{"id":5791,"date":"2026-05-28T11:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cicp-pcpob\/?p=5791"},"modified":"2026-05-12T13:58:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-12T17:58:53","slug":"when-dei-isnt-formalized-but-still-matters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/cicp-pcpob\/2026\/when-dei-isnt-formalized-but-still-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"When DEI isn’t formalized, but still matters"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
\n

\n When DEI isn’t formalized, but still matters\n <\/h1>\n \n \n <\/header>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n

This cohort stood out in Charity Insights Canada Project data: the charities that report having no diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies or practices. Within this outlier group, self-reported commitment to DEI remains relatively high. This contradiction raises questions about how DEI is being understood, practiced, and measured across the Canadian charitable sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2024, the CICP conducted two surveys: one on DEI implementation and another on DEI actions and initiatives. This analysis draws on a cross-comparison of those surveys and focuses on a subgroup of charities that report no DEI policies or practices but do indicate a commitment to DEI integration or values. These organizations are drawn from a broader sample of approximately 1,000 charities participating weekly in the project. As this analysis is exploratory and based on a small subset of survey panellists, findings should be interpreted with caution and point to the need for further research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commitment without Documentation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among charities reporting no DEI policies or practices, nonetheless, nearly half describe DEI as either fully integrated into their work (24.5%) or present in some aspects of operations (24.5%). An additional 14.5% say DEI is reflected in organizational values, even if it has not been translated into concrete action. In contrast, 12% report limited or no formal commitment, 15% say they are not actively pursuing DEI, and 9% are unsure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These findings suggest that values-based or informal understandings of DEI are common, even in the absence of formal structures. At the same time, they raise an important question: what does integration mean when it is not accompanied by policies, practices, or evaluation mechanisms?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What characterizes these Charities?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(\u2018Not pursuing DEI\u2019 and \u2018Not sure\u2019 responses removed, leaving a sample of 130 charities.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These organizations are not concentrated at the margins of the sector. Most are smaller  charities, with 68.5% reporting annual expenditures between approximately $61,500 and $791,500, though both smaller and larger organizations are also represented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overall, the absence of DEI policies appears to be a cross-cutting phenomenon, not easily explained by organizational size or charitable mission. By subsector, charities relieving poverty account for the largest share (37.5%), followed by public amenities (17.5%) and community resource organizations (11%), but these types of charities are also the largest share of the CICP survey population. All other types of charities are also represented in this subsample, including religious, arts, health care, and animal welfare organizations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Minimal Measurement, but some Action<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite stating that they do not have DEI policies or practices, 16% of these charities report taking specific DEI-related actions in the past 12 months. Reported actions include reviewing compensation and benefits for equity (7%), increasing outreach to underrepresented communities (4.5%), revising marketing, outreach, or program materials (2%), and implementing inclusive hiring practices (2%). One organization reported establishing an EDI committee or working group, and another noted setting EDI-related goals or targets. This points to a possible lack of understanding in how DEI policies and practices are defined and understood by some charities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measurement of DEI initiatives is also rare among these charities. Nearly 80% say they do not currently measure the effectiveness of DEI initiatives. Tools such as surveys (4.5%), focus groups (4%), or key performance indicators (1.5%) are infrequently used. Comments by survey panellist suggest that DEI is viewed as implicit or self-evident – rather than as something requiring deliberate implementation or evaluation. As one respondent put it, inclusivity is \u201cnaturally present.\u201d And another stated, the \u201corganisation is organically inclusive and formalisation is not a priority.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Capacity Constraints – not Resistance to DEI<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, the data do not indicate internal resistance to DEI. Only 12% cite resistance to change as a barrier. Instead, challenges are more often structural, with 44% citing a lack of resources as a barrier to implementing DEI practices. When asked specifically what supports would help advance DEI initiatives, the top responses were financial resources (21.5%), training and workshops (21.5%), time and capacity (19%), and consulting or expert guidance (14.5%). Only 13% say they require no help to implement DEI initiatives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some respondents noted operating with only one or two staff, while other responding charities described being entirely volunteer-driven. These resource constraints may help explain why formal measurement lags behind organizational values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More Research needed into these outlier Charities<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taken together, this subsample analysis reveals that some charities appear to equate DEI initiatives with fairness, neutrality, or openness, rather than with structured practices or measurable outcomes. This data does not suggest that DEI is irrelevant to these outlier organizations, rather it does indicate a need for deeper examination of how effective DEI initiatives are when there is no formalization or measurement of effectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n

\n Author\n <\/h2>\n\n <\/header>\n \n
\n \n\n \n
\n
\n \"\"\n <\/figure>\n \n
\n

\n McWhinney, Tara\n <\/h2>\n <\/header>\n\n
\n