A report from Resourcing Women – an E-forum/think tank on the Resourcing Needs of Women’s Organisations

Prepared for the Active Community Unit, Home Office on behalf of Community Development Foundation (A Community Forum activity)

Copyright: Marion Scott 2001



 
 
 
 
 



Contents Page
1. Executive Summary
1
  • Introduction and Summary
1
  • Recommendations
4
2. Purpose of Project and Report
7
3. Project Co-ordinators
7
4. Sponsors, Partners and Participants
7
5. Background to the Project
7
  • The women’s voluntary and community sector 
  • The e-Forum/think tank 
  • Participants
  
6. Discussion 
9
  • Good Practice - Positive Experience and Practical Lessons
9
  • Themes from the Discussion
    1. Could women’s organisations improve the quality of their applications? 
    2. Why should women – as individuals, as providers, as self-organising – be the beneficiaries of resourcing opportunities? 
    3. What are the barriers to women’s organisations accessing resources? 
    4. How do language, beneficiary criteria and funding paradigms impact? 
    5. What further structural issues affect access to resources?
10

10
 
 
 
 

10

11

12

16
  • Recommendations 
4
  • Appendix – references
18
  • - participants
19

 

Resourcing Women Executive Summary

    1. Introduction and Summary
The main purpose of the project is to make proposals for better resourcing of women’s organisations and identify key issues, particularly in relation to recommendations made as part of the development of the Neighbourhood Renewal strategy. The online archive (http://www.womenconnect.org.uk) contains the original contributions and further background.

The report (also available online at http://www.womenconnect.org.uk) is based on the deliberations of the Resourcing Women project - an online think tank/e-forum (February-March 2001) and a face-to-face meeting (February 2001). These activities focussed on the resourcing of women’s organisations, projects and initiatives in England and took place between February and March 2001. Thanks are particularly due to all participants, women and men who took part in the discussions face-to-face and online.

Resourcing Women was a Community Development Foundation ‘Community Forum’ project funded by the Home Office Active Community Unit.

The recommendations (see section 1.2) are relevant to a range of stakeholders and are divided into four areas:

  1. Recommendations to increase the resourcing of women’s organisations and effect strategic change through public sector/government action
  2. Recommendations to effect structural change through alliances within the women’s sector and dialogue and formal relationships between the sector and funding/resourcing bodies
  3. Recommendations to producing and making available information, research and data about women, women’s organisations and funding/resourcing opportunities
  4. Further proposals to Trusts, other independent bodies and about Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
The purpose of the project and the report is to: The report describes how the project was co-ordinated and supported in sections 3 and 4. In section 5, the key factors at the core of the Resourcing Women e-Forum discussions are outlined as: In section 5.3 the report describes the invited participants who were 75 local and other women’s community and voluntary organisations, politicians, funders, local government and central government officers and other decision-makers and stakeholders. Issues identified for discussion were: Section 6 is an analysis of the contributions to the think tank and e-forum. Four aspects are drawn out from the discussions: The e-forum discussed the ways that women’s community and voluntary organisations contribute and are transformational for individual women and society as a whole: The contributions of women’s organisations are therefore critical to effective community development and to addressing poverty and social exclusion.

Section 6.2 on key themes analyses the discussions through a series of five questions:

  1. Could women’s organisations ‘try harder’ and improve the quality of their applications?
  2. Why should women – as individual (citizens), as providers, as self-organising – be the beneficiaries of resourcing opportunities?
  3. What are the barriers to women’s organisations accessing resources?
  4. How do language, beneficiary criteria and funding paradigms impact?
  5. What further structural issues affect access to resources?
As well as a number of recommendations derived from these discussions (section 1.2), the e-forum offers (section 6.2.4) better frameworks or models (paradigms) for resourcing diverse women’s organisations for use by funders and policy makers. In these paradigms the outcomes and impacts of women’s organisations are seen as adding value for all, not taking resources from another part of the community: 1.2 Recommendations

The recommendations are relevant to a range of stakeholders:

They are divided into four areas:
  1. Recommendations to increase the resourcing of women’s organisations and effect strategic change through public sector/government action
  2. Recommendations to effect structural change through alliances and networks within the women’s sector and dialogue and formal relationships between the sector and funding/resourcing bodies
  3. Recommendations to produce and make available information, research and data about women, women’s organisations and funding/resourcing opportunities
  4. Further proposals to trusts, other independent bodies and public bodies about a range of matters including Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Resources and new sources of funding and action.
The recommendations imply a gender mainstreaming (with diversity) approach that incorporates specialism and positive action where appropriate. They are proposed as a strategic starting point, not a definitive, comprehensive response to the resourcing needs of women’s organisations. They do not represent the views of the whole of the women’s voluntary and community sector. Recommendations are included which would encourage more information about and more involvement of a wide and inclusive range of women’s organisations in strategy and funding processes.

It is suggested that the Active Community Unit (ACU) lead and delegate on the recommendations and incorporate the recommendations and analysis into current/future consultations and strategic development. It is hoped that the ACU will work with the Women’s National Commission (WNC) and others to disseminate the evidence, arguments and good practice collated in the Resourcing Women exercise. This includes the distribution of the report (to be produced by the WNC) and publicising the availability online of the report and background material.

Increasing resourcing and effecting strategic change through public sector/government action

  1. Public funding programmes, including regional funding frameworks, should include women as an explicit category of beneficiary. Women should be recognised as a diverse community of interest. Government policy initiatives and statutory funding agendas should also establish targeted funding programmes for a range of diverse women’s equality initiatives.
  2. The Active Community Unit (ACU) should mainstream a gender dimension in all its strategies, consultation and research. It should develop a strategy to counter the impact of policy exclusion on women and women’s organisations so that women’s community and voluntary organisations are accorded proper recognition and funding for the key roles they play. As part of promoting fair access to funding, the ACU and other departments should consult regularly with the women’s sector on the development of new funding programmes.
  3. Government (and funders in general) should develop their awareness of difference and diversity amongst women and amongst diverse Black and minority ethnic women and allow adequate and targeted funding for these specific groups of women. Funding programmes which prioritise as beneficiaries Black and minority ethnic people and their organisations should explicitly support women’s community and voluntary activity as part of this.
  4. Public funders should support and fund infrastructure related capacity building activities and training and leadership programmes, following focussed consultation with women’s organisations, particularly those working at local level.
  5. Regeneration and renewal funding programmes should explicitly include as key beneficiaries, providers and strategic partners, women and women’s organisations run for and by women who work to improve the status and situation of diverse women.
  6. An appropriate body/government department should undertake a review of second tier and infrastructural support to women’s community and voluntary organisations to identify good practice and gaps in support and consult on establishing earmarked funding/a programme.

    7.  

     

    Effecting structural change through alliances and dialogue between and within sectors

  7. Public and other strategic and decision-making bodies with a role in allocating resources and funding should ensure they include adequate representation of women (and men) with gender, equality and diversity awareness.
  8. Regional and local government should enable the development of strategic networks and local coalitions of women’s organisations who will advocate for women and the sector, by providing support mechanisms, formal consultative status and funds. This will assist a) the mainstreaming of gender and diverse women’s needs into decision-making and public funding b) the monitoring of public investment with respect to women c) the influencing of public funding agendas to be more responsive to women's agendas.
  9. Public and other funders should consult on and establish funding programmes for innovative joint work between diverse women’s organisations (e.g. Black and white women’s organisations), building on existing good practice.
  10. An appropriate body/government department should work in partnership with key and representative agencies in the women’s sector to establish mechanisms and improved information channels for formal and informal dialogue and relationship between women’s sector and key funders and resourcing agencies (charitable, statutory and corporate). One outcome would be positive and responsive funding paradigms and criteria that recognise women’s organisations’ contributions.
  11. The Resourcing Women report should be formally submitted to the Association of London Authorities sector review on funding women’s organisations, summer 2001.
  12. The Resourcing Women report should be formally submitted to the Active Community Unit consultation on Funding Community Groups, July 2001.

    13.  

     

    Producing and making available information, research and data

  13. Public funders and others should support and commission research on factors that inhibit or support the development of women’s organisations and when available this research should inform public policy initiatives and government strategies on ‘delivering for women’. For example, research on funders’ practices and policies on funding core and infrastructural costs, ‘management fees’ and the impact of these policies on women’s organisations’ access to resources could inform future policy and the implementation of the Compact and the code of good practice on funding.
  14. A lead department/body should be identified to consult on and establish a National Database of Women’s Organisations to provide a centralised source of information on organisations working at a local, national and international level, building on existing work and offering a resource to a wide range of interested parties.
  15. Public funders and others should commission research on the impact of the work of different kinds of women’s organisations and projects, incorporating accessible policy advice and information derived from the findings.
  16. Research on community and voluntary sector should incorporate gender disaggregated evidence and gender equality awareness in data collection and analysis.
  17. The ACU should ensure that key information proposed for the one stop web site/Portal can be available for those not online in printed form at least annually so that women’s organisations can have up to date information about funding opportunities and policy priorities within each government department. The new Portal should include sources of information about funders from all sectors who fund infrastructure/core/structural capacity building costs for women’s organisations. The Portal should commission for publication online a regularly updated ‘why fund women’s organisations?’ resource targeted at funders and women’s organisations making applications for funds. The Portal should include links to other sources of information about funding, good practice etc. relevant to women’s organisations.

    18.  

     
     
     
     

    Further proposals

  18. Funders and those with resources to allocate should be encouraged to form new trusts, foundations and corporate programmes that target women’s equality initiatives and women’s organisations.
  19. Women’s organisations are encouraged to acknowledge the need for more action to address exclusion of particular groups of women eg Black and other minority groups, and to learn from the good practice highlighted by Resourcing Women participants
  20. The Women’s Budget Group think tank are recommended to work on an assessment of the value of women’s voluntary and community organisations’ work and also to work more strategically with women’s organisations, particularly local organisations, to influence the distribution of resources and the perceived political status of women’s interests.
  21. An appropriate body/government department should commission the development of further e-fora on resourcing women’s organisations, with adequate resources for facilitation and technical support. Online methods of consultation and deliberation properly organised and focussed can provide a useful complement to other methods. Women’s organisations are asking for online opportunities to network together about funding.
  22. Public funders and others should assist and target women’s voluntary and community organisations to develop their use of ICT supported opportunitiesand enable women to have an appropriate influence over the development and deployment of local and other ICT resources including access to resources and training.
2. Purpose of Resourcing Women Project and Report 3. Project Co-ordinators

Marion Scott (Independent Consultant) was commissioned by Community Development Foundation (CDF) under their Community Forum programme for the Active Community Unit, Home Office to undertake the project with Margaret Page (Independent Consultant)

4. Sponsors, partners and participants

Thanks to:

5. Background to the Project

The e-forum was an online Community Forum, lead by Kevin Harris at the Community Development Foundation funded by Active Community Unit. It was also linked to the Active Community Unit’s role in implementing recommendations made by the Project Action Team 9 that reported on community self-help as part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy. The Resourcing Women online forum in its original form is now closed but has been archived on Women Connect’s site. Future related activities will be highlighted and linked at http://www.womenconnect.org.uk and on CDF’s website http://www.cdf.org.uk

5.1 The women’s voluntary and community sector

At the core of the Resourcing Women e-Forum discussions lie:

As frequently noted in the discussions, these issues are under researched and under discussed: the work of women’s organisations is not valued sufficiently. The issues go to the heart of gender relations and inequality. They sometimes evoke hostile, even misogynistic reactions. References to further information and discussion about the nature and contribution of the women’s voluntary and community sector can be found in the appendix.

5.2 The e-forum/think tank

A cross section of about 75 people (see appendix) from a range of organisations throughout England representing a cross-section of stakeholders accepted the invitation to participate to discuss the issues and propose solutions. It involved local and other women’s community and voluntary organisations, politicians, funders, local government and central government officers and other decision-makers and stakeholders. It aimed to interest those who support women's voluntary and community activity and people interested in finding out what women's organisations achieve. The e-forum co-ordinators identified some key areas for discussion in advance:

These topics were reflected in the presentations and workshops at the face-to-face event and in the ‘threads’ or topic areas that structured the online discussions.

5.3 Participants

The majority of the participants who accepted the invitation to participate in the e-forum and meeting were from women’s organisations run for and by women concerned to improve the status and situation of women. Many of them are small organisations, operating locally but there are also representatives of networks and national organisations. More information about the range of people invited is available.

Over 30 people attended the event in London in February 2001. The workshops and speakers provided opportunity and stimulus to open the debate and to form connections and networks. The majority were women’s organisations including women from organisations run by and for Black and minority ethnic women but there were also a number of funders and other stakeholders. There were a higher proportion of representatives from government and funding organisations at the face-to-face event than active online.

The e-forum involved 24 people who posted messages or provided material and a further unknown number of people who visited and read messages. About a third of posters had not attended the meeting. To help them join in, all participants were offered support and guidance at the face-to-face event, online, by email and by phone. The majority of message posters were women from women’s organisations. 4 contributors to the online discussion were or had roles as ‘other stakeholders’ (e.g. funding providers).

6. Discussion Analysis

The report is an analysis of the contributions and with selection designed to make a coherent re-presentation of the discussion and identify key themes, issues and recommendations. It does not attempt to summarise the full discussions that were wide ranging but does try to convey some of the detail and depth of the discussion.

The Resourcing Women discussion – online took place in a number of threads that had also been reflected in the seminar (face-to-face, offline). The workshops/seminar were designed to stimulate discussion of the main topic but with a range of emphases. The complete online threads and contributions can be viewed on http://www.womenconnect.org.uk Not all contributors have been named in this report but all contributions were welcomed and valuable.

Four aspects are drawn out from the e-forum/think tank discussions:


 
 

6.1 Good Practice - Positive Experience and Practical Lessons

This section draws from the discussions and highlights good practice under five headings:

The value of women’s organisations A new paradigm – adding value
 
 

Networking and support

. Black and white women working together for change Good practice in funding applications 6.2 Key Themes from the e-Forum/Think Tank on Resourcing Women

This section analyses key themes from the contributions and discussion through a series of five questions:

  1. Could women’s organisations ‘try harder’ and improve the quality of their applications?
  2. Why should women – as individuals, as providers, as self-organising – be the beneficiaries of resourcing opportunities?
  3. What are the barriers to women’s organisations accessing resources?
  4. How do language, beneficiary criteria and funding paradigms/models impact?
  5. What further structural issues affect access to resources?
6.2.1 Could women’s organisations ‘try harder’ and improve the quality of their applications?

At least one participant suggests that there is in fact sufficient funding and that funders are generally crying out for good applications. These turn mainly on clarity of purpose, marketing and meeting the criteria. Women’s organisations are advised not only apply to those funders specifying women as a target group but also submit applications to a wider variety of sources, as they mostly do, and to back their submissions with a well-evidenced case.

6.2.2 Women – as individuals, as organisational providers, as self-

organising – why should they be beneficiaries of resourcing opportunities?

Many contributions deal with the nature of women as a group (or group of groups) in society:

Participants agreed that research and evidence of women’s disadvantage is available, as is evidence of their contribution as individuals and in organisations. However it needs developing and supplementing. For instance, there is a lack of research on the women’s voluntary sector in the UK. Existing and future evidence needs a higher profile to make it more accessible for use and more widely and fully understood.

Most participants derive the purpose, role and origins of diverse women’s organisations from an understanding of where women from diverse backgrounds are positioned socially, economically and in communities. This understanding provides the essential basis of positive arguments for funding women’s initiatives.

In England a whole range of women’s organisations and initiatives are run by and for diverse women. At their best they provide women with an opportunity to define their own issues, put these on the agenda and meet needs not met elsewhere or in ways not offered elsewhere. Such women’s organisations are focused on improving the status and situation of women.

From their contacts with funders from all sectors, participants brought extensive evidence of ‘gender blindness’ or ‘gender neutrality’. Many or most funders seem to recognise the need to avoid direct discrimination. However too many fail to acknowledge women’s social, political and economic inequality and the systematic, institutionalised discrimination faced by women as a group. This is the first enormous hurdle for many of the organisations participating in the e-Forum.

6.1.3 What are the barriers to women’s organisations accessing resources?

Some powerful descriptions of women’s organisations and work by women in a variety highlight their achievements and illustrate the barriers to funding.

For instance, Marika Mason (Independent Consultant) describes the contributions of Black and minority ethnic women’s organisations under an ironic sub heading - ‘do you know what you are doing? The key resourcing issues are:

Helen Scadding (Director, Women’s Health) argues that fundraising is difficult for women’s organisations for reasons that are both shared with others and unique in the voluntary and community sector: Some participants propose new, special targeted funds/trusts for women that could plug the perceived gap giving grants where others do not.

6.2.4 How do language, beneficiary criteria and funding paradigms/models impact?

The analysis here reflects the e-Forum’s explorations in three strands:

Names and labels:

Participants recognise that access to funds and application success are affected by the names and descriptions they chose for themselves and also the names, labels and criteria adopted by funders. Both impact on definitions of need and appropriate response. Modifying language and labels to match funders’ expectations, beliefs and values brings tensions to women’s organisations.

Participants use the concept of a ‘W’ word (w for women), as their experience of speaking about women shows it can trigger negative responses. Participants bring evidence of sometimes deliberately avoiding using the word ‘women’. They report problems from funders with ‘women’ as a description of their beneficiaries and focus. It seems as if women as a group are often not seen as natural beneficiaries. By contrast Jane Grant (Independent Consultant and Global Fund for Women) provides an interesting example of the way the Global Fund for Women (www.globalfundforwomen.org) operates. It emphasises women’s human rights, which are broadly defined and based on self-definition by the organisations themselves. The Fund finds that this approach leads to a wide variety of work receiving support. Ama Gueye, ELBWO, initiated a discussion about visibility and definitions of terms and labels. Participants explore the way the term ‘Black and minority ethnic’ does not adequately recognise differences between and within a whole number of ‘groups’ of Black, Asian and ‘other minority’ (for want of a better generic expression) women. As a result particular people/groups can lose out. Specific groups of people often need to be named and not "lumped together". There are inevitable differences of opinion about the most appropriate labels and when and if they should change. Participants recognise that representing women as victims (of violence, of poverty, of family responsibilities etc) may help with accessing funds where funders have a philosophy of supporting the ‘halt and the lame’. Where women are concerned it may feel safer for funders and society to help victims rather than ‘viragos’. The latter is a term which caricatures but also symbolises attitudes towards women’s organisations. Whether or not they are radical or transformatory, women’s organisations and Black women’s organisations are often perceived as carrying challenging messages, about women’s or race equality for instance. Funders’ criteria for and definitions of their beneficiaries

Many funders will list their target groups. The definition of these terms and groups affects eligibility, access, analysis of need and implementation of services etc. Participants explore two main areas:

In the experience of participants, policy makers and funders often do not see women as a group as social excluded. There are many interpretation/definitions of what being social excluded is. The term ‘socially excluded’ has substituted for other terms relating to disadvantage and defines afresh people who might become the appropriate beneficiaries of resources. Participants from women’s organisations describe the (unexpected) challenge of having to demonstrate repeatedly the ways in which women in general and particular groups of women are in reality socially excluded. This is something they now have to do to access resources where a key criterion is working with the socially excluded. Participants raise questions about and gave examples of the various difficulties caused by women being subsumed and invisible within other categories of beneficiaries. Sometimes funding criteria do not mention women as such but have target groups in which women form a significant proportion or are in a majority. Examples include programmes focussed on carers, lone parents, older people and Black and minority ethnic people. An underlying theme of the discussions was that most funding programmes do not mainstream gender and equality. Nor do programmes generally recognise the need to question the status quo or value women’s/gender specialisms and positive action. But gender and race neutral programmes can be very limited even where they are serving women/Black women in numerical terms. Mainstreaming gender equality with diversity would make legitimate the call on funding of women’s organisations ‘only’ proposing work with for example, women carers, older women, Black, Asian or other minority ethnic women Models and paradigms for responding to social need and circumstances

Funders and policy makers operate within explicit or implicit paradigms or models. These determine how need is defined, the criteria for eligibility and who should meet need. This part of the analysis reflects strands of discussion about the way a funder’s paradigm/model impacts on the availability of resources and access in relation to:

Many funding paradigms emphasise special needs and women’s organisations use this approach in making their case for funding. However participants point out that a funding paradigm that focuses on groups that have ‘special needs’ has a number of effects. It sets group against group in terms of having the most or the most significant special needs. It encourages a ‘deficit’ approach to describing people. It can discount a funding approach that favours prevention. However, paradoxically, participants also report that even when they do attempt to make the case that women using their project/organisation have special needs they are often questioned or depicted as a competing priority with other special needs. This happens to Black and minority ethnic women’s organisations too. There are good arguments for ‘mainstreaming gender’ (see above). A definition is available on the Women and Equality Unit (Cabinet Office) (http://www.womens-unit.gov.uk) The UN definition of gender mainstreaming states that it is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. This is a strategy to make women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic, and societal spheres, so that women and men benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate goal is to achieve gender equality. However, a limited gender mainstreaming paradigm can result in a lack of appropriate services. It can lead to an over rigid approach which sees no place for women’s equality/gender specialism or for services and responses designed for and by women. To further illustrate the confusion around mainstreaming, a funder asked why they should participate in the Resourcing Women e-forum, as they had no identified funding stream for women. In these explorations, participants were providing evidence of their experience of a number of paradoxes or circularities when asked: Alternative funding models/paradigms: resourcing women adds value

On a positive note, participants explore at least two new paradigms that could avoid the traps of the victim and special needs frameworks or the dichotomy of mainstream versus specialist provision.

Both offer a framework of resourcing diverse women’s organisations where the outcomes and impact are seen as adding value for all, not taking resources from another part of the community:

Connecting women, community and women’s organisations

There is an important social ecology or dynamic involving women, community and women’s organisations. This could be better sustained with resources and funding that acknowledge these connections. Research from a range of sources (see appendix), including the Community Development Foundation (CDF) shows:

Valuing and using women’s organisations’ work

Secondly, women in women’s organisations have distinctive ways of working, interesting achievements and creative models from which everyone can learn. They offer pathways to new ways of working.

6.2.5 What Further Structural Issues affect Access to Resources?

Contributions to these strands of the discussion focus on five areas:

The funding landscape

The changing shape of the evolving funding landscape involves regionalisation, local government ‘modernisation’, cuts and reallocation of resources, neighbourhood renewal programmes, new funding arrangements for education of post 16s/adults etc. These form the regime in which women’s organisations now operate and create new and significant challenges.

Core and infrastructural funding

Participants discussed core funding, ‘management fees’, appropriate staffing and strategic resources and sustainability.

Helen Scadding (Director, Women’s Health) describes the limited core funding of most women’s organisations which is frequently: Core funding affects capacity to deliver all the functions of an organisation including the fundraising function itself. It affects the capacity of an organisation to engage in the process of consultation, research with users, policy influence, partnership development, organisation profile and lobbying. All these functions impact on access to resources creating a vicious circle. While this is recognised in the Compact on Relations between Government and the Voluntary and Community Sector in England and its code of good practice on funding, positive impacts from this are not yet being felt. Representation

There is general agreement that access to resources could be improved by a better representation of women through women and men with gender, equality and diversity awareness. This is seen as particularly important in relation to decision-making in relation to urban renewal, neighbourhood regeneration and some of the other funding programmes led regionally or through local government. Organisations serving a community of interest like women as well as geographical communities need proper representation on several strategic partnerships that makes demands on hard pressed organisations

Networks and support

Structural issues of capacity, strategy, policy and influence are explored extensively in the think tank particularly through the discussions initiated by Kim Smith (Director, Women’s Resource Centre). Together with other women’s organisations and funders, she argues for funding the valuable role of second tier organisations for the support they provide.

This is affected by the same regimes, barriers and attitudes described in relation to funding women’s organisations in general. In addition, funders do not adequately recognise the valuable strategic work of second tier organisations, favouring services direct to individual or more ‘deserving’ women. Adequately resourced second tier women’s organisations would offer a wide range of support including the facilitation of representation and influence of policy and the development of partnerships.

Participants suggest that the lack of a powerful national umbrella body and regional and local second tier organisations for the women’s sector is a key problem. However there was a view that there is no political will to plug this gap.

Women’s policy exclusion

Siobhan Riordan has called a fundamental problem experienced by women ‘policy exclusion’ in her research and a new paper she posted for the Resourcing Women e-Forum (see appendix). Policy exclusion that renders women marginalized, invisible and insignificant leads to a failure to resource women’s organisations. A lack of funding for women’s organisations feeds back into policy exclusion where individual women and particular groups of women are not involved and do not benefit sufficiently from a whole range of policy and subsequent resource allocation. Participants in the e-Forum further discuss the specific policy invisibility and "lumping together" of Black and other minority groups of women.

6.3 Recommendations - see Executive Summary (section 1, page 4)

Appendix

This is a limited list of references. A particular focus is on the way, "(w)omen's organisations have an important role in economic and social development attracting some of the most marginalised and socially excluded groups into mainstream policy initiatives. Research studies are now accumulating that show how poor communities cycle upward when grassroots women and their leaders are well supported. When women's organising is recognised and supported, whole communities begin to thrive." (Siobhan Riordan: Policy Exclusion – Removing the Barriers to Funding Opportunities for Women’s Organizations in the UK, February 2001 Paper posted to Resourcing Women online forum)
 
 

Belenky M, Clinchy B, Goldberger N & Tarule J (1997) Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind, Basic Books, USA

Chanan G* (1992) Out of the Shadow: Local Community Action in the European Community, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin

Chanan G* (1999) Local Community Involvement: a Handbook for Good Practice, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin

Curno A et al (1982) Women and Collective Action, Association of Community Workers, Newcastle

Dominelli L (1990) Women and Community Action, Venture Press, Birmingham

Gilchrist A* (1999) Community and Networking, CDF, London

Hinsdale MA, Lewis HM and Waller SM (1995) It Comes from the People: Community Development and Local Theology, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, USA

Page M (1998) Compassionate Leadership: A Question of Gender? - The experience of women managers of refugee projects, COTASS, London, UK

Perlmutter FD (Ed.), (1994) Women & Social Change ­ Non-profit and Social Policy, National Association of Social Workers, Washington, USA

Riordan S (1999 Women’s Organisations in the UK Voluntary Sector: a Force for Social Change, Centre for Institutional Studies, University of East London, UK

Seitz VR (1995) Women, Development and Communities for Empowerment in Appalachia, State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.

Sen G & Grown C (1987) Development, Crises, and Alternative Visions: Third World Women¹s Perspectives, New Feminist Library, Monthly Review Press, New York, USA
 
 

*based at CDF

Participants

(Invitees who agreed to participate at the face-to-face event and/or online)
 

Alison Garnham National Council for One Parent Families
Ama Gueye ELBWO
Amita Sudra Freelance Trainer
Anita Halliday/women at Including Women, Birmingham
Ann Curno City Parochial Fund
Ann Wall Sheffield Hallam University
Anne Moggridge University of the West of England
Annette Lawson National Alliance of Women’s Organisations
Bisi Adeleye-Fayemi Akina Mama wa Afrika
Candy Atherton MP
Carol Jones Federation of Community Work Training Groups
Catherine Citizens Online
Christine Dixon Lambeth Women’s Project
Clare Hyde Calderdale Well Woman Centre
Clem Herman Open University
Daisy Khera Women's Help Centre (Birmingham)
Debbie Walmsley  Comic Relief
Dipali Chandra Barrow Cadbury Trust 
Donna St-Hill Women's Budget Group
Elaine Ross Opening the Information Society
Gillian Perry Charity Commission
Gillian Youngs University of Leicester
Grace Evans London Borough of Greenwich
Gulten Fedayi London Borough of Greenwich
Helen Scadding Women's Health (London)
Hilary Farnworth University of North London
Jane Butcher Oxford Women's Training Scheme
Jane Grant Consultant/Women’s Global Fund
Janet Veitch Women's National Commission
Jean O'Keefe Keighley Women's Centre 
Jill Bedford Consultant
John Selvia London Borough of Southwark
Jonathan Cash DSS
Kara Carter Homeless Alliance
Karen Harrison Trafford Women's Aid
Kate Aldous Lewisham Voluntary Action
Kate Belinis Stevenage and Herts Women's Centre
Kate Young National Alliance of Women's Organisations
Kay Handoll Fe-mail, Huddersfield
Kevin Harris Community Development Foundation
Kim Smith Women's Resource Centre
Lia Dover Consultant
Lindsey Brown Salisbury and District Well Woman Centre
Lyn Carruthers Sheffield Women's Forum
Lynette Ametewee Women's Unit
Margaret Moran MP
Margaret Page (Women Connect) + Consultant
Marika Mason Consultant
Marion Scott (Women Connect) + Consultant
Mary Ann Stephenson Fawcett Society
Mary Granville White Norwich Women's Health & Information Service
Mary Kearney The King's Fund 
Mary Nicholson National Association of CVS
Melanie Griffiths London Boroughs Grants
Muriel Nissel  Women's Budget Group
Nikki Dearn Women's Electronic Village Hall (Manchester)
Noreen Howard Griot/London Borough of Greenwich
Norma Turner Ashfield Women's Centre
Rana Aksac Imece - Turkish Speaking Women's Group
Rose Ardron Women's Training Network/Sheffield Objective 1
Roz Wollen Sheffield Women's Forum
Sally Davies Sheffield Women's Forum
Sara Llewellin The Bridge House Estates Trust
Sarah Denvir Home Office Active Community Unit
Sarah Herries Women Connect
Sarah Lord-Soares London Advice Services Alliance
Siobhan Riordan University of East London
Sue Gorbing Consultant
Sue Smith Oxfam
Sue Ward Cabinet Office
Sue Webb Coventry and Warwickshire Network
Tara Parveen Association of Charitable Funders Women's Interest Group/John Moores Foundation
Toby Blume Homeless Alliance
Wendy Clarke e-Learning Consultant
Women's National Commission Women's National Commission