This survey shows where candidates across every ward and mayoral hopefuls agree on what London's nonprofit sector needs. Where they differ are also worth noting.
LONDON, ONT. – Ask any nonprofit executive director in this city what keeps them up at night. The list is long: funding that resets to zero every year, waitlists that only grow, staff burnout, and worry over how long the doors can stay open. This summer, Pillar Nonprofit Network surveyed the people asking Londoners for their vote, and asked what they would do about it.
The response to the survey was outstanding: 43 candidates completed the survey between late July and early September – a 53% response rate was recorded across the field. This document reveals what they said in their own words, without endorsing or ranking any candidate. We're hoping that nonprofits, community organizations, and the populations they serve can walk into this election informed.
List of Participants
Mayor: Bronagh Morgan, John Feher, Josh Morgan, Kirsten Krose, Lawrence-Zachary Howe
Ward 1: Hadleigh McAlister, Roger Caranci
Ward 2: Shawn Lewis, Zack Ramsey
Ward 3: Leroy Osbourne, Zak Rahim
Ward 4: Bob Wright, Mario Jozic, Randi Prunner,
Ward 5: Corrine Rahman, Mary Blake Rose
Ward 6: Ian Leishman, Naomi Nadea, Sam Trosow, Stephanie Marentette
Ward 7: Dan Meinen, Germán Gutiérrez, Jonathan Sher, Sam Hajar, Waseem
Kazzah
Ward 8: Coralia Tudor, Osam Ali
Ward 9: Anna Hopkins, Luke Thomas, Matt Millar, Dino Jose
Ward 10: Alex Moore, Lois Ward, Steven Edwards
Ward 11: Harinder Kumar, Skylar Franke
Ward 12: Elizabeth Peloza
Ward 13: Andrew Crook, David Ferreira, Stephen D'Amelio, Tony Biviano, Schelley Bisson
Ward 14: Sarah Lehman
Why this survey matters to everyone
Nonprofits are as crucial as any other sector to a strong, sustainable London – to its health, stability, and safety. Think of the food bank, the shelter bed on a cold night, the settlement worker helping a newcomer, childcare, and the many other nonprofit programs that keep our communities vibrant, welcoming, and safe. When candidates talk about funding, capacity, and partnership, they are talking about whether those services can keep their doors open. This is the case for engaging this report as a civic story, not a sector one.
The pressures candidates told us they see
Asked to name the sector's biggest challenge, candidates converged on similar ideas and used similar language, which we've grouped into themes below. Their answers align closely with what nonprofits themselves have been advocating for, for decades. Funding, in one form or another, was a dominant challenge identified by candidates. Nearly nine in ten candidates (88.4%, 38 of 43) named funding as a challenge, using terms such as: unstable, insufficient, short-term, or simply not enough to describe funding shortfalls.
This was broken down by how candidates described it:
-
Unstable, short-term funding specifically — 55.8%
-
Collaboration and partnership with the City — 41.9%
-
Growing demand for services — 37.2%
-
Staff and volunteer burnout & capacity — 32.6%
-
Administrative burden and red tape — 32.6%
-
A direct call for multi-year, predictable funding — 30.2%
-
Rising costs and affordability — 23.3%
-
Specific pressures: housing, mental health, addiction, food security — 18.6%
One candidate put it plainly, "I think the biggest challenge facing nonprofits and charities in London is finding long term sources of stable funding." Another candidate highlighted a known strain on the system, "Almost all organizations are suffering from a lack of volunteers."
What candidates suggested as a solution to the challenges
Nearly three-quarters of candidates (72.1%, 31 of 43) proposed at least one concrete action while naming the sector’s challenges. The two most common solutions are: multi-year, predictable funding agreements (32.6%) and outcomes or results-based funding tied to clear accountability (30.2%). Others proposed an earlier, more direct involvement in City policy and budget decisions (25.6%), simplifying grant applications and reporting (18.6%), reducing administrative burden (14.0%), advocacy to provincial and federal governments for funding (14.0%), shared space and capacity-building support (11.6%), or a formal advisory body to structure ongoing dialogue (7.0%).
Where candidates nearly agree unanimously
While they had their differences, nearly all candidates agreed on three commitments:
-
97.7% (42 of 43) support an ongoing, formal dialogue mechanism between the City and the nonprofit sector
-
90.7% (39 of 43) support multi-year funding and longer-term partnerships, instead of the year-to-year funding cycle nonprofits say makes it almost impossible to have long-term planning.
-
97.7% (42 of 43) committed to engaging with and supporting the sector in a meaningful way
One candidate, for example, framed it as a change in strategy, not just policy, "I will treat nonprofits as partners from the beginning, not after decisions are made. Structured input. A seat at the table. A councillor who shows up."
A seat at the table – but what kind?
Candidates were less unanimous here, and more specific, on how nonprofits should be included in City decision-making. Nearly half (48.8%) proposed an early, meaningful consultation before decisions are made; 46.5% wanted ongoing dialogue and communication with the sector; 44.2% preferred a more formal advisory body or structure; and fewer candidates called for frontline data to directly inform policy (27.9%) or for nonprofits to be represented in planning and strategic processes (25.6%). Altogether, 88.4% of candidates raised at least one of these ideas in their responses.
One candidate suggested a version of what more formal engagement could look like, "By setting up an advisory table... this will ensure their voices are heard and understood when it comes to community wellbeing, economic growth and city planning."
Space, capacity, and the infrastructure gap
On the City's role in supporting nonprofit infrastructure, two themes were closely tied: 60.5% of candidates emphasized the need for cross-sector coordination and collaboration, while 58.1% raised shared or affordable space, while citing London's high rate of downtown vacancy as an obvious opportunity. Another 32.6% said capacity-building and training support are crucial, and 23.3% specifically framed the City's role as an enabler and convener rather than a direct operator. Just 11.6% connected this to direct infrastructure funding, indicating that most candidates see the City's role as convener and facilitator rather than funder, an area nonprofits engaging candidates on this issue may want to probe further.
What candidates think success looks like
Asked what success for the sector would look like four years from now, candidates split across four themes: stronger partnership and collaboration (64.3%) and recognition of nonprofits as essential community and economic infrastructure (59.5%). Just under half mentioned visible progress on housing, poverty, and mental health (47.6%) and measurable, results-based outcomes (45.2%).
Not every candidate sees it the same way
A smaller number of candidates pushed back on the idea that nonprofits should have a formal voice in City decisions. The range of views is itself useful information for residents weighing who best represents how they want their city to work with the organizations serving it.
Worth noting also that, nearly a third of respondents (30.3%, 10 of 33 who answered) mentioned a personal or professional connection to the sector – either as a former employee, volunteer, board member, or someone who relied on its services growing up, when asked what else they wanted nonprofits to know.
How to use this
For nonprofits and community organizations: view this report as a starting point for your conversations with the candidates, not the final word. Use it to see where your own candidates landed, to follow up or engage directly on the specifics, including the commitments beyond the election day.
For community members: nonprofit capacity is community capacity. A shelter not open during a cold night, a stranded newcomer unable to find support, or a hot meal not served to someone in need has a domino effect on the health and vitality of the whole community. Where candidates stand on funding stability, shared space, and genuine partnership with the sector is, in a very direct way, where they stand on whether the services you and your neighbours rely on can keep pace with need.
Full analysis and ward-by-ward data are available here
Pillar Nonprofit Network conducted this survey to support civic engagement ahead of London's 2026 municipal election. It takes no position for or against any candidate.
Media contact: Victor Igboanusi, vigboanusi@pillarnonprofit.ca, 519-433-7876 ext 235