Category Archives for "Mutuality"

3 My First Video

I have at last produced my first video!  It is a part of my series of posts about website reviews and uses the same criteria to look at 5 websites.

The big difference is this video looks at 5 sites from 5 similar organisations.  My idea is that by comparing similar organisations we can begin to get a better idea about website good practice.

The title is “The 5 Worst Intermediate Body Websites” and there will be a second video with the 5 best.  The video explains what an Intermediate Body is but the point is their mistakes are all too common online.  Many organisations need to scrap their sites and start over because they have made poor decisions in the past.

This may seem harsh but the benefits of following basic standards of good practice are immense.

Next week I’ll write about how I planned and produced the video.  I still have some issues to resolve and so I’ll go into the problems I’ve met and how I’m addressing them.

One issue is the size of the video!  I’ve adjusted this so that it fits in the available space.  You may find it best to view it on full screen.

It is worth following on by summarising the main points.  Bad decisions about your content management system (cms) can create problems as you develop your site.  These sites have issues about their content too but there is no point in trying to add good content to sites that are not working.  A quick checklist from the video:

1. Make sure you have standards of functionality comparable to WordPress.  Some of the these cms are lacking basic functionality such as a blog.
2. Don’t publish on someone else’s url or use their logo.  It is your website and you need to control the content so that your site visitors can see at a glance what you’re about.
3. If you have a reasonable cms, make sure your content is good.  And do the basics such as proof-reading!  I spotted another spelling mistake on the Surrey site after I finished recording.  Did you?
4. There is no need to fear cascading style sheets.  Do fear sites structured by tables or framesets.
5. Your visitor does not want to know about the geographical boundaries of your organisation or the vacancies on your committee.
6. There are conventions and it pays to follow them.  Hiding the navigation is not clever or witty.  Put your energy into telling me stuff I didn’t know I wanted to know.

Do tell me what you think!  Also tell me if you have any problems viewing the video.  I’m not planning to use this system forever and hope to migrate to YouTube soon once I’ve sorted some technical issues.

5 Self-Interest

What are the values behind the co-operative principles? I call the cooperative ethic is self-interest, which may come as a surprise. Bear with me.

Self-interest is understanding that by helping others, I help myself. The patron saint of this ethic is St Martin of Tours. The story goes that he shared his cloak with a beggar, by slicing it in half. God approves because God loves Martin and the beggar equally.

We must not confuse self-interest with selfishness. The latter is where I act solely out of what I perceive to be my own interests. Many people on the right believe “Greed is Good”. They confuse self-interest with greed. Self-interest understands putting the interests of others first to be most beneficial to me.

Altruism is not morally superior to self-interest for several reasons. It does not seek mutual benefit but assumes moral superiority of the altruist. However, self-interest accepts we all have mixed motives and it is effective because it seeks the benefit of all.

Self-Interest in the Marketplace

Self-interest actually applies to the conventional market, not just mutuals.  A mutual is a formal type of organisation, designed to embody self-interest. However, you don’t need a mutual organisation to act out of self-interest. A small business builds relationships with its customers because all concerned benefit from that relationship. As it grows a mutual business structure may help it to maintain its ethical basis.

The marketplace at its best embodies the principles of self-interest. The exceptions are fraudulent operations and larger businesses that accumulate massive wealth in the hands of very few people.

Accumulated wealth does not benefit everyone because it restricts money flow (trickle down was always a myth). The current UK government’s austerity policy restricts the flow of money and so everyone suffers apart from those who hold onto mountains of wealth. In these circumstances trust breaks down and the market can no longer function.

The internet contributes two contradictory trends. First, capital concentrates into fewer hands. Think of the big players such as Google, Facebook or Amazon. On the other hand it has undermined the old marketing methods, such as advertising. Online marketing gives away information to build trust with potential customers. The earliest people to cotton on to this, sometimes known as gurus, have made massive fortunes. I don’t see how this can continue for everyone. On the other hand, it does suggest it is possible for more people to make a living from online marketing based on self-interest.

Do you agree self-interest is a superior ethic in the marketplace? If not, what would you suggest is the best ethic?

1 Co-operative Principles

So, what makes a mutual distinctive? Last time I showed mutuals are primarily about organised people, not organised money.  The members jointly own the wealth that accumulates within a mutual.

In 1844, the founders of the Rochdale Retail Co-operative adopted a set of principles. The International Co-operative Alliance adopted them with adaptations in 1937, last reviewed in 1995.

There are seven principles. Other types of organisations may embody some or all of them but the expectation is all seven apply to mutuals.

Voluntary and open membership

If you wish to join a co-operative they must permit you to do so without reference to your sex, sexuality, race, religion or anything else. Co-ops can impose certain conditions of membership such as residence in a geographical area or fees.

Democratic member control

The rule is one member, one vote, which should come as no surprise. This applies to the lowest level, eg your local branch. Representatives sent to higher levels also follow one member, one vote.

Perhaps we do not appreciate how radical this principle was, especially when combined with the first. Co-operatives were among the first organisations where women were able to take on leadership positions.

Member economic participation

Control of the co-operative’s assets are always in the hands of the members. They belong to the membership and not to a company or  individuals. So, co-operatives limit the assets that can be removed from ownership by the co-op.  De-mutualisation of co-operative assets must be difficult if not impossible.

However, it is possible to distribute surpluses among the members. This is known as a dividend (or divi) when applied in retail co-ops. In its best days the divi was a significant contribution to the income of many households.

Autonomy and independence

Co-ops and mutuals belong to their members. They can work in partnership with non-mutuals but cannot enter into agreements that compromise the members’ ownership of their mutual.

Converting co-operative assets to shares for example, may be attractive on the surface. In practice it means assets owned in common now belong to individuals. Those individuals who control the most shares effectively own the company. Within mutuals it is the common bond between the members that empowers the members.

Education, training, and information

So, it is crucial that members understand co-operative principles, to preserve co-operation and to empower the membership to new co-operative ventures. The first retail co-op in Rochdale had a library and meeting room above the shop, still preserved in the co-operative museum on the site today.

Cooperation among cooperatives

Co-ops collaborate with other co-ops. This ensures that mutual assets remain mutual.

Concern for community

We can understand this in various ways. There is a community among the members. If the co-op has a geographical common bond, its members support their neighbourhood. In the earliest days, one of the concerns was adulteration of food. Co-ops have always upheld the quality of their contribution to the economy.

I am somewhat sceptical about the ethical stance taken by the co-operative bank. Whilst co-ops are ethical, there is a danger that we confuse a generalised ethical stance with economic mutuality. Ethics do not substitute for mutuality.  Do you agree?

It does sound as if the UK co-operative movement is in severe trouble and it seems they have breached a number of these principles.  I think the key is education because it is too easy to forget principles or fail to understand them.  Commitment to education has fallen away as members no longer attend meetings.  Perhaps education could be promoted online but without people meeting and learning together, it is hard to see how understanding can be shared effectively.  What do you think?

2 Why Mutuals?

One current frustration in the UK is the sorry state of mutuals.  In the 80s most of the building societies demutualised, to the benefit of carpetbaggers, who joined mutuals to organise votes to turn them into conventional businesses.  Legislation to strengthen the common bond and so help mutuals resist such attempts is long overdue.   Now we’re seeing the car crash that is the retail co-operative movement.  The management believes their own rhetoric about inclusive membership, whilst in reality as few as  100 people have a say in running the co-op.  So, why mutuals?

Then a few days ago the Chancellor announced what amounts to demutualisation of pension funds.  Instead of purchasing an annuity, fund owners will now be able to withdraw their funds.  People don’t realise pensions are mutuals.  Those who die early effectively subsidise those who live long lives.  Is this fair?  Work it out.

The problem is people do not understand mutuality.  Mutuals emphasised education from the very start and equipped their members to take part fully and understand what it was they were participating in.  The first retail co-op on Toad Lane is now a museum, and the first floor preserves the original library and meeting room.

I’ve written about the origins of mutuals, through the worker and retail co-operative movements.  I described how they inspired many of the institutions we take for granted these days, even though big business exploits many of them.

The very wealthy, sometimes called the 1%, never create anything new.  Their main purpose is to own stuff and exploit it.  Their motive is ultimately personal power.

Community Activism

Community activism has always opposed the impact of the powerful on disadvantaged communities; without money organised people is the only approach available. (The co-operative movement was organised people; they organised to be financially successful.)

The pity is community development has itself become the playground of statutory sector in the UK.  Statutory and professional voluntary sector organisations fund community development to a greater or lesser extent (lesser at present).

Since the 1970s, the community sector has ignored the UK the private sector.  They ignore the contribution small businesses make to the local economy and demutualisation has spread because no-one understands or values the contributions made by mutuals.

Mutuals are the historical roots of community development.  To understand community activism pre-1970s, review the century to 1950 (roughly), when working people created institutions through mutuality.  Prior to that the principles of mutuality were laid down through the late eighteenth century evangelical revival.

As the new industrial poor learned to organise, via movements like Methodism, they discovered mutuality as an effective way to get things done through organised people; far more effective than organised money.

Why was this?  In my next Monday post I’ll write about the main features of mutual organisations.

0 Is Social Enterprise an Undisputed Good?

So, twenty years ago, community business was not well-known in England and it is interesting to see how the movement  developed.  The term “social enterprise” caught on, which suggests the enterprise model won out over the business model.

It seems hard to a community or social business; almost everyone says they’re in business when they’re actually a grant aided project.  Maybe this is an improvement if projects run in a more business-like way.  However, the criticism of the enterprise model  in 1990s Scotland was it masked what community businesses were trying to do.

Grant-Aided Projects

Most social enterprises are in neighbourhoods where there is multiple deprivation.  These neighbourhoods may not be able to support a business that provides the job opportunities a grant aided project can offer.  The survivors are the projects that have understood the basic disciplines needed in the private sector and use them to find grants, loans or contracts.  They need grants or loans or contracts because that is the way to bring some social infrastructure into such neighbourhoods.  I support these projects but my concern is the likely result of loss of funding.  Building the necessary capital assets and a market that allows them to be sustainable is a real challenge.

The voluntary-sector mindset is grant-orientated and so I wonder how effective social enterprises are in the medium to long-term?  I know the amount of work that goes into establishing social enterprises and the ones that survive over 20 years build a capital asset base and a market.  I’m also aware many fail, largely because they were unable to find a market and so were unsustainable.

Has the idea of social enterprise slipped its moorings?

Today anyone with social aims can declare themselves a social enterprise and pitch to funding bodies who are desperate to make grants or loans.  You can receive grants and loans for a good idea, whether you have a market for the idea or not.  By market I don’t mean an idea about who ideally you might sell to but an actual list of customers and prospects.

I have seen projects that are really small conventional businesses, masquerading as social enterprises to receive funding.  They have social aims but no organisation other than the people who run it.  Some projects lack both the customers they need to be a business and the community support they need to be a social enterprise.  Their vision may be excellent but their execution leaves much to be desired.

The Self-Employment Route

Why not start out as self-employed?  Because you get no money that way.  Why not test an idea in the marketplace before making it a social enterprise?  If your idea is such a good one, how else can you prove it?  Receiving a grant or loan proves you know how to complete an application form; not viability as a business.

I can understand why an entrepreneur would not want the added complication of a committee, so why not set up a conventional business and find a market?  Prove the idea works before you apply for grants.  Is that really too much to ask?  After all if you can’t show its viable, why put it into the marketplace at all?  For a good idea the problem is lack of business management skills and not viability.

Once an idea works, it can be re-launched as a community business if the owner is so minded.  Many successful businesses start out as enterprises where the entrepreneur takes the risk; the time to decide it is a community business is when it is ready to become a company.

Who Takes the Risk?

Yes, I’m saying the entrepreneur should take the risk, show their idea is viable and then take it into the third sector.  At that point they can apply for funding to expand a viable business, increase the workforce, appoint apprentices, etc.  People who are not entrepreneurs run the grant and loan making industry.  Their goal is to meet outputs and this is not usually compatible with business aims.

Community development workers should take the marketplace much more seriously and their focus should be on helping small businesses become viable and where appropriate choose the social enterprise route.  It may take time and risk individual’s assets but it can build sound foundations for local regeneration.  What do you think?

1 Community Business and Community Enterprise

In my review of third sector organisations, I’m moving on to where the third sector intersects with the private.  In this and future posts I shall consider social enterprises, mutuals and then various other projects that don’t fit under either heading.

The term social enterprise has come into vogue in recent years and I’d cheerful send it back out of vogue. What has happened is the statutory sector and the grant making industry have discovered community businesses and enterprises.  The whole currency of the movement is debased as a result.

Back in the early 1990s, Community Business Scotland (CBS) was doing the best work in this area.  I toured Scotland for 2 or 3 days in what must have been about 1993.  CBS was very clear about the distinction between a community business and a community enterprise.

On the surface they are similar.  They were both set up by community groups.  Their profit could be invested into the community in various ways:

A community business measures its success by the amount of surplus generated or better, the number of jobs created.  The community enterprise measures its success by meeting objectives agreed with its funding bodies, it would have to account for every penny and so would not normally have any surplus.

Enterprises funded through grants or contracts do not have to follow strict business guidelines.  I remember we visited an enterprise that included a training café, used by local people.  The manager commented they ought to pay more attention to portion control when we remarked on the generous portions.  A business would have to do that.

In early 90s Scotland, community enterprise continued the usual grant-aided path, whilst the businesses were trying to create  physical and economic assets in the community.  Whilst they can appear similar, they are completely different.  Do you think this debate is still relevant today?

0 Website Review 4: Common Purpose

This is my fourth website review of some community development related websites.  If you haven’t read the others, check out these previous posts to catch up:

The image on the right is the site’s home page.  The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site!  I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason!  Click on the image to open it and click again for full size.

Today’s website is the United Kingdom site for Common Purpose, an organisation I have been aware of for several years, providing innovative training in the sector.  They say, at the top of their “About” page, “Common Purpose runs courses which give people the skills, connections and inspiration to become better leaders both at work and in society.”  This is a disappointing site because it communicates little of their innovative approach to the casual visitor.  I cannot find anything about the content management system they are using.

Their domain authority of 50 reflects their position in the sector, with nearly 6000 back-links from 276 distinct domains.  This is a magnificent performance!  These links must drive a lot of traffic to the site.  However I suspect it does not do well at conversions.  It may deliver a reasonable number of responses from visitors because many visitors will be looking for Common Purpose and have a goal in mind when they visit.  Maybe this means they can afford to ignore conversions, or think they can.

Site Structure

Appearance

The home page starts with a whopping great slider.  I’ve written about these abominations before and so won’t take up more space re-treading old rope.  This one is a beauty though, on my monitor it covers the entire width of the window and little else appears ‘above the fold’.

The logo could do with a tagline.  There is one of sorts in the top right “The heart of leadership development for 25 years.”  I think I probably know what this means but many won’t even if they (a) spot it, and (b) can read it (diagonal in pale grey).

There is a lot of grey text and some visitors may have problems reading it.  Overall the site has a messy blocked approach to presenting content.  On most pages I don’t know what I’m supposed to look at.

Navigation

The primary navigation is clear and there are no drop-down menus.  If someone wants to find out about courses or apply for a course, they can see where to click.  The link to “Home” is not necessary because the logo leads to the home page.

There is secondary navigation and it appears below the primary navigation, when you click a page in the primary navigation.  It appears in an unassuming font and is easily missed.  The colour changes when you click on one of these links, so you know which page you are on.  More secondary links appear in a green box on the right hand side of the page.  I don’t know what distinguishes these two lists of secondary links.  It took me a while to notice the green box and I suspect some visitors never will.

I am at a loss to understand why there are two lots of secondary navigation.  They seem to link to different pages.  This site needs to review its structure and navigation.

Clutter

I’m completely bemused by the higgledy-piggledy approach of this site.  Various blocks of information are slung together on most pages without rhyme or reason.  There may be a reason in the eye of the designer(?) but I haven’t  a clue what it’s supposed to be.

The site abandons the visitor upon arrival and left to navigate the site to whatever it is they seek, that is assuming they know what to look for.

Site Content

Market

If you pause the slider you can work out the market appears to be people!  On their “About” page, they write:

Common Purpose is an independent, international leadership development organisation. We give people from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society. We develop their ability to work together, innovate and to thrive in different cultures – this helps people, organisations, cities and regions to succeed.

This should have more prominence.

Purpose

I hunted around the “About” page and eventually found a statement about the benefits leaders will gain from Common Purpose.  It’s in the second column and as such lacks prominence on the page.  This is what visitors need to know:

 Common Purpose helps leaders to:

• become better – and significantly faster – at breaking down silos and crossing cultures. We bring together an incredible diversity of leaders from different sectors, cultures and backgrounds.

• operate effectively outside their comfort zone. Our experiential work takes place in prisons, trading floors, schools, hospitals, production plants and more.

• deliver complex change. We take our inspiration from real-life leadership issues and insights.

I think these need more attention.  They’re good ideas but as a visitor who may be new to them, is breaking down silos (whatever they are) my first priority?  Once they’ve been approved they need much more prominence.  Replace the slider with these and people will have a good idea what the site is about and what they might want from it!

Call to Action

Take a look at the home page.  How long does it take to find the call to action?  There is one.  I found it after several scans of the page because I was looking for it.  It’s hidden in plain sight.  And it shouldn’t be.

When you find it, ask whether this is a good call to action.   I think it’s asking too much too soon for a visitor.  They need to be taken through a few steps before they encounter this call to action.  Is this the best call to action for the home page?  They don’t appear to have a list or a blog.  Perhaps they don’t need one.  Perhaps their brilliant reputation gets them the sales they need.  Perhaps …

Neglect

Apart from 2014 in the footer, which may automatically update, the only date I can see is in the second news item, 2015.  The practice of not dating items does not make the site look up-to-date.  It simply means that on any page I have no idea whether I’m dealing with something current.

Verdict:  I find this site disappointing.  It could do so much more to educate the visitor, draw them into the world of Common Purpose.  Common Purpose runs brilliant training courses and must have masses of brilliant insights it could pass on to visitors to its website.  Marketing today is training.  Common Purpose is training but not sharing its insights effectively.  If they shared more online, I’m sure more people would sign up for their courses.

0 The Genesis of Voluntary Groups

Last time I discussed the nature of volunteering and today I’ll write about how voluntary groups evolve.

Most large professional voluntary sector organisations never plan to be successful.  They start as small groups, discover a successful formula and grow.  For some, their growth was so long ago, the public have long forgotten their roots.

Groups often start as small self-help groups in a neighbourhood or else people with a common interest collaborate across a city, region or country.  With the Internet, common interests across larger areas, maybe even continents, is a possibility.

Most groups have a short life-span.  They have an objective, meet it and dissolve.  Or else they get nowhere and their members move on to other things.

How Voluntary Groups Evolve

A common example is churches, either on their own or perhaps several churches within a neighbourhood, find an issue and set up a group to tackle it.  Church members will have a variety of aims for their work; to relieve the consequences of the issue, to tackle the issue through campaigning or as church’s mission.  In a secular group, you will find parallel mixed motives.

I’ll stay with churches to illustrate the conflict that plays out.  Some church members emphasise the interpersonal aspects of the work; they speak in terms of caring or sharing the love of God and for them the issue is less important than the opportunity to befriend and care for people in need.  Others might emphasise the professional aspects of the work; for them, they understand caring as doing things properly, so the standard of care can be guaranteed.

Professionalisation

The longer a project persists, the more likely it is the professional approach will prevail.  This can be a healthy development, but not because professional groups are better than amateur groups.  As a project grows into a voluntary organisation and eventually cuts away its roots, two things should happen:

It is easy to assume the organisations we see around us are somehow fixed.  The reality is most organisations have a relatively short life-span and are at some stage of a life-cycle because the environment they operate within is protean.

Community and Voluntary Groups

Whilst the third sector includes community and voluntary groups, there is an intersection between them where one evolves into the other.  People move between organisations; learning and sharing their experience and expertise.

I’m not sure there is that much understanding of how to represent the protean nature of the third sector online.

What might be the priorities whilst building web presence for evolving and transforming organisations?  How do websites evolve with their organisations?

0 Website Review 3: Faith Based Regeneration Network

This is my third website review, where I look at the sites of some community development related websites.  If you haven’t read the others, check out these previous posts to catch up:

The image on the right is the site’s home page.  The reason it’s there is in case the site owners change the site!  I shall comment mainly on the home page for this reason!  Click on the image to open it and click again for full size.

There is no information on the Faith based Regeneration Network‘s website about their platform or site designers.  If FbRN designed the site internally, the issues I wrote about when I reviewed the CLES website, about relationships with designers, may not apply.  One disadvantage of designing internally, is the lack of opportunity to bounce ideas off an independent online designer.  This site certainly has the feel of a site developed without professional advice.

The site has a domain authority of 14, which is poor.  It has no back-links and only 8 internal links.  This is a little odd as there has been at least one link from my site for several weeks, so it is possible Google is slow in picking up back-links.

Site Structure

Appearance

The site is overall well designed with few distractions.  The background is a solid green with the content on a pale grey background, subtle but not so dark as to make reading the site difficult.  Most blocks of text are in boxes with a white background, which further enhances readability.

The first item on the page is a slider.  I wrote about these abominations in my review of the CLES website.  This one is just the same, cycling too quickly and drawing attention from the purpose of the site.

The logo is a little dull and perhaps given the theme of the site something more in the header would be helpful.  However, it does the job as it is.

Navigation

It is largely straightforward.  There is an unnecessary link to the home page, given that the logo is also a link to the home page.  The “about us” link goes to the same destination as the first item in its submenu.

The menu would benefit from being a bit bigger.  The purple text turns green when you hover over it.  Usually the hover makes the text clearer but in this case it fades, which may be difficult for some users to read.  The active link is black and for some readers perhaps not distinct enough from the purple.  Some readers may have difficulty seeing what’s going on.

Clutter

The home page has nine boxes (it depends what you count) most of which contain several links and so lacks a focal point.  I really don’t know what I’m supposed to do on the site.  It may be OK if you know what you’re looking for but for the casual visitor there are a wealth of options.

The general advice is one message per page.  Whilst it does depend upon what the site owners want from their site, I would have thought this website would seek to interest its visitors in its topic.  Any new visitor will want to know what the site is about and how to start exploring it.  The home page is very unhelpful in this respect.

Site Content

Market

Presumably it is people who are interested in interfaith work and social action.  The tagline is “leading the way in faith-based social action”.  But it isn’t clear what this means or who might be interested in it.  Is the site for faith leaders, development workers, people who are interested in interfaith work or all of these?  The site shows no awareness of its potential audience or interest in their reason for visiting.

If you are aware of which group you want to sign up for your mailing list, you can adapt the site to inform that group it meets their interests.  There’s no need to worry about the home page being for new visitors.  The old hands will return because they have a particular interest and should be able to find the information they want.

Purpose

The h1 heading and home page title is “Find out about FbRN”.  So presumably this is the purpose of the home page.  Some copy explaining what the site offers and guiding the new visitor to pages that might be of interest, would be helpful.  Nothing on the home page offers the new visitor any help.  Presumably they’re supposed to follow whatever takes their fancy.

Call to Action

To the right of the menu bar on every page there is a purple button labelled “Join our mailing list”.  It took me ages to spot it.  If you follow the link there is a form and no copy.  I attempted to subscribe today and discovered I was already a subscriber!  I  vaguely recollected receiving emails and when I searched my inbox found newsletters, each containing a lot of links to detailed information.  This may be helpful to some subscribers but the subscriber is offered little help to work out what to follow-up.

The home page could contain copy about the work of FbRN leading to a brief sign-up form.  I don’t know what sort of response they’ve received but I suspect this would be more effective than the subscribe link on every page.  A short pdf guide to faith-based regeneration might be offered to those who sign up.

A more ambitious aim might be a short course about faith-based regeneration.  This might serve to introduce new visitors to the topic and could link to various resources on the site.  This could be delivered via an email sequence or perhaps video or audio files.

Neglect

The last blog post is 20 February, so the site seems to update occasionally.  I suspect volunteers run the site, who perhaps have no clear objectives.  A scheduled series of blog posts might help keep visitors up to date with developments or introduce them to key concepts and ideas.

Verdict: As a resource for members or subscribers, assuming they can find stuff, this site may be a valuable resource.  The site does not come across as campaigning or particularly  supportive of inquirers.  For example, how would a sixth former, writing an essay on interfaith social action relate to the site?

Tell me whether you think my verdict is a little harsh?  Perhaps I’m suggesting the site should do things FbRN has never intended.  I would love to see a site that took seriously education of the public about community development from a faiths perspective, sadly I don’t think this it.  FbRN has a lot of information and if they could find more accessible ways to present it, they might find they become a more popular site.

1 What is a Volunteer?

This is another post in the series about third sector organisations.  Today it’s voluntary organisations.

I’ve heard there was no such thing as the voluntary sector until the 1970s and I do have a slight recollection of the idea becoming current around the time I started as a community development worker.  Of course, there were any number of charities, mutuals and self-help groups going way back but these did not self-identify as voluntary sector organisations until the 70s.

I’m not convinced it was a positive move.  The idea of mutuals is people work together to benefit together, an idea that survives in an attenuated form within community organisations and some co-ops.

In voluntary organisations though, the volunteer works for someone; typically a wealthy professional voluntary sector organisation delivers services through the agency of volunteers recruited, trained and supported by paid staff.

The old Councils for Voluntary Service, now Voluntary Actions, tried to count community groups as voluntary sector.  But are they?  Community organisations whilst finding Voluntary Actions helpful, have been a little suspicious, they were not exactly in the same game.

A community organisation is typically a self-help group, they’re not volunteers but work for themselves.  Indeed some community organisations employ staff.  We can use the term volunteer loosely to cover self-help but I think we should attend to the nature of community organisations more carefully.

The way in which local authorities for example, expect local people to take part in their schemes can be particularly galling.  I’m sure this attitude depends on the idea members of community groups are volunteers.  It is little wonder from time to time members of community groups ask to be paid.

They may have a point but there is a place for self-help groups and if people always expect to be paid, most would never get off the ground and their members would not experience the benefits of community activism.

There may be a case for local people getting together and establishing mutuals where they pay themselves for their community work.  If groups can find ways to trade and benefit themselves and their neighbourhood, they should be encouraged and supported.  Where this works it is likely to build more stable structures than the grant aided fiefdoms that periodically collapse, depriving local people of valued services.

Volunteers supported by grants have never been a stable way of developing community.  A more entrepreneurial approach might be better all round.

Do you know of successful grant-free local enterprises, owned and run by local people?