← University
Funding Models and Organizational Sustainability
0 of 6

A registered charity in western Canada devoted to supporting adults with intellectual disabilities had operated for 27 years on a foundation of provincial government contracts, modest individual donations, and occasional foundation grants. The organization ran 4 residential group homes and a day program serving approximately 85 clients, employed 62 staff, and carried an annual operating budget of $4.2 million. Its board of 9 directors included professionals from accounting, law, healthcare, and community advocacy backgrounds, though none had served on the board for longer than 6 years. The executive director, who had led the organization for 11 years, announced her retirement effective in 14 months.

The announcement coincided with troubling developments in the organization's funding environment. The provincial ministry responsible for disability services had signalled that contribution agreements would shift toward outcome-based contracting within 2 fiscal years, requiring substantial changes to service delivery documentation and potentially reducing per-client funding by 8 to 12 percent. At the same time, a major donor who had contributed between $75,000 and $120,000 annually for the past 9 years indicated that family circumstances would prevent continued giving at that level. The organization's modest reserve fund, built over 15 years to approximately $340,000, represented only 5 weeks of operating expenses.

The board treasurer presented an analysis showing that without strategic intervention, the organization faced structural deficits beginning in the 3rd quarter of the following fiscal year. The board chair proposed that directors undertake a comprehensive review of the organization's funding model before selecting a new executive director, reasoning that the incoming leader would need a clear mandate on revenue strategy. Some directors advocated for launching a major gifts program targeting high-net-worth individuals in the community. Others suggested exploring earned income activities, including fee-for-service consulting to other disability organizations or a social enterprise employing program participants. Still others argued for building the endowment fund, which held only $180,000 in permanently restricted assets after 27 years of operation.

The organization's letters patent and bylaws contained standard charitable objects language but had not been reviewed since incorporation. Several board members expressed uncertainty about whether commercial activities would jeopardize the organization's charitable registration or expose directors to personal liability. The compliance requirements attached to the provincial contracts, including restrictions on fund transfers between program areas, added complexity to any restructuring. The board scheduled a series of strategic sessions over the following 4 months to address the interrelated questions of government funding relationships, fundraising governance, donor cultivation, reserve policies, and revenue diversification before proceeding with executive recruitment.

Fundraising Governance: What Boards Must Oversee in Development Activities

Fundraising sits at the heart of organizational sustainability for non-profits, charities, and many other mission-driven organizations across Canada. Yet the governance obligations that surround development activities remain poorly understood by many boards, leading to reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and in some cases, organizational collapse. The board's role in overseeing fundraising is not merely to cheer from the sidelines when donations arrive or to express concern when revenue falls short. Directors carry fiduciary duties that extend directly into how an organization solicits, receives, manages, and stewards charitable contributions. Understanding these duties requires boards to engage seriously with the legal frameworks that govern fundraising in Canada, the ethical standards that protect donor trust, and the practical oversight mechanisms that ensure development activities align with organizational mission and values.

The legal foundation for board oversight of fundraising derives from the fundamental duties that directors owe to their organizations. Under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, as of the date of authorship, directors must act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the corporation, and they must exercise the care, diligence, and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances. These duties, often described as the duty of loyalty and the duty of care, apply with full force to decisions and oversight related to fundraising activities. Provincial legislation governing non-profits and societies establishes similar obligations. The Societies Act in British Columbia, the Societies Act in Alberta, The Non-profit Corporations Act in Saskatchewan, and the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act in Ontario all impose comparable fiduciary standards on directors, though the precise wording and procedural requirements vary across jurisdictions. In Quebec, the Civil Code of Quebec provides the governing framework for non-profit legal persons, establishing obligations of prudence, diligence, honesty, and loyalty for administrators that parallel the common law duties found elsewhere in Canada. Regardless of jurisdiction, the consistent principle is that board members cannot treat fundraising as an operational matter that falls entirely outside their governance responsibilities.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $149 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.