When not-for-profits engaged in annual fundraising in Calgary in 2013, many of them discovered that donations were down.
The giving had been tapped out as Calgarians rallied to assist the thousands of southern Alberta homeowners affected by floods. It was a dramatic demonstration that the giving pie is only so big, and every time a slice is handed out someone else may go wanting.
Some of the city’s wealthiest citizens give generously to multiple causes, but there is a limit to what even they are willing and able to do, and that forces them to make choices. If they support STARS Air Ambulance, for example, does Theatre Calgary do without? If they make a large donation to enhance the Children’s Hospital, does the United Way get less this year? It’s a Hobson’s choice that begs the question of how dependent we should be on philanthropy.
The low taxes Albertans have enjoyed over recent years have helped develop this province into one of the most prosperous in the country. But as the province grows, the people who live here also expect world-class services: the best health care, the best schools, the smoothest roads and shiny new arenas for our NHL hockey teams. There is a growing tension between what we want and what we are willing to pay for, in part because we want more than we did 20 years ago. And the “old” solution of regularly turning to philanthropists to fill in the gap has been stretched to the limit.
So we are rapidly approaching a new reality – one in which Calgarians, and indeed all Albertans, have to re-examine the balance between the giver and the taxman. Once a service is deemed essential – such as an air ambulance service – should we rely primarily on philanthropic dollars to keep in airborne? What happens in a year like 2013, when the flood-related needs spike while the capacity to give stays flat? And how fair is it anyway to expect “someone else” to pick up the tab for services we enjoy?
There’s another concern. Much as citizens are at times mistrustful of government spending decisions, a high-functioning bureaucracy will set priorities that reflect the public interest. When funding decisions are left instead to well-meaning philanthropists, then they decide where the money goes based on personal experience, such as the loss of a loved one. Hence, Calgary may get major funding for a new cancer treatment centre without independent confirmation that such a facility is the most urgent priority. There is a displacement of funding to personal priorities, rather than evenly distributing the funding across high-priority public services.
Consider this hypothetical example: Cutbacks cause a school board to reduce funding for music programs. This leads a school to apply for a grant from a private foundation to buy new instruments. The school gets the grant and the kids are better off. But what about the kids at other schools? Even if enough private funders are found to help all the affected schools, is this a sustainable system or just a BandAid that masks the underlying dysfunction?
Finding a new path
It’s time to have a conversation about the role of philanthropy in the future. Community leaders, charitable organizations, philanthropists and government need to come together to discuss the interplay between private giving and public services, such as health, education and social assistance.
Politicians will rightly tell you that too many people and organizations want too much from the taxpayer. There is no question that the list of “nice-to-haves” stretches beyond the horizon. This is where the conversation gets tough, because funding decisions need to be based on what we must have as basic services and also what will help us function as a healthier, more prosperous community. For example, we need to invest in infrastructure and other essentials that will help us attract new industry, diversify our economy and ensure jobs for our children.
But the conversation also needs to explore what we can reasonably afford without taking on onerous new debt loads that will cripple future generations. If any province is aware the value of fiscal prudence, it is Alberta, which has shown leadership to the nation for more than two decades.
And, finally, we need to talk about fairness. While philanthropists will always remain valuable contributors to our social fabric, we must keep their role in perspective. All wage-earners benefit from the services available in this province, and everyone should contribute to maintain those services.
Ensuring the public pays its fair share for services is not only the most fair and sensible approach – but it is also necessary if expect to enjoy those services in the years to come.
– By Doug Firby, Director of Communications