Québec’s community movement:
a force for social CHANGE?
Reflections on the state of Québec’s community movement
Vincent Greason
April 2010
This short text was written as part of a «sabbatical year» afforded to
the author by a fellowship awarded by the Carold Foundation. If you have the time and interest, I invite
your comments, criticisms and suggestions.
These can be sent to me in a variety of ways -
– by writing them directly into the document
with the wonderful «Revision» function of the Word programme
-
by using the handy «Quick response
form» which is found as the last page of this text
If one of these two methods are chosen, you can reach me at:
Or you can support our public services by sending your comments via Canada
Post to:
vincent greason
102 chemin Gauvin
Lac-des-Loups, QC J0X 3K0
Abstract
Québec’s community movement is rooted in the popular
organizations which sprang up in the 1960s and 1970s. These «groupes populaires» proposed an anti-capitalist
understanding of society based on a class analysis. However by 2010, the «popular movement» had
evolved into the «community movement», thus becoming increasingly institutionalized
and depoliticized. Indeed for many groups today, service delivery has become an
end rather than a means and active members have been replaced by passive
«users» and even by «clients». More than
just a changed vocabulary, these changes are indicative of a fundamental shift within
the movement which is challenging long-held principles and practices.
This short article presents a critical profile of the
Québec community movement. It is divided
into three sections. The first provides
some background to the movement. A
discussion of the content and impact of the recent historic Government policy
on community action follows. A short
conclusion raises three key issues which are confronting the community movement
as it finds itself at a critical crossroad.
Part one
The Québec community movement: some background.
Québec is a
«distinct society». Consequently, the
tradition and history of community organization is different from that of the
rest of Canada. Ironically, many of the
pressures presently weighing upon Québec’s community groups are an attempt to
force them into a more «North-American» mould. [1]
The Québec community movement,
excluding the social economy sector, is composed of more than 8 000
groups, of which roughly 4 000 identify themselves as «independent»
community organizations. Five thousand of these groups have a funding link with
the Québec government. [2] By definition, all 8 000 groups have an
active democratic life, of which the annual general meeting (AGM) is the most
important moment. A further 7000 groups and coops make up the
social economy sector. [3] In short, different «currents» run through
what other jurisdictions call «the third sector», a concept rarely used in
among Québécois activists and for which nuances need to be drawn if it is to be applied
to Québec.
The Québec Government recognizes
the importance of making distinctions in its dealings with community
organizations. In its recent policy
paper, it distinguishes between «independent»
organizations and other forms of community-based groups, such as foundations,
cooperatives, economic community development initiatives, the «voluntary
sector» and social economy enterprises.
Certain forms of «third sector» intervention are explicitly excluded
from its policy. [4]
The community
action movement is rooted in a more politicized tradition.[5] Inspired
by the liberation struggles of different peoples with whom Québécois activists
have long felt an affinity (Palestine, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile…), as well as
their own
sense of national oppression and identity[6], the early community movement,
organized in «groupes populaires», defined itself as a force for social change.
The groups making up the movement included
citizen’s committees, tenant’s groups, neighbourhood day care centres and
grocery stores, budgetary counseling groups (ACEF), literacy groups, unemployed
and injured worker’s groups, etc. . The
early discourse of this milieu was anti-capitalist and included an explicit social
class analysis. [7]
A line can be
drawn between much of what is progressive in Québec social policy and the struggles
waged by the social movement, of which community organizations are an important
component.[8] The independent community movement continues this
tradition, most recently identifying itself as a social change movement in a
formal vote taken at a national meeting.[9] By definition, an independent community group
must be able to demonstrate that it is a force for «social transformation».[10]
For their part, popular education groups
define themselves as working to change the causes, and not the symptoms, of
social inequality and injustice.
Obviously social
change can take many forms. In the field
of health and social services, alternative citizen-based services were
developed by different community action initiatives before they were
institutionalized. The much respected,
Centres locaux des services communautaires (CLSC) grew out of the citizen’s
movement. Québec’s accessible and public
childcare system came into being because of the long-term struggle to
universalize the community-based «garderies populaires». A myriad of similar alternative services –in
mental health, women’s centres, rape-crisis centres, neighbourhood houses- have changed their milieu by responding
creatively and non-bureaucratically to citizen-identified needs or to assist disadvantaged
populations.
Social change can also take
the more conflictual form which is often necessary to defend basic human rights.
To this end, many independent community groups have developed rights practices and
initiated struggles to
improve the working and living conditions of their members and «the
society». They have contributed to improving
social and economic rights on several fronts: drug insurance for poor people, social
housing, access to health care, legal aid, unemployment insurance, universal
childcare. The International Women’s
March (2005), which placed the issue of women and poverty on the political
agenda of several countries, came about through an initiative from the Québec
women’s movement.
Formal recognition of this non-partisan
political dimension of community action was attained in 2001 with the creation
of a new type of community action group:
un groupe de defense collective
des droits.[11] Translated as «rights advocacy» groups, this
category encompasses more than 450 organizations whose principle role is to
defend and advance the social and economic rights of Québec citizens. Groups working in this field represent social
assistance recipients, tenants, the elderly, people with a variety of
handicaps, women, consumers, etc. Most
of their public funding comes from an independent, non-governmental source and
they fall under the responsibility of a relatively arms-length Secretariat. [12] Rights groups are funded to be watchdogs and
social critics.[13]
Coalitions (Regroupements) also receive State
support. Whereas, in québécois, a «coalition» generally means
an entity which is cross-sector (community- trade union, for example) or ad-hoc
(on an issue basis), a regroupement
is a permanent federation of groups , organized either sectorally (housing,
women’s centres, single parents, etc.) or territorially (regionally or locally).
Within the independent sector alone,
more than 100 national sectoral regroupements
are funded by the Québec government.[14] Further, Québec is divided into seventeen
distinct administrative units. Separate
regional coalitions representing women’s groups, popular education groups, and
health and social services groups are funded by the Québec Government which
also funds a network of local coalitions, the corporations de développement communautaire. Most «base groups» are members of at least
one regional coalition and one national coalition. Many have multiple affiliations, representing
their different needs and interests.
While base groups work directly with the population, coalitions are
important for developing critical social analysis , providing support and
services to their members and for their role in demanding and negotiating the
conditions of their member’s funding.
Several of the territorial networks are also active representatives of
their members in partnerships with different State and private actors.
Finally, this brief overview
would not be complete without acknowledging the importance of the health and
social service sector which represents about 70 percent of the State’s total commitment
to community organizations. During the 1990s, this sector expanded
exponentially as the Government increasingly involved community organizations in
its major reforms through a series of policy initiatives. In fact, this
component of the independent community movement has long insisted upon being a part
of the decision-making process in the health and social services field. In the 1990s, regional coalitions of
community organizations were funded precisely to facilitate community input
into local health decisions. Consequently,
the conflictual, watchdog role defended by other community sectors (particularly in
popular education) was gradually replaced by models of partnership and consultation
designed to facilitate the «co-production» of services in the health and social
service field.
In other sectors as well,
notably employment and community economic development, community organizations have
chosen to try to influence public policy from within, rather than criticize it
from without. This approach has largely
facilitated the arrival of New Public Management (NPM) practices in Québec.
The NPM grows directly out
of the neoliberal redefinition of the role of Government and the concept of «public
space». For the neoliberals, the role of
Government is not to «row», but to «pilot».[15] In this view, the Government coordinates and
plans service and programme delivery, but is not in the business of direct
delivery. Public services are
privatized and their delivery becomes the responsibility of third party
partners such as municipalities or not-for-profit groups.[16]
NPM is the form of public
administration adapted to the neoliberal State.
It applies to public administration principles which are imported from
the private sector: efficiency, cost effectiveness, value for dollar. Services to
be off-loaded to private or community partners are managed through service
contracts awarded competitively to providers who can deliver them at the lowest
cost. These contracts define the frequency, quality and nature of the goods
being bought and sold, and detailed reporting measures are required. In this world view, citizens are perceived as
«service consumers» and become the statistics and measurements recorded in reports
made to funders.
Those community
organizations that have accepted the logic of the State’s dismantling to the
private sector by becoming its useful partners have also seen their funding
increased. Other sectors, either more critical
or less useful to the State, become marginalized. It is around this issue – the participation
of the community sector in the dismantling of the State – that Québec’s
community movement is becoming increasingly fractured. More than a question of tactics, this split
reflects fundamentally different visions of the role of the State.
Québec community sector Funding
An obvious
way in which Québec differs from the rest of Canada lies in the level of its State
funding to the community sector. A double consensus within Québec society can
help to explain the origin of this practice of public funding. The first aspect concerns the State’s role for
ensuring the redistribution of wealth.
[17]
While public funding of universal social
programmes and public services and a multi-tiered and broad-based approach to
taxation are generally held to be two forms of wealth redistribution, the State
funding of community organizations is considered to be a third form. This first consensus is currently under
attack by neoliberal governments, think tanks (Institut économique de Montréal)
and journalists (Claude Picher).
The second
consensus, directly related to the first, concerns the idea that persons, and groups
of persons, excluded from power and influence have the right to express
themselves in public debate. Community
organizations are seen as vehicles for developing the arguments of this part of
the population and for allowing it to gain the skills and experience necessary
to make its voices heard.
[18] It is in this sense that the funding of
community groups can be seen as a form of wealth redistribution. By helping disadvantaged groups participate
in social debates, community groups play a role in fashioning and maintaining
pressure on the State to provide a wide range of accessible social programmes
and public services paid for by taxes. Adult
education, particularly popular education, has thus played an important role
since the Quiet Revolution, as it has been an incubator of social criticism and
demands. Through their involvement in popular
education groups, thousands of citizens have gained basic organizing and
critical skills necessary for more fully participating in society. Indeed, for nearly thirty years, Québec’s Ministry
of Education supported citizen education through popular education. From 1967 until 2005, it supported these
efforts within community organizations; from 1987 until 1992, a separate
programme supported them within trade unions.[19] Before the closure of popular education
(including popular literacy) programs, «collateral damage» of the new government
policy, almost one thousand community organizations could count on receiving
recurrent public funding for activities specifically dedicated to forming an
active and critical citizenry.
Funding of the Community sector: a snapshot of 2008-2009
The vast majority of
public funding for community organizations comes from the Québec government.[20] Apart from public
sources, some funding is available to community organizations from private
sources, most notably Centraide (similar to the United Way). Religious communities also have a long and
financially significant history of supporting popular organizations.[21] Finally, in a disturbing development, a new
private funding source has exploded on the scene. The Chagnon family, founders of the Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon, is the
sole beneficiary of three publically legislated public-private partnerships (PPP).
The family thus controls more than one billion $ (1,000,000,000$) of
public and private funds for the next ten years which they are distributing to
community organizations willing to offer services meeting the criteria of the
family.[22]
Detailed information on
Government funding is regularly published on a dedicated Web site.[23] As the table illustrates, in 2008-09, the Government
attributed nearly 800 millions $ to community organizations (in the broad
sense). This figure excludes social
economy groups, such as the publically funded 7$ a day Centres de la petite enfance (childcare) or homecare organizations.
|
Sector of
intervention
(by
numerical importance)
|
Funding
allocated (2008-09) $
|
Number of
groups
|
|
Health and Social
Services:
|
440,617,702.00
|
3324
|
|
Employment and
training
|
171,076,739.75
|
411
|
|
Rights:
|
25,007,347.23
|
471
|
|
Family
|
19,574,192.00
|
362
|
|
Education (including
literacy)
|
17,935,328.00
|
187
|
|
Total:
|
794,678,742.18
|
5085
|
Citing the conclusions of
international studies emerging from John Hopkins’ University, the Québec
government notes that public funding is the primary source for Québécois
community organizations, contributing more than 80 percent of their revenues. In this context, it is important to note the
extreme pressure which is presently being placed on organizations to diversify
their funding sources. On this question,
the Québec Government clearly wishes to move in the direction of the
international norm. [24]
According to Government figures, the 794,7 million $ was divided as follows
- 495,7 million $ (62 percent of total funding) went to core funding. 4 267 (or 84 percent) community organizations received some form of core funding;
- 247,9 million $ (31 percent of total funding) was spent in «fee for service». 1 770 (or 35 percent) community organizations had this type of relationship to the State;
- 50,2 million $ (6 percent of the total) was spent on specific projects determined by the Government; 1 453 community organizations partook of this form of funding.[25]
More on the
different types of funding follows in the next section.
Part two
The Government Policy (2001)
With the
election of the Parti québécois
government headed by Jacques Parizeau in 1994, Québec pursued its neoliberal
conversion. Unlike the Liberal’s before
them, the PQ had a clear idea of the new role which awaited the community
sector and this explains its urgency to adopt a coherent governmental policy concerning
the community sector.[26]
Elaboration
of the policy began shortly after Parizeau took power. Initially directed directly from the Prime
Minister’s office, [27]
the file was eventually referred to Louise Harel, a powerful minister
responsible for the Employment portfolio.
Over a period of five years, the independent community sector, through
its representative the Comité aviseur de
l’action communautaire autonome (CAACA[28]),
negotiated with governmental representatives to arrive at a mutually acceptable
policy. In May 2001, a national meeting
of some 125 representatives of all sectors of the independent community
movement voted, by a 2/3 majority, to conditionally accept the governmental
policy paper «as the best possible deal for the moment». Amongst the third of the delegations opposed
to acceptance, seventeen organizations registered their dissidence, freeing
themselves to publically distance themselves from the majority’s decision. [29]
Formally adopted by cabinet in 2001, the policy reaffirms « the place of community organizations at the centre of the renewal of
Québec’s social policies» and recognizes «their role in the
social and economic development of Québec. » [30] Although historic in its trans-governmental
breadth, in many ways
the policy simply transferred to the whole community sector the model which had
already been developed and applied between itself and community groups in the
health and social services sector.
For the
purposes of this article, the «policy» to which we will be referring is in fact
made up of three separate but inter-connected documents:
1.
Community action: A crucial contribution to the
exercise of citizenship and the social development of Québec : A governmental policy (2001) ;
2.
Action Plan (2004a);
3.
Framework Agreement (2004b).
These three
documents form a global, comprehensive approach to government-community
relations which is unique in North America.
In the following overview, we will look briefly at three of its
important elements: definitions of different types of
community intervention, funding implications;
and accountability mechanisms.
Policy Overview[31]
The Government policy
recognizes the contribution of the community sector to the social development
of Québec. It clarifies the relationships the government has, or wishes to
develop, with the community action sector in the broad sense and more
specifically with the independent community action sector. Its general objectives are as follows:
• Acknowledge, promote, and support community action in the broad sense,
that is, in its entirety, by taking into account its contribution to the
elimination of poverty and exclusion, social development, and the development
of active citizenship
• Acknowledge,
support, and consolidate independent community action and its natural field of
application, namely, community education and social change, support for
participation in the democratic process,
development of a global vision of issues, the exercise of active citizenship,
and entrenchment in the community
• Ensure the
consolidation of community action through general goals and national guidelines
that will apply to the public authorities concerned, nationally, regionally,
and locally
• Recognize and
support volunteering within community organizations
It also proposes to «consolidate community organization action
by introducing mechanisms that allow an array of financial links to be
established with the government».[32]
Definitions
The policy characterizes
community organizations, in the broader sense, as those groups which correspond
to the following basic criteria:
1.
Non-profit
2.
Community-based
3.
Associative and democratic
4.
Free to determine their missions, orientations, approaches, and
practices
The Framework Agreement translates these criteria into a definition
with precise indicators which can be validated[33]
On the other hand, an independent community action group, in
addition to meeting the four previous criteria, must also meet four other
conditions:
1.
Created through a community initiative.
2.
Pursue a social mission that promotes social change and that is specific
to the organization.
3.
Use active citizenship practices and broad-based approaches rooted in a
comprehensive view of the issues at stake.
4.
Have a Board of directors independent from the public network.
Again, the Framework Agreement translates these
criteria into a definition with precise indicators which can be validated in
order to measure the compliance of individual groups.[34]
The distinction between
community organizations and «independent» community action groups might seem
highly obscure. In fact, it is important
on several fronts. From a historical
perspective, it was the independent community movement which first demanded
governmental recognition. In 1989, twelve
years before the adoption of the policy, independent groups throughout Québec used
a National Day of Visibility to support their demand for formal State
recognition. Formal recognition, it was
thought, with an accompanying increase in core funding, was the best means for ensuring
the growth and stability of the sector. For
posterity, let it be noted that the initial promise of the Parizeau government to
elaborate a specific policy for independent community groups respected the
milieu’s demand. It was only relatively
late in the process, with the publication of the first policy draft in 2000, when
the independent milieu realized they were betrayed by the Government’s decision
to elaborate a broad policy covering the entire community sector.[35]
Secondly, the criteria of «social
change» and «comprehensive view» applied to independent groups are highly
significant. The first recognizes their political
role as agents of social change. While
the policy recognizes the broader community groups as «service delivers», it
explicitly accords a social mandate to the independent groups. Further, the «comprehensive view» (approche globale) underlines the
«holistic» approach employed by the independent groups who deal with the «whole
person», not with the «specific problems» of an individual. These two criteria are presently questioned
by the Ministry of Health and social services whose officials claim to be
unable to adequately measure the milieu’s degree of compliance.
The fact that Boards of
directors must be free of the public network is also highly significant in that
it protects the independent groups’ autonomy. Specifically, this criterion ensures that no seats
are reserved on an independent group’s Board for public funders or public
agencies (school boards, Centre local d’emploi, CLSC, etc.) Within
the movement, this practice is extended to exclude designated places for municipalities,
the local parish or trade unions. This
exclusion is institutional : it does not
prevent an individual citizen, who works at a CLSC or is a trade unionist, to
sit on the Board of an independent group.
Finally, the distinction
between independent and the broader forms of community intervention has funding
implications.
Funding
The policy clarifies the
nature of Government funding for community organizations. Three types of funding are maintained:
·
Core funding
·
Service contracts
·
Special projects
Compared to other
jurisdictions, Québec has demonstrated relatively generous support for community
organizations. However, its support for core
funding is also significant and seems more sustained than elsewhere in Canada. The
2001 policy proposes to limit «core funding» to the independent sector.[36]
The importance of core
funding cannot be overestimated. Defined
in the policy as «not limited to service
provision», core funding covers costs related to the overall mission of the
group, general operating expenditures, wages necessary for basic operations,
but also human rights education and advocacy, associative relationships with
other organizations, joint action and lobbying, citizen participation.[37] Further, core funding takes
the form of a «lump sum» payment which is subjected to less rigorous
accountability mechanisms than the other two forms of funding. [38]
The Government notes that
its policy initiative towards the community sector is unique in that it does
not tie public funding to «service complementarity» or to the creation of
partnerships. Further, it hopes that
limiting core funding to the independent organizations will:
«… end the disputes regarding
the distinctions between alternative initiatives and services arising from
independent community action and initiatives and services that complement those
offered by the public sector. (p. 25)
As a point of fact,
«fee for service» funding was first introduced to the broader community sector
in the 1980s with a first Framework agreement established for groups from the employment
sector. «Fee for services» slowly worked
its way into the independent sector in the 1990s through a special agreement signed
between the State and alternative mental health groups. By the end of the 1990s, women’s shelters,
youth centres (Auberge du Coeur) and a variety of other community organizations
began to accept this form of funding to supplement their insufficient core
funding.[39]
The
Government policy clearly distinguishes the nature of «fee for service» funding:
«The rationale for service
agreements differs markedly from that underlying funding for the missions of
community organizations. Service agreements are contracts that specify the
commitments of the parties concerned. Generally speaking, they include a
detailed description of the services the community organization provides,
supporting documents for related costs and expected results, and items such as
the number of people served, conditions for access to these services (age,
status as employment-assistance or employment insurance recipients, etc.),
referral and follow-up procedures, and the computer systems to be used to
transmit user data. There are several criteria that may be used to determine
the amount of service contract funding, including hourly cost, cost per act, cost
per user, or overall cost.[40]
It was the presence
of «fee for service» funding in the Government proposal which lead to the split
at the 2001 national meeting when the independent sector voted on the Government’s
policy proposal. While recognizing the
Government’s right to develop service contracts for its own ends, the dissident
groups reminded the assembly that the whole purpose for demanding recognition
was to guarantee, consolidate and eventually increase the core funding
attributed to community groups. To legitimize the principle of «fee for
service» funding by accepting the Policy as mutually agreeable was, according
to the dissidents, to open the door to the Government’s hijacking of the
community sector for its own ends. This
issue continues to divide the independent sector.
Further, while the
policy does commit the Government to maintaining the principle of core funding,
no such commitment is to be found on the level of this funding. In fact, the policy is clear that the State
can, at best, participate in the funding of community organizations: it does not commit itself to anything
approaching «full funding». Which obviously
begs the question: At the individual
group level, can an organization survive strictly on its core funding? Or is it forced to turn to «fee for service»
arrangements in order to remain viable?
These questions are particularly interesting in the context of the
change in Government in 2004, when a third question was added: How will the change in government (from the
PQ who negotiated the policy to the Liberals who implement it) affect the
answers to the first two questions.
Accountability
We briefly referred to the arrival of New Public Management practices in
Québec at the end of the 1990s. This
management style is clearly present throughout the policy initiative :
Popular and government support for community
organizations hinges on the conviction that the mission of the organizations is
appropriate, that funding is being managed wisely and that community action is
producing tangible results. Government responsibility for managing public
monies is of primary importance. As taxpayers, citizens have the right to be
fully informed of the way the government spends their money, as well as the
right to know whether the expected results have been achieved. This government
responsibility has a direct impact on community organizations. It imposes
transparency requirements for, among other things, accountability and the
evaluation of the quality of the services delivered on a voluntary basis.
Community organizations have the responsibility of providing their funders,
members, service users, and the communities they serve with information that
enables them to assess how public funds are being used.[41]
For the Government, recognition
of community organizations is reciprocated by the fact that these same groups
must be held accountable for how they manage the funding they receive.
The policy defines accountability as «the process whereby a
community organization gives itself the tools it needs to openly answer
questions from interested parties».[42] Further,
information on the mission, orientations, goals, and activities made possible
through the contribution of public funds to community organizations must be
available and accessible. This information must also prove that the administrators
of community organization have acted responsibly in performing their duties.[43]
In fact, the accountability provisions of the policy are as exhaustive
as they are exhausting. Apart from the
impact upon individual groups who are required to hire specialized staff to
meet reporting requirements, all community groups are now fully open to
scrutiny by their funders and to some extent, by the general population. Statistical information on all funded groups–
including full access to the sources and amounts of public funding – is available on the Internet. Further all publically-funded health and
social service community groups are required to hold an annual public information
meeting thus allowing any citizen to question administrators about the mission,
activities and finances of the group. [44] This information meeting is different from the AGM which is open to
members and invited guests only.
Part Three
changes and challenges
Times change. The fact that community
organizations received more than 750 million $ of public funding in 2009 is now
less related to the State’s desire to redistribute wealth or to facilitate
citizen participation in public debates than it is a reflection of the Government’s
decision to use the community infrastructure built up over the past thirty
years as a means for off-loading public responsibilities to new «partners». During the 1990s and the first decade of the new
millennium, the community sector has become increasingly integrated into the
more formal networks of employment and health and social services. The Government promises to accelerate this
off-loading:
«As part of the recent reforms in health and
social services, manpower, education, family assistance, and local and regional
development, the government has decided to create
an environment that is even more conducive to the development of community
resources.»[45] [Our emphasis]
The process
of aggressive State reorganization, made infamous by the Charest government’s
«re-engineering» fiasco, had actually begun under the previous PQ government.[46]
Over time, it has dramatically changed
the nature of community intervention. Gone are the days of the «groupe
populaire» when members controlled their own organizations! Most of today’s community organizations are professional,
efficient, well-organized and even adequately staffed. Many can afford to avail themselves of the
new dedicated benefits and pension service … offered by a community
organization! And, of course, «community
services» are much cheaper than «public services».
The final section
of this paper addresses three issues which are critical to the future of
Québec’s independent community movement.
The first concerns citizen
participation in a context where active members are being replaced by passive
clients.[47]
The second looks at the transformation wrought by New Public Management (NPM) on
the volunteer boards who oversee
community organizations. Thirdly, as clients
replace members and as the impact of NPM practices makes themselves felt, large
parts of Québec’s community movement are becoming depoliticized. Which raises the question: is it still a
force for social change?
Citizen participation
Without
question, Québec’s community movement has played an important role for citizen
development. Gérald Larose, who headed the public
consultation phase of the policy process, recognized this when he described independent
community action as a broad-based social change and active citizenship movement. He further praised it as promoting
democratic citizen initiatives while working within a perspective of social
solidarity, social change, gender equality and the elimination of poverty and
discrimination. He lauded its role in
defending human rights, developing alternative services and responding to
emerging needs. These ideas made their way into the
Government’s policy:
[The Québec government recognizes] the
independent community group movement, that is, their community activities are
geared towards social change and development.
They are involved in efforts to improve the social fabric and quality of
live, which often means the fight against poverty, discrimination and
exclusion It is a citizens movement that
takes a special interest in the living conditions of all members of society and
the quality of public services, a movement that demands to be consulted and
have more of a say in the decision made by those in power.» [48]
While all this is true of the movement that was, is it still true of the
movement as it is? In terms of where
the movement is heading, is this rhetoric still pertinent? The automatic, knee-jerk answer is «Yes». A more complicated answer is what follows and
it is conditional.
Historically,
the independent community sector has prided itself as being made up of
democratic organizations in which «citizen participation» has been crucial. An active and engaged membership with a healthy
«vie associative» have made the independent sector an important source of
citizen education.[49]
However, as
the State proceeds to off-load services to the private, including the private
not-for-profit sector, public agencies increasingly refer clients to third
parties. In the field of health and
social services, the CLSC refer clients to community organizations for
services. Schools refer children to
community associations for tutoring or physical activity. The public employment service (CLE) refers
clients to literacy and employment groups.
Even the Welfare department refers clients to rights groups who are have
been formally requested to assist «the clientele» to file for benefits.
To meet and
satisfy these needs, community groups must develop increasingly specialized expertise. In many groups, the «global» approach, long
valued by the independent sector, is replaced by «particular» service delivery. In order to meet the new requirements imposed
upon them by the public networks, community organizations are becoming
professionalized: better educated, the staff is professionalized; «fee for
service» means a more professional administration …[50]
These changes
weaken the membership base of community organizations. Not that the groups are empty – quite the
contrary: they are full as never before.
But the traditional member is being replaced by the referred client who comes
for a specific service. The new
clientele is, in fact, a service «consumer».
Consumers «consume»: they come to
a group to receive the promised service, not to become involved in the group. Thus, in many cases and for many groups, the very
nature of the relation between «a person» and «the group» has changed.
Pressured to
perform, and submitted to the requirement of «fee for service» arrangements, the
«professional», working in a community organization, becomes more concerned
with service delivery than with the collective life of the group. The «service» becomes an end in itself and is
no lingered considered a means for inviting citizens to become involved in
their group or in society. Activities
not covered by the service agreement – such as citizenship education, maintaining
membership committees, critical thinking, organizing public meetings – are perceived
of as an inefficient use of the group’s time because they are not measurable![51]
Volunteer boards
The «groupe populaire» was the principle form of organization in
Québec’s community movement until well into the 1980s. Activist and membership-based, a popular
organization «belongs» to its members. Regular
«membership meetings» (assemblées générales des membres) was a form of direct
democracy which ensured membership control over the group. When direct
democracy became too unwieldy, a «management committee» would be formed from
within the membership. It carried out the members wishes and regularly reported
back to the membership. « Accountability» remained at all times with the «base». This popular model gave rise to the defining
principles which continued to govern the «vie associative» of many of Québec’s
community based organizations until quite recently. Among these principles, two
stand out. First, an organization exists
for and because of its membership.
Second, a group is primarily accountable to its membership.
With the evolution of the «groupe populaire» into
the «groupe communautaire», many volunteer boards are now more important than
the membership of the group it administers.
The fact shouldn’t be surprising since all groups receiving State
funding must now be legally incorporated.
As such, they fall under a law which dictates that the «power» of a
not-for-profit corporation lies with its Board of directors.[52] Further, as the principles of NPM make
themselves felt, volunteer Boards –and even individual Board members – are
becoming increasingly accountable in a legal sense for decisions made by the
organizations which they administer.[53]
While the volunteer Board has traditionally been
considered a learning experience, it is no longer a place to make
mistakes. Whereas the Board had four
basic roles and responsibilities (memory, accountability to membership,
employer, and overall management[54]),
the importance of memory and accountability to members is shrinking. Accountability is now to funders, and Boards
are increasingly called upon to develop those networks which are necessary to
ensure and increase their group’s funding.
Further, as funding and responsibilities increase, so does
staffing: the role of the Board-employer
is becoming extremely important.
Consequently, the «professionalization» which has
overtaken community organization’s activity at the service and staffing levels
has its corollary at the Board level. Now
considered a formal service provider, and even a «co-producer» of services[55],
groups are being forced to turn to complicated «fee for service» arrangements
with State funders. These take the form
of complex contracts for which the Board is ultimately responsible. Certain Health Boards are even turning to a
public tendering process for choosing a service provider from amongst different
community organizations, which necessitates the formulation of complicated
bids. All of this is forcing community
groups to go outside of their traditional membership to find experienced Board
members who have contacts and expertise which could be useful to the group. This introduction of the private sector’s
«expert» model into the community milieu means that «split-level boards», made up of a
combination of a group’s traditional «members» and outside «experts» are
becoming relatively common in certain sectors – and even required in others.[56]
Finally, the increased responsibility thrust upon volunteer boards, both
as a corporate entity and for members personally, is becoming a real issue with
the community movement. Ordinary
citizens are hesitant to join a board either because they are not sure they
have the necessary expertise or because they do not want to assume personal
liability for decisions a Board might have to make. Groups which are going through hard times
find it particularly difficult to find volunteer members. For certain groups, literacy issues become
problematic. With clients replacing
members within organizations, and people from outside of the membership sitting
on a group’s Board, the traditional role of the community organization as a
place for developing an active and articulate citizenry is changing.
Depolitisation
Ironically, this paper is being written during a period which has seen
the largest socio-political mobilization in the recent history of Québec’s
community movement. On April 1, 2010,
more that 12 000 citizens, from all across Québec, demonstrated in the
streets of Montréal to protest the Québec government’s budget, brought down two
days earlier. Announcing an increase in
the provincial sales tax, increased student tuition fees, a new tax for health
services and «user fees» for individual medical acts, the budget provoked real
anger within the Québec population. The
April 1st demonstration, long planned to coincide with an increase
in Hydro rates, was principally organized by regional «popular education» coalitions,
national rights organizations, and the more politicized wing of the student
movement.
A more accurate example of the state of mobilization within the
community movement can be seen in the reaction to the Government’s 2009 regional
consultation on it next anti-poverty action plan. For example, community
organizations organized two distinct demonstrations in Trois-Rivières. One the one hand, the «popular education»
groups protested the general orientation of the proposed action plan with its
continued distinction between «the deserving» and «non-deserving» poor. Simultaneously, the health and social
services coalition demonstrated for increased government funding so that its
members could help the Government implement the very proposal the popular
education groups were denouncing!
Whereas
Québec’s community movement traces its origins to the politicized citizen’s
groups which resisted the massive urban renewal projects which destroyed many
of the downtown neighbourhoods of nearly all major cities in the 1970s and
1980s, many of today’s community groups are actively participating in the
dismantling of the State. As their goal
is limited to offering efficient and quality services, the dimension of social
transformation is being lost. «Social
involvement» is a concept which does not apply to clients; for staff, it is
often translated as involvement in «my» group.
Few seem to identify the notion with
advancing a «social project» based on justice and equality.
In this sense,
a recent study by Yvan Comeau is significant.
Interviewing a cross-section of community organization staff people who have
university or college social work diplomas, the study asked themto describe
concretely what they did over the course of a year. None of the respondents mentioned
«consciousness raising» or developing critical thinking amongst the people they
worked with. Thirty-five percent of the interviewees said their task involved
«service organization»; twenty-four percent, that it involved facilitating
meetings; eleven percent, organizing activities involving pressure tactics (notably
to increase their group’s funding); and a mere seven percent mentioned that part
of their task was devoted to political education. One percent of the workers said they had a
vision of society based on class analysis; twenty-five percent said their
vision was based on the importance of partnerships and consultations with
stakeholders; twenty-one percent, that it involved helping individuals gain control over their lives. Perhaps most tellingly: when these workers were asked how they
identified their job priorities, the more common response was: with their work colleagues! In short, citizen members are so totally absent
from community organizations today that the most important decisions, around
such things as work priorities, are decided… by the staff, amongst the staff![57]
Workers with
a social work diploma are certainly not the only workers in community
organizations. And a social movement
that is only built upon paid staff is not a political force. Nevertheless, Comeau’s study confirms a
tendency which seems to be widespread.
The transition from member-based to client-based, from activist driven
to staff driven, from passion to efficiency is the perfect recipe for institutionalization. Large segments of today’s community sector
are clearly institutionalized. Their
interventions are no longer determined democratically by their members; they
are dictated by terms partnerships or service contracts. Funders do not value «popular education»… and
so this element of a group’s programme is at best relegated to a minor status…
and at worst is dropped completely.
In short, the independent community
movement is today at a crossroads. Its health
depends on inventing ways to allow citizens to reinvest its organizations. Without the active involvement of a
citizen-based membership, the democratic nature of the community sector is open
to question. A democratic movement has democratic
groups. If Québec’s independent community
movement is to remain a force for social change, it is going to have to stop
fighting for funding and start fighting for those very populations it was
founded to defend.[58]
Works consulted
The policy documents:
- Québec (2001), Community Action: A crucial contribution to the exercise of citizenship and the social development of Québec
- Québec (2004a), Plan d’action en matière d’action communautaire.
- Québec (2004b), Cadre de référence.
All available at : http://www.mess.gouv.qc.ca/publications/index.asp?categorie=0104201#liste
Site visited on April 10, 2010.
Other primary
community organization sources
- Comité aviseur de l’action communautaire autonome (1996), Recommandation d'ensemble. Pour la reconnaissance et le financement de l'action communautaire autonome. Available at : http://www.rq-aca.org/2.1definitionaca.html Site visited on April 10, 2010.
- Comité aviseur, (2006), Dix ans de lute pour la reconnaissance. Edited by Eliana Sotomayer and Madeleine Lacombe.
- Mouvement d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec (1997), La localisation, la régionalisation ... et la mondialisation. Available at http://www.mepacq.qc.ca
7. TROVEPO
Quand la loi rencontre la tradition:
rôles et pouvoirs d’un conseil d’administration, 2003. Available at www.trovepo.org
Secondary sources
- Bourque, Denis, «Transformation du réseau public de services sociaux et impacts sur les pratiques des intervenants sociaux au Québec», Text available at: http://www.uqo.ca/CRCOC/Fichiers/Cahier0907Final.pdf
- Canadian Federation of Municipalities, Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net: The role of municipal governments, March 2010. Available at: http://www.fcm.ca/English/View.asp?mp=1297&x=1302 Site visited on April 10, 2010.
- Comeau, Yvan et al, L’organisation communautaire en mutation : Étude sur la structuration d’une profession du social, 2009, PUL.
11. Conseil
supérieur de l’éducation (1998), Éduquer
à la citoyenneté, Rapport annuel, 1997-98.
- Favreau, Louis (1989), Mouvement populaire et intervention communautaire : continuités et ruptures, Les éditions du fleuve.
- Greason, Vincent “ Adult Education in Québec”, in Selman, Gordon et al, The Foundations of Adult Education in Canada, 2nd Edition, Thompson Educational Publishing Company, Toronto 1998, pp 83-102.
- Jetté, Christian (2008), Les organismes communautaires et la transformation de l’État-providence, PUL.
15.
Osbourne,
David et Ted Gabler (1996), «Steering Not Rowing», in Managing the Future, MacMillan, Australia.
- Vallières, Pierre (1971 ), White Niggers of America, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto. Translated by Joan Pinkham
Quick Response Form
Québec’s community movement:
a force for social CHANGE?
Reflections on the state of Québec’s community movement
Vincent Greason
April 2010
|
|
|
Please check
|
|
|
|
|
agree
|
kind of…
|
disagree
|
Comments
|
|
An interesting text, generally interesting
|
|
|
|
|
|
I learned something
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar issues are
confronting groups in the Rest of Canada…
|
|
|
|
|
|
This text made me think
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting subject, but I
think the author has missed some important points
|
|
|
|
|
|
This text raises important
questions and should be published somewhere…
|
|
|
|
|
|
Way too long. You lost me…
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure where the
author was going with this… it is
missing something
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am looking forward to
what the author will propose as solutions to the problems he has raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the author’s point
of view and what he has to say makes sense to me…
|
|
|
|
|
1. I would have liked to see the following ideas better developed:
2. This text might be published in the following journal / magazine:
Titre :
Lieu de
publication :
[1] The recent explosion of the «social economy»
sector is just one of the pressures to «North-Americanize» Québec’s community
sector. While some attempt to link the
social economy to the community sector, its «market logic» is actually quite
foreign to community action. This same
attempt to introduce the market logic to community groups may be seen in the
new federal Not-For-Profit Corporations
Act and will probably be reflected in a similar Québec law that is expected
in 2010.
[4] Québec ( 2001) , Community Action: A crucial
contribution to the exercise of citizenship and the social development of
Québec, p
21
[5] See Favreau (1989), p 19ff and
Jetté (2008), p. 44 ff.
[6] One obvious example is Pierre
Vallières (1971), White Niggers of America. Without claiming that Vallières was a
community activist in the 1960s (he was a journalist), his finished his days as
the editor of Recto-Verso, a progressive
community magazine. Other examples would include the importance of liberation
theology and the impact of Paulo Freire on the development of popular education
in Québec.
[7] The class analysis was tinged
with nationalism as often the capitalists were «English» and the workers,
«French».
[8] A word on terminology. Québec’s
«social movement» is a broad term which encompasses different and changing
alliances between the trade union, women’s, students’ and community
movements. The «social movement» is
strongest when all of these components agree on common actions (as in the Bread and Roses March initiated by the
women’s movement (1995), the fight against Law 102 initiated by the unions
(1982) or the struggle against the Charest government’s «re-engineering policy»
(2004-5).
[9]
Comité aviseur de l’action communautaire autonome (1996).
[10]
Québec (2004b), section 3.
[11]
Québec
(2001), p. 28.
[12]
Funding comes from the Fonds d’action à
l’action communautaire autonome. This fund, independent of Government
revenues, is composed of 5 percent of the profits of Québec’s casino network. Rights groups fall under the responsibility
of the Secrétariat à l’action
communautaire autonome et aux initiatives sociales (SACAIS). Created in 1995, this secretariat was
originally an independent government agency reporting directly to the Prime
Minister’s office. It has since been reduced
to a department within the Employment and Social Solidarity Ministry.
[13] The Framework Agreement
(Québec, 2004b) establishes a formal definition of a Rights group. The majority of a rights group’s activities
must be 1) political (non-partisan); 2) use a popular education approach; 3)
promote the mobilization of the population around political issues; 4) present
these issues to elected officials or decision makers.
[14] A question of
terminology. In this text, «national»
means Québec-wide. «Federal» is used to
refer to «Canadian».
[15]
The idea was first used by Osbourne, David et Ted Gabler (1996).
[16] See Canadian Federation of
Municipalities, Mending Canada’s frayed social safety net: The role of
municipal governments, March 2010.
Available at: http://www.fcm.ca/English/View.asp?mp=1297&x=1302 Site visited on April 10, 2010.
[17] The Québec State, conceived
and equipped for «nation-building», emerged in the 1960s out of the changes brought
about by the Quiet Revolution. Consequently, the «Québec State» exists in a way
in which the «Ontario State» or the «Saskatchewan State» does not.
[18] This is perhaps in «reaction»
to the long tradition of Roman Catholic hegemony. Until the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, the
Church’s domination of the francophone population was all embracing (health,
education, social services) and only sporadically challenged. There was neither «public education», nor
«public» libraries (except in English Québec!).
But then, who needed a library or education when the parish priest, ably
assisted by «The Index», determined what could and could not be read and
thought.
[19] Voir Greason, Vincent “ Adult Education in Québec”,
in Selman, Gordon et al, The Foundations of Adult Education in
Canada, Thompson Educational Publishing Company, Toronto 1998, pp 83-102.
A bit dated, the text nevertheless offers a good overview.
[20] Direct funding from the
Federal Government is minimal. It exists
for immigrant and refugee groups. For
social housing, federal money is administered by Québec or by
municipalities. Federal funding to
women’s organizations and literacy groups has been cut in recent years. Minimal federal support for international
solidarity groups can be available… as long as the groups are not
pro-Palestinian. Most visible Federal
funding is reserved for Anglophone groups under minority language arrangements.
[21] Until recently, most
religious community funding was vetted through the Comité des priorités des dons of the Québec section of the Canadian religious conference. This committee, composed of regional
representatives, analyzed more than 500 requests annually, and made
recommendations to the communities for the yearly distribution of about 2,5
million $. This structure, which existed
more than 25 years, collapsed in 2007 following a reorganization of the CRC
which eliminated the CRC-Q.
[22] See l’Observatoire Chagnon at http://observatoirechagnon.blogspot.com/ for more information. The Foundation is highly contested within the
community network, particularly within the family and women’s sector.
[23] Portrait du soutien
financier gouvernemental versé aux organismes communautaires available at: http://142.213.167.138/bd_recherche/portrait/formreporg.asp Site visited on March 29, 2010. The information provided in the table comes from this site.
[24] Québec (2001), p.14
. On this question, a word on the
situation of rights groups is in order.
The first characteristic of this new type of group (see note #10)
requires that the majority of its activities be «political». However, because of their popular education
roots, many of these groups are recognized by Canada Revenue Agency as
«charitable organizations». It is increasingly impossible to square the
circle: A rights group, which the
province says must be political, can no longer meet the federal definition of
an apolitical charity. Many groups risk
losing their charitable number and with it their access to alternative funding
sources if a solution to this dilemma is not soon negotiated between the two
orders of government.
[25]
Information available at: http://www.mess.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/action-communautaire/ Site visited on March 29, 2010.
[26] Such a gesture was not entirely
without political motivation. The PQ had
also committed itself to holding a second referendum on the «national question»
and gaining community sector support was a factor in the pre-referendum
strategy.
[28] A truly horrible acronym, caca is a child’s word for «shit». The umbrella group has since become
the Réseau québcois de l’action
communautaire autonome (RQ-ACA). Made up of 20 members (16 sectors of
independent community action (consumers, housing, women, family,
communications, etc.) and 4 national multi-sectoral regroupements) the RQ-ACA represents the 4000 members of the
independent community sector.
[29] The author of this text was the delegate representing the Mouvement
d’éducation populaire et d’action communautaire du Québec (MÉPACQ), one of the
17 dissident organizations. He was also
a founding member of the «provisional» CAACA.
For a brief history of the Comité aviseur and its dealings around the
policy, see CAACA (2006)
[31] This author has
written extensively about this policy although this is the first time in
English. In French, see: «Dix ans de lutte pour la
reconnaissance», in Nouvelles pratiques sociales, une recension
de livre, Vol 20, no. 1, 2007; «DCD,
mais pas mort!», Relations, mars
2009;
« Une nouvelle pièce du casse-tête de la réingénierie...»,
Relations, décembre 2004, p. 5-6. ; with Bleau, Connie "Vers une
association nationale des groupes communautaires autonomes?", Relations, mars 2004, p. 30-31; "Un point final pour l'action
communautaire", Relations, octobre-novembre 2001, p. 8-9.
[33]Québec (2004b), section 3.
[34]
Québec
(2004b), section 3. As already noted, a third definition
in the Framework Agreement creates the groupe
de defense collective des droits.
See note #13.
[35] It should be noted that only
representatives of the 4000 independent groups participated formally in the
negotiations leading to the policy which covers 8000 groups.
[36] In research done for the Ligue des droits et libertés du Québec,
Bill Clennett has pointed out that this point is not as clear as it might
appear on first reading. The Policy «grandfathers» core funding for those community
groups (in the broader sense) which already benefitted from this kind of funding. The debate may well be moot. «Core funding», as it is presently
understood, might be threatened following a recent compromising report by
Québec’s Auditor General. In June 2008, he noted that the reporting mechanisms
for core funding did not permit him to adequately evaluate the use of public
funds by those health and social service community groups which he
examined. He urged the conversion of
core funding to «fee for service». When
the Doberman barks, the Chihuahua jumps…
[39]
See Jetté (2008), p.195 ff.
[40]
Québec (2001), p. 33.
[43] Ibid., p 36.
[44] Public questioning about an organization’s
position on abortion is just one example of the potential minefield represented
by this requirement.
[45]
Québec (2001), p.9
[46]
MÉPACQ (1997) La localisation, la
régionalisation… et la mondialisation remains the best analysis of the PQ’s
neoliberal tendencies.
[47] The «exercise of citizenship»
is included in the title of the formal government policy.
[49] The concept of «vie
associative» translates poorly; at best it would be a combination of «internal
democracy» and «internal group life».
«Vie associative» encompasses the all of the ways in which members of a
group interact with each other: the AGM, committees, socials, activities,
mobilizations, producing newsletters, etc.
It is everything which fosters a member’s sense of belonging to the
group. For examples of the community
movement’s contribution to citizen education, see : Conseil supérieur de l’éducation (1998),
p.60-61,89.
[50] Each regional Health Agency has a «complaints commissioner» who is
mandated to investigate and respond to complaints made by users of community
health and social services. In the olden days, when groups had members and not
clients, complaints were dealt with at membership meetings.
[51] The question is debated at greater length in a French version of this
paper. Written during the author’s
Carold Fellowship year, it is available by contacting the author directly: vgreason@bell.net
[52] The vast majority are incorporated
under the third section of Québec’s Company Law. Québec is
about to create a new law specific to not-for-profit corporations which will
probably mirror the new Federal legislation.
The Federal law received royal sanction in June 2009 and is just now
coming into effect.
[53] The new Federal legislation
«responsibilises» individual board members by outlining more clearly their
legal obligations.
[54] For a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the volunteer
board of a community organization, see TROVEPO Quand la loi rencontre la tradition: rôles et pouvoirs d’un conseil
d’administration, 2003, 28 pages.
Available at www.trovepo.org
[55] Denis Bourque, in a
communication with the author, notes that the concept of «service producer» is
found in the Québec Health Act. Yves
Vaillancourt speaks of the community sector as a co-producer of services. Bourque (2009), p. 24, note 1.
[56] The new Federal legislation
opens the door to remunerated Board members which will only hasten the
transformation of volunteer Boards to the expert Boards that one finds in
private industry.
[57]
Comeau, Yvon et al (2009), L’organisation
communautaire en mutation, p. 72-78.
[58] A further text will look at some
ideas for repoliticizing the Québec community movement. It will appear in the Fall of 2010.
