In 2024, thanks to support from Atkinson Foundation, we were able to activate a data collection strategy. Traveling across 91ĘÓƵ we spoke to a diverse range of nonprofits from sports nonprofits to Indigenous organizations, healthcare, and nonprofit housing all of whom had plenty to say about the evolution of funding over the past six years.

Through these discussions we developed survey questions on issues with Transfer Payment Agreements (TPAs), and used the resulting data to build out our key informant interview process with more diverse nonprofits. What we learned was that though much had changed, many things had stayed the same; but more importantly new approaches were necessary to confront the consistent funding problems.

Why focus on funding reform?

The breadth, depth, and public benefit nature of nonprofit work necessitates we have financial stability with adequate investments that allow us to focus on our missions rather than on chasing money. Unfortunately, the constantly changing economic, political, and social landscape continues to significantly and rapidly impact nonprofit sustainability. 

If operational costs, including nonprofit wages, don’t keep pace with those of the local school boards, governments, or private sector, nonprofit sustainability is directly impacted as more time and money is spent tackling successive HR crises than focusing on the work. 

We understood that the reverberating impacts of issues with funding further entrenched many nonprofits in a cycle of “catch-up” that rarely allowed them to get ahead let alone innovate. As the economic and social circumstances changed, so too did our funding advocacy.

Our strategies and learnings on funding reform

From our conversations with nonprofits, jurisdictional scans, our 2024 ONN State of the Sector Survey, and key informant interviews we learned a few things:

• Ideally the sector needs champion(s) in the provincial government (political and/or bureaucratic) for ongoing funding reform.
• Asking for more money was going to be a hard argument to make in this economic context.
• Pivoting to asking for “better money” options (no-to-low cost policy solutions) fits with the government’s approach to red tape and administrative reduction.
• Negotiation as a tactic can be used by individual organizations but often made small gains that didn’t result in deeper change.

We took the major themes from our interviews with the sector, and began developing four funding briefs that could be used as resources for nonprofits on TPAs that help advocate for “better money”.

Funding reform briefs: What’s in them and how to use them

Each brief was structured to: identify a specific transfer payment agreement issue and explain how this issue impacted nonprofits, provide context behind why the issue manifests alongside a case study, and outline the opportunity in resolving the issue.

All of the briefs offer an opportunity, detailing ways in which these issues can be addressed by the provincial government in collaboration with the nonprofit sector. These briefs serve as government relations (GR) resources that can accompany nonprofits to meetings with government officials and/or program officers, serving as further evidence of issues being faced with TPAs. 

1. Brief one: Government lacks knowledge of the sectorĚý

One of the most common funding issues that the sector faces is that many politicians and bureaucrats struggle to understand the full breadth of the work of organizations they fund. This disconnect can lead to misunderstandings about the funding needs, capacity, and potential of the sector especially when it comes to the development of funding agreements.

2. Brief two: Lack of flexibility in funding agreementsĚý

Lack of flexibility within TPAs continues to burden the sector. Stringent budget lines make it difficult for the sector to move money around to support changes in programming or organizational needs that often take place over the duration of the agreement. 

3. Brief three: Increasing administrative burden

Over the past decade administrative requirements have become a more onerous part of fulfilling TPAs. This is a result of government shifting to prioritizing “efficiency” and “quality control” in funding agreements and as a result, over the past decade, administrative requirements have become more time consuming. 

4. Brief four: Increasing mergers

Mergers are becoming increasingly popular as government seeks to streamline as well as decrease the amount of funding agreements they hold. Too often government can assume that mergers will result in cost savings though this is rarely true. In reality, when done on the organizations’ terms and not under pressure, mergers have the ability to strengthen and ultimately improve service delivery.

Four ways nonprofits can use ONN’s funding reform briefs

1. Copy and paste: Use ONN’s language and information in the briefs to talk about the TPA issues you are experiencing with your program officer and other elected officials. Don’t forget there’s also survey data that you can draw from. Use our survey resources to collect data and stories to highlight funding concerns, and table recommendations.Ěý
2. Offer solutions: Share the opportunity and solutions, a case for things to be better, and actual recommendations to act on.
3. Advocate: If you are a network or association, use the briefs to support your meetings with government officials for sub-sector specific advocacy.
4. : Let’s advance funding reform together! We’re all saying the same thing for a better chance at systems change. Better than the fragmented way, collective advocacy is the best strategy for our sector.

Related resources:

• Provincial government lacks knowledge of 91ĘÓƵ’s nonprofit sector
• Transfer Payment Agreements lack flexibility
• Increasing administrative burden in Transfer Payment Agreements
• Increasing mergers amongst transfer payment recipients

The impact of building worker power

As someone who has been leading ONN’s decent work movement building and public policy work for the last eight years, I often come across people who have been part of our movement in one way or another. They always have an important story to share.

Just this past week I was in a meeting with an Executive Director and her staff, someone I had not connected with since 2018. She asked me if I remembered her from one of the decent work learning circles we held that year (we conducted eight across the province, to learn about women’s working conditions in our sector). She shared how she was inspired by the conversation and the energy of her peers in the learning circle and, shortly after, advocated to her own ED at the time for decent work: better pay, health and dental benefits, and professional development opportunities. She turned to her staff and said this is how we got decent work. 

I share this story to underscore how impactful building worker power is, and the long-lasting importance of building a decent work movement in 91ĘÓƵ’s nonprofit sector. This is not the first story I’ve heard nor will it be the last.

Looking back

I came to ONN in 2017, just as we were planting decent work seedlings:

• We just published what are now seminal decent work reports: ChangeWork and Shaping the Future.
• We had consulted with the provincial government on reforming the Employment Standards Act with a nonprofit lens: our response to the repeals later in 2018.
• Status of Women Canada (at the time) had awarded us a grant to explore what decent work for women in nonprofits means and looks like, and then advance it.
• We were in deep conversation with our Pensions Working Group to figure out a sector-driven pension solution. Ultimately endorsing OPTrust Select as the defined benefit pension plan for the sector. 

I remember three things so clearly from that time: 

1. The hunger of nonprofit workers to talk about their working conditions and advocate for themselves. 
2. The drive of nonprofit employers to deliver on decent work in their organizations. 
3. The rest of the decent work movement energized to act:
   • Workers Action Centre organizing the $15 and fairness campaign.
   • ’s funding and thought leadership.
   • United Way Greater Toronto (United Way Toronto & York Region at the time) and McMaster University’s project research on precarious work.
   • (St. Stephen’s at the time) first piloting the Decent Work Charter and Checklist created by .
   • It is this collective movement that fought long and hard for paid sick days in 91ĘÓƵ during the pandemic, where we learned a tough lesson about advocacy. No matter how prepared and organized you may be, a public policy win is not guaranteed.

In the early stages I also remember a huge gap in our decent work movement. It lacked the acknowledgement of how most of our workers are from equity-deserving communities, analysis of how different intersecting identities shape working conditions, and proactive solutions to combat the same. Fast forward to 2023, Pathways to Decent Work, eight pathways, and numerous resources to help organizations advance decent work and equity for Black, Indigenous, and/or racialized people in our sector, was born through the hard work of our colleague Yami at that time.

10 years of decent work is a fraction of time it takes to change systems

Milestone anniversaries are important, as I learned recently when I attended . It’s a much needed moment to stop and reflect on systems change work because the work can be so incremental, non-linear, and imperfect. 

Over the past 10 years, I’m proud to say ONN has fundamentally shifted the conversation about work in the nonprofit sector through our decent work movement building, alongside nonprofits, funders, and other interested parties. It took 10 years to move decent work as a concept from the to a necessary way of being for nonprofits across 91ĘÓƵ and Canada. Regardless of public policy wins, that means something, especially as I think of the many stories like the one I shared above. 

What created conditions for this type of systemic change:

• Trust-based philanthropy that allowed us to be experimental.
• Unwavering commitment of our colleagues at ONN to drive the work forward with innovation and creativity. 
• Simply put, good, strong partners to champion decent work.
• Deep curiosity of nonprofits to go on this journey with us. 

But, even as we recognize that many in our sector see and believe in the value of decent work we are at a moment of inflection.

Decent work: what now?

The work isn’t always easy – it can involve difficult conversations, moments of change management, time for reflection – but, the opportunity to create a thriving sector, with fair, just employment is something that many nonprofits and workers continue to strive for. 

And yet, we know at this moment as we reflect on the last decade of the decent work movement, that systems and barriers are working against our goals. There was some hopefulness as we came out of the pandemic that decent work could revolutionize the nonprofit sector and how we support our workers. But, current backlash to equity, increasing racism and polarization, the rise in facism, austerity, and the economic downturn all affect decent work in negative ways.

A big daunting question remains: what is the future of decent work?

Don’t stop, don’t go backwards, keep building worker power

The answer is simple: don’t stop, and don’t go backwards, keep building worker power.  

We have come so far in building a foundation of decent work in the nonprofit sector. We might slow down in the face of new challenges, shift our tactics to tackle new frontiers of decent work, and embrace new allies to protect progressive gains. But, there is no option to stop.

Time and time again we have learned that it is building worker power – empowering, organizing, validating, and equipping individuals workers to collectively shift their working conditions – moves us closer to the systems change we seek. 

So, my call to action to you all is to join the decent work movement and, if you are already part of the movement, recommit to another 10 years of movement building with us. 

You can negotiate and it’s worth it!

1. Negotiating is a collaborative process of finding solutions to shared problems together. It doesn’t have to be adversarial.
2. Even small gains today add up when you consider they may last over decades in your funding relationship.Ěý
3. A funder who says no but recognizes you’re justified will be motivated to make it up to you, so it is still worthwhile to make your case.
4. Funders want to see their projects succeed, so they may be very grateful when you identify problems in the agreement to the success of the project.Ěý
5. You do not have to call what you are doing, negotiating. Asking reasonable questions about what provisions mean and whether they make sense is just being curious.

Finding the right time

6. When you negotiate it affects your leverage. When deciding when to start the conversation ask yourself: what do I have to gain by waiting (e.g. more info)? What could I lose (e.g. cash flow urgency)?
7. Transfer payment funders are obligated to consider changes to agreements when there has been a significant change in circumstances or laws governing a fundee.
8. When a funder requests a change to an agreement, you are entitled to ask for changes you would need to enact their request.
9. Make your own agenda for funding agreement meetings. Write down your questions and the points you want to get to.ĚýĚý
10. Requesting a bit more time in meetings enables more creative discussions.
11. Always ask “is this still a good time to talk?” when phoning a funder. If they are rushed or stressed, they’re more likely to say no.Ěý
12. Make time in the meeting to build rapport. People who connect on a personal level are more willing to collaborate to find solutions.
13. End meetings with a summary of what has been agreed to and next steps. This confirms mutual understanding and makes sure you are moving forward.

Understanding who is negotiating

14. You are negotiating with a human being. Institutions can be intimidating, but the human being across from you has probably chosen that job because they want projects like yours to succeed.
15. Speak to your negotiating partner’s needs. Understand what their incentives and needs are and justify your requested changes in terms of the impact it will have on them.
16. Understand who has discretion to change what. If higher approval is needed, you must win your counterpart over as your champion to make your case internally.
17. Empower your nonprofit’s representative appropriately. Constantly reporting back and seeking approval leads to delays, broken telephone, and duplicative meetings.
18. Those not in the room can be an important part of your negotiating team. For example, you could say, “I don’t mind this provision, but I know my board is going to have concerns with this. Can you say again why it has to be in there?”
19. Identify who holds the information you need. An informed negotiator is a successful negotiator. Identify who in your organization has the data you’ll need to justify your asks.

Set the stage for successful conversations

20. Send email summaries following oral conversations. This ensures common understandings are properly documented to ultimately capture in the agreement.
21. Bring funders to your site when you can. They will see your great work. You will feel more comfortable. However, government funders are limited in allowable travel.
22. If possible, offer to go to their offices to talk. Though more time consuming, it allows you to connect with their colleagues, show your confidence, and connect in person.

90 per cent of successful negotiation is preparation

23. Understand the norms of negotiating with this funder. Speak to others who have been funded by this funder before. You may be surprised by what’s possible.
24. Gather as much useful information as you can. For example, review the funder’s strategic plan to understand their priorities or past negative experiences to know their anxieties.
25. Check your assumptions. You probably think you know the funder better than you actually do. You may be sure that the funder will say no to something, but it’s beneficial to avoid making any assumptions when negotiating.Ěý
26. Your funding application is your opening offer. Budget on the assumption that they will try to haggle you down for it.
27. Identify your walk away point. Funders rarely hear “no”, so when they do it’s even more powerful. Identify the terms of the agreement that would simply be unsustainable.
28. Identify your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BANTA). This may be another funder or diversifying your revenue sources. The better it is, the more leverage.
29. Identify the funder’s BANTA. Nonprofits overestimate the alternatives funders have. If you are having this conversation with them, it means you’re their preferred option.Ěý

Reviewing the funding agreement

30. Review the agreement with an eye towards what must change versus what would be nice to change. This will set clearer priorities in negotiating.
31. Review the agreement from the perspective of the funder. What do they actually care about versus what is there because it’s part of the template agreement?Ěý
32. Terms of agreement may have been changed by delays in the application process, don’t be afraid to highlight that the timing or results may also have to change.
33. Check to make sure the agreement includes everything you discussed. Typically agreements will exclude past oral discussions, unless the terms are worked in the text or appendix.Ěý
34. Check the interpretation section to make sure no key terms are missing. Defining a key term, such as “day”, “client”, “best practice” can cost the funder nothing, but may save you time or money or simply create clarity.
35. Where the funder is unwilling to change the agreement, propose non-binding appendices (e.g. disbursement schedules) as psychological anchors.
36. Is the amount of interest in interest bearing accounts worth the admin time it takes to process it? If not, discuss with your funder alternatives (e.g. non-interest bearing accounts).Ěý
37. Calculate whether the allowed financial flexibility is sufficient for the predictable variation in expenses. Provide numbers to back up your projected ranges.
38. Government of 91ĘÓƵ funders must make a business case for flexibility beyond 10 per cent. Provide your point of contact with all the information they need to make that case.
39. Review the definition of conflict of interest carefully to make sure you are not walking into the agreement already offside.
40. You can buy yourself some time by defining the notice period to not include important dates for you (e.g. culturally significant days).
41. For reporting requirements, ask what the information will be used for. Government of 91ĘÓƵ funders are required not to ask for information they will not use.Ěý
42. For recordkeeping requirements, ask whether it is realistic to keep everything. Often funders could assess compliance with far less than “all the documentation”.
43. For notice of inspection, ask yourself if this gives you enough time to prepare to support the auditor. It is typically at the funder’s expense so they have a vested interest in the auditor getting the most in their limited time.
44. For acknowledgement of support, ask whether your own branding guidelines can be included in the agreement. The funder will look better if acknowledgements don’t clash with your existing communications practices.Ěý
45. If a specific level of insurance is required above what you currently have, obtain quotes to identify the marginal costs and factor that into your budget accordingly.Ěý
46. If a provision specifies the funder owns any intellectual property (IP) from the project, ask them what they will do with it. Often if they have no plans or means to use the IP, they will understand why it makes sense for you to own it in the end.
47. For the termination provision, calculate concretely your wind-down period and anticipated costs. The more informed you are, the stronger your position.
48. For the default provision, ask the funder what if they are the cause of the breach (e.g. through payment delays). These provisions often don’t contemplate how a funder may contribute to a breach of an agreement.Ěý
49. For the description of activities, do not volunteer to include more in the description than is actually being funded. Including more than necessary diminishes your ability to ask for adequate funding later.
50. Build in time for the unexpected in every phase of the project. But have a justification for your estimated timeline.Ěý
51. Unless the funder’s policies specifically say otherwise, your budgeted HR costs can include things like pension, benefits, and professional development (PD). Be a decent work employer.
52. The Government of 91ĘÓƵ is required to accommodate your accessibility needs in signing funding agreements.Ěý

Making a negotiations plan

53. Identify three alternative agreements that are equally acceptable to you. Each option will offer different trade-offs on the identified key provisions.Ěý
54. Identify potential objections a funder may have to your requested changes. Be prepared to not get defensive and instead identify solutions to those underlying issues.
55. Ask for the items that you must have or would like to have that are neutral for your funder first. These are low hanging fruit.
56. Focus discussion time on the items that are both important to you and to your funder.

Getting in the room together to negotiate

57. Be bold in your asks but make sure you have a justification. People are less likely to get offended if there’s a rational basis connected to their best interests for your ask.
58. Provide a range of options when you can. This helps to define the scope of discussion and shows you are flexible (e.g. length of time, PD costs, etc.).
59. “No” is the beginning of the discussion, not the end. Don’t be afraid to hear “no”, respond with curiosity about the underlying reasons for the “no” so you can propose an alternative that meets that need.
60. Don’t be fooled by false ultimatums. For example, if they say you must sign by the end of the week, ask why. If they can’t provide a concrete answer, it’s false urgency.Ěý
61. If they don’t give you the full amount, is there a project you could do instead? If you’re afraid to reject their offer of partial funding outright, offering an alternative will both clearly express the project they wanted is not doable for less while showing you are flexible.
62. Ask open ended rather than close ended questions. If you are afraid of hearing no, then don’t ask questions that have “yes” or “no” answers, e.g. “What would you think if we expanded the timeline by 3 months?”
63. Be ok with silence. Especially after you have asked a question, silence is not a sign you should back down, it’s just a sign they’re thinking. On the flipside if they have asked a question or made a statement and you need time, signalling silence may cause them to back down.Ěý
64. Mirror back to them their answer to confirm you have understood correctly. A funder may not realize the impact of their words. By non-judgmentally mirroring back to them what they’ve said, it may cause them to rethink.Ěý
65. Listen both to what the funder says and doesn’t say. Body language including tone of voice are powerful. A funder who says no but doesn’t flinch or sound shocked suggests you haven’t pushed too far and can discuss.Ěý
66. Negotiate in small increments. If you ask for 100 and they say 50, go back to 90 and only give up value in exchange for something. If you give in immediately, your ask for 100 will appear dishonest.ĚýĚýĚý
67. If the person you are talking to doesn’t have the final decision, then negotiate with the goal of recruiting them to your side to be a champion within their organization.
68. Debrief with your team after each meeting. Reflect on what went well and what didn’t to constantly hone your negotiating skills.

Think outside the agreement

69. Your funder likely has a network of professionals that can be useful to you. Feel free to ask for recommendations for evaluators, accountants, and more.
70. Your funder may have separate funds set aside for specific kinds of costs, e.g. AI adaptation, evaluation, etc.
71. If you have multiple funders with conflicting requirements (e.g. in reporting versus privacy) introduce them to each other and highlight the issue.
72. Government funders may be able to champion your purchase of surplus goods or lands from other parts of government.

There are limits to what you can do alone

73. You can gain leverage and shift the power imbalance between you and your funder by negotiating collectively with other nonprofits and engaging in advocacy together.Ěý

If you found these tips helpful and want to share your own or book a workshop, reach out to benjamin@theonn.ca and, sign up to receive NPLO news direct to your inbox.

The widening gap between is resulting in a domino effect of untenable demand for programs and services across the entire nonprofit sector, adding pressure to our tertiary systems. Organizations are feeling overwhelmed, struggling to tackle increased demand, and are at times unable to meet their clients’ needs. As more Ontarians fall through the social safety net, they face a system that seemingly fails to support them at every turn, leaving them stranded and never knowing who really is to blame. 

Nonprofits are not being adequately funded to pick up the pieces. Funding that reflects the true cost of service delivery and is indexed to inflation as well as population increases is needed. When one area of the sector is underfunded, organizations shoulder what they can and pass on those clients that fall through the cracks to the next logical provider. And when none of 91ĘÓƵ’s services can suffice, we see clients turning to encampments, sleeping in buses, and living in ravines, all alongside a rapid increase in public disdain for people experiencing homelessness and calls for increasingly violent responses to their presence.  

Domino one: Housing

When 91ĘÓƵ Disability Support Program (ODSP) and 91ĘÓƵ Works (OW) income supports fail to keep up with the cost of living, our most vulnerable communities slide down the housing continuum, losing even the most deeply affordable housing. At the same time, social services that should traditionally work in tandem with income supports to help aid and prevent people from losing housing (i.e. the employment and training sector), have become less helpful , especially for . 

that often recipients scaffold income supports with rent supplements to secure housing, but existing rent supplement rates have not kept pace with rising market rents. Many supportive housing programs have not received rent supplement rate increases in decades, while supportive housing clients who rely on ODSP and OW have seen minimal increases to their income. Though 91ĘÓƵ has announced they will , a gap still remains between the cost of living and available income supports.

For years, all types of shelters that they are not able to meet the increasing demand in their communities, now functioning more as transitional housing than true shelters. Ultimately people using the shelter system become stuck in the cycle when there is no ability to transition out of these services (e.g. little to no affordable housing, insufficient employment programs, and no meaningful income supports). This stagnation leaves shelters unable to serve the growing population of people in need and having to piece together various funding sources for a single extra bed. 

Domino two: EncampmentsĚý

When people can’t , which is why today the province has a growing encampment crisis. Encampments are tangible proof of our failure as a society to care for one another. 

2025 report found that at least 80,000 Ontarians were known to have experienced homelessness in 2024, an increase of 25 per cent since 2022. The incidence of chronic homelessness, characterized by prolonged or repeated episodes, has tripled over the same period, and now accounts for more than half of all cases of known homelessness.

One of the dominant yet problematic public policy solutions across provinces has been for and , like which imposes fines of up to $10,000 and trespassing charges on those experiencing homelessness. We cannot criminalize  our way out of systemic poverty and a housing crisis; we only permanently clear encampments when government adequately invests in repairing and bolstering all of our social services collectively.  

Dominos three to six: Surges in demand for other social services

When income supports do not keep up, other social services also see an increase in demand.

Food banks in usage that, like last year, can see upwards of one million Ontarians needing their services. Nonprofit addictions and recovery services can similarly that see them struggle to meet the urgent needs of their clients. Child welfare services become overwhelmed not just with children experiencing abuse, them to the services they need. As funding remains stagnant, the , and in 91ĘÓƵ have, or have previously, experienced mental health concerns or addiction, we can expect that as the homeless population increases, so will the need for services to support their changing circumstances. 

Social services face an immense amount of stress that they otherwise wouldn’t face if community care services were properly funded from the start. In truth, we often forget that services like food banks strive to not exist at all, but are forced to serve millions of Ontarians . 

Domino seven: Tertiary systemsĚýĚýĚý

Underfunding income supports and social services impacts our tertiary – hospitals, libraries, justice – systems as well.  

Hospitals see a steady increase in patients who no longer need acute care being due to . When hospitals are forced to shoulder the load of a community without adequate housing or shelter services, already long wait times and lack of beds become the norm. 

And even more worryingly, in response to perceived increases in crime (that often parallel increases in poverty and homelessness), the rapid surge in police funding seen over the last decade serves only to traumatize and criminalize poverty . When the whole of the social services sector isn’t funded properly, the sector is forced to download those they can’t serve to less safe and secure spaces that work less to help people but more to simply  “deal” with them.

Domino eight: Public spaces

Public spaces also feel the pressure from lack of investment into income supports and social services. Libraries become spaces where people experiencing homelessness can stay warm, use computers to connect to family or to job hunt, and receive help connecting to other services. This unique use of the space has seen libraries enter the front-lines of this crisis, requiring its workers to become proficient in for branches across cities. 

In a similar vein, transit hubs have very clearly become another space where people experiencing homelessness can stay warm. the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) set aside a fleet of buses where people could stay as the city reached sub-zero temperatures. People hop from bus to subway to streetcar hoping only to keep warm and search for available shelter space. 

In its final form, lack of holistic funding and proper income supports looks like vital services falling into the hands of workers and community members without the adequate resources or skills necessary to care for their neighbours. 

Knitting together our effortsĚýto fund social services

As funding for the sector is withheld, decreases, fails to keep pace with inflation, or is rerouted to more costly emergency services, we will continue to see social service infrastructure crumble and leave bigger holes in our social safety net. The only answer to this is a holistic funding approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of the sector, and the breadth and depth of each organization, and all that they do and are capable of doing as well.Ěý

Continuing the practice of giving incremental funding increases and injections into some parts of the sector isn’t working and certainly will never fill the gaps left by underfunding ODSP and OW. There is no single influx of funding into the mental health and addictions sector that is going to outweigh the failure of transformation in employment and training services. There is no amount of building shelters that can outperform the failure to protect and increase the necessary amount of affordable housing stock in our province. 

As we begin the third mandate of the Ford government, and confront the very real threat of a recession, the sector must recognize its interconnectedness not just with other social services but with the public sector, and municipalities as well. Collectively advocating for a holistic approach to funding across all of the social services sector as well as to OW and ODSP recipients to meet a minimum income standard is the only way we begin to tackle these issues head on. Collectively we must remind the government that it has a responsibility to support those in need not just so they can survive, but so they can thrive and live with dignity.