The Professionalisation of Activism – the impact of regulation on feminist organisations
Linda Rodgers, Scottish Women’s Aid
Download PowerPoint presentation
Summary
– Works in arena of organizational development
- Change in organizational structure of women’s aid groups
- From collectives to hierarchy managed by board of directors
- 1973—1st women’s aid group set in Edinburgh and Glasgow
- 1992—40 local groups collectively managed and a collective national agency (SWA)
- 2003—one group changes to a hierarchal structure; SWA amends affiliation agreements
- 2004—more hierarchal structured agencies established
– Focus on regulation
- Raises interesting questions on how we organize in the mainstream
- Can we be a movement and a service provider at the same time?
- No answer yet
– Regulatory bodies, 3 main groups:
- 1) OSCR—Charities Act 2005 (regulates the ability to have a majority of paid staff; stops workers self-organisation/collectives)
- Prevented changes to the constitution
- 2) Care Inspectorate—2001 Regulation of Care Act
- Requires named managers in all registered organisations
- 3) SSSC—(started 2001), 2009 Code of Practice
- Required specialist qualifications for different roles
- Contradicts collective practice
- Required specialist qualifications for different roles
– What women said about these regulatory bodies:
- Individuals having more responsibilities than the whole organisation à problematic
- Issue around qualifications
- Previously supported by all women to join women’s aid, but now excluded those unqualified who would have been welcome by a collective
- Previously women who had come thought the service became works, but regulation prevented this now
- Forced those qualified in other ways to go back and get more qualifications (gendered?)
- More of a social work environment than an activist environment
- Change of language to more social work language from activist type
– How do these regulation delay work and support rather than help domestic abuse victims?
- Less helpful than collectives
- Not purposeful to deter the organization; unintended consequence was the shift away from collectives
Questions:
Brian Dempsey: Are there any allies n challenging the overly restrictive regulatory frameworks?
– Trade-unions, groups for children, lawyers
– Issue with charity organisation is still influenced by Victorian philanthropic attitudes
- No benefits for workers/profits
Clare Connelly: Reflecting on legal regulation; legal regulations drafted very narrowly without a thought to the others who would be impacted
– Expectations underestimated
– Problem with responsibility being taken on by volunteers that may put them at high risk
- Costly and over sighted
– Getting status for the work women had always done is another way to look at occupational segregation
- Qualifications does provide better status for all the work done
- An unintended consequence?
- Problematic area to professionalise this type of work but still keep up the movement side to the work and services provided by these organisations
- Double edged
– How policy changes are dressed up in moral language
- Austerity measures of today cause more women to suffer due to cuts in poverty provisions
- There is a pattern from 19th century to today and connections should be maintained between them
– Gendered policies—always there, but coming back ever more today
Kim (GEWA): Regulations on barriers, but once in a collective or an agency these regulations benefit career advances and provide more opportunities for those in the organisation/collective