The Canadian charitable sector currently operates without an overarching strategic plan, leaving it vulnerable to significant challenges which are already limiting the sector’s ability to help those in need.
Much like Alice’s famous interaction with the Cheshire Cat in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, where she learns that directionless wandering without a plan leads anywhere but nowhere specific, the sector risks failure in achieving better without a clear vision of where it wants to go and which path to follow.
Primary threats facing the sector:
- Increasing demands: As population growth and persistent economic stresses continue, charities struggle to meet rising service requirements.
- Declining generosity: Key drivers of giving, such as religiosity, social connectedness, prosocial values, and waning social norms, are weakening. Younger Canadians are exhibiting weaker prosocial values and behaviours.
- Volunteer and workforce challenges: The sector faces struggles in recruiting and retaining staff and volunteers amid rising burnout and stagnant wages.
- Lack of social innovation: Funding constraints, power hierarchies, and risk aversion hinder the ability of the current charity ecosystem to adapt and leverage modern solutions effectively.
- Fragmentation and inefficiency: A siloed operational model leads to duplication of efforts and diluted resources, with no mechanism to unify efforts.
A well-constructed strategic plan could empower the sector by improving funding, enhancing volunteering efforts, boosting workforce efficiency, encouraging innovation, defining performance measurements, fostering collaboration, and ensuring accountability. Such a plan would outline priorities, focus initiatives, and provide actionable steps to achieve the strategic goals. It would be national, inclusive, and representative of the greatest needs for the social sector.
This is not my opinion alone. Research conducted with 26 charity sector thought leaders underscores the urgency of developing such a strategic plan.
History is proving that the sector is failing to independently develop such a plan to address the growing risks and challenges. Case in point: A special Senate committee on the charity sector produced a robust, thoughtful report in 2019 called “Catalyst for Change”. It contained 41 recommendations to strengthen the charity sector. The vast majority of them have been ignored five years later. There was no plan to achieve them, and surely, one cannot have 41 “priorities”.
Since the sector ecosystem is not solving its challenges independently, we require new, systemic solutions based on policies from the federal government. This is not about asking for more funding, but it does require some new innovative leadership.
The keystone:
A strategic plan alone isn’t sufficient—it requires robust and sustainable resourcing with a structure for implementation. Otherwise, all of the good intentions and great thinking are for naught. The 2019 Senate Committee report rather proves this point.
To address the sector shortcomings, the creation of a national, self-financing “Social Sector Fund” is proposed. This fund would:
- Finance the development and implementation of the strategic plan.
- Provide a dedicated “fit-for-purpose” agency to oversee the pursuit of the strategic plan.
- Provide the funding to invest in the various initiatives within the strategic goals (in partnerships with experts to achieve measurable outcomes).
- And offering accountability for how the funds are used to achieve this strategic plan.
Unlike solutions reliant on Ottawa’s support, this fund would be self-financing, presenting a politically neutral, cost-effective policy option. It would serve as a critical step towards resolving systemic issues in the sector without demanding federal resources. It would have zero cost to taxpayers. But it does require a new policy from the federal government.
Surely, as the Carney government focuses on solutions to the American tariff threat, we must also protect our civil society. Empowering a stronger social sector, with minimal demands of Ottawa, should be a worthy consideration for its simplicity and no cost.
This proposal offers a viable path forward, one that resonates with the majority of Canadians and aligns with the majority of operating charities. Although some in the sector feel ‘this is the wrong solution at the wrong time’, I believe this is their defensive reaction, in protection of the status quo, which is out of touch. Our research shows the majority support, with a sense of urgency. To learn more about the proposed Social Sector Fund and to see the supporting research, visit www.SocialSectorFund.ca.
The one thing we cannot afford to do is nothing. Inertia and the status quo are letting down millions of Canadians in need, our environment, our animal kingdom, and the quality of life in each of our communities. This proposal offers an attractive, pragmatic, actionable contribution to a more civil society. It starts with a strategic plan. Otherwise…
From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll:
- Alice asks the Cheshire Cat for directions, saying, “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
- The Cat replies, “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to”.
- Alice admits she doesn’t much care where she’s going.
- The Cat then states, “Then it doesn’t matter which way you go”.
- Alice adds, “so long as I get somewhere,”
- To which the Cat assures her that she will, as long as she walks long enough.
John Hallward is a Canadian entrepreneur, professional market researcher, and president of . He is a volunteer and has been on several charity and foundation boards. He is also the founder of GIV3, a registered charity to promote greater giving in Canada.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone and do not necessarily represent those of CharityVillage.com or any other individual or entity with whom the authors or website may be affiliated. CharityVillage.com is not liable for any content that may be considered offensive, inappropriate, defamatory, or inaccurate or in breach of third-party rights of privacy, copyright, or trademark.