized anti-discrimination work and the promotion of human rights has been accepted as such in the U.K. and U.S., Canada’s initial restricted focus on anti-racism and its more recent and conservatively named Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (CRA 2010) could better reflect the breadth of Canadian human rights legislation (ILGA, 2000) and its potential for expansion (CCEW, 2002a, 2003b; CCRA 2003a, 2003b; Charity Commission News, 2003; IRS, 2002). Both of these policies place a heavy emphasis on upholding existing law, underscoring the limitations on its Political Activities policy (CCRA, 2003a) that charities operate under. In addition, a review of the permissible purposes and activities of the aforementioned two policies emphasize education/service provision, preaching, research and analysis, and public awareness as acceptable. Although these activities do verge on advocacy, charities cannot explicitly pressure the government to enact or alter legislation. The CCRA’s Promotion of Racial Equality policy document (2003b), with its named sole focus on the elimination of racial discrimination, falls short of, and thus is contradictory to, the broader parameters of Canadian human rights legislation. For example, opposing homophobia and heterosexism would also be conforming to existing laws, yet this is explicitly absent from this policy. The CRA’s Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (CRA, 2010) expands the terrain to include other minorities such as the sexually diverse (e.g., lesbians, gays, and bisexuals). However, this policy’s implicit stance of providing a public benefit based on existing law excludes minorities who are not legally protected from discrimination. Therefore, minorities based on gender identity, such as transsexuals, transgenders, and 12 Mulé (2011) intersex, would fall outside the purview of this policy given their lack of protection in Canadian human rights legislation. The representative system in Canada, contrary to both the U.S. and U.K., has not adapted to interestfocused groups and their representation in the democratic process (Pross, 1986). Given this, how do voluntary sector regulations ensure that all charitable purposes are respectful of Canadian human rights legislation? It would be beneficial if the CRA adopted what the U.S. and the U.K. currently have. Both countries include definitions in their charitable purposes that broadly address discrimination and promote human rights, domestically and abroad, as a valued contribution to democracy and social development. And although the U.K. and U.S. also have similar limitations on political activities, the iteration of their respective policies is not nearly as constrictive. The CRA’s Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (2010) focuses on the limits rather than the potential achievements of the policy. In Canada, advocacy legitimacy is based upon tax rules rather than broader principles of democracy, resulting in an unclear concept of advocacy premised on highly restrictive court definitions (Phillips, 2003b). Yet it is noteworthy that the CCRA made an attempt to expand both its definition of permissible political activities and its corresponding expenditure limits (CCRA, 2003a). The former contributes to a clearer understanding of the extent to which charities may engage in advocacy work involving political activities and the latter is an attempt at levelling the internal field of charities with regard to resource expenditures of larger versus smaller charities. Although this policy provides some degree of clarification regarding political activities, its impact is rather limited in the absence of an expanded definition of charitable purposes. A mathematical calculation of the expenditure limits reveals a valiant attempt at addressing the imbalance of influence based on the size of charitable organizations, but one with limited success as larger charities are disproportionally advantaged. The attempts of CRA to further clarify what is and is not permissible for charities to engage in regarding human rights, political activities, and thus advocacy can be described as meagre at best, for such policies continue to be undermined by the persistence of the doctrine of political purposes. A doctrine has been developed through the courts over the past few centuries based on a series of legal test cases on the role of political purposes, often conflated with advocacy, in the work of charities. Attempts at distinguishing charity and politics (i.e., partisan versus nonpartisan politics, political activities, lobbying, advocacy, and influencing the public) via jurisprudence have been found to be inconsistent, with some cases being superficially justified and others historically inaccurate (Parachin, 2008). The rationale for this doctrine includes being a time-honoured practice, the authority of the law as it currently stands, judicial incapacity to rule on public benefit derived from political purposes (Drassinower, 2001), and charity and politics being described as merely “just different” (Parachin, 2008). Although the doctrine allows for a certain amount of political activity, what remains elusive to charities is the indeterminate line at which such activity no longer is permissible. This dilemma is further complicated by the asserted incompatibility of charity and controversy (Harvie, 2002; Sacks, 1960). The inconsistency of the doctrine of political purposes completely negates the reality that for some charities controversy will be at the core of their purposes. This issue also intersects with the concept that promoting a point of view is political while the advancement of religion is charitable and the tension that lies therein (Parachin, 2008) is only mentioned here as this issue is much greater than the purposes of this paper. Advocacy and the LGBT movement in Canada The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition, Egale Canada, and Queer Ontario are three of a limited number of gender and sexually diverse organizations that take up political advocacy work, and as such they are 13 Mulé (2011) at the forefront of the LGBT movement in Canada. These three gender and sexually diverse organizations each operate under different models within the voluntary sector. The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition sought and obtained charitable status, but not without having to revise the iteration of its mission and having to closely monitor its advocacy activities as a result. Egale Canada essentially runs as two organizations, one of which is established as a registered charity. This not only doubles the administrative work and limits its focus on advocacy, but also requires it to closely self-monitor the activities that are advocacy based so as not to attract suspicion about its purposes. Queer Ontario quite consciously opted to be a nonprofit organization due to advocacy being an integral part of its mission, and based on its predecessor’s (CLGRO) work on the issue both internally and to a limited extent within the VSI (see earlier CLGRO/QO quote). Yet Queer Ontario operates on a very limited budget due to this decision. In essence, what is revealed here is that regardless of their operational models, all three are experiencing limitations in being able to fully carry out their respective mandates involving advocacy work. The implications for the progress of the gender and sexually diverse movement are concerning. Although the limitations expressed can be extrapolated to other social justice movements within the voluntary sector, for the gender and sexually diverse their general oversight and awkward referencing during the VSI (VSI, 2002a) and resulting CRA policies (CCRA, 2003b; CRA, 2010) demonstrate an ongoing sense of not being fully recognized. Analytically, the themes of power imbalances to cultural repression, from discriminatory privilege to subjective politics and systemic bias, both within the voluntary sector and its regulators are worthy of closer examination in four contexts. First, the limitations inherent in Promotion of Racial Equality (CCRA 2003b), and the way the VSI structured and referenced racial and cultural groups, both excluded numerous other groups protected by Canadian human rights legislation. Second, the non-recognition of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals as a cultural group defined by sexual orientation is culturally repressive and limiting. Third, ignoring legally unprotected gender minorities such as transsexual, transgender, and intersex people sets up a systemic bias based upon privilege (CRA’s 2010 Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration). Lastly, by focusing narrowly on definitions of racism and racial discrimination (CLGRO, 2003) or upholding current human rights laws, these policies undermine the experience of inequality felt by numerous minority groups and individuals with intersectional minority status. In essence, the kind of barriers gender and sexually diverse populations face in general society is mirrored in the voluntary sector’s review and current structure. Ultimately, this can hinder attempts at reducing homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism in Canadian society. To be adequately heard within Canada’s democratic society, gender and sexually diverse communities require the capacity to advocate on a level playing field. This lack of capacity is reflected in the absence of a formal concerted voice coming from gender and sexually diverse communities across Canada. Although Egale Canada had identified the Voluntary Sector Initiative as an issue (Egale Canada, 2003), it did not take any formal steps to address its concerns at the time, partly due to a preoccupation with attaining same-sex marriage rights. CLGRO, because of its limited resources, was only able to monitor the VSI process, make submissions to the CRA’s 2003 proposals on political activity and the elimination of racial discrimination (CLGRO, 2003), and host a community forum. CLGRO has since dissolved and its successor Queer Ontario (2010) lists advocacy and activism within the voluntary sector as one of its numerous concerns: [P]eople are not fully aware of the complexities of the voluntary system and how it works, including people within the LGBT communities.… This speaks to the kind of 14 Mulé (2011) in-depth analytical processes CLGRO would engage in, that many other LGBT groups didn’t. It’s why we became interested in the process of the Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI). Even there, had we the resources to contribute more time and attention to it, we would have, but ultimately we only provided feedback on guidelines CRA produced in the midst of the VSI and we also hosted a public forum in our communities on the issue. And as it turns out, even that limited input on our part, turned out to be the only input from an organized LGBT body, as far as we know. (Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario/Queer Ontario Representative, October 2, 2010) Because of how charities are regulated, efforts to change laws and/or government policies and influence public behaviour and community opinion, on the part of all of its actors, is highly controlled and restricted (IMPACS, 2001b; IMPACS & CCP, 2002). This restrictive atmosphere keeps registered charities and the people they serve systemically oppressed. The lack of recognition of gender and sexually diverse populations within broader voluntary sector policy only further silences their voices and limits their impact in affecting social change outside the courts. Even beyond gender and sexually diverse populations, the current Conservative government has created a hostile environment for organizations that engage in advocacy work (Brennan, 2010; Ward, 2010). Implications for the voluntary sector The current political environment is an unfortunate one for the broader voluntary sector as it will require political will at the federal level to address the changes required to better acknowledge the importance of advocacy in the work of the sector. The limiting effects on advocacy work undertaken by the gender and sexually diverse communities can be extrapolated to the voluntary/nonprofit sector at large. Although the Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector, under chair Ed Broadbent, brought this issue to the government’s attention and CRA policies were subsequently updated to reflect broader policy changes, no federal party has taken up the explicit issue of advocacy and its limitations in the voluntary sector (Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector, 1999). Legally, charities have been generally conceptualized as separate from advocacy and associated political activities as argued in the doctrine of political purposes (Parachin, 2008). Challenges to these legal constraints are required—with the plural emphasized—as some specific cases have done just that (see Parachin, 2008). Clearly more is required if the broader legal context is going to shift. A major disadvantage to nonprofits without charitable status is their inability to raise funds in the absence of “credibility” that comes with being a charity. What will instigate such changes will be a collective voice of charities and nonprofits within the voluntary sector that are most directly affected. Ideally, a collaborative effort on the part of the major sectors (public, private, and nonprofit) could encourage a concerted change, yet this scenario is highly unlikely given differing interests and losses that would be felt by some in levelling the field. The most affected organizations (recognizing that not all are affected) will need to organize and inform themselves, then strategize on how and where to call for a reconceptualization of charities and nonprofits that see the value and importance of advocacy as an integral and indispensable part of their work for social justice within Canada’s democratic system. CONCLUSION Although several attempts have been made to modernize the voluntary sector in Canada, this study found that the designation of charitable purpose, the lack of definition of “advocacy,” and what is 15 Mulé (2011) considered permissible political activity restricts both registered charities and nonprofits in their participation in policymaking. Contributing to these restrictions is how the registered charities are regulated under the Income Tax Act and an adherence to the doctrine of political purposes. Furthermore, this paper’s focus on gender and sexually diverse activist groups, as one example of a social justice–seeking constituency, with mandates of social change, found that regardless of status, they were all negatively affected by advocacy regulations. Shortcomings were found in the CCRA’s Promotion of Racial Equality policy (2003b), which simultaneously highlights redressing one form of discrimination and oppression while omitting all others. This stand contradicts Canadian human rights legislation and the CRA’s recent (2010) Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration policy. The price paid for silencing minority and disenfranchised groups is that some of the most informed voices on social issues are not being permitted to participate on a level playing field with their public and private sector counterparts. This denies Canadian citizens the resourceful breadth and depth of knowledge that the voluntary sector can offer in policymaking processes. A reconceptualization of charity and the systemic approach to nonprofits is required at the political and legal level, spearheaded by grassroots organizations within the voluntary sector, to challenge current restrictions on advocacy and the detrimental effect on social justice. NOTES 1. For the purposes of this paper, gender and sexually diverse populations refers to individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, two-spirit, intersex, queer, and/or questioning. 2. To be deemed a charity, an organization must apply for such status through the regulating body of their respective country. Charitable status allows the organization to issue tax receipts for donations received, resulting in higher fundraising returns and qualifying them for public funds by numerous funding bodies that require such status. Yet, charities are restricted in the degree to which they can engage in advocacy or lobbying activities. Nonprofit organizations are not under charitable regulations and thus are free to undertake advocacy and lobbying activities to the extent they choose. Yet, these organizations cannot issue tax receipts for donations received and have limited options for public funds, and thus have greater difficulty sustaining themselves. 3. A federal bill that would have provided explicit human rights protections including against hate crimes based on gender identity and gender expression, got as far as the Senate, but died before being voted on due to the 2011 federal election call. 4. Sexual orientation has been included as a prohibited ground for discrimination in human rights legislation federally in Canada since 1995 and in all provincial and territorial human rights legislation throughout the country. 5. Interviews with government officials were conducted for the study but have not been utilized in this analysis. REFERENCES Adam, B.D. (1995). The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement (2nd Ed.) Boston: Twayne. Adams, R., Dominelli, L. & Payne, M. (2009). Critical Practice in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Allan, J. (2003). Theorizing critical social work. In J. Allan, B. Pease & L. Briskman Critical Social Work: An Introduction to Theories and Practices, Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 52-72. Altman, D. (1971). Homosexual Oppression and Liberation. New York: Outerbridge & Deinstfrey. 16 Mulé (2011) Basok, T. & Ilcan, S. (2003). The voluntary sector and the depoliticization of civil society: Implications for social justice. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 28, 113-131. Belfall, D. (1995). Associations in Canada: Future Impact and Influence. Toronto: Foundation for Association Research and Education. Brennan, R.J. (May 5, 2010). We won’t shut up, women tell PM. Toronto Star, A1, A12. Bridge, R. (2000). The Law of Advocacy by Charitable Organizations: The Case for Change. Vancouver: Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society. Brock, K.L. (2004). The devel’s in the detail: The Chretien legacy for the third sector. Review of Constitutional Studies, 9(1&2), 263-282. Brock, K. L. (2005). Judging the VSI: Reflections on the relationship between the federal government and the voluntary sector. The Philanthropist, 19(3),168-181. Brock, K.L. (forthcoming). A comprehensive Canadian approach to the third sector: Creative tensions and unexpected outcomes. In B. Gidron and M. Bar (Eds.), Policy initiatives towards the third sector in international perspective, nonprofit and civil society studies. Bronski, M. (1998). The liberation of pleasure in Bull, C. (2001). Come Out Fighting: A Century of Essential Writing on Gay & Lesbian Liberation. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, pp. 299-302. Brooks, N. (1983). Charities: The legal framework. Ottawa: Secretary of State. Brooks, N. (2001). The role of the voluntary sector in a modern welfare state. In J. Phillips, B. Chapman & D. Stevens (Eds.), Between state and market: Essays on charity law and policies in Canada, (pp. 166-216). Montreal & Kingston: McGill – Queens University Press. Cabinet Office, Performance and Innovation Unit, Voluntary Sector Team. (2001). Campaigning and Political Activities of Charitable and Voluntary Organizations. URL: [February 24, 2002]. Cabinet Office, Strategy Unit. (2002). Private Action, Public Benefit: A Review of Charities and the Wider Not-For-Profit Sector. URL: [November 8, 2002]. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. (2003a). Policy Statement: Political Activities. URL: [November 6, 2003]. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. (2003b). Policy Statement: Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality. URL: [November 6, 2003]. Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). (2010). Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration. URL: ritable_registra [November 5, 2010]. Carniol, B. (2010). Case critical: Social Services and Social Justice in Canada. (6th ed.). Toronto: Between the Lines Press. Carroll, W.K. & Ratner, R.S. (2001). Sustaining oppositional cultures in ‘post-socialist’ times: A comparative study of three social movement organizations. Sociology, 35, 3, 605-629. Carter, H.G. & Crawshaw, F.M. (1929). Tudor on charities: A practical treatise on the law relating to gifts and trusts for charitable purposes, 5th Ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell. 17 Mulé (2011) Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2005). RR12 - The Promotion of Human Rights. URL: [March 6, 2007]. Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2002a). CC9 – Political Activities and Campaigning by Charities. URL: [July 16, 2002]. Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2003a). Frequently Asked Questions – Registering A Charity. URL: [November 6, 2003]. Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2003b). Promotion of Equality and Diversity for the Benefit of the Public. URL: [October 14, 2003]. Charity Commission for England and Wales (CCEW). (2002b). The Promotion of Human Rights. URL: [September 17, 2002]. Charity Commission News. (December 2006). Charity Commission celebrates new Charities Act. Charity Commission for England and Wales: Charities Act 2006 News Updates. URL: [March 6, 2007]. Charity Commission News. (2003). Fair play for charity. Charity Commission for England and Wales. Issue 19. URL: [November 28, 2003]. Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI). (2002a). Basic Information about the 1976 Law Governing Lobbying and Charities. URL: [December 3, 2002]. Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI). (2008b). Important Lobbying Exclusions from the 1976 Law. URL: [November 6, 2010]. Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI). (2002c). Lobbying and Advocacy – Similarities and Differences. URL: [December 3, 2002]. Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest (CLPI). (2002d). Understanding the Differences Between Direct Lobbying and Grassroots Lobbying. URL: [December 3, 2002]. Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. (2003). Consultation Response: Registered Charities – Political Activities/Registered Charities that Focus on Eliminating Racial Discrimination. Toronto: CLGRO. Cotterrell, R.B.M. (1975). Charity and politics. The Modern Law Review, 38(4), 471-474. Dominelli, L. (1997). Sociology of Social Work. London: MacMillan Press. Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Drassinower, A. (2001). “The doctrine of political purposes in the law of charities: A conceptual analysis.” In J. Phillips, B. Chapman & D. Stevens (Eds.) Between state and market: Essays on charity law and policy in Canada, (288-308). Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press. Duggan, L. (2003) The Twilight of Equality?: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press. Dunn, A. (1996). Charity law - a political scandal? Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. URL: [November 16, 2002]. Dunn A. (2008). Charities and Restrictions on Political Activities: Developments by the Charity Commission for England and Wales in Determining the Regulatory Barriers. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 11, 1. URL: [November 27, 2010]. 18 Mulé (2011) EGALE Canada. (2003). Rainbow Visions Conference. Montréal, Quebec. Elson, P. (2007) A Short History of Voluntary Sector-Government Relations in Canada The Philanthropist 21, 1, 36-74. Elson, P.R. (2007/2008 Fall/Winter) Where is the voice of Canada’s voluntary sector? Canadian Review of Social Policy, 60/61,1-20. Fook, J. (1993). Radical Case Work: A Theory of Practice. St. Leanard’s: Allen & Unwin. Fook, J. (2002). Social Work: Critical Theory and Practice. London: Sage. Fridman, G.H.L. (1953). Charities and public benefit. Canadian Bar Review, 31, 537. Gladstone, F. (1982). Charity, law and social justice. London: Bedford Square Press. Good, D.A. (2003). Promises and pitfalls: Experience in collaboration between the Canadian federal government and the voluntary sector. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 122-127. Hall, M.H., de Wit, M.L., Lasby, D., McIver, D., Evers, T., Johnston, C., et al. (2005). Cornerstones of community: Highlights of the national survey on non-profit and voluntary organizations (2003 revised). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Harvie, B.A. (2002). Regulation of advocacy in the voluntary sector: Current challenges and some responses. Voluntary Sector Secretariat, Voluntary Sector Initiative. URL: [November 20, 2010]. Healy, K. (2000). Social Work Practices: Contemporary Perspectives in Change. London: Sage. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). (2009). Voluntary Sector Initiative Impact Evaluation: Lessons Learned from the Voluntary Sector Initiative (2000 – 2005). Ottawa, HRSDC: Strategic Policy and Research Branch. URL: /sp_946_04_10e/sp_946_04_10_eng.pdf [November 4, 2010]. Ilcan , S. & Basok, T. (2004). Community government: Voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies, 8(2), 129-144. Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS) and the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy (CCP). (2002). Let Charities Speak: Report of the Charities and Advocacy Dialogue. Vancouver, Toronto: IMPACS. Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS). (2001a). Charities and Advocacy Project. Vancouver: IMPACS. Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS). (2001b). The Law of Advocacy by Charitable Organizations: Options for Change. Vancouver: IMPACS. Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS). (2001c). The Law on Charities and Advocacy. Toronto: IMPACS. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2002). Charities & Non-Profits. URL:,,id=96099,00.html [November 26, 2002]. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2009). Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). URL:,,id=175418,00.html [November 6, 2010]. International Lesbian and Gay Association. (ILGA) (2000). World Legal Survey. URL: [July 12, 2003]. Jensen, J. & Phillips, S. (1996). Regime shifts: New citizenship practices of Canada. International Journal of Canadian Studies, 14, 111-136. 19 Mulé (2011) Jensen, J. (1993). All the world’s a stage: Ideas, spaces and time in Canadian political economy. In Jenson, J., Mahon, R. & Bienefeld, M. (Eds.) Production, Space, Identity: Political Economy Faces the 21st Century, (pp. 143170). Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press. Jensen, J. (1995). Mapping, naming and remembering: Globalization at the end of the 21st century. Review of International Political Economy, 2(1), 96-116. Kinsman, G. (1987). The Regulation of Desire: Sexuality in Canada. Montréal: Black Rose Books. Kinsman, G. (2006). Mapping social relations of struggle: Activism, ethnography, social organization. In Caelie Frampton, Gary Kinsman, A.K. Thompson & Kate Tilleczek (Eds.) Sociology for changing the world: Social movements/social research, (pp. 133-156). Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Kymlicka, W. (1996). Three forms of group-differentiated citizenship in Canada. In Benhabib, S. (Ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. (pp. 153-170). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Laforest, R. & Orsini, M. (2005). Evidence-based engagement in the voluntary sector: Lessons from Canada. Social Policy & Administration. 39, 5, 481-497. Laforest, R. & Phillips, S. (2001). Rethinking the relationship between the government and the voluntary sector: A turning point for Québec and Canada. Politique et sociétés, 20(2-3), 37-68. Lindsay, I. (2001). The voluntary sector. In Crick, B. (Ed.) Citizens: Towards a Citizenship Culture. (pp. 115-122). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Malloy, J. (1999). What makes a state advocacy structure effective? Conflicts between bureaucratic and social movement criteria. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 12(3), 267-288. Michell, P. (1995). The political purposes doctrine in Canadian charities law. The Philanthropist, 12(4), 3-32. Moreau, M.J. (1979). A structural approach to social work practice. Canadian Journal of Social Work Education, 5(1), 78-94. Moreau, M.J. (1990). Empowerment through advocacy and consciousness-raising: Implications of a structural approach to social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(2), 53-68. Moreau, M.J. & Leonard, L. (1989). Empowerment through a structural approach to social work. Ottawa: Carleton University. Mulé, N.J. (2005). Beyond Words in Health and Wellbeing Policy: ‘Sexual Orientation’ – From Inclusion to Infusion, Canadian Review of Social Policy, 55, pp. 79-98. Mulé, N.J. (2006). Equality’s limitations, liberation’s challenges: Considerations for queer movement strategizing”, Canadian Online Journal of Queer Studies in Education, 2(1). . Mulé, N.J. (2007). “Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Health Care and Social Service Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, the UK and USA” in L. Badgett and J. Frank, (Eds). Sexual Orientation Discrimination: An International Perspective. (pp. 306 – 322). New York: Routledge. Mulé, N.J. (2008) Demarcating Gender and Sexual Diversity on the Structural Landscape of Social Work, Critical Social Work, 9(1). URL: /ebb5ace61ebf5d368525744c00802bdf?OpenDocument . Mullaly, B. (2002). Challenging oppression: A critical social work approach. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. 20 Mulé (2011) Mullaly, R. (2006, September 29). Keynote Address. Structural social work: Honouring our past, considering our present, envisioning our future conference. Toronto: Ryerson University. Mullaly, B. (2007). The new structural social work. Don Mills: Oxford University Press. Mullaly, R. (1998). Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice. (2nd Ed.) Toronto: Oxford University Press. O’Connell, B. (1996). A major transfer of government responsibility to voluntary organizations? Proceed with caution. Public Administration Review, 56, 222-225. Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health and Human Services. (August, 1990). Fact Sheet: Know Your Civil Rights. Washington, D.C.: Office for Civil Rights. Ontario Law Reform Commission. (1996). Report on the law of charities. Toronto: Ontario. URL: [November 16, 2010]. Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector. (1999). Building on Strength: Improving Governance and Accountability in Canada’s Voluntary Sector. Final Report. Ottawa. Parachin, A. (2008). Distinguishing charity and politics: The judicial thinking behind the doctrine of political purposes. Alberta Law Review, 45(4), 871-899. Pease, B. & Fook, J. (1999). Transforming Social Work Practice: Postmodern Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge. Phillips, A. (1996). Dealing with difference: A politics of ideas, or a politics of presence? In Benhabib, S. (Ed.) Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, (pp. 139-152). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Phillips, S. & Levasseur, K. (2004). The snakes and ladders of accountability: Contradictions between contracting and collaboration for Canada’s voluntary sector. Canadian Public Administration, 47(4), 451-474. Phillips, S.D. (2003a). In accordance: Canada’s voluntary sector accord from ideal to implementation. In K. Brock (Ed.) Delicate dances: Public policy and the non-profit sector, (pp. 17-62). Montreal & Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Phillips, S.D. (2003b). Voluntary sector – government relationships in transition: Learning from international experience for the Canadian context in Brock, K.L. & Banting, K.G. (Eds.) The Nonprofit Sector in Interesting Times, (pp. 17-70). Montréal & Kingston: McGill – Queen’s University Press. Phillips, S.D. (2004). The limits of horizontal governance: Voluntary sector – government collaboration in Canada. Society and Economy, 26(2-3), 393-415. Phillips, S.D. (2010). Canada: Civic society under neglect. The Philanthropist, 23(1), p. 65-73. Pross, A.P. (1986). Group Politics and Public Policy. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Pross, A.P. & Webb, K. (2003). Embedded regulation: Advocacy and the federal regulation of public interest groups. In K. Brock (Ed.) Delicate dances: Public policy and the non-profit sector. Montreal & Kingston: School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Queer Ontario. (2010). Issues. URL: [July 20, 2010]. Rayside, D. (1998). On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Richardson, D. (2005) ‘Desiring Sameness? The Rise of a Neoliberal Politics of Normalisation. Antipode, 37(3): 515-535. Ross, B.L. (1995). The House that Jill Built: A Lesbian Nation in Formation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 21 Mulé (2011) Sacks, A.M. (1960). The role of philanthropy: An institutional view. Virginia Law Review, 46, 516. Scott, K. (2003). Funding matters: The impact of Canada’s new funding regime on non-profit and voluntary organizations. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development. Sears, A. (2005). Queer anti-capitalism: What’s left of lesbian and gay liberation? Science & Society, 69(1), 92-112. Sheridan, L.A. (1973). Charity versus politics. Anglo-American Law Review, 2, 47-68. Smith, M. (1999). Lesbian and Gay Rights in Canada: Social Movements and Equality –Seeking, 1971-1995. Toronto: University of Toronto. Smith, M. (2005a). Diversity and identity in the non-profit sector: Lessons from LGBT organizing in Toronto. Social Policy and Administration, 39(5), 463-480. Smith, M. (2005b). Resisting and reinforcing neoliberalism: Lesbian and gay organizing at the federal and local levels in Canada. Policy & Politics, 33(1), 75-94. The Guardian. (November 26, 2003). Q&A: the draft charities bill by Tash Shifrin. URL:,11494,1093603,00.html [December 6, 2003]. The Guardian. (September 11, 2002). Charity reform: the issue explained by Nicola Hill. URL:,3858,4332120,00.html [October 4, 2002]. Trades Union Congress (TUC). (June 30, 2003). TUC Welcomes New Rights for Same Sex Couples. URL: [July 11, 2003]. United Kingdom (UK) Government. (2005). Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 – The Charity Test. URL: [November 6, 2010]. United Kingdom (UK) Government. (2006). Charities Act 2006 – Meaning of “Charitable Purpose.” URL: [November 6, 2010]. United Kingdom (UK) Government. (2008). Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 – Meaning of “Charitable Purpose.” URL: [November 6, 2010]. Vaid, U. (1995). Virtual Equality: The Mainstreaming of Gay and Lesbian Liberation. New York: Doubleday. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2001a). About the VSI. Ottawa, ON. URL: [March 21, 2003]. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2001b). An Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector. Ottawa. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2002a). Joint Accord Table on the Voluntary Sector Initiative, A Code of Good Practice on Funding, Building on An Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector. Ottawa. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2002b). Research Project on Visible Minority Communities in Canada. URL: [March 21, 2003]. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2002c). Working Group on Advocacy. URL: [March 21, 2003]. Voluntary Sector Initiative. (2003). Joint Regulatory Table – Final Report. URL: [November 4, 2010]. 22 Mulé (2011) Walzer, M. (1995). The civil society argument. In Beiner, R. (Ed.) Theorizing Citizenship, (pp. 153 174). New York: State University of New York Press. Ward, O. (2010). Planned Parenthood gets silent treatment. Toronto Star, A1, A12. Warner, M. (1999). The Trouble with Normal: Sexual Politics and the Ethics of Queer Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warner, T. (2002). Never Going Back: A History of Queer Activism in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto. Webb, K. (2000). Cinderella’s slippers? The role of charitable tax status in financing Canadian interest groups. Vancouver, BC: SFU – UBC Centre for the Study of Government and Business. Wright, C.A. (1937). Case and comment. Canadian Bar Review, 15, 566. About the author / L’auteur Nick J. Mulé is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work, York University, Toronto, Canada. Email: 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Tutor Answer

School: University of Maryland

Here are the work, kindly also find the attached plagiarism report. Should there be any issue, kindly contact me.

Volunteer and Nonprofit sector
by George Rono

Submission date: 14-Dec-2017 11:08AM (UT C-0500)
Submission ID: 896037093
File name: Volunteer_sector.docx (23.87K)
Word count: 796
Character count: 4148

Volunteer and Nonprofit sector











Exclude quotes

Of f

Exclude bibliography

Of f

Exclude matches

Of f


14th December 2017
Volunteer and Non-profit Sector
We have heard this say, "no pain, no gain", which simply means that whenever
there's a struggle or some pain while performing some duty, there must be again. This further
means that everything someone does they must be rewarded and the reward is the motivating
factor in the work. There are instances where people do not expect anything in return on what
they do, they just work, without any reward of some cash or other incentives or being
coerced, this is called volunteering. The willingness to commit oneself to handle something
without any motivation, or any force being ap...

flag Report DMCA

The best tutor out there!!!!

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors