One of the first things to strike me in this overview is the number and nature of the groups: there are many more now (we are told we have more organisations per head of population than comparable cities); the involvement and role of volunteers has changed dramatically (generally fewer and generally peripheral); earlier the services were about meeting the social or personal needs of people in the community, now they are increasingly about meeting the socio-economic needs of clients or customers, such as food, housing and employment.

At the start of the period, we were nearing the end of a period of essentially true full-employment. Relatively speaking, there were lots of volunteers around and they got together and decided to meet a real need that wasn't being met. Policy discussions tended to be vigorous, vision and enthusiasm/commitment were strong and the focus almost completely on the person with the need. There was a lot of freedom as to how to meet these needs.

We have now been through a period of high unemployment into an era of precarious employment with living standards for the majority falling and the pressure to supplement benefits strong. Volunteers are often hard to find. The organisations are generally run by trained professionals, employed by a board or committee often made up of professionals. A major focus is "funding providers" with their incredibly detailed contracts and "accountability" requirements which require a narrow range of specific outcomes with respect to "clients", generally for a fraction of the cost it takes to meet the contract provisions. Application details are often very different, similarly "accountability" checks and sometimes the job descriptions of the key people must be modified for each funding provider.

With the change from volunteers to paid staff the passion of the organisation has often gone along with a lessening and change of vision away from the benefit provision to "clients" to meeting the requirements of the funding providers with their changing agendas. Many groups have become part of the individualised, competitive environment with a marked lessening in co-operation, sharing of information, resources and mutual support. Some are openly aggressive to other agencies working in the same field. In the "open marketplace" welfare agencies are considered by some funders to be no different from schools, sports clubs and service clubs.

What were previously services freely given are now often user pays. Even fund-raising has changed. Telemarketing of commercial products is in. There are major signs of donor fatigue with great competition for the "charity" dollar as the Government withdraws from the provision of what were once basic public services, such as health care; especially mental health, and housing.

Anything the Government considers is ad hoc and doesn't fit neatly into its framework is out, such as community education programmes not run by institutions. Advocacy is frowned on; it may compromise funding.

One of the major changes that has taken place is in the relationship with the major funder the Government. Until recently, the service was funded, on the basis that the community group were closely tuned to the needs of the client group. Now the organisation is contracted for only those specific outcomes the Government wants. Contracts are short term, outcome or project specific, generally with no provision for overheads or organisational costs and no flexibility to meet local or real client needs. The outcomes funded are easily changed and may have a short shelf life. The provision of services (production of outcomes) is increasingly contestable. The criteria encourage the corporates to enter the field. Thus Government controls the activities of the sector and the type of provider.

This is particularly important, because the Government is implementing an agenda that is designed to see the destruction of what used to be called 'public services', with Government agencies only setting policy, the "market' playing the dominant role in people's lives, including the provision of income, and 'communities' picking up the pieces in an environment of user pays, individual responsibility, and a charity approach to meeting the needs of others. Local Government is going along the same path.

Thus funding will become increasingly difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities to employ staff while at the same time the pressures on the agencies is likely to increase dramatically as government services are withdrawn as we are now seeing every week in the health sector.

As the major businesses restructure in the global economy the level of structural unemployment will continue to rise with jobs increasingly casualised for lower pay. Some writers suggest that the community sector will provide the jobs of the future. The work is certainly there but how will the workers get paid? How will they survive? Tax credits have been suggested based on the hours served. This will not solve the problem. Only something like a publicly funded, basic income for all citizens could do this.

Whatever happens, the world of the voluntary sector and the role for the Community Service Council will be very different in the near future, with very different issues to deal with in a world very different to what we grew up in. We need to deliberately and vigorously identify and discuss these issues and decide how we want to respond to them. The role of the individual agencies and the Council will become increasingly important, requiring a much more pro-active role. We have the opportunity to help to decide the shape of the future, if we choose to take it.

Sharing Our Stories - Palmerston North Community Services Council, 1971 - 1996. 25 years of working in community - A Celebration.

Links | | UBINZ | | GeoCities