These are very interesting questions.
My having come from the private sector into the social sector, it has been an eye opener for me. I often make the parallel or correlation with the venture capital world where you invest in the entrepreneur and create the conditions for the entrepreneur to be successful. There are not a lot of restrictions around how the money is spent, and that's in stark contrast to how the grants process has been utilized to date.
To answer your question, in terms of the short term action plan versus long term funding and so forth, I think it's a huge opportunity, from a government perspective, to divide the financing between a couple of different buckets. The government is doing this too to some extent, but it needs to do it more. There is some core funding, but core funding or program-related funding is strangling these non-profits or businesses, obliging them to do something repeatedly rather than innovatively.
I'm a huge proponent of creating another bucket in which x amount is given to maintain what's being done today and y amount is given for a little bit of innovation. As the funder, my evaluation of the two different buckets would be very different .