Hello everyone.
I'm not sure that the previous discussion - "brokering university knowledge
to community agencies" - adequately portrayed the view of people who work in
community at the grassroots.
I felt shut down in that discussion, perhaps because I was understood to be
speaking for myself alone, or I expressed the frustration of every one of
the community workers I've met, or because my use of 'community' was
misunderstood (I'll clear that up in a bit). Heartening for me was that the
discussion generated private correspondence from subscribers who wanted to
convey their support, but were reluctant to post themselves due to the risk.
They shared their thoughts, some of which I used with their permission in
subsequent posts. There have been lurkers, too, accessing this topic from
the SDOH website archives. These people are from a number of community
organizations whom I alerted to the discussion, and they told their friends.
Aside from the comments on the topic, the overall message has been: Don't
give up. So I won't.
By 'community group', I mean a nonprofit, charity, coalition, association,
or ad hoc group of people, whose origin was inspired from within a given
town, village, neighbourhood, as opposed to organizations that are 'based'
in communities, but were inspired and continue to be largely mandated by
government. An example of the latter group are the Community Futures
Development Corporations. Most of the current CFDCs were approved by the
Minister of Employment and Immigration between 1986 and 1990. Our local CFDC
receives 65% of its funding (core funding, no less) from Western Economic
Diversification and grabs a sizeable share of the rest from HRSDC. Community
groups must compete for scarce government project – never core - funding
against agencies such as this, organizations which advertise themselves as
'volunteer-led' - the board is volunteer and comprised of business people -
and 'community-based'. In fact, these organizations are directed from the
top-down and do not risk expiry due to lack of money.
I thought it may help further understanding if the original topic was turned
around. So I titled this new thread "Brokering community knowledge to
universities," partly to highlight the inequality of U-C alliances and also
for another reason.
When you read that title, does it make sense to you? I ask because when I
query my community friends, the reaction is "Huh?!"
Think about the things community groups deal with directly on a regular
basis: violence against women, disability, childhood abuse, addictions,
mental illness, homelessness, hunger, seniors isolation, caregivers without
support, suicide, preventable disease, terminal illness... Where in all this
would arise the goal of brokering our knowledge to universities? What would
be the point, from our perspective? We have very limited human, financial
and other resources, which the funding climate makes worse. What we have is
spent on the things we do everyday. There is no room for anything else.
Alas, it all comes back to funding. In addition to everything that we do
each day, we worry about how we'll pay the rent, pay staff, buy stamps, get
around, communicate... Charitable foundations can give grants only to other
registered charities. Many groups are not registered charities or even
registered nonprofits. Registered non-profits - and in rare cases,
associations, coalitions and ad hoc groups - can apply for government
funding. However, government funding is evermore scare and finely streamed.
Enter programs like CIHR and CURA (Canadian Institute for Health Research
and Canadian-University Research Alliances, respectively).
If the only way to get funding is for community groups to align themselves
to a university, then some of us will consider that. In rare cases, such
alliances have become as much partnerships as the program allows. Most of
the time, however, the community giveth, the university taketh, and there is
an exchange of money. What does that sound like to you?
Our argument isn't so much against individual academics - well, some deserve
a tongue lashing -, but against the government and universities when they
work in collusion with government. Not only has government tightened its own
purse strings and excessively streamed what's left, but through its laws
governing charities it is slowly snuffing community groups out of existence.
That may be its plan, for now there's a new thing they're selling - the
conversion of nonprofits into 'social enterprises' or the corporatization of
the non-profit sector.
What we community groups would like to see is an attempt by academics to
understand our situation, maybe even to advocate with us, e.g., to change
the Charity Act. There are a few of you out there and you are precious to us
indeed.
Ocean
---------------------------------
Chrystal Ocean, WISE Coordinator
http://www.wise-bc.org/
-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header -- to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH
DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.
To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname
To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.
For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]
To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST
To view the SDOH archives, go to: https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html
|
