The Herstory, Risk and Survival of BC Women's Centres: June 2003

BC Coalition of Women's Centres

Home

Action!

Archives

Info

Media

Site Map

The Herstory, Risk and Survival of BC Women's Centres
A Discussion Paper | May 2003

<< Previous Page | Back to Herstory Main | Table of Contents | Next Page >>

IV. Options for BC Women’s Centres

The Steering Committee of the BC Coalition of Women’s Centres examined a number of options that Women’s Centres could follow in order to deal with the loss of operational funding from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

One of the main options the Steering Committee looked at was the possibility of finding new sources of funding. At the outset, this seemed like one the best alternatives for Women’s Centres. It was found, however, that the only sources of funding that exist for Women’s Centres were project-based.

Project-based funding was flagged by the Steering Committee as a concern, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the energy, time and commitment needed to prepare for and run a project would take away from the general services of the Centre and put more stress and strain on staff. Secondly, project dollars provide no stability to Centres from year-to-year, because these dollars are not designated for operational costs. As well, there can be a number of “strings” attached to project dollars which this could affect Women’s Centres in a number of ways, including clashing ethics and lack of ability to provide advocacy. Lastly, project funding can, in fact, put Centres at further risk of closing, as projects often rely on already existing resources in place at Centres, including in-kind contributions, to fulfill the contracts. In other words, operational funding dollars are essential in contributing to the completion and success of projects.

The following options were also carefully analyzed, in order to gauge their impact on the individual Women's Centre, the larger community that each Women's Centre belongs to, and, most importantly, the women of British Columbia - the people who are served by BC's 37 Women’s Centres.

Eight options were discussed and analyzed by the Steering Committee. They ranged from finding new sources of funding, to changing priorities of Women’s Centres, to shutting the doors of Centres. Each option was examined in terms of how it would affect the quality of services offered by Women’s Centres, the range of activities that could be done by a Women's Centre, the demand on staff and board members, the ability to connect with women in the community, and the capacity to advocate for women.

It very quickly became clear that if Women’s Centres in BC were to remain feminist, equality-seeking organizations, none of these options would be acceptable. One of the strongest concerns of the Steering Committee was that if any of the options were chosen by Women’s Centres, there would be a huge shift away from the systemic change work that is the cornerstone of most Women’s Centres. Women’s Centres are often the lone socio-political voice speaking out for the rights of women in our communities and in our province. If that voice is gone - if Women’s Centres lose our agency and autonomy - many more women will lose their voices.

Of all the options examined, there were none that did not require a significant loss of services to women. This decrease or change in services was not acceptable to any of the Women’s Centres that are a part of the Steering Committee.

Of particular note was the realization that Women’s Centres existing in rural BC have much less flexibility and ability to take on any of the options that were presented. These rural Women’s Centres not only have fewer options to choose from, but the women in these rural communities also have fewer options and choices for services. If Women’s Centres lose the ability to provide services in these rural communities, women will suffer.

The Steering Committee was gravely concerned about another consequence of many of these options. Women’s Centres are often some of the most accessible spaces in a community. This accessibility is of vital importance to many women in this province. Without proper funding and without a strong feminist perspective, there is a concern that this accessibility will be lost. Services may no longer be free of charge, physically disabled women may not be able to access facilities, and there may be a loss of "space" (women-only space, trans-friendly space, LBGTS-friendly space, loss of affirmative-action policies).

It was also noted that there are many examples in the past of women-centred organizations making priority shifts in order to secure funding. One of the end results has been that they are no longer women-run, feminist organizations. The reality is that the advancement of women’s equality has only happened because of feminism. Women’s Centres are unable to see how true feminist work could continue without stable government funding. In addition, our provincial Minister has made it clear that shifts in priorities will not secure Women’s Centre provincial funding. There is no provincial money for Women’s Centres regardless of what Centres agree to do differently.

An important discussion also took place about the role of Status of Women Canada (SWC) in the current situation for Women’s Centres. It was acknowledged by the Steering Committee that although project funding from SWC has supported some very important work in Women’s Centres, the federal government’s move a number of years ago to withdraw stable funding to Women’s Centres had only compounded the situation we find ourselves in today.

The Steering Committee further noted that within a democratic society, it is not only reasonable but, in fact, a responsibility of governments to fund the work of Women’s Centres. Women’s safe access to services is critical to the lives of women.

The Steering Committee of the BCCWC also had grave concerns about the possible corporatization of our services. Women’s Centres are non-profit service organizations. We are not businesses. Our role is not to make money, to sell products or to promote our funders. Our role is to provide services to women of our communities in the most accessible way possible, and to work for change that has a positive impact on women’s lives. The BC Coalition of Women’s Centres cannot find funding arrangements or partnerships that provide stable funding which respects Women’s Centres need for autonomy, agency and women-centred work.

Options for Women's Centres

APPLIES TO ALL CATEGORIES:

energy going to survival of other programs (e.g.: sexual assault)

loss of collectivity in general

legal liability of board and staff

systemic change work no longer happening

silencing

	Seek new funding sources	Reduce operational expenses	Change priorities	Change structures to access money	Change in strategies to build support	Amalgamation with other women’s serving orgs.	Shut down completely	Shut down volunteers
Quality of Service	project funding—energy going into admin of project project fractures your organization can put project demands on core staff	no service accessibility decreases – increases in barriers	cut in services risk of shift away from women-centred services some Centres may charge fees	Increased red tape services would lack safety no longer Women’s Centres	decreases building support will have to come from the Steering Committee risks associated with working with non-traditional partners	not an option in smaller and rural communities risk of de-politicization loss of autonomy, voice, agency	no service loss of equipment related to funding	burnout

	Seek new funding sources	Reduce operational expenses	Change priorities	Change structures to access money	Change in strategies to build support	Amalgamation with other women’s serving orgs.	Shut down completely	Shut down volunteers
Range of activities	project $$ does not give stability project funding = more competition out therecan put project demands on core staff Law Foundation, e.g.—too many applying so not funding demands for different organizational structure “redundant” “and duplication of	no activities—there are no activity budgets now; the only thing that can be cut is the actual activity accessibility decreases – increases in barriers	risk of shift away from women-centred services in general	range would change would abandon analysis becoming an extension of government influence of Christian church corporatization of what we do	changes range of activities	not an option in smaller and rural communities loss of trans-friendly space loss of women-only space loss of LBGTS-friendly space loss of race-protected positions loss of affirmative action policies	no activities	keeping open space only good programming dies

	Seek new funding sources	Reduce operational expenses	Change priorities	Change structures to access money	Change in strategies to build support	Amalgamation with other women’s serving orgs.	Shut down completely	Shut down volunteers
Demand of board & staff	project funding = increased demand on staff project funding = more competition out there can lose staff if project is outside current skills low pay, no benefits more and more demands from funders micromanaging (by funders) too many strings for too little $$ “redundant” “duplication of services”	education in staff may turn to volunteers getting back to who has privilege to be volunteers board volunteers will quit under pressure continuous staff turnover loss of representation, skills, knowledge loss of momentum and history inclusivity representation lost	loss of long-term visioning loss of feminist principles Women’s Centres working within feminist principles will have limitations would have to facilitate own strategic planning	staff may be all gone would become “yes” women would have to re-write mission more oriented towards business accreditation changes who is hired	takes up energy demands $$$, resources have to take time—shut down can’t do it without resources	not an option in smaller and rural communities whose board/whose agenda? loss of space increase in conflict change in board and staff	huge demand some women would need to leave community to find work not working but still have women coming to you	no staff to coordinate volunteers decrease in well-being

	Seek new funding sources	Reduce operational expenses	Change priorities	Change structures to access money	Change in strategies to build support	Amalgamation with other women’s serving orgs.	Shut down completely	Shut down volunteers
Connected-ness with women in the community	project funding may change direction project funding can affect ethics project funding may not include guidelines (ethics) e.g. use of gov’t logos can alienate women gov’t funding=lack of trust	loss of momentum and history lots more women going underground more women at risk women active in Women’s Centres will/may become the women we serve, esp. marginalized women no time for drop-in, no $$ for basic everyday needs (toilet paper, coffee, etc.) lots of stuff that brings women in would be gone loss of meeting space would affect growth of grassroots activism	new priorities may have nothing to do with women or the community no longer equal access for women	could resemble history of transition house shift apolitical would further exclude marginalized expenses	shut down affects connection to community successful strategies—risk of being taken over	not an option in smaller and rural communities how much of budget is for women’s voices/needs? risk of mainstreaming— complete exclusivity	increase in poverty, lack of safe space, lack of support increase in violence death of…. women desperation, despair women in small/rural communities will leave for bigger cities	exploitation and de-valuing of women’s work

	Seek new funding sources	Reduce operational expenses	Change priorities	Change structures to access money	Change in strategies to build support	Amalgamation with other women’s serving orgs.	Shut down completely	Shut down volunteers
Advocacy capacity	diminished not funded by project $$ threats from funders re: pulling funding	no advocacy no more advocacy off the side more women at risk loss of meeting space would affect growth of grassroots activism	Completely eliminated	would redefine advocacy de-politicized	may be pushed into giving up political voice	not an option in smaller and rural communities watering down of analysis and practice	in small communities, loss of space is loss of political identity formation loss of somebody speaking out

<< Previous Page | Back to Herstory Main | Table of Contents | Next Page >>

If you have questions/comments for BCCWC, please e-mail us at bcwomen@telus.net For other contact information, please go to our Information Page

BC Coalition of Women's Centres • British Columbia, Canada
100 Mile House • Campbell River • Chetwynd • Comox Valley • Cranbrook • Fernie • Fort Nelson • Fort St. John • Golden • Grand Forks • Howe Sound • Kamloops • Kelowna • Kitimat • North Shore • Penticton • Port Coquitlam • Queen Charlotte Islands • Quesnel • Richmond • Ridge Meadows • Sunshine Coast • South Surrey/White Rock • Surrey • Terrace • Vancouver • Vernon • Westcoast • West Kootenay • Williams Lake

This page last updated: June 20, 2003
created entirely with volunteer labour by Doodlebug Grrl
No Budget Productions