Supping with the devil evokes a rare Faustian night out on the town. But for community organisations it is a regular gig when dealing with modern governments.
You are presented with a seemingly bland discussion paper on which future policy will be based. The paper invites suggestions, is tolerant of all views and suggestions and professes ideals that you can share. How can you refuse? The problem is that the paper politely excludes the value base of your own organisation. So whatever you submit will be translated into a form that at first looks unexceptionable, but which undermines your central concerns.
So do you pick up your bat and go home without a sou for your organisation, or do you engage, allowing hellfire to singe your soul?
Discussion papers speak of stakeholders, of inputs, outputs and outcomes, of a variety of trade-offs, such as those between risk aptitude and public accountability, innovation and maintenance, flexibility and quality assurance, client empowerment and equality of access. They also speak of stakeholders, clients, collaboration, governance and economic sustainability.
Their value statements put people at the centre, insist on the client's right to appropriate support, emphasise the need for respect, and focus on turning passive members of society into active contributors to the economy. Above all they seek a policy that will be economically sustainable.
It is difficult to argue against the values that each of these concepts enshrine. Who could argue against economic sustainability, public accountability, collaboration, quality assurance and flexibility, and encouraging people to be active rather than passive?
Indeed the evaluation of programs to which these terms give flesh is particularly needed in community organisations. Good intentions and mission statements do not automatically turn into programs that respect the dignity and help the growth of those they reach. Catholic organisations, in particular, need no reminding of that.
So community organisations should welcome being asked to provide appropriate evidence that they do the needed good things in the good ways that they promise.
The problem is that the discussion papers are systematically blind to much evidence that is appropriate. Underlying them is a metaphorical framework deriving from a financial analysis of a manufacturing business. The process of production is mapped in terms of costs and results from ordering of material to selling the completed product. All costs and processes are placed under the heading of inputs, outputs and outcomes. Innovation describes more efficient or cheaper production processes. Integration means combining