This letter is a formal submission from Pillar Nonprofit Network CEO Maureen Cassidy to the City of London’s Community and Protective Services Committee. It raises concerns that the proposed Good Neighbour Agreements, as currently drafted, could shift responsibility for complex social issues onto nonprofit service providers, create new unfunded compliance and operating costs, and ultimately reduce or disrupt essential services for people experiencing homelessness, poverty, mental health challenges, and substance use.
Date: January 22, 2026
Dear Chair and Members of the Committee,
Pillar Nonprofit Network is writing on behalf of nonprofit organizations across London - particularly frontline agencies serving people experiencing homelessness, poverty, mental health challenges, and substance use - to express serious concerns with the proposed Good Neighbour Agreements currently before the Committee.
Nonprofit organizations share the City’s interest in safe, inclusive, and well-functioning neighbourhoods. However, as currently proposed, elements of the Good Neighbour Agreements risk creating unintended consequences that could undermine service delivery, impose new and unfunded costs for already under-resourced agencies, and ultimately harm the very communities the agreements are intended to support.
Shifting Responsibility Onto Service Providers
Many of the proposed requirements shift responsibility for managing complex social issues - such as homelessness, mental health crises, and substance use - onto nonprofit service providers. These challenges stem from longstanding and well-documented gaps in housing supply, mental health and addictions treatment, and income supports - areas that fall primarily within provincial and federal responsibility.
Nonprofits step in to fill these gaps out of necessity, not choice. Imposing additional compliance, monitoring, enforcement, or reporting requirements on these organizations effectively penalizes them for responding to unmet community needs.
Financial and Operational Impacts
Frontline nonprofit organizations in London are already operating under severe financial strain. Many, if not most, are facing:
● increased demand for services,
● workforce shortages and burnout,
● rising insurance, security, and facility costs; and
● stagnant or short-term funding that does not reflect the true cost of service delivery.
Several elements of the proposed agreements would introduce significant new costs - including staffing, administrative burden, and physical infrastructure requirements - without any accompanying funding, transition supports, or implementation planning. For many organizations, these costs are simply not absorbable and could result in service reductions or closures.
Risk to Vulnerable Populations and Neighbourhoods
If nonprofits are forced to scale back or relocate services due to increased regulatory burden, the impacts will not disappear - they will simply shift. Reduced access to supports will likely increase pressure on emergency services, hospitals, and public spaces, exacerbating the very concerns the proposal aims to address.
We are particularly concerned that this proposal may unintentionally stigmatize organizations serving vulnerable populations and contribute to a narrative that frames social services as neighbourhood problems rather than essential community assets.
Need for Meaningful Consultation and Collaboration
Nonprofits were not meaningfully engaged in the development of this proposal, despite being directly affected by its requirements.. A policy of this significance requires deeper consultation with:
● frontline service providers,
● people with lived and living experience,
● neighbourhood representatives, and
● public health and housing system partners.
Our Request
On behalf of London’s nonprofit sector, we respectfully urge the Committee to:
1. Pause advancement of the proposed Good Neighbour Agreements in their current form to allow for further consultation and impact analysis
2. Undertake meaningful consultation with nonprofit service providers and affected communities
3. Assess the financial and operational impacts on nonprofits and the downstream impacts on vulnerable residents
4. Ensure that responsibility for systemic failures is not shifted onto charitable and nonprofit organizations without commensurate resources, authority, or support
5. Explore collaborative, systems-based approaches that align enforcement, service provision, and upstream investments in housing, mental health, and addictions supports
Nonprofits are committed partners in building safe and caring communities. But true partnership requires policies that recognize the realities nonprofits face and do not further strain a sector already operating at its limits.
We appreciate the Committee’s consideration and welcome the opportunity to engage further.