Anyone bored? I want to understand this:

http://www.partnerships.org.au/ThirdSector.htm

“Nor does it matter to policy makers, who have inherited a highly instrumentalist approach to social policy. Voluntary, charitable, self-help and mutual forms of association are now typically deemed by policy makers to be simply instruments for the achievement of policy objectives. These objectives are usually prescribed in terms of the transfer of units of service or care or knowledge to a specified client group. The instruments of the transfer are not assigned any intrinsic value. Social capital – the capacity of people to voluntarily associate with each other for mutual benefit or service to others – has no intrinsic worth or place in this policy instrumentalism.”

its beuro-rock-rat speak

''Australia’s voluntary,charitable..and community organisations
have been assaulted..on three fronts.''

ie..
'"governments have colonised..a large proportion of these bodies by turning them..into service delivery instruments..for the state,"'

the main complaint
seems to be..funding..[ie having to beg]

but lets break it down

""“Nor does it matter to policy makers,
who have inherited*.. a highly instrumentalist approach
to social policy.""

this must be read
in context with the line before it

""it is always about the volume of spending
and more money always means more and better services..(or so they say).""

""This merry dance between politicians
and service providers works for both sides""

but not as we know
for those being 'served'
by

""Voluntary,charitable,self-help
and mutual forms of association{S}""

*['are' deleted]

""..*..now typically deemed by policy makers
to be simply instruments for the achievement of policy objectives.""

""These objectives are usually prescribed""
written in stone]..""in terms of
the transfer of units of service
or care
or knowledge
..to a specified client group.""

""The instruments of the transfer""
ie service/care/or knowledge
""are not assigned any intrinsic value.""

as such..mealy labled..

""Social capital""

[thats an accounting term
recall how smoking has SOCIEL COSTS of 31 billion
ie EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SMOKING–

[its an accounting term..much used by govt to hide its real adgenda..its cost or its value

""the capacity of people
to voluntarily associate with each other
for mutual benefit..or service to others ..has no intrinsic worth*

or place
in this...policy instrumentalism.”

ok back to previous quote for context

""That makes it too difficult to play the credit/blame game.""

""Most large not-for-profits now have communications and public relations departments whose focus is to cultivate political support on both sides of politics""

"" so that future ministers will always understand that the issue is never the method or quality or structure of service delivery""

""it is always about the volume of spending
and more money always means more and better services..(or so they say)...

This merry dance
between politicians
and service providers""..[often former public servants/lawyers/accountants/docters]..""works for both sides""

*but[and]..
not for the one being serviced..
[read screwed/shafted..getting the short straw]

Thank you very much OUG, I kept reading that one short paragraph and really not getting it.

I was trying to find an article called “Supping with the Devil” which I think (in the bit of it I found) was saying it is bad for Charities to associate with government and calling them third part providers rather than 1st (govt) and 2nd party which was private industry or corporation. I did find the article but they’re still charging for it.

Then I found a piece about finances and bidding for government contracts. It’s a bit like youtube where you watch one thing then you get lead in all sorts of directions and forget what the first thing was.

Somewhere I read a piece saying they should move away from govt and back to the good will of communities and private industry supporting them. But there’s no easy money there.

With limited understanding I decided any charity that may have started with good intention then began lobbying government in no way could have kept its original identity. The public generally don’t know that because their memory of what these now not-for-profits are still lingers with the well known names.

Must be Friday, I make even less sense on a Friday. :)

you areright in most things
the youtube thing is a truth
one thing leads to an other thing

like ''supping with the evil''
being only available for $$..should speak volumes

we need to figure out a better way
[one big change is not just jailing the caregiver..and putting the kid into the system]..thing is if a problem appears[worthy of sepperating child from parent]..in my opinion the whole family is 'sick'

the whole family should go to 'jail'
to retrain the family as a whole

i think once we prove neglectfull to our kids
we prove thereby we have a problem

the thing is to fix the problem..
not simply punnish 'an offender'
[often punnishing the child more]

just as peoople loose powers and get sent to jail
other powers[privledges ]..might be better suspended
like if a single mother has gotten into trouble..she should by law surrender her own freedom..not the childs

by surrender i mean her losing the privledge of a 'private residence'..and moving in with others in simular circumstances..to collectivly retrain all..not simply one 'instrument' fixes everything

'jail'.. the whole family
that failed together..and are best 'fixed'..by fixing them ..'together'

ie the absent/father is as much guilty of what 'happend'
as those who did the 'crime'..make all of them do the time

not as in jail time
but corrections..
[funny prisons used to be called house of corrections
..till they found correction.. wasnt being done

it [wasnt 'working']

teach the whole family
treat the whole family as one whole..needing to be fixed

remove them [as a unit]..from where they are
that isnt really helping them ..where they are
put them 'under supervision..as a unit/family unit?

UOG:”we need to figure out a better way
[one big change is not just jailing the caregiver..and putting the kid into the system]..thing is if a problem appears[worthy of sepperating child from parent]..in my opinion the whole family is 'sick'”

Absolutely we need to find a better way and you hear parents demanding to be charged with a crime and have their day in court. The punishment (child removal) is carried out without proof of crime. When removing a new born there obviously has never been a crime but want a huge and damaging punishment for the baby.

The Libs have said they will focus more on early intervention. Others say too much of this is done already. I’d suggest it’s probably been and being done by the wrong people.

Many children seem to suffer in kinship care when the families as a “whole” are not thoroughly investigated. The abuse usually started somewhere and an Aunty is just as affected as the parent was. It makes sense to start fixing this with current generations before the cycle repeats. But then we’ve talked about these cycles for a long time.

Placing the whole family in foster care facilities makes more sense to me. Now I just need to win lotto.