Here’s a similar but slightly different suggestion: rather than there being one definitive regional organisation for each area, we just encourage the creation of more organisations that are in between local groups and large funders.
Some examples of these organisations:
A team that runs and is responsible for a few local groups (e.g. a successful local group expands locally)
An organisation that centralises certain specific group functions (e.g. marketing, organising talks, introductory programs), so that local groups can outsource
A team that specialises in seeding new groups, and provides significant help and support to new organisers
A national organisation that tries to coordinate and encourage collaboration across local groups, including keeping an eye on groups that are at risk of disappearing
Some reasons this could be good:
Local groups wouldn’t automatically be reliant on the one designated regional organisation
A designated regional organisation that is doing poorly is a problem because it’s more difficult to replace
Teams can specialise in the thing that they are good at, rather than having responsibility for every aspect of all local groups in their area
Teams can work at whatever regional scope makes most sense (could be just a few groups, could be global) - overlap in geographical scope between different kinds of these organisations is often fine, whereas every geographical location would need exactly one designated regional organisation
Some reasons that designated regional organisations could be better:
Who has responsibility for what would be clearer, so fewer things would fall through the cracks
The role of a regional organisation would be clearly defined and the same across regions, making evaluation easier, making knowledge sharing between regions easier, and making it more straightforward to start or join an organisation (i.e. a clearer career progression pipeline)
A regional organisation may be well placed to decide what kinds of functions to prioritise to best support its local region
There are quick thoughts, I’m likely missing important considerations. I’m not sure which approach seems better, and they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I thought I’d share the thought.
A related example is multi-academy trusts in the UK school system, which are essentially organisations that run multiple schools. Schools can choose to join an existing trust, and trust can start new schools. Rather than the central government funding each school individually, it funds trusts, who have responsibility for the schools in their control.
Thanks for the brilliant post, by the way, I’m really glad you wrote it!
Here’s a similar but slightly different suggestion: rather than there being one definitive regional organisation for each area, we just encourage the creation of more organisations that are in between local groups and large funders.
Some examples of these organisations:
A team that runs and is responsible for a few local groups (e.g. a successful local group expands locally)
An organisation that centralises certain specific group functions (e.g. marketing, organising talks, introductory programs), so that local groups can outsource
A team that specialises in seeding new groups, and provides significant help and support to new organisers
A national organisation that tries to coordinate and encourage collaboration across local groups, including keeping an eye on groups that are at risk of disappearing
Some reasons this could be good:
Local groups wouldn’t automatically be reliant on the one designated regional organisation
A designated regional organisation that is doing poorly is a problem because it’s more difficult to replace
Teams can specialise in the thing that they are good at, rather than having responsibility for every aspect of all local groups in their area
Teams can work at whatever regional scope makes most sense (could be just a few groups, could be global) - overlap in geographical scope between different kinds of these organisations is often fine, whereas every geographical location would need exactly one designated regional organisation
Some reasons that designated regional organisations could be better:
Who has responsibility for what would be clearer, so fewer things would fall through the cracks
The role of a regional organisation would be clearly defined and the same across regions, making evaluation easier, making knowledge sharing between regions easier, and making it more straightforward to start or join an organisation (i.e. a clearer career progression pipeline)
A regional organisation may be well placed to decide what kinds of functions to prioritise to best support its local region
There are quick thoughts, I’m likely missing important considerations. I’m not sure which approach seems better, and they aren’t mutually exclusive, but I thought I’d share the thought.
A related example is multi-academy trusts in the UK school system, which are essentially organisations that run multiple schools. Schools can choose to join an existing trust, and trust can start new schools. Rather than the central government funding each school individually, it funds trusts, who have responsibility for the schools in their control.
Thanks for the brilliant post, by the way, I’m really glad you wrote it!