Dan Clement, President and CEO of United Way Centraide Canada.

is President and CEO of . He spoke with PANL Perspectives about transformations in the past 10 years and future plans, including the impact of tariffs. UWCs have been serving local communities across Canada for more than a century. Every year, they raise and invest approximately $600 million, supporting an ecosystem of more than 4,700 community service organizations and initiatives across the country. Close to a million Canadians, donors and volunteers are mobilized to support their local communities through giving and to address basic needs, but also to advocate for long-term solutions.

Question: In the past decade or so, why have there been so many transformations with United Way Centraides across the country?

United Ways and Centraides mobilize approximately a million Canadians, donors and volunteers to support their local communities each year. Photo courtesy of United Way Centraide Canada.

Dan Clement: Ten years ago, we were 108 United Way Centraides in Canada. Today, we’re 57 in a federated model. That’s significant organizational change that we’ve lived through and helped to advance. It wasn’t an accident. This was an intentional transformation process led by United Way Centraide Canada and local volunteer and staff leaders. Why did we do it? We were observing rapid change in our communities and in philanthropy that called on us to adapt and change the way we work and to re-imagine our operating model. New technologies, dramatic shifts in philanthropy, equity issues in communities, an aging population, the long-term trend of fewer donors in Canada, and in recent years the pandemic and climate impacts on people and communities were some of the changes we observed.

Also, challenges in our communities became increasingly complex. If you’re talking about poverty and social exclusion, youā€™re also talking about employment, equity, mental health and complex social issues that required our operating model as UWCs to work in different ways, to be structured differently. So, those are some reasons we changed over the past decade.

Question: How did you tackle the massive number of changes?

UWC transformations led to more than 20 mergers and integrations, resulting in newly formed United Ways and Centraides that are grounded in local leadership. Photo courtesy of United Way Centraide Alberta Capital Region.

Dan Clement: The very first thing we did was develop a 10-year vision to be an impact leader in Canada and to be a high-performing movement. UWC is a federated movement of local organizations. Setting a shared vision for the future was a critical step in this process.

The second thing we did was look at data about our performance as a network and as local UWCs to better understand how we were doing in the delivery of our mission to empower everyone to improve lives and build strong communities. This focus on data helped us to better understand where we were experiencing challenges, where we had opportunities to strengthen our work, and where we needed to invest in our change.

Also, we explored what it meant to be an impact leader in Canada and defined our standards of practice to bring our vision and mission to life.

And the fourth thing, which is really what triggered the big change, was a reflection about our organizational models. We looked at our locations, scale and our performance data. We hosted discussions across the country with local board and staff leaders to envision new organizational models. This took time, but the process led to more than 20 mergers and integrations resulting in newly formed United Ways and Centraides — grounded in local leadership thatā€™s more resilient in a rapidly changing world and with the capacity to invest in new ways of working and in new partnerships.

Not every one of the processes that we went through led to a merger, and that was okay. We had many UWCs that said, ā€œHey, that’s not the right solution for us, but we’ve learned who we are and how we need to work differently.ā€ They built their own stronger organizations. Every single decision was made by local leaders and local boards of directors.

Question: Were revenues falling in those 10 years?

Dan Clement: Yes, we experienced the shifting trends in philanthropy and giving, and we saw this in our performance data, including flattening revenues. Every organization wants to grow, and we saw that our traditional sources of revenue, like workplace fundraising, were changing. We experienced what every organization was experiencing: fewer donors in Canada. Workplace giving remains very important today, and our transformation challenged us to build our capacity to diversify how we were raising funds and working in partnership with donors, corporations and government.

One example of working in new ways occurred during the pandemic, during our work across Canada with the federal government and corporate partners to invest more than $300 million in much-needed funds for essential community services.

Question: How are the current economic uncertainties, like tariff threats, affecting the organization ā€“ and how are you addressing them?

United Ways and Centraides are helping to ensure that economic investments that are intended to stimulate growth and a productive economy are, at the same time, resulting in direct benefits to communities. Photo courtesy of United Way British Columbia.

Dan Clement: In some ways, March 2025 felt like March 2020. We’re hearing from our local communities that theyā€™re already seeing layoffs, temporary closures and delayed investments. This will translate into higher demand for services, with more people needing access to community services, many for the first time. Economic impacts have social impacts ā€“ and frontline community service organizations will face them.

We have articulated a four-part public policy plan to address the economic and social impacts. The first part relates to responses from government, community and philanthropy. We have to make sure that the community services sector is front and centre — and named and included in those responses. Economic investments that are intended to stimulate growth and a productive economy should, at the same time, result in direct benefits to individuals and communities where these investments are taking place.

The second part is to support people affected through targeted income supports, and through more flexible eligibility criteria for Employment Insurance. We also need labour-adjustment programs, which are important community supports that help affected workers transition to new employment. These are all important investments.

Third, we need to understand that community service organizations are under stress systemically, because the demands are significant and growing, but also because of the way government and philanthropy funds. We need to focus on long-term, sustainable and mission-based funding. During the pandemic, many organizations, foundations and others shifted to more flexible funding. The same needs to be true today. As we experience economic shocks, our community organizations need sustained relationships and funding commitments for the long-term.

And the last thing: we need community based organizations that arenā€™t just service providers. They need to be community builders. So, when there’s an economic investment in a particular region, you need community-based organizations to pull the community together, to ensure the lived experience of that community is part of conversations. That’s a different type of work. That’s community-building work, which isnā€™t often something that gets funded. It’s important for how things are going to play out in the coming years.

United Way Centraide Canada is on , , , and .

In 2023, Christopher Dougherty received the H. Woods Bowman Student Award from ARNOVA for preliminary results from his .

Recently, completed research that asks, “How does government funding for charities change when the party in power changes?” His answer is based on data sets covering the provinces of Ontario and Alberta from 2003 to 2017. In a , he analyzed changes in electoral district representatives and governments, looking at which nonprofits gained new funding and which lost funding — and the extent to which the changes reflected the interests of new governments. Dougherty spoke to PANL Perspectives about his findings.

Question: What inspired you to tackle this study about government funding of charities?

The Allan Inquiry into environmental charities, under the Jason Kenney government in Alberta, cost taxpayers $3.5 million and concluded that environmental groups had done nothing wrong, aside from raise awareness about climate change — and a few charities sued for defamation afterwards. Photo is courtesy of Andre Forget.

Christopher Dougherty: ŠÓ°ÉŌ­““ half of all revenue for the charitable sector in Canada comes from federal, provincial and municipal governments, and governments can be quite vocal about which charities they want to support and which they donā€™t want to. Iā€™m originally from Alberta, so the , under the Jason Kenney government, was top of mind, as were the .

There’s also . So, I wanted to see how governments move charity funding around to match their policy and political goals.

Q: You write that in Ontario, changes in funding reflect partisan identity as governments and local representatives change. Can you give examples of this — or explain what you mean?

After the Dalton McGuinty government was elected in Ontario in 2003, Jewish religious charities, social services, health, animal welfare, and parks and environment all saw cuts that year or the year after the change in provincial government.

Christopher Dougherty: When thereā€™s a new federal government, charities in Ontario see some of the biggest changes in funding. When I add together all of the federal government revenue to charities in electoral districts (excluding hospitals and post-secondary schools), they receive 27% more funding in a new governmentā€™s first year, when controlling for other variables. When I looked at a sub-sector, instead of an electoral district, new federal governments grant more to Ontario charities that are in the post-secondary education sub-sector, ā€˜otherā€™ religious (not Christian, Muslim or Jewish) sub-sector, and social services sub-sector. Since post-secondary and social services are both provincial responsibilities, federal spending in these sub-sectors indicates something beyond direct program spending.

While new federal governments increase spending to some sectors after being elected, new provincial governments tend to cut spending. In Ontario, Jewish religious charities, social services, health, animal welfare, and parks and environment all saw cuts in the year or in the year after the 2003 change in provincial government, when controlling for other variables.

Q: In Alberta, there’s less change in funding to charities around elections and changes in government. Is there an example of this?

Read “Do Private Family Foundations Engage in Political Activities Through Their Granting?” by Christopher Dougherty.

Christopher Dougherty: Alberta sees far fewer changes and smaller changes to its funding following elections and changes in government. The biggest changes are increases to Christian religious charities and missionary religious charities in election years and in a new governmentā€™s first year. Funding changes in other sub-sectors involve smaller numbers of charities, so the changes might not be due to big patterns and are likely because of changes involving individual charities.

Q: You write, “The combined results show that the charitable sector is indeed an outlet for aggregating and expressing collective identities, but that the degree to which this happens depends on the political context.” What to you mean?

Samantha Zuhlke, a prof at the University of Iowa, found that politicians in the US use charities to access constituencies and political power. Canadian politicians seem to be doing the same thing.

Christopher Dougherty: One of the interesting things in these results is that elections, new governments, and electoral district competitiveness seem to be behind a lot of the changes in charity funding. The party that forms government, the party representing an electoral district, and whether an electoral district is in government or opposition all seem to matter less.

For me, this suggests that politicians use charity funding to achieve political goals: gaining or keeping power. Jane Jenson wrote more than 30 years ago that politics is about creating constituencies and building support for collective identities, which charities do, and Samantha Zuhlke found in the US that politicians use charities to access constituencies and their political power. Canadian politicians seem to be doing just thatā€”trading funding (or the promise of funding) to constituencies represented by charities in exchange for votes. And, they are doing this more in electoral districts that are more politically competitive and that are located in more competitive parts of the country (in Ontario, for example, compared to Alberta).

Q: Did anything surprise you in this study related to charity revenue and government?

Christopher Dougherty: The degree to which federal government funding changes for charities in the post-secondary, hospital, and social services sub-sectors was surprising, because each of these sub-sectors is in an area of provincial responsibility. It will be important to take a closer look at what’s happening here.

The other surprising finding was the role of religious charities in the results. Itā€™s not clear, in the data set, which funding is going to congregations and which funding is going to religiously-affiliated service charities, and that needs a closer look.

Overall, the results suggest some interesting trends, and I plan to look at other provinces to see if these trends show up in other places with different political situations.

Christopher Dougherty has PhD in Public Policy from the School of Public Policy and Administration and he completed a Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership (MPNL), both at ŠÓ°ÉŌ­““ University. His research focuses on the charitable sector in Canada. He’s currently a Visiting Scholar at the Business School of the University of St Andrews, in the UK. He can be found on .

Katelyn is passionate about community development, organizational leadership and envisioning structures that best serve the mission and values of an organization. Sheā€™s worked in the nonprofit sector for 12 years and was involved in the founding and development of several organizations. When not immersed in nonprofit work, she enjoys playing with her two lively boys and exploring the beauty of the Kawarthas, Ontario, where she lives with her family. Her full bio is here.

The scholarship is awarded to an individual who demonstrates a strong potential for leadership and innovation in community engagement on high-priority issues to nonprofits, government and businesses. ()

How has staff turnover affected nonprofit groups, especially after Covid?

I have personally seen how staff turnover leads to gaps in service delivery and impacts service users. Considering the growing needs of the sector as a whole, and specifically as witnessed in housing and homelessness, addressing this issue is essential. Canadaā€™s nonprofit sector is facing a major leadership transition and a general, labour-market shortage, while facing increased demands for services. Burnout and employee turnover among social service nonprofits are high. I believe innovation is needed to address these challenges and am particularly interested in exploring how new models of leadership and collaboration can help foster resilient workplace cultures.

What are you working on now?

Iā€™m working on a project that focuses on emergent models of leadership and organizational structures that foster inclusion and well-being in social service nonprofits. In a setting where ā€˜getting byā€™ and ā€˜putting out firesā€™ can become norms, Iā€™m excited to contribute to research, working with One City Peterborough (Ontario) to help move beyond the status quo and drive meaningful community impact.

What are your future plans?

I plan to move into an executive director role in the future, and this project will directly support my ability to do so. It will also strengthen my competence and confidence to be able to share resources with other nonprofit organizations and potentially will lead to even further research on this topic.

A commissioned by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) sheds light on crucial gaps in the funding and policy influence of nonprofits, charities and researchers focused on promoting safe, fair and high-quality digital infrastructure and services in Canada.

On funding gaps, itā€™s a typical tale. Grants are few and far between and competition is tight. Funding application processes are complex and onerous, a problem for organizations that are slim on resources to begin with. Funding that does come through is largely ad hoc and project based.

Why does this funding gap exist? In part, it reflects the fact that Canadian funders are simply less active on this file. We donā€™t have a strong tradition of digital philanthropy. In contrast, in the US, digital access, inclusion and justice is a much more established area of focus for thinktanks, foundations and philanthropic organizations.

As a corollary to this funding gap, the relatively small group of organizations in Canada focused on digital access, digital rights and digital infrastructure simply canā€™t compete with the well-resourced lobbying machines of industry ā€“ especially the big telecom firms ā€“ when it comes to policy advocacy. This last point is particularly concerning at a time when governments are daily faced with a barrage of digital policy issues that present complex and often technical questions on which they often must turn to outside expertise. This includes how to limit the scope of surveillance technologies, how to classify firms in the sharing economy (e.g., Uber), and how to regulate social networks, to name just a few of the policy issues coming at governments at full speed as the digital economy expands its scope.

ā€œResources are scarce both in terms of absolute dollars available for non-profits, charities and researchers, and in the breadth and depth of granting sources.ā€

While the reportā€™s findings will obviously be of interest (and likely not a surprise) to anyone focused on promoting digital rights, internet infrastructure and responsible data governance, it should also capture the attention of anyone concerned more broadly about equity, justice and economic prosperity in Canada.

At a basic level, as more and more facets of human society shift to the online realm ā€“ not simply because of the pandemic, but also because of a digitizing impulse that both pre-dates and will outlive COVID-19 ā€“ we need to be worried about excluding those segments of the population that canā€™t safely or easily access digital technologies. Government services, employment applications, health information, political participation ā€“ these are now being rolled out in a ā€˜digital by defaultā€™ template and without interventions, many already vulnerable groups will be left on the sidelines, especially those of low-income and those living in rural, remote and Indigenous communities.

The federal government has made recent commitments to ensure universal access to broadband, which will do some of the work needed to equalize access, but there remain significant shortfalls in education around navigating online misinformation, protecting personal data from misuse, and understanding automated decision-making and artificial intelligence. These are precisely the areas where well-funded, well-resourced, digital civil society groups could address gaps in public education, and more fundamentally, where a strong digital philanthropic sector needs to be ready to go head-to-head with industry when it comes time to shape emerging policy and regulation.

Amanda Clarke is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at ŠÓ°ÉŌ­““ University. Sheā€™s on .