Well. I see lots of posts about “working effectively with the community”. I was even titled “Community Engagement Officer” at stages and my foray into the Third Sector was back in the 90’s when I worked in “Community Business” – decades before we invented “social enterprise”. I was pretty sure my “Bosses” and the trustees of our Boards had some vague idea of “community” (except for the most influential [to me] of these, Robert Cairns who got this) but they never defined it.
Geographic, Interest, and how many more?
We pigeon-holed “communities” into categories. And not many of them. It’s super important to note “we”. Grant-funders wanted to know which of these communities beneficiaries fitted into. And they had to fit. Else no funding. Some of our “communities” were defined geographically being bounded in an area of economic deprivation.
But nobody ever asked the people which community or communities they identified with – because people do identify with more than one community. But in the days of ERDF and ESF the definition of the “Community” was set way further away – at the nearest National Government level, but more often in Brussels. Pots of money to “invest in communities” provided they fitted the beaurocrats definitions.
Don’t get me wrong. The organisation I worked for was funded through ERDF and ESF, our Council partners wanted to get rid of the money, so the system was effectively rigged.
Yes, we did some very good work, and some of the “projects” we supported are still in existence. Credit Unions, for example, and others.
But a lot faded away when the funding ended. And I am convinced it was because we never – we weren’t’ incentivised to – asked anyone what communities they identified with.
So whatever group or organisation I help, through training advice or guidance or project delivery, I don’t just ask “and how did you establish the need and demand [for the change you deliver or want to deliver]” I also ask how they defined the community of beneficiaries they plan to deliver change to.
People identify with a vast range of different communities. Yes, they can be geographic (but what geographic boundary, it’s unlikely to be “town” or “postcode”) or interest but can also be need, practice, any of the protected characteristics, a combination of these or anything else they say they identify with.
As a Community Engagement Officer I was given a territory in which to operate. My attempts to break this model failed and brought me into conflict with my bosses. As a Consultant I chose my territory – Scotland. I feel a Venn diagram coming on… My broadest definition of “community” within that territory is “Third Sector” (that’s the Charity, Voluntary and Social Enterprise Sector, or “Non-profit” for readers outside the UK).
A territory is not a community. A community is only relevant for those who define it and are part of it. If we don’t check this, the change we plan to deliver will be short-term at best.
And that brings me to a conundrum. Because our sector, unlike the private sector, should be striving to eliminate the need and demand for the change we have identified. I don’t want to see more Food Banks – I want to see the reason we need Food Banks eliminated. That’s a topic for another post.
Leave a Reply