 |
 |
Michael Thanks for the halfpenny - it arrived in mint condition I lived in the Dingle in the 1990s and still go to liverpool a lot so I know where you're coming from on that front. Ive also follwoee with interest the CPN-linked communty fight back work in 'New East Manchester' (olny new if you're new to it) and listened o the Luton New Deal area experiences at the Great Yarmouth conference with a mixture of acknowledhgment and recognition. ' apprectiave enquiry ' is not a term I'm familiar with but will dig into. The idea of a substantial 'pump priming' of 'truly community-focussed' organsitional structure has its appeal, notwithstanding all the arguments that then follow on the deifinuitions involved. At the moment a typical grant is say £15k to £20k for two or three years, with the rationale given that 'our' cash will only go so far, as well as this notion of not giving too much because it might affect plans for 'sustainability'). It could of course be argued (and will be in my paper to the board that the underlying reason for small grants like this is that it keeps groups and organisations dependent on our (and other Trusts') goodwill, so that they need to 'behave themselves'. A more legiitmate (in CP's terms) approach may, as you suggest, be to lob a million quid at a community focused set up and let them get on with it - it being challenge rather than compliance. So i'll think on To be honest I have no idea what's going on in Bhutan -I try to be wide-ranging in my reading but there are certain areas I've not got to - so I'm open to more info. Best Paul "The UK Community Psychology Discussion List" <[log in to unmask]> writes: >Dear Paul, >Just maybe half a penny's worth of thought: I would analyse where current >funding streams including grant opportunities are directed with what >impact. Many of these funding opportunities in my opinion ultimately make >people feel very disempowered because they generate short-term impact with >no sustained consequences and despite all the verbal assurances, sustained >change is rarely an achievable objective. For instance in Liverpool we >have had oodles of money going into some of the communities but with very >little overall benefit to the local community that it was aimed at, except >that they now might have more trees in their environment (they tend to >grow by themselves), and better parking facilities for all those who come >into the community from outside for their work. Community building is >really difficult and needs a proactive approach. The Jarman Trust has >developed some ways of getting results but I am not sure how this is seen >nowadays. I think it would be good if the charity had some set of >principles (e.g. use of 'appreciative enquiry' as in best development >practice, not as in customer care), and some policy for proactively >eliciting proposals, with continuity in mind. Leadership always seems to >be a core issue. The beauty of such an approach is that the behaviour of >the charity bye and large could remain fairly conventional while making >substantive differences. Another possibility of course would be to >pump-prime the development of a truly community-focussed >professional-transcending organisational structure which could give some >further momentum to some of the issues discussed on this list? Using all >our best evidence to make it really work reasonably, a bit like they do >with the development of democracy in Bhutan at present. >Michael. > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------From: >The UK Community Psychology Discussion List on behalf of Paul Cotterill >Sent: Fri 02/11/2007 11:48 >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: money and what to do with it > > >annie > > thanks for this initial response > >yes, thoughts on how 'concientization' might be built in to the whole >would be welcome > >i'm not looking for wholly thought out solutions etc, as i acknowledge >that for many members of the network this 'funding mullarkie' might be a >very different world, just thoughts for me to build into my thinking > > i forgot to mention that one reason for stikcing it the networks;'s way >was my attendance at a 'funding and how it failed us' workshop at the >great yarmouth conference. i would have come to york as well but could't >afford it (hint, hint) > >the other thing i forgot was that it was agreed that not only should the >reivew cover how the investment income is spent, but also how the >considerable investrments (around £150 million) are managed in ther first >place. At the moment investment in in the usual range of equities, bonds >and property. In addition to the obvious 'socialyl resonsible investment' >route, is there a way to link altnerative investment to conscientization, >or is that really just a very large square peg in a tiny round hole? > >p > >"The UK Community Psychology Discussion List" <[ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask]> >writes: >Paul, > >Thanks; I think it would be great if we could take up this opportunity. >I’d be interested in looking at this though it would be stretching my >usual sphere of activity a lot. as you say: the mission, objectives and >how the money is applied for and monitored ( so often, as david pointed >out to the joseph rowntree chief exec at York, the application process >itself puts off the grass roots people one would hope such funds could >liberate/ enable). > >I wonder whether a process with some sort of conscientization process >built in would be radical: ie that funding would go to projects aiming for >radical culture change lead by “ the oppressed majority” where they were >working with others operating as external catalysts.. > >Annie > > > > > > > >.. > > > > > >Annie Mitchell > > > >Clinical Director, > >Doctorate in Clinical Psychology, > >School of Applied Psychosocial Studies, > >Faculty of Health and Social Work, > >University of Plymouth, > >Peninsula Allied Health Collaboration, > >Derriford Road, > >Plymouth, > >Devon > >PL6 8BH > > > > > >Phone Programme Administrators: >Jane Murch, Emma Hellingsworth > >01752 233786 > > > >Please note I work 3 days per week: > > > > >usually Monday, Tuesday & either Wednesday or Thursday. > > > >From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List [[ >mailto:[log in to unmask] >]mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Cotterill >Sent: 01 November 2007 13:33 >To: [ mailto:[log in to unmask] >][log in to unmask] >Subject: money and what to do with it > > > > > > >Dear all > >More or less by mistake - you know the way these things happen - I am a >trustee of a medium-sized grant making trust, which I think should remain >nameless for the time being at least, and which gives out grants of about >£5 million per year from the income on its (considerable) investments - >investments that come as a result of the continued hegemony of capital and >all that. Just by way of quick comparison, Northern Rock Foundation gave >out £30 million last year, though the near collapse of capitalism in >August means that this will be down to £20 million this year - so mine is >not a big Trust, but then £5 million a year is maybe not to be sniffed >at. Yes, of course it can (and should) be argued that a philanthropic >foundation which necessarily has its roots in capitalist exploitation is a >symptom of the overall structural injustice of society, and therefore >cannot logically also tackle/resolve that injustice, but there is the >counterargument of subversion from the inside etc etc, and as that >argument-in-my-head gets me very nice lunches at board meetings, that's >the one I've gone for. CPN commentators will no doubt tell me if I'm >wrong. > >Getting to the point, at yesterday's board meeting, alongside the large >lunch, there was a discussion about the review of the trust's 'programme >priorities' (i.e. what it will spend its money on and how it will decide >who to give it to) which will take place in the course of 2008. The first >thing that came up or discussion was whether we needed to review our >'mission' which currently refers to meeting social need and disadvantage >and at first sight kind of looks ok. However, I (took a deep breath and) >challenged this and suggested that the review needs to explore what we >really mean by all this, and to examine the relationship between social >need and social justice, in the context of alternative conceptions of >social power (at least I think that's what I said). I referred to The >Joseph Rowntree Founation's Power Inquiry (JRF being part of the >Foundation world and therefore a recognizable entity for other trustees) >and said that it was quite possible to challenge the (neo-liberal) >conception of power inherent in that Inquiry. From there I argued that >we should perhaps, as a board, explore whether a more overtly radical >conception of power, and therefore our role in challenging existing social >structures which maintain the status quo (with our dosh in support) might >now be the thing to do. > >Somewhat to my surprise, there was support for my view that a radical >approach to our 'mission' might be appropriate, and it was agreed that I >should go away and write up a paper on how it all might look and what >might be the implications of such a new mission and set of objectives >might be e.g. we might end up funding causes and interventions which are >themselves more radical, rather than the projects we currently fund which >are, within the existing social paradigm, ;'worthy' in terms of meeting >social need and disadvantage rather than tackling their roots. > >So, what am I asking of you lot? Since starting to engage albeit >peripherally with the network I have been impressed by the quality of >analysis of social systems/structures/barriers that you provide, and not >least your capacity to meld clearly Marxist analysis with post-Marxist, >discourse-theoretic stuff in a way that even I can grapple with. Given >this, it seemed sensible as I sat on the train home form the board to ask >you as a network what you might like the Trust's future 'objectives' to >look like, and perhaps more practically what it should give its money to, >and how it might restructure the route to getting that money so that >radical causes in support of a more radical mission might better be >identified and then financially supported. > >Equally, I accept that you may want to tell me I'm wrong to seek to engage >with the whole thing at this level/angle in the first place, though >obviously given the niceness of the lunches I retain the right to >completely ignore you. > >Best > > >Paul > > > > > >___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list >for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your >details visit the website: [ >http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >]http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on >[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] > >___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list >for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your >details visit the website: [ >http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML >]http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [ >mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on >[ mailto:[log in to unmask] ][log in to unmask] > > > > >___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list >for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your >details visit the website: >http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >[log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] > > > > > > >___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list >for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your >details visit the website: >http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or >queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on >[log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask] > > > ___________________________________ COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK. To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator Rebekah Pratt on [log in to unmask] or Grant Jeffrey on [log in to unmask]