When?

There are two intake periods: the first opened late April 2022 and the second will open August 2022. Applications are accepted until the funding is fully allotted or all eligible applications are funded, whichever is first.

How Much?

You can apply for up to $10,000 per employee, up to a maximum of $100,000. You’ll have to make sure you have a job available for the trainee after successful completion of the training. If you have 100 or fewer employees, the grant will cover up to 75% of eligible training fees; for those with 101 or more employees, it will cover up to 50%.

What Training?

Eligible training fees include tuition, student fees, materials (textbooks, software, etc.), exam fees, and certain travel costs. The training has to be delivered by a third party external to the employer. The training must be necessary to equip your employees with new skills or knowledge to meet organizational goals. You can apply for training that’s already taken place, so long as it took place in the same fiscal year of your application. The fiscal year for Job Grant purposes is April 1 – March 31.

Who is Eligible?

Non-profits are eligible to apply. Schools and post-secondary institutions that receive provincial and/or federal funding are not eligible. If you’ve received three of these job grants over the past five years, you’re also not eligible. And – of course – you have to meet all of the eligibility criteria!

Trainees must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents and who work in Manitoba. They could be full-time, part-time or seasonally employed.

Application Questions?

The application is an Excel spreadsheet that you have to complete. There’s the usual identifying contact information, which includes a drop-down menu for “sector”. There’s no option for non-profit or charity, so you’ll have to find the next most applicable category or you might need to use the “other” category.

You’ll need to include a general description of your organization, select whether your training program is related to COVID-19 and if not, briefly explain the business/organizational needs that will be met by the training program.

You’ll also need to provide some details about the training plan, including:

• Course name
• Type of training
• Skills to be learned
• Name of training organization
• Number of training participants
• Total course cost
• Start and end dates
• Credential/certificate earned
• Training participant name

Want More?

Here are the key links for Manitoba employers interested in applying:
Canada-Manitoba Job Grant Application

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – Employer Fact Sheet

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – Frequently Asked Questions

Canada-Manitoba Job Grant – News Release

The post Canada-Manitoba Job Grant for Employee Training appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The number one reason ministries have lost revenue during the pandemic: “We are unable to receive donations because we aren’t meeting physically.” (WayBase survey results)

If your church has relied only on passing the offering plate to collect tithes and offerings, you need a new way for your congregation to support your church during the COVID-19 crisis. If you are unsure where to start with electronic giving or if you have church members for whom that is not an option, read on. The Canadian Council of Christian Charities is providing you with seven quick and easy alternatives to passing the plate.

Donations: What’s Happening Right Now

CCCC teamed up with WayBase to survey Christian ministries and find out how they are doing during the pandemic crisis. Over 2,600 ministries responded (about 80% were churches), and the results will be released June 9, 2020. What we learned from the survey prompted us to create a guide to help churches and other ministries provide their donors with new and easy ways to donate.

Overall, almost 70% of Christian ministries have lost revenue and two thirds said one of the reasons was that they are unable to receive donations because they aren’t meeting physically. This implies that passing the offering plate during a service was the only way their church received tithes and offerings. Other factors for loss of income include job losses by donors (55%) and fear (38%).

The percentage of revenue lost by local churches ranged from minimal to catastrophic:

• 7% have lost up to 10%
• 28% have lost 11-25%
• 28% have lost 26-50%
• 15% have lost 51-75%
• 16% have lost 76-100%

Increase Donations by Increasing Giving Options

We know that adding alternative giving methods will increase donations because, of the 5% of churches who increased their revenue, almost half did so by expanding their giving options (e.g., online giving).

We saw an initial drop in revenue but we have now seen a recovery to regular levels since we began online giving.

-Survey Respondent

Guide to Alternative Giving Methods

So, in the spirit of helping our brothers and sisters in local church ministry, and other ministries who haven’t set up e-giving yet, here is a guide from CCCC that you can freely share with any ministry that needs help setting up new ways of receiving donations. It includes four ways to safely receive cash and cheques, and three simple ways to get started with e-giving.

The guide includes an appendix of instructions you can provide to your donors so they will know how to give using your new options. I’ve pulled that appendix out and made it available as a Word file so you can personalize the donor instructions to suit your ministry for the giving options that you choose.

May the Lord bless you and your ministry!

The post Church Donations: Quick & Easy Offering Plate Alternatives appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Read CCCC’s Funding Proposal to the Federal Government

CCCC has written to the Hon. Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development with a funding proposal to sustain and strengthen the charitable sector during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, when demand for services is very high, but significant decreases in donations due to income insecurity threatens to destabilize charities.

CCCC’s primary goal is to ensure that as many of Canada’s registered charities as possible survive the COVID-19 pandemic crisis on the basis that every registered charity, by definition, provides a public benefit to Canadians, and thus any loss of charities negatively impacts the quality of life in Canada. Sustaining all charities therefore maintains and adds to the richness and health of our nation.

Faith-based charities provide significant public benefits to individuals, neighbourhoods, regions and the nation. For every dollar in a place of worship’s operating budget, the community receives more than $4.50 of socioeconomic value and non-members of churches are four times more likely to use a church’s community programs than are its members.

What about existing proposals?

With the viability and health of our members and the broader charitable sector at stake, CCCC continues to support Imagine Canada’s request for a Sector Resilience Grant Program but as for how that support is distributed, we have submitted a proposal that builds on think tank Cardus’ matching funds model as described in their proposal and essay.

What is a “matching funds model”?

A matching funds model means that public funds match private donations on a dollar for dollar basis up to a certain limit. In this case, CCCC suggests the prior year’s donations as a benchmark. Matching funds ensures a stable cash flow during this time of crisis and uncertainty.

Why make another proposal? What’s different about CCCC’s proposal?

CCCC focuses on the funding and distribution mechanism for the Sector Resilience program as proposed by Imagine Canada. Funding needs to be simple, quick, and equitable. The Sector Resilience Program currently follows a traditional grant process – charities complete applications, applications are adjudicated by grant making organizations, such as community foundations or national organizations like the United Way, and successful charities receive some funds. This can work well, but for the survival of the sector, CCCC proposes a simpler model.

CCCC builds on Cardus’ proposal in three key ways:

1. Extending the timeframe from 3 months to the duration of the crisis
2. Capping the amount of donations to be matched by restoring charities to their 2019 donation levels. Asking the government to simply fund the gap makes it easier for them to say “YES!”
3. Clarifying that donations being matched are unrestricted donations. Capital campaigns or restricted fund campaigns are excluded. The focus is on maintaining funds for normal operations. There are other government funding programs, and specific elements of Imagine Canada’s request that relate to pandemic-specific programs.

With these adjustments to Imagine Canada and Cardus’ proposals, CCCC has set out a solution that addresses the needs of charities and government in an effort to make access funds as easy as possible for CCCC members and the charitable sector at large.

Why do we propose a matching funds model?

It is highly efficient

Administrative systems to process matching funds already exist within the federal bureaucracy (i.e. Global Affairs and Health Canada) and can be expanded rather than building from scratch. There is also less administrative burden on charities than for grant application-based models because it would only require a simple reporting of existing records.

It leverages government grants

Public support is a precondition for government matching funds. It creates a true partnership between the public and government.

It promotes charitable giving

Matching funds spurs greater giving by private donors. Studies show match money increases “revenue per solicitation by 19 percent,” and that there are long-term positive impacts. Government should focus on expanding, not shrinking, the sector’s capacity.

It only requires existing fundraising capabilities

Many charities do not have the experience, capacity or skill for grant writing. Instead, they have great expertise in fundraising from individual donors. Matching capitalizes on this existing strength of charities.

It maintains a level of responsibility and risk for charities

By matching donations, it ensures charities will exert their best efforts to stay viable. It also encourages charities to examine their ways of operating, find creative ways to reduce costs and remain sustainable in light of changing donor behaviour.

It recovers part of the cost from a lower tax expenditure on charitable donations

Grants are given when a charity has lost donation revenue. That means claims for donation tax credits would be lower than in the previous year.

In the face of COVID-19, social solidary is key to maintaining trust, a sense of common sacrifice, and ultimately stronger institutions and relationships. Charitable giving is known to have significant psychological effects on individuals and communities. This is an opportunity to use matching funds as a key component to this message of solidarity and unity in crisis.

As you engage with your federal political representative, we encourage you to use CCCC’s proposal to call for charity stabilization funds with a matching funds distribution model to ensure both the short and long term health of the Canadian charitable sector. CCCC’s proposal to Minister Hussen is available below for your reference.

CCCC will continue to work with Imagine Canada and Cardus to secure the best funding program possible for our members. The advocacy of CCCC and our members is vital as we mobilize and respond to the extraordinary needs facing charities, and the communities they serve, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read CCCC’s funding proposal to the federal government here.

Charity leaders are invited to share how they are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic within their organization in our online community forum, The Green: COVID-19 Response Room.

The post COVID-19: CCCC Calls for a Matching Funds Program to Support Charities appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

As a part of the Canada Revenue Agency’s continued effort to educate the sector and to clarify rules that commonly confuse charities, the Charities Directorate has recently made available two new videos in their educational series on gifting and receipting.

Gifting and Receipting Series

This series for charities includes topics related to receipting, such as split receipts, calculating the advantage, non-cash gifts, and non-eligible donations.

Two New Videos

 The new videos relating to charity auctions cover the following:

• when you can issue donation receipts at charity auctions
• how to determine the advantage amount and the 80% rule for winning bids

This CRA initiative has been welcomed by many in the charitable sector. While we look forward to future videos in this series, we do not expect that these videos will replace CRA policies and guidance.

Watch or bookmark the videos, accessible here.

The post [New Videos] Charity Auctions and Receipting appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

The Government of Canada has extended the deadline to match eligible donations from Canadians to the Syria Emergency Relief Fund. The previous deadline of December 31, 2015 has now been extended to February 29, 2016. Furthermore, the deadline for declaring the gift to the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development was previously January 15, 2016, but is now March 18, 2016.

This provides charities that have been raising money towards the Syria Emergency Relief Fund with some extra time.

For more information on the Federal Government’s initiative to match eligible charitable donations towards relief of the Syrian crisis, please see this Noteworthy blog post.

For more information on how your ministry can be involved, please see this Noteworthy blog post.

The post Government of Canada has Extended the Deadline for Matching Syria Donations appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Why You Should Give Donors More Information

I’ll make my case with these observations:

• In sales training, you learn to make two sales. The first sale is to convince the prospect they need what you are selling. Once convinced, then you sell them on why they should buy your specific offering. A lot of fundraising appeals only deal with the first ‘sale’. We say “People are starving, people are lost without Christ, and we’re there to make a difference! There is a great NEED and you can HELP!” We might even show pictures of those poor, suffering people. That might be enough to induce some ‘guilt’ donations, but this strategy alone will not get you where you want to go. It only raises awareness of the issue. Yes, you must build awareness, and yes, pictures help to tell a story, but don’t be content with just that for your fundraising strategy.
• A basic attempt at the second sale is to impress people in some way about your ministry, such as how many meals you served or how many people made decisions for Christ (“One hundred and forty-two billion people converted”). This is the McDonald’s or statistical approach, and it at least shows that your ministry is busy. A reputational approach distinguishes yourself based on longevity (“Since 1285 we’ve been…”) or size (“The solar system’s largest…”). These approaches can work well enough because many people are too lazy to make their own decisions, and so rely on the crowd to make a decision for them. Their assumption is, if you are that old or that big or did that much, then obviously others must think you are worthy of support and that’s good enough for them. But is this the best we can do?  I don’t think so. It’s fine to have some pride in the size and history of your ministry, and I throw around statistics too, but I think the case for support needs to go beyond all that.
• A more sophisticated approach is the business approach (which is all the current rage). Fundraising appeals talk about cost effectiveness (“130% of your donation goes to good works because we found a way to make money on our overhead!”), leverage (“For every dollar you give, the government will add another one hundred and thirty-three…”), efficiency (“We can innoculate 8,531 people per hour at our one doctor clinic”), and return on investment (“For every dollar you invest, 300 people will…”). Measurements such as these are fine, and they are useful to a degree, but I question how applicable they are as the final selection criteria between ministries, especially those that are focused on evangelism and individual change. I know you can measure pretty well anything, but how do you account for seeds that are planted in a student one year by a Christian worker at a university, and the marketplace ministry that ultimately leads the graduate to the Lord ten years later on?  Is one more worthy of support because they get to count the decision? A business approach requires results, and the results sometimes are quite separate from the intervention. This approach also devalues the effort that goes into getting results. Who would attempt the impossible if only the result counts? Would you turn a project or a person away because they might bring your numbers down? Or we can be highly efficient in dealing with people, and to keep the efficiency levels high we give up the capacity to spend time and really love a person by caring for them, listening to them and simply being there for them. The essence of Christianity is relationship, and a business approach doesn’t account for that. Again, there is great value in this approach, but it’s not the best way to choose between ministries.

A New Mindset for Fundraisers

There is a better way to ‘compete.’ A donation is not a guilt offering or a business transaction. It is an act of worship. Every donation represents a donor who is voluntarily participating in the mission of God. We must not reduce fundraising to ‘selling’ our ministries to donors. The corporate model of revenue generation and all that goes with it is simply not the appropriate model for Christian ministry. We are not selling. We are not begging. We are actively working on God’s mission and inviting others to help us as we do. So with so many ministries sharing similar missions, what is an appropriate way to ask for support?

When I receive an appeal for a donation my first question is, “I understand the need, but what do you think the problem really is?” and my second is, “What is your methodology?” I then look for the answers. I’m tired of giving money to fund methods of questionable value that address only the superficial aspects of the problem. I want real change. Lasting change.

How to Distinguish Your Ministry to Donors

I think the invitation to support should be pretty straight-forward. Explain your logic model. That’s it. That is the best way to ‘compete’ with other Christian ministries. It doesn’t say you are better than everyone else. It simply says, “Here’s how we see the problem or opportunity, these are the values and assumptions we base our strategy on, and this is the theory of change we use to design our programs and services.” Donors are now free to compare your logic model with another, and see which one is most compelling for them. The logic model gets down to the real, substantive differences between ministries. Is this a healthy way to differentiate yourself from others? I think so, because all you are doing is describing how you will change things, and inviting those who agree with that strategy to support you.

I think God allows for legitimate diversity of opinion as to methodology and priority. For example, Christians can be found in virtually all political camps, so they may have very different proposals for solving the world’s problems. Trickle down economic policies are one way to address poverty, while income redistribution through the tax system is a very different way. Christians may legitimately disagree on these points. If opinion is divided, the local church or denomination may not be able to address the issue directly because their open membership covers a wide range of opinions. However, its members could consider the competing solutions offered by Christian agencies and each member choose the solution that seems best to them. One person may be big on mass evangelism events while another supports one-on-one approaches. The same goal, but different methods.

If giving is an act of worship, then it should be done intelligently. That is simply good stewardship. Providing information about your logic model shows respect for your donors and their stewardship of God’s resources. Rather than simplifying your giving opportunity, make it more complex by explaining the logic behind your ministry. Your donors will have greater confidence in your ministry, they will be better educated about the real issues, and well-equipped to tell others about your ministry.

Some people will decide your model is not their cup of tea, and some may not be interested in your logic model but will continue as transactional or habitual donors. But others will now be far more engaged with your ministry because of their deep understanding of it. They will become your missionary fundraisers as they share their enthusiasm for your ministry.

Here are statements that might be used when explaining your logic model:

• Our mission is…
• Our values include … which means that our programs are designed…
• The root issues underlying our mission are… so we…
• We assume that… and therefore we…
• We believe that if we can…then the lasting impact will be…
• We realize we are only part of the solution, so we…
• Once our work with an individual or community is done, we believe they will…
• To ensure sustainability, we…
• We define success as…
• The indicators of success are…
• Change will occur because we…

Most ministries probably do not have an explicit logic model, but every ministry has an assumed one that can be uncovered by asking yourself “Why do we do it this way?” “Why do we believe this will work and not that?”

I’m putting this ‘out there’ as food for thought. It’s not an all-or-nothing proposition, but it is a suggestion for how to communicate with a segment of the Christian public who want this sort of information. Jump in with your thoughts!

For more suggestions on this topic, I’ve written about the unhealthy aspects of competition between ministries, about performance measurement, theory of change, and about logic models. I still intend to write about reporting to donors.

The post A Healthy Approach to Competition appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Three Circles of Giving

His research shows that people who give to charity usually give 40-60% of their donations to one to three charities working in their areas of core interest. They give another 20-30% to another four charities or so that are working in areas that are priorities for them. The remainder of their donations are what he calls “chequebook gifts” (oops—I’m in the States today, so that’s checkbook gifts). These are gifts that may be sizable to you but to them they are amounts they don’t even have to think about. They don’t care too much about what you do, but they’ll give you something so you’ll go away.

The point for fundraisers is you need to realize what kind of a gift you are receiving—core, priority or chequebook? If you do not know you are receiving a core gift, then you probably aren’t. Most likely you are getting a chequebook gift.

A Strategy for Asking for Money

Your goal is not to become a core interest of theirs since it will be very difficult to displace an organization or cause that is already in the core. A good goal would be to be at or near the top of their second-level priority gifts. You’d like to be 4th or 5th on their list.

An approach this professor finds effective is to thank the person for all the good work they are already doing in the world. After thanking them, say that your ministry is doing work that they care about and that you’d like to suggest doing something together that will be important and special to the donor. You should know the prospective donor well enough that you have a project or program that you believe will excite them.

Three questions you should answer if you want major gifts are:

1. Are we doing important work? Show them how what you do relates to what they think is important.
2. Are we well-managed? You should have an accountability plan that includes availability of your financial statements and anything else that shows you are good stewards of the money that flows through your ministry.
3. Will my gift make a difference? If you’ve done a logic model for your programs, you should be able to show what the impact will be and how you will know that you have been effective.

The post A Strategy for Asking for Major Gifts appeared first on CCCC Blogs.