Centre for the Study of Civic Renewal
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CSCR Commentary
February 11, 2004
Does the key to improving social welfare and justice in Canada lie with strengthening civil society and promoting volunteerism, or our country's problems now too complex to respond to such a simple fix?
The Road to Renewal
By Adrienne Snow
As the head of an organization called the Centre for the Study of Civic Renewal, I have sometimes been asked if we seek to promote "civil society", that is, a greater role in Canada for voluntary organizations. After more than a decade working within the non-profit sector, I can only conclude my answer to that question must be both "yes" and "no".
While, on the one hand, considerable evidence demonstrates the importance of "civic", or voluntary, organizations to the well-being of individuals, of our communities and of society as a whole, there are also persuasive arguments to be made against excessive reliance on "grassroots", or voluntary, organizations as a source of "social capital", that is of mutual reliance and support, particularly for Canada's most vulnerable citizens.
Advocates of a larger role for non-profit sector organizations in achieving social and community goals often point to the opportunities for "civic innovation" and "social enterpreneurship" such organizations may provide as being one of their chief benefits.
Government-run social service, and other, agencies are, so the argument goes, too "bureaucratic" (largely because of the higher standards of public accountability to which tax-funded organizations are, quite sensibly, held) to allow new, and potentially helpful, ideas about how to serve citizens in need to be tried quickly, or often.
That is, of course, somewhat true. If innovative public sector policies and programs fail, the cost may be high, both for politicians, who may lose elections if they preside over failed policy experiments, and for bureaucrats, who may also lose their jobs if the programs they manage flop. Consequently, little civic innovation generally occurs within government.
Also, as those who favour increasing society's reliance on the voluntary sector like to point out, people who participate in community organizations are, on average, healthier, happier, more affluent and better educated than those who do not. Therefore, more civil society organizations mean, it has been suggested, on average, more socially responsive, more satisfied citizens.
Unfortunately, the causal relationship between personal well-being and volunteering has not yet been entirely clarified. In fact, some research suggests the advocates of a larger role for non-profit groups have things backward: Volunteerism is, according to some studies, an effect - not the cause - of a tendency toward higher levels of social engagement and satisfaction among many of those who volunteer regularly.
That is not to say, of course, there is no evidence suggesting community involvement may have some beneficial effects for those who choose to participate in civil society organizations. There is. And neither does research into community involvement and volunteerism demonstrate it is only the relatively happy, healthy, affluent or well educated who now volunteer, or ought to. Clearly, even the poorest neighbourhoods can benefit from concerned citizens setting up programs such as "Neighbourhood Watch". And even the most depressed or chronically underemployed individuals may benefit from doing something kind for someone else in a formal setting, such as sorting food at a food bank or going door to door to raise funds.
However, against the backdrop of studies purporting to demonstrate that people who volunteer feel better, live longer and enjoy richer social networks, which may, in turn, lead to still greater personal satisfaction or professional success, and that many government organizations continue, as compared with non-profit organizations, to undervalue experimentation and risk-taking when it comes to solving social problems, there are also a number of characteristics of the non-profit sector that, although perhaps less well documented, call into question the feasibility, and, perhaps, the desirability of using non-profit organizations as vehicles for improving social welfare on a grand scale.
Among them is the sector's highly economically cyclical nature. With its traditional reliance on gifts from corporations, foundations and private individuals, who themselves often must rely upon the stock market's "random" (that is, unpredictable) "walk" to generate the extra wealth that is donated, the non-profit sector is, arguably, the least recession-proof sector of the Canadian economy.
Ask anyone who has ever tried ro raise large sums for a non-profit group on a regular basis what it is like to stay on budget and maintain services to clients in the middle of a recession, and you will quickly learn that charitable giving is one of the first non-essential expenditures many corporations, and many otherwise usually generous individuals, will eliminate when facing a financial crisis.
In consequence, people who must turn to non-profit organizations to have their nutritional, health or other needs met, may find they are being asked to rely upon organizations that may, in some cases, find it difficult to raise extra funds to meet the increased demand for the goods and services they offer, such as food and shelter, at those times in the economic cycle, such as during a recession, when the need for charitable assistance is greatest.
Then, too, there is the little-discussed question of the treatment of those who work within the non-profit sector.
Thanks to the limited budgets with which many non-profit organizations operate and to their reliance on volunteers, the non-profit sector is, unfortunately, one of the least attractive segments of the Canadian job market, relying heavily on underpaid or unpaid, well-intentioned individuals - a disproportionate number of whom are women, recent graduates or immigrants, or displaced workers seeking to get their careers back on track - to provide them with inexpensive, or free, labour.
While the creativity and esprit de corps that working on a shoestring budget can sometimes inspire is one of the many pluses life within the non-profit sector can offer, an element of chicanery and "taking advantage" unfortunately seems to underlie the employment practices of too many non-profit organizations.
Although increasingly common in many other areas of the economy, too, jerry-rigged employment contracts, with little job security and no pensions of benefits, even for full-time workers, are particularly common in the non-profit sector, where disregard for employees' well-being, and, in some cases, unfortunately, for legislated employment standards, as well, is explained away on the grounds the organizations simply can't afford to pay as much as private, or even public, sector. Or, on the grounds that people who work for non-profits should be motivated by the love of what they do, and not by pay - an argument that puts a perhaps superficially attractive gloss on employment practices that, if found in the for-profit sector, would almost unquestionably result in law suits, union drives, and oceans of unfavourable publicity.
Last, but not least, there is also a question of whether non-profit organizations may sometimes inadvertently impinge upon their clients' "freedom of conscience", in the context of faith-based non-profit organizations, in particular.
While some sociologists and psychologists, mostly, although not exclusively, from the United States have tried to quantify and promote the value of "faith-based" organizations in caring for vulnerable citizens (such as addicts, single parents and criminals), and in competing with government agencies in providing health, education, and other services, the data supporting those arguments is quite sketchy and, in some instances, mixed.
Moreover, to return to the question of freedom of conscience, much of the research supporting greater reliance on faith-based organizations to manage or deliver social services very largely ignores the extent to which faith-based initiatives may or may not exploit the very real power they hold over the individuals they seek to serve.
It is one thing to see and seize an opportunity encourage an individual struggling with addiction, or joblessness, or family dysfunction, to read, for instance, the Bible, in his spare time.
It is, however, another to use the pain, the confusion, or the lack of education of those whom many faith-based organizations purport to serve as an excuse to try to "remodel", or reform, their clients' most deeply held values and beliefs, or as a jurisdiction for enlisting them, quite possibly without anything that in any way resembles meaningful, or informed, consent, as new members of a church, a synagogue or a mosque.
Should anyone - no matter how well-intentioned he may be - be allowed to bully, or, in effect, to bribe, another human being into professing a particular faith, or world view, in exchange for a meal, a place to sleep or an opportunity to learn new job or life skills?
That is a question that, it has sometimes seemed to me, many of us who are concerned about the prospect of real human suffering in our midst, and eager to "do something about it", have, in recent years, failed to ask. And it is a question that, in spite of the real successes an array of faith-based non-profit organizations in Canada, the United States, and elsewhere have achieved in helping those in need of care and support, must continue to weigh heavily on those who seek to increase social justice and social welfare.
So, as enticing as it may seem to walk away from seeking solutions to the immensely complexs the welfare state presently faces and to embrace, instead, the simple and virtuous sounding call for "civic renewal" through increased reliance on non-profit organizations, the prospects for significant improvements to overall social welfare in Canada through greater reliance on private charity and volunteerism, alone, appear mixed.
When it comes to solving social problems, simple solutions - of whatever kind - have, unfortunately, almost always proven to be inadequate in the long run. And that appears to be as true of the recent, somewhat faddish cheerleading for more volunteerism and more voluntary organizations as of any other tidy-sounding program for social reform, or renewal.
Unsupported by what might perhaps be described as individual-level "civic virtue", that is, the display of courtesy toward, and respect for, each and every citizen, regardless of sex, race, religion, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, employment status, income, or education, and by a continued shared commitment to collective support and action for every citizen through the welfare state - no matter how flawed, unsatisfactory and exasperating the welfare state may be - the present calls to "strengthen civil society" and to expand the role and responsibilities of the non-profit sector within society seem likely to prove yet another wrong turn on the long, winding road to social reform.
