From a 2023 interview with Sara Atnikov (Director of Communications and Employee Assistance at Purpose Construction)

CCEDNet member Purpose Construction provides skilled trades training and long term jobs to people with barriers to employment. Sara Atnikov, Director of Communications and Employee Assistance at Purpose Construction, is a part of the We Want to Work coalition that CCEDNet Manitoba provides support for. This coalition believes that one of the best ways to achieve positive social, economic, and climate outcomes would be for government to consider community benefits in their purchasing. If even a very small portion of this spending supported community benefits, it would have a huge social, economic, and environmental return on investment.

In a 2023 interview, Sara shared about the importance of working together to achieve collective action

Purpose Construction is part of the We Want to Work coalition, a bunch of social enterprises that had been rallying the city for social procurement for a thousand years… I’m half joking and half serious!

I remember giving a presentation to the City of Winnipeg, organized by CCEDNet, to all of the department heads, talking about ways in which we could get folks who have barriers to employment in on city contracts and city projects. I could tell there was a lot of apprehension. 

That was seven or eight years ago. Then, finally, coming back to City Hall [in 2022], standing in council and having them vote in this social procurement policy. Being there with folks who had been working on it for so long. What an experience!

At this point it’s really a lot of potential. What it could mean for folks from Purpose Construction is the opportunity to work for a market construction company and build their skills into something greater.

We now have folks who are champions of us because they have seen that our work is great. It’s quality. And we also provide the social benefit. That’s what social procurement gives us – that opportunity to prove ourselves!”

CCEDNet Manitoba builds connection and power in community organizations, coalitions, and social enterprises through convening stakeholders and leaders and representing sector interests through government relations, moving towards CCEDNet’s vision of sustainable, equitable, and inclusive communities directing their own futures.

Sara Atnikov, Purpose Construction

“I don’t think that we’re necessarily siloed in a negative way, but I do think that we’re all ‘head down doing our own thing.’ So being able to have those opportunities to come together and to chat with other social enterprises and nonprofits around the table is super helpful. If I can just like show up to something and there’s a bunch of people there that are of like-minded views and relevant connections, that’s great!” – Sara Atnikov, Director of Communications and Employee Assistance at Purpose Construction

Participate in the coalitions that CCEDNet Manitoba supports, and advance our vision and collective voice for change through public policy advocacy and government relations!


Thank you Cate Friesen from The Story Source for interviewing Sara!

Share

Together we are truly stronger, and everyone has something to contribute. A milestone like this, our 25th anniversary, is not just an opportunity for reflection on our past but a call to continue to dream into the future. CCEDNet as an organization is now 25 years old, but the network continues to be reborn with every change to our membership.

After several years of work and meetings, the founders of what became the Canadian CED Network rallied around the desired outcome of “enhanced community capacity for revitalization and self-reliance.” To achieve this, the network set out to develop and exchange CED knowledge and skills, market best practices, engage a broad range of partners and sectors in CED work, identify key policy objectives which position CED as a viable option, and increase capacity to deliver technical assistance. 

In many ways this original outcome and the tactics to achieve it, haven’t changed greatly over the years. But our strategies continue to evolve and respond to the challenges of our times, which have changed and in many cases increased. Our particular strengths as a network have been around knowledge sharing and skills learning and acting as a convenor to build strong partnerships and sense of community. We continue to work to build collective power for policy advocacy, but also recognize that impacting policy at the provincial and federal levels is a long and difficult process.

Over the course of the past 25 years CCEDNet has put on many events, starting with the 2001 National Policy Forum in Vancouver and then moving through a series of national CED conferences: in 2001 hosted by the Atlantic CED Institute in Halifax, in 2002 hosted by SEED Winnipeg, in 2004 hosted by ÉCOF-CDÉC in Trois-Rivières, in 2005 hosted by Community Economic and Social Development Program of Algoma University in Sault Ste. Marie, in 2006 hosted by the BC/Yukon CED Network, in 2007 hosted by FINALY in St. John’s, in 2008 hosted by Quint Development Corporation in Saskatoon, and in 2009 hosted by Ka Ni Kanichihk and SEED Winnipeg. Many of these earlier conferences were co-organized with the CED Technical Assistance Program, which ran from 1997 to 2009.

In 2010 we held the National Summit on a People-Centred Economy, co-organized with the Canadian Co-operative Association (now Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada), le Chantier de l’économie sociale, the Canadian Social Economy Research Partnerships, Causeway, the Social Enterprise Council of Canada, Enterprising Non-Profits, the Canadian Centre for Community Renewal, the Women’s Economic Council, and the BC-Alberta Research Alliance on the Social Economy. This was a return to the strong policy focus of the 2001 forum and the partners from this event have continued to meet and work together. 

After a prolonged hiatus on national events we then returned in 2016 with the national CED conference, rebranded as EconoUs (or EcoNous). The first EconoUs was co-hosted with CEDEC in Montreal. Then in 2017 it was co-hosted with Momentum, Thrive, the Institute for Community Prosperity, REAP and Calgary Economic Development in Calgary, 2018 with the NB Environmental Network in Moncton, and 2019 with Community Futures Ontario. 

Sustainable Finance Forum, November 1-2, 2023

More recently we’ve partnered with MP Ryan Turnbull to deliver the Sustainable Finance Forum in 2023, with another planned for this fall. 

Aside from the pancanadian events, we’ve also delivered and partnered on provincial and regional events. Most notably, the Manitoba Gathering has been going for over 20 years now, moving briefly to a virtual format through the pandemic. This pay-what-you-can event is a true community collaboration, with many members in Manitoba contributing to the programming and social enterprise providing food. 

All of these events have been important opportunities for CCEDNet members and social economy players more broadly to come together, share learnings, and build relationships. 

Over the past 25 years CCEDNet has taken on a number of projects to advance our collective mission to connect people and ideas for action to build local economies that strengthen communities and benefit everyone. I can’t possibly mention them all but here are a few of the significant projects we’ve taken on or were part of that many of you on the call have also contributed to. 

Between 2005 and 2011, CCEDNet partnered with the University of Victoria in the Canadian Social Economy Hub, which acted as a facilitator promoting collaboration among six regional research centres across Canada. Together we undertook research to understand and promote the Social Economy tradition within Canada and as a subject of community-university partnerships. The collaborative effort of the six regional research alliances (Québec, Atlantic Canada, Southern Ontario, the Prairies and Northern Ontario, BC and Alberta, and the North) and the Canadian Social Economy Hub was called The Canadian Social Economy Research Partnerships (CSERP). The partnerships were established through a five-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research grant. Altogether, over 300 researchers, drawn from universities and Social Economy organizations, participated in the work that was undertaken creating over 400 research products.

Manitoba Social Enterprise Strategy

Following the 2013 Social Enterprise World Forum in Calgary, CCEDNet – Manitoba convened the Social Enterprise Working Group to consider what it would take to strategically scale up the impact of social enterprise in Manitoba. That meeting resulted in a policy resolution approved by CCEDNet – Manitoba members and then to the co-construction with the Government of Manitoba of the Manitoba Social Enterprise Strategy focussed especially on social enterprises that provide training and employment opportunities for people with barriers to employment. The Strategy lays out policy areas around six pillars: enhancing enterprise skills, ensuring access to capital and investment, expanding market opportunities, promoting and demonstrating the value of social enterprise, regulatory framework, and networks and community engagement.

CreateAction

Our national work experience program, CreateAction, has run, off and on, since 2005. In its most recent iteration, delivered in partnership with the National Association of Friendship Centres with evaluation support from the Social Demonstration & Research Corporation, the focus of CreateAction was on providing paid-work experiences and career-relevant learning opportunities for young people not in education, employment, or training (NEET) and who are facing systemic barriers to employment. The main goals of the program are to promote pathways to meaningful employment and to improve youth wellbeing. A secondary goal of the program is to help employers in the social economy to meet their staffing needs, attract the next generation of youth to the social economy sector, and to create a more welcoming and supportive employment environment. Throughout 5 different iterations of this program we have engaged almost 300 youth.

Established in 2016, the Social Enterprise Ecosystem Project (S4ES) was mandated to address five of the Six Pillars of the Supportive Ecosystem for Social Enterprise Development, created by the Social Enterprise Council of Canada. To achieve this goal, S4ES partners – CCEDNet, Buy Social Canada, Le Chantier de l’économie sociale, the Social Enterprise Institute, and the Social Value Lab – combined forces to optimize co-operation and create a network of partners to support social enterprise leaders. S4ES helped social enterprises start up and grow, sell their products and services, measure their impact, network, and learn best practices in social procurement and social impact measurement. This project ended in late 2021. 

STARCAP

Starting in 2021, CCEDNet partnered with Synergia Institute and Athabasca University to deliver the Synergia Transition and Resilience Climate Action Program (STARCAP). STARCAP’s objective is to mobilize local climate action by providing resources and support to grassroots and community organizations  to navigate the “Toward Co-operative Commonwealth massive open online course (MOOC) and accompanying participatory workshops, actionable frameworks and networking opportunities. 

IRP Understanding Impacts

The last program I’ll mention is the recent Investment Readiness Program, a $100 million grants and contributions program (2 iterations of $50M each) designed to support social purpose organizations as they contribute to solving pressing social, cultural and environmental challenges across Canada. The aim of this program was to help social purpose organizations across Canada build their capacity to participate in the growing social finance market and prepare for the Government of Canada’s broader investment in social finance via the Social Finance Fund. The Social Finance Fund, the IRP and the appointment of the Social Innovation Advisory Council are the first initiatives to result from the Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy. CCEDNet was the convener of IRP partners, creating a network of expertise and diverse experience within the program, including partners who raise awareness, develop expert services, consider how diverse demographics can get connected to this field, and the ‘readiness support partners’ who disbursed IRP funding to Social Purpose Organizations.

Finally, an important development of the past five years for CCEDNet was the creation of our Theory of Change. We began work on articulating a Theory of Change in 2019 through board and staff engagement and through a process of iteration we came to the version we have now that was adopted in 2021. This has provided us with a clearer framework for strategy development than we’ve ever had. Now that we’re 3 years into using the Theory of Change and tracking metrics towards the outcomes we are seeking, we’re also seeing some of its limitations.

As we prepare to say goodbye to our current longstanding Executive Director, Michael Toye, and welcome new leadership, CCEDNet will be engaging in a Strategic Review of CCEDNet’s Theory of Change and internal strategic framework. This work feels all the more important following the end of several major projects, which has resulted in new teams and a smaller budget while we all navigate the disruptions of the wider world, particularly since 2020.

Coordinating this process will be Sarah Leeson-Klym in a new “Associate Director” role, who will be providing support to our national programs throughout the transition and the Review. The Review process will be led by a joint board and staff Theory of Change Working Group and will be deeply informed by our members. We are still working through the details but are feeling bold and curious from the start. 

We anticipate this process will tackle three major lines of inquiry. First is the Theory of Change overall – do we really have a shared understanding of the concepts, values, and outcomes outlined here and what needs to change based on what we’ve learned recently? Second is intentionally examining our network to see who is compelled by this approach, who we might be missing, and if we know the real purpose and potential of the network. Third, we need to look at our actions and operations to align with the findings and continue to shape more equitable and impactful strategies as a staff team.

You can expect to see our regular newsletters and member communiqués slow a little and shift to focus on this process for the next few months. You can look forward to being invited to engagement sessions and other activities that will provide you with opportunities to share your insights. And you’ll hear from us as we hit major milestones along the way. 

Stay tuned for more updates on this process and for opportunities to contribute your passion, ideas, and questions.

Sincerely,
Matthew Thompson
Director of Engagement

Share

Matthew Thompson

Matthew has been working with the Canadian CED Network since 2007 in various capacities particularly in the areas of research and knowledge mobilization, event organizing, and the coordination of the national internship program, CreateAction. Matthew also co-authored Assembling Understandings: Findings from the Canadian Social Economy Research Partnerships, 2005-2011 a thematic summary of close to 400 research products on the Social Economy in Canada.

Matthew Thompson

The State of the Sector reports continue to show the crisis happening within our sector. Grants will always be critical to organizations. However, there is a need for revenue diversification because being dependent on grants or any streams of income that do not cover the entire cost of programs and operations or can be removed based on someone else’s decision or the political will of the moment makes your organization vulnerable.

Think about grants or contracts—when these resources come in, they go out almost immediately. It’s a constant cycle of one hour in, one hour out, with funds being allocated as quickly as they are received. This rapid turnover means that very few resources remain within your organization to support ongoing operations, staff development, or address emerging community needs. 

The pressure to constantly secure new grants and contracts can make it challenging to invest in long-term sustainability and growth, leaving little room for strategic planning or capacity building. Consequently, while these resources are crucial for immediate project funding, they often fall short in providing the financial stability needed to adapt to evolving challenges and seize new opportunities.

On the other hand, when you invest in building assets, those assets grow to the point where they can generate income that your organization can control so you can direct it to where it will have the most benefit, from supporting capacity to achieving long-term financial strength.

Most commonly, we consider assets as those listed on our balance sheets, but many important assets you have within your organization are not likely to appear there. When we take a wider lens of ‘what is an asset,’ we realize our organization has valuable assets we can use. It means we must view assets as something that holds not just economic value. An asset can hold social, cultural, natural, and community value alongside future economic benefit. When we take this wider lens, your organization has a larger set of assets available to generate the resources you need to create community impact and sustainability. 

This shift from reliance on traditional revenue sources, such as grants, to earned income can significantly enhance your organization’s financial stability and reduce vulnerability. It also enables your organization to play a key role in building the local economy and influencing how and where money flows as it directs the flow of resources to organizations that are doing the most critical work in society.

Developing your assets significantly benefits the community in many ways, such as enhancing service delivery to expanding impact-focused programs and services. You can begin to reach more people and address a broader range of needs in the areas you serve. 

Assets such as social purpose real estate generate revenue that is reinvested into the community, fostering sustainable development and growth. This revenue supports the creation of better facilities, providing spaces for community gatherings, educational programs, and essential services. Additionally, it aids in job creation by offering employment opportunities within these facilities and through related projects. 

And the funds are directed towards skill development programs, empowering individuals with the tools and knowledge needed to thrive. By investing in these areas, social purpose real estate helps build vibrant, resilient communities and addresses some of today’s most significant challenges, including food security, unemployment, and social inequality.

If you are interested in figuring out how your organization identifies its existing assets, how to go from underperforming to performing assets, what the sweet spot is when, and how to combine assets in partnerships, know that you can be supported to do this. Join the movement of non-profits and charities across Canada that are tired of existing on a shoestring budget and are shifting their organizations to financial sustainability. Visit Thriving Non-Profits to learn more about this transformational learning opportunity.

Applications are open now for the Thriving Non-Profits fall 2024 Cohort program. It is a 5-month facilitated learning program that will transform your organization with new approaches to grow your programs, support your team, and increase your impact in the community. Learn more and apply here.

You can also drive change by participating in our self-paced program, which is designed for individual learners. Get more information and access here. Use code TRANSFORMATION at checkout for a special discount offered to CCEDNet members. 

Keep up with innovative resources and programs for the non-profit sector by signing up for the Thriving Non-Profits newsletter and follow Thriving Non-Profits on social media: LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram  

Share

Kristi Rivait

Co-founder and Director, Partnerships and Programs, Scale Collaborative, and co-founder of Thriving Non-Profits. Scale Collaborative envisions a thriving, connected, and abundant social change sector, and through its Thriving Non-Profits program, platform, and community, works with hundreds of non-profits and charities to transform through capacity-strengthening revenue diversification towards greater impact.

She brings 20+ years of leadership experience in the non-profit sector, including 10+ years as an Executive Director. Kristi is an expert at operational transformation, change management, and diversifying revenue.

Issued: June 19, 2024
Responses due: July 4, 2024

Background

CCEDNet is a values-based, non-profit association committed to connecting people and ideas for action that builds local economies, strengthens communities, and benefits everyone. We have members throughout Canada, including organizations, networks, and individuals who are strengthening sustainable and equitable local economies. Members are active across many sectors such as community development, social enterprise, rural development, co-operative development, employment development, and housing.

We are committed to the values of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Dignity, Self-Determination, Solidarity, and Local Control. Together, we are working towards sustainable and inclusive communities directing their own social, environmental, and economic futures through our Theory of Change.

About the Opportunity

CCEDNet has recently completed the development of a Compensation Philosophy which highlights include creating a transparent salary scale that expresses the value of a role to the organization, as well as attracting, motivating, and retaining talented staff from across the country, through mechanisms that are understood and accountable to employees.

We are now seeking the services of a Canadian consulting firm or individual to complete an organization-wide compensation review using an anti-oppression approach that will bring the philosophy and our practices into alignment.

The consultant(s) will:

  • Review existing job descriptions and organizational structure and make recommendations for job profiles and salary bands that reflect our internal structure, minimize bias, and ensure equitable treatment of all employees.
  • Benchmarking against industry data and relevant market trends, analyze our current compensation levels (including regional variances) of both monetary and non-monetary compensation and make recommendations for improvements.

It is understood that the contracted consultant(s) may need to subcontract other individuals to ensure the audit team includes expertise from Indigenous, Black, and racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, and/or religious minorities perspectives. The consultant(s) will work closely with members of the Leadership Team and staff from a variety of teams and positions in CCEDNet’s organizational structure.

Our Goals:

  • To ensure that our compensation packages are fair and equitable for all employees, regardless of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, geographic location and conviction for which a pardon has been granted as set out by the Canadian Human Rights Act.
  • To align our policies and practices with our Compensation Philosophy. 

Scope: Deliverables and Desired Outcomes

  1. Written report detailing anti-oppression recommendations and including an analysis of the gaps and disconnect between our current policies and practices and our new compensation philosophy.
  2. Recommendations for salary bands and job profiles that reflect our structure and market benchmarking.
  3. Recommendations for changes to employee benefits or other elements of total compensation in order to better reflect our structure, considering market benchmarking. 
  4. Recommended process to evaluate ongoing and new positions and corresponding compensation.
  5. Recommended strategies to increase and/or improve retention and attraction of employees
  6. Assemble all findings into a final report and present (virtual) the findings and recommendations to the Compensation Working Group, and potentially, the Board of Directors.

Budget and Timeline

Our current budget for the project is $10,000 plus applicable taxes. Our desired timeline is a completed project by September 2024.

Proposal Requirements

  1. Company name (including GST number and incorporation number if applicable), and contact information (address, email, phone number, and website).
  2. Name and position of individual who will oversee the project, as well as project team members (if applicable) including brief professional biographies and an explanation of interest in this work.
  3. Outline of previous experience:
    1. Providing consulting services, including organizational compensation audits or assessments to diversity, equity and inclusion.
    2. Working with organizations in the non-profit sector.
    3. Utilizing a variety of online techniques and platforms to meet deliverables.
  4. Sample list of past and current clients including any relevant commentary on outcomes and impact of this work.
  5. Description of your approach to this work:
    1. Identification of which deliverables you can address.
    2. Your consultation approach to centering the experiences of Indigenous, Black, and racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, and religious minorities.
    3. Work plan describing methodologies, approaches, timelines, and roles and responsibilities for how the work will be accomplished.
    4. Description of anticipated risks and difficulties, and proposed strategies to address them.
    5. Confirmation of willingness to work alongside other consulting firms or individuals to achieve the deliverables, if applicable.
  6. Expected compensation and other estimated costs including a breakdown of the proposed budget by deliverable.

Please submit proposals by July 4, 2024 to with “Compensation Review RFP Response” in the subject line.

We thank all interested parties and look forward to reviewing your proposal.

Contacts:

Mike Toye
Executive Director

Share

In 2023, CCEDNet partnered with Good Futures Collective to undertake a community-centred Developmental Evaluation (DE) of the Synergia Transition and Resilience Climate Action Program (STARCAP).

The purpose of undertaking this evaluation was to both summarize learnings from the program and develop a framework for employing a reciprocal, iterative, and transparent approach to evaluating complex and emergent community programs. 

Uniquely, the evaluation utilized rapid ethnography, speculative fiction, art-making and somatic practices and aimed to surface the precursors for community engagement in climate action across diverse communities in Canada.

Findings describe the challenges across differing levels of community diversity and resources, the impact of privilege, trauma and perceived self-agency, and the opportunity to centre health, social connection and transcendence to imagine new futures and establish a foundation on which to build community resilience.

Finally, this report reveals opportunities for CCEDNet and other industry organizations to improve program outcomes and engagement with community stakeholders by implementing more intentional co-design and collaborative processes at all stages of program development and delivery as a way of centring trust, reciprocity and social well-being.

Questions can be directed to Amanda San Filippo, Director of Learning & Innovation – .

View the report

Share

Note: this piece was originally published on Shareable.

We stand at a historic moment—a crossroads in the history of humanity and Mother Earth. Rarely has there been a convergence of so many crises, from climate catastrophes to fascism.

These are scary times, but crises also create opportunity. The last two major economic crises, the Great Depression and the stagflation of the late 1970s, resulted in fundamental shifts in the dominant capitalist economic model. Today, people’s faith in the status quo is shaken. There’s a growing openness to new narratives, new models, and new paradigms: the solidarity economy offers a transformative pathway to a new system beyond capitalism.

Outline

What is the Solidarity Economy?
What are the key elements of the Solidarity Economy?
What are “imaginal cells” of the Solidarity Economy?
What are examples of the Solidarity Economy in the United States?
What are examples of the Solidarity Economy internationally?
How is the Solidarity Economy different from the Sharing Economy?
Conclusion


What is the Solidarity Economy?

The solidarity economy (SE) is a global movement to build a world that centers people and the planet rather than maximizing private profit and endless growth. It is not a blueprint theorized by academics in ivory towers, but is grounded in concrete practices that exist all around us. Some practices are old, while others are emergent innovations. Some would be considered alternative, while others are quite mainstream. There is a large foundation upon which to build. The trick is to connect these currently atomized practices so they work together to transform our whole economic system (and indeed world). 

The image below lays out a definition of the solidarity economy that draws on both the US Solidarity Economy Network (USSEN) as well as RIPESS, the international solidarity economy network, which led a two-year international consultation process to build a shared understanding of the SE.

Photo credit: US Solidarity Economy Network and RIPESS

What are the key elements of the Solidarity Economy?

While there is a tremendous latitude within the solidarity economy to encompass a wide range of approaches—grounded in the local realities of culture, language, history, political-social-economic contexts, and the environment—there are elements of the solidarity economy definition that apply across these specificities:

1. The solidarity economy is a framework

2. This framework connects solidarity economy practices (see below for examples)

3. Solidarity economy practices are aligned with solidarity economy values:

  • Solidarity
  • Participatory democracy
  • Equity in all dimensions: race, class, gender, abilities, etc. 
  • Sustainability
  • Pluralism (meaning that this is not a one-size-fits-all approach, or as the Zapatista say, “A world in which many worlds fit.)

4. The solidarity economy is post-capitalist

  • All of the values above articulate a post-capitalist vision. The solidarity economy holds that we cannot achieve the just, sustainable, democratic, and cooperative world that we seek by reforming capitalism. We don’t reject reforms, but it’s imperative to see them as part of a longer-term process of fundamental system change. In the absence of this, reforms alone can end up strengthening capitalism. 

5. The solidarity economy is an international movement

  • The solidarity economy is an international movement. The movement includes RIPESS, an international solidarity economy network of continental networks, the International Labor Organization (ILO), which runs an annual Social Solidarity Academy, and the United Nations which has a solidarity economy task force. Bolivia and Ecuador also include the solidarity economy in their constitutions, and several countries have national policy frameworks supporting the solidarity economy. 

What are “imaginal cells” of the Solidarity Economy?

Awakening to a different vision

When a caterpillar spins its chrysalis, a magical process begins. Its body starts to break down into a nutrient-rich goop. Within this goop are imaginal cells, and these imaginal cells have a different vision of what they can become. They are so different, they are attacked and killed by what remains of the caterpillar’s immune system.

Yet, surviving imaginal cells begin to recognize each other as having a common purpose and vision of becoming. They begin to cluster together and can survive the immune system attacks. As they continue to come together, they start to specialize—some become an eye, some a leg, some the body, and some the wing—until what emerges from the chrysalis is an entirely different creature—a butterfly.

The solidarity economy is currently akin to isolated imaginal cells. The vast foundation of solidarity economy practices don’t yet recognize each other as holding a common vision, so the clustering and specialization—equivalent to forming an ecosystem—is not yet realized. The solidarity economy provides a framework for these imaginal cells to recognize their common vision, to come together and operate as a wholly different, post-capitalist system and world!

Photo credit: US Solidarity Economy Network and RIPESS

What are examples of the Solidarity Economy in the United States? 

Defunding the police and participatory budgeting

In Seattle, Washington, the city allocated $30 million to a participatory budgeting process that gave community members a say in how the money should be used. Twelve million dollars was directly diverted from the Seattle Police Department, while the remaining $18 million came from the Mayor’s Communities Initiative Fund.

Community land trusts

Community land trusts (CLT) are nonprofits that hold “land on behalf of a place-based community while serving as the long-term steward for affordable housing, community gardens, civic buildings, commercial spaces, and other community assets…” according to the International Center for Community Land Trusts. Among the many strategies to develop CLTs, municipal public sector support for community land trusts can significantly increase the supply of permanently affordable housing. A recent report on CLT-municipal partnerships cites three dozen examples of cities providing support through funding, technical assistance, donation of property, staffing, helping with regulatory hurdles, and more.

Local solidarity economy ecosystems

The imaginal cells of the solidarity economy are already clustering, but what will it take to go to the next stage of building and creating connections between existing and emergent solidarity economy elements to give birth to a new post-capitalist system? In the U.S., there are nascent efforts to build local solidarity economy ecosystems. 

Cooperation Jackson in Jackson, Mississippi has built a Community Production Center, with cutting-edge technology such as 3D printers and other forms of digital fabrication; they have formed a community land trust, holding a considerable amount of land for affordable housing and farming, as well as to preserve important historical sites of civil rights and Black liberation struggles. The group has a community center that provides a space for gathering, community education and training, and childcare and purchased a shopping plaza for a food co-op and other co-op businesses. 

There are statewide solidarity economy networks that seek to connect the ecosystem, including the Massachusetts Solidarity Economy Network (MASEN), the first statewide SE network in the U.S., the Virginia Solidarity Economy Network (VASEN), and others. 

There are also local ecosystem enablers like the Arizmendi Association of Cooperatives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Inspired by the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, the Arizmendi Association is a worker cooperative that runs a chain of bakeries and a construction business in the Bay Area. The model emphasizes democratic governance, shared ownership, and equitable work conditions.


What are examples of the Solidarity Economy internationally?

Brazil

In Brazil, the term “economia solidária” gained prominence as various social movements and community organizations sought alternatives to the neoliberal economic policies of the 1980s and 1990s. These initiatives were focused on creating economic systems based on solidarity, cooperation, and social welfare, rather than purely on profit and market competition. Brazil now has one of the most extensive networks of solidarity economy enterprises in the world, supported by strong government and social movements. The Brazilian Forum of Solidarity Economy facilitates numerous initiatives, including worker cooperatives, community banks, and fair trade organizations. The government has also implemented supportive policies and national programs to promote the solidarity economy.

Canada

In Quebec, various initiatives including community economic development financial institutions (CEDIFs), cooperative housing, and social enterprises have grown into a major sector of the economy. The region has a supportive ecosystem that includes government policies and a network of support organizations dedicated to fostering the solidarity economy.

Italy

Italy has a rich tradition of cooperative businesses, particularly in the Emilia-Romagna region. These cooperatives span across sectors such as agriculture, retail, manufacturing, and services and produce a third of the region’s GDP. 

Japan

Japan’s solidarity economy features consumer cooperatives, which are particularly strong in several food sectors. These cooperatives are known for promoting local and organic produce and for their role in disaster resilience, providing support and resources to communities affected by events like the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. In the past 100 years, Japan’s cooperative movement has grown from its humble start to become an economic powerhouse with over 65 million members and over $135 billion in annual revenue.

Kenya

In Kenya, informal savings and loan groups known as “Chamas,” a form of Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAs), have become widespread throughout the country. These groups play a critical role in providing financial services to communities often underserved by traditional banks. Additionally, Kenya has seen growth in cooperative movements in agriculture and housing, empowering small-scale farmers and low-income families.


How is the Solidarity Economy different from the Sharing Economy?

The sharing economy, as it was initially conceptualized, focuses on the sharing of access to goods and services, often facilitated by digital platforms. While it includes community-driven sharing practices like car-sharing, tool libraries, and community gardens (which we love at Shareable), it has unfortunately become associated with extractive commercial platforms like Uber, Airbnb, and Lyft. Although sharing resources often leads to more efficient use of assets and reduced consumption, many commercial sharing platforms have been rightfully critiqued for prioritizing profit without necessarily fostering genuine communal sharing or ensuring fair labor practices.

Here are some key differences between the sharing economy and the solidarity economy:

  1. Profit orientation: While the solidarity economy actively seeks to downplay or redistribute profits to stakeholders and community members, the sharing economy, particularly in its commercial form, often centers on profit maximization for platform owners and investors.
  2. Community engagement: The solidarity economy is deeply rooted in community engagement and empowerment, aiming to improve local resilience and economic democracy. The sharing economy does involve community members but often as consumers or service providers within a profit-oriented framework.
  3. Governance: Solidarity economy initiatives typically involve democratic or participatory governance, with stakeholders involved in decision-making. In contrast, many sharing economy platforms are governed by private entities with centralized decision-making.
  4. Sustainability and equity goals: The solidarity economy explicitly aims for social and environmental sustainability and equity. While sharing economy platforms might contribute to resource efficiency, these outcomes are not always the primary goal, and the effects on equity can be mixed.

Conclusion

The convergence crises has created a rare opportunity to push for a new system beyond capitalism. There is a huge foundation of imaginal cells that already exist within the current system and new ones are emerging all the time. Many of these imaginal cells already see themselves as part of a transformational process. While there is still much to be done, we can see the emergence of a metamorphosis into the solidarity economy.   

Additional contributors to this explainer include Steve Dubb, Mike Strode, Paige Kelly, and Tom Llewellyn

Share

Emily Kawano

Emily Kawano is a founder and co-coordinator of the US Solidarity Economy Network and has served on the board of RIPESS (the Intercontinental Network for the Social Solidarity Economy) for almost a decade. She is codirector of the Wellspring Cooperative, which is developing a network of worker cooperatives and solidarity economy initiatives in Springfield, MA. Previously, Kawano was director of the Center for Popular Economics, has taught economics at Smith College, and has worked as the national economic justice representative for the American Friends Service Committee.

In March 2024 we wrapped up our fifth cohort of CreateAction placements after over 3 years of funding from the Government of Canada’s Youth Employment Skills Strategy. The CreateAction program was delivered in partnership with the National Association of Friendship Centres and the Social Demonstration and Research Corporation with the purpose of helping youth overcome barriers to employment and develop a broad range of skills and knowledge to improve their labour market participation.

The project involved five cohorts (159 youth in total) and included four main project components:

  • Work placements with organizations working in community economic development and social economy typically six months in length
  • peer learning program facilitated by CreateAction partners for and between youth that included community meetups, youth circles, and a Slack workspace
  • An employer support program based on research, resources, and training. Activities included peer learning drop-ins, capacity building workshops, individual check-ins, and ongoing tailored support
  • Youth support activities including individual check-ins and access to counselling through Inkblot Therapy

This program was unable, in its scope, to address broader systemic issues that can lead to chronic unemployment and underemployment for youth. Instead, we focussed on what can be done with and for youth to address and overcome barriers to employment and what can be done by employers to make their places of work more welcoming and adaptive to the unique needs of their employees.

Click on the link above or below to read the full report on promising practices developed through the CreateAction program.

Quick Glimpse at the Lessons Learned

  1. Cultivating empathy in the workplace is key to providing a supportive and empowering experience for youth.
  2. Clear communication of program objectives and expectations are essential for both program practitioners and employers throughout all phases of the program.
  3. One-on-one meetings with employer applicants can provide valuable insights into their organizational capacity and help ensure alignment with program goals.
  4. Accessible job postings and outreach strategies are crucial for reaching youth who may face barriers to employment.
  5. Discussing and providing available wraparound supports for youth during onboarding and early placement stages can help set them up for success in the workplace.
  6. Regular communication and check-ins between program staff, employers, and youth throughout the placement are essential for addressing challenges and providing tailored support.
  7. Creating a transitioning out of placement plan helps support youth as they move on from the program, facilitating their continued career development and wellbeing.
Share

Introduction: The Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet) is seeking proposals from qualified recruiting firms to assist in the identification and recruitment of a new Executive Director.

Background: CCEDNet is a values-based, non-profit association committed to connecting people and ideas for action that builds local economies, strengthens communities, and benefits everyone. We have members throughout Canada, including organizations, networks, and individuals who are strengthening sustainable and equitable local economies. Members are active across many sectors such as community development, social enterprise, rural development, co-operative development, employment development, and housing.

We are committed to the values of Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Dignity, Self-Determination, Solidarity, and Local Control. Together, we are working towards sustainable and inclusive communities directing their own social, environmental, and economic futures through our Theory of Change.

Scope of Work: The selected recruiting firm will be responsible for the following.

  • Conducting a comprehensive search for qualified candidates for the position of Executive Director.
  • Developing and implementing a recruitment strategy to attract diverse and highly skilled candidates.
  • Establishing criteria for potential candidates through a stakeholder consultation process, including the development of a job posting and evaluation and assessment criteria.
  • Screening and assessing candidate applications based on defined criteria.
  • Supporting the interview and selection process, including coordinating interviews with the CCEDNet hiring committee.
  • Providing guidance and support to the hiring committee throughout the selection process.

Requirements: The ideal recruiting firm will possess:

  • Experience in executive search and recruitment, preferably within the non-profit sector.
  • Demonstrated expertise in sourcing and attracting top-tier talent.
  • A commitment to justice, access, inclusion, diversity, decolonization and equity in the recruitment process.
  • Strong communication and interpersonal skills in English and French.
  • Knowledge of community economic development principles and practices is an asset.
  • Demonstrated relationships and meaningful connections to grassroots and community-based organizations is considered an asset.

Proposal Requirements:

  • Company name (including GST number and incorporation number if applicable), and contact information (address, email, phone number, and website).
  • Name and position of individual who will oversee the project, as well as project team members (if applicable) including brief professional biographies and an explanation of interest in this work.
  • Outline of previous experience:
  • Providing consulting services, including Executive Director recruitment processes.
  • Working with organizations in the non-profit sector.
  • Utilizing a variety of online techniques and platforms to meet deliverables.
  • Sample list of past and current clients including any relevant commentary on outcomes and impact of this work.
  • Description of your approach to this work:
  • Identification of which deliverables you can address.
  • Your consultation approach to centering the experiences of Indigenous, Black, and racialized individuals, persons with disabilities, 2SLGBTQ+ individuals, and religious minorities.
  • Work plan describing methodologies, approaches, timelines, and roles and responsibilities for how the work will be accomplished.
  • Description of anticipated risks and difficulties, and proposed strategies to address them.
  • Confirmation of willingness to work alongside internal board and staff members to achieve the deliverables, if applicable.
  • Expected compensation and other estimated costs including a breakdown of the proposed budget by deliverable.

Proposals should be submitted to our Hiring Committee at .

Timeline:

  • Proposal Submission Deadline: June 10, 2024
  • Selection of Firm: June 17, 2024
  • Project Commencement: June 21, 2024

Budget: The budget for this project is $10,000 – 15,000 CAD.

Evaluation Criteria: Proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Demonstrated understanding of the project requirements.
  • Experience and qualifications of the firm and its team members.
  • Proposed approach and methodology.
  • Cost-effectiveness of the proposal.
  • Ability to meet proposed timelines.

Contact Information: For inquiries or additional information, please contact our Hiring Committee.

Attn: Hiring Committee

Email:

Conclusion: CCEDNet is committed to selecting a recruiting firm that shares our values and vision for community economic development. We look forward to receiving proposals from qualified firms that can help us identify an exceptional candidate to lead our organization into the future.

Share

A Message from the Board

Dear CCEDNet Community,

Mike Toye presenting at EconoUs2017 while wearing a white cowboy hat

We write to you today with a rich tapestry of emotions as we announce the departure of Michael Toye, after 16 years as Executive Director and over 20 years of involvement in CCEDNet. During his tenure, Mike has been instrumental in shaping the direction and evolution of the Network. He has led with vision, integrity, and unwavering commitment, guiding us through both triumphs and challenges with grace and resilience.

Under his leadership, CCEDNet has achieved significant milestones, and has become a respected source for community-led economic innovations, advocacy, and solidarity. Michael’s passion for CCEDNet’s mission and values has inspired us all to strive for excellence and to make a positive impact in our communities.

While we are feeling a sense of nostalgia, we are also grateful for the indelible mark Mike has left. His leadership has laid a strong foundation upon which we will continue to build and grow.

As we embark on this transition, we are committed to ensuring a smooth and seamless handover of responsibilities. Mike will be working closely with the Board and staff in the coming months to facilitate this transition process.

We would like to take this opportunity to express our deepest gratitude to Mike for his invaluable contributions and remarkable leadership with CCEDNet. His legacy will continue to inspire us as we embark on the next chapter for the Network.

Mike remains as committed as ever to the vision and values of CCEDNet and is looking forward to continuing to be an active member and contribute to our movement for economic justice.  While Mike is moving on from the Executive Director role, he will always remain an integral part of the CCEDNet family.

A hiring process is underway and a posting is expected this summer.  More details will be shared when they are available, and questions for the Board in the meantime can be sent to .

In gratitude for Mike’s leadership, we look forward to building the next era of CCEDNet’s impact with you. 

Sincerely,
The Board of Directors


A Season for Review and Renewal

CCEDNet is celebrating 25 years of collective action towards local economies that strengthen communities! 

We are also moving through a season of transition. Over the past 6 months, we’ve noted several changes and milestones pointing us towards a need for intentional review and adjustment. 

It’s been five years since work commenced to create our Theory of Change and as we wrapped up the tracking and analysis of our performance this year we now have three years of data collection to help guide our work. We can celebrate successes and also clearly see areas where we need to evolve in service of our vision and mission. Not to mention, much has changed around us in those 5 years! 

This spring, four significant projects were completed. With this came the departures of several project-based team members. We also want to acknowledge the upcoming departure of other staff members that have contributed to our work over the years. We are so grateful for their contributions! And, of course, we echo the sentiments of the board in their message announcing Mike’s departure and offer gratitude for his contributions over many years of work at CCEDNet!

Seasons of change mark key moments for review and renewal. As we move our work forward, we are aiming for a more sustainable and collaborative organizational model that leverages the power of the Network to build our team and programs together.

All in all, we believe this is a timely opportunity to take stock of our progress and lessons learned, and reassess how we can best achieve our vision a quarter century after the Network was founded.

So, we warmly invite you to join us at the AGM on June 13 (only one staff member per member organization is eligible to vote). After the formal portion of the AGM, we will be breaking from the tradition of presenting the Stronger Together awards to celebrate the incredible collective progress made by our Network of members, partners, and stakeholders over the last 25 years, and to officially launch a CCEDNet Strategic Review process.

In Solidarity,
Sarah Leeson-Klym on behalf of the CCEDNet team

Do you have a story to share about successes or impacts across the CED field or CCEDNet over the past 25 years? Maybe you made an important connection at a CCEDNet event, or recall a policy change that was influenced by member advocacy, or you learned something that really shifted your practice in a positive direction. SHARE YOUR STORY HERE. We’ll share these at the AGM and your insights will help ground the Strategic Review in our Network’s collective story. 

Share

CCEDNet mourns the passing of David LePage. 

David got involved in CCEDNet not long after his arrival in Canada from the US.  He helped organize CCEDNet’s first major event, the National Policy Forum in Vancouver in 2001.  His subsequent roles at enterprising nonprofits, the Social Enterprise Council of Canada, the Social Enterprise World Forum and Buy Social Canada placed him at the forefront of actions to strengthen social enterprises and social procurement. He drew together his many insights into a book – Marketplace Revolution.

David was a longtime member of CCEDNet’s Policy Council, including as Chair and representative on the Board of Directors.  He also was key in sustaining the People-Centred Economy Group after the National Summit on a People-Centred Economy in 2010, and was a partner in the Social Enterprise Ecosystem Project that CCEDNet administered. 

He was appointed to the federal co-creation steering group that produced the Inclusive Innovation report, which became a blueprint for the government of Canada’s Social Innovation and Social Finance Strategy. 

In Manitoba, CCEDNet became the local enterprising nonprofits affiliate, launching our dedicated social enterprise programming with David facilitating the first events and workshops. His kind mentorship and advice often supported our local advocacy for a social enterprise strategy and for social procurement, eventually achieving a policy and action plan at the City of Winnipeg. Together, CCEDNet and the Social Enterprise Council of Canada (with David at the helm), hosted memorable Canadian Conferences on Social Enterprise in 2017 and 2019.

David travelled a lot (the Air Canada lounge was a second home), and joined many early remote meetings from the Pacific time zone. We will remember fondly his unique mixture of seriousness and laughter, his constructive criticism, and quick phone calls while he walked to his office in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

We offer his family and friends our deep condolences.  In lieu of flowers, donations to the Social Enterprise Policy Fund which David established are encouraged. 

More about David

Share
This is Part 6 of our Ecosystem Building Blog Series.

part 1) Pan Atlantic,
part 2) Saskatchewan,
part 3) Ontario,
part 4) Newfoundland and Labrador – 1,
part 5) Newfoundland and Labrador – 2

Ecosystem building is a core focus of CCEDNet’s Regional Initiatives Program.

Stronger [balanced] together:

How pragmatics, changers, philosophers and visionaries built Manitoba’s ecosystem

A coffee chat with Brendan Reimer. 

Interview With

Brendan
Reimer

Sarah
Leeson-Klym

CCEDNet

Mike
Toye

CCEDNet

Melissa Sinfield

CCEDNet

Editor:
Melissa Sinfield, Regional Initiatives Manager 
 

Blog Summary

Read this if you are: 

  • Wondering what factors might support establishing a lasting community economy ecosystem?
  • Curious how balance may be the key to lasting relations and sustainability for regional ecosystems? 
  • Questioning whether to start building your ecosystem with a focus on structure or action?
  • Wanting to learn how CCEDNet Manitoba’s ecosystem came into being? 

Blog Notes:

Region: Manitoba

We spoke with Brendan, who served as Director of CCEDNet Manitoba for the first 11 years, building many of the network functions still being practiced today.

To learn more about other ecosystem building projects and approaches that have been supported by CCEDNet check out our Regional Initiatives Program

Note: interview has been edited for length and clarity. 


How did CCEDNet Manitoba come to be?

1) A groundswell of collaborative energy wanting systems change 

Brendan: At the time there weren’t as many collaborative groups and there was a sense that something different or new was needed given the needs we faced as a community:  housing, food security, poverty. 

There was a group of young organizers, some students, who were all keen to work together and saw the value of creating associations. CCEDNet also already had a local presence since one of the founders and first Executive Director, Garry Loewen, was based here. So, the network came together. Around this time other collaborations (such as Manitoba Co-op Association) were also growing or being created including Food Matters Manitoba, Right to Housing Coalition, the CCPA-hosted Manitoba Research Alliance on CED and the New Economy, and Make Poverty History Manitoba to name a few. 

The collaborative groups were also specific communities of practice. There weren’t as many at the time, but there were great collaborative groups emerging with place-based work (example: Neighbourhood Renewal Corporations) and within Indigenous communities.

2) Grounding systems change ecosystems in local realities

Sarah: Location matters. Given the reality of innercity poverty here, it’s so obvious that there is a systems problem in Winnipeg. Do you think that is part of why CCEDNet [a systems-change focused network] has sustained here?

Brendan: Yes. The Winnipeg reality matters. Everyone knew each other: the leaders and mentors knew each other, the student researchers and young leaders all got to know each other as well as getting to know the leaders and mentors. 

We all had our offices here, as most provincial associations and collaborative initiatives have their head office or base here in Winnipeg. These experienced and emerging leaders had a simple mentality–or perhaps actually more complex– they shared a common understanding of how we were all in it together and how everything was interconnected: housing, food, co-op development, public policy, funding and finance, environmental sustainability, and what we now refer to as reconciliation. Also having a network employee connecting people, and so many of us having schooling on CED or related topics, it all cemented everything. Also, it helped to have politicians growing up working in these communities before they entered politics. Over time, we start having deep, meaningful ties. That’s true of academics here too.

These experienced and emerging leadersshared a common understanding of how we were all in it together and how everything was interconnected

With experienced and emerging leaders being grounded in a theory of change that was community-led and holistic, and with so many participating in the Manitoba Research Alliance projects where we needed to explain our concept and theories as part of writing the reports, we came to understand our common language and our common approach and our interconnectedness to each other.

3) Shared vision and an intersectional systems change mindset

Brendan: I think one key reason why CCEDNet emerged in this context is that the leaders (and the younger folks they hired and mentored) understood CED to be broader system change work that consisted of all those various initiatives and sectors working together in a common philosophy of engaging communities and building sustainable, fair, inclusive local communities and economies. 

I think some regions might have defined CED more narrowly, which is why some of those broader networks didn’t understand how they connected and related to CCEDNet, but in Manitoba the ethos and philosophy positioned CCEDNet as the hub of the wheel connecting the groups together, or the umbrella as an overarching development paradigm they shared.

One aspect that built this common understanding and culture is the Manitoba Research Alliance on CED in the New Economy and the subsequent SSHRC projects after it. The CED leaders were part of the leadership of this research, and many of the “younger leaders” were student researchers mentored and funded through that program that turned into jobs.

[T]he leaders… experienced and emerging leadersunderstood CED to be broader system change work that consisted of all those various initiatives and sectors working together.

As I think about this more, each research project would have had literature reviews and a section defining terminology and theory of practice or concept, and so every student researcher (and academic partner) along with the community partners would have been researching, writing, learning, developing, and articulating these aspects of a research paper and that process would have grounded us all in a theoretical framework of CED philosophy (as that was the focus of all the research). This would have had quite an impact on our collective mindset and approach to our work and each other.

4) Intergenerational sharing and setting aside ego

Brendan: I would add that the younger leaders who emerged in this space had a good way of working together, it wasn’t about the egos, it was about having a common and broader vision for our work and how it was all interconnected with each other. But I’d also say that we all had more experienced mentors as well who taught us about the interconnections – CED, social enterprise, co-ops, poverty, housing, Indigenous organizations, etc all had very experienced people leading the way and mentoring the younger staffers brought in to lead the networks. I am extremely grateful for the time they invested in me and the other emerging leaders, and I think the legacy of their efforts lives on today. 

[It] wasn’t about the egos.

5) Building fertile ground for a CED ecosystem through aligned approaches and language

Brendan: CED was also common language in Manitoba, where organizations like Neechi Foods, LITE Winnipeg, SEED Winnipeg, Jubilee Fund, Community Futures, Neighbourhood Renewal Corps, and by then even the Province of Manitoba used the language of Community Economic Development. So many leaders in so many different organizations and institutions were very familiar with the terminology, principles, and philosophy of CED. 

CED was also common language in Manitoba.

By 2003, about when I started, there was a CED Policy Framework and Lens at the Province of Manitoba. About that time United Way Winnipeg hired one of the top CED leaders to develop a strategy around CED, and shortly after the Winnipeg Foundation did the same thing. Assiniboine Credit Union launched a CED Strategy, University of Manitoba and University of Winnipeg had authors publishing and teaching about CED (John Loxley, Jim Silver, etc.), and the Manitoba Research Alliance had millions of dollars to lead dozens of CED research projects engaging dozens of community organizations, academics, and students. 

There is so much more that was in place and emerging, but this was the context of Manitoba and why CCEDNet Manitoba grew the way it did as well, it was extremely fertile ground for something to grow – and CCEDNet Manitoba did.

6) Finding a leader who the network trusts to centre multiple approaches and perspectives 

Sarah: What made it okay to trust CCEDNet? 

Brendan: As in, why were local practitioners willing to trust this unknown upstart new national network? 

The answer to that in part is that Garry was a founding member of CCEDNet and then the first Executive Director of CCEDNet. He had experience, and a nuanced understanding of the need for balance between practitioners and visionaries. 

The local leaders trusted Garry, and if Garry was a leader in CCEDNet, they would trust CCEDNet because they trusted Garry. There were many others who played important roles in that part of building trust in CCEDNet, but I want to highlight that aspect of how he brought a nuanced understanding of blending vision and practice which was really key to the culture.

Mike: So it was a mix of collaborative energy and culture? 

Brendan: And trust.

[Leadership with] a nuanced understanding of blending vision and practice which was really key to the culture.

Editors note: We also have heard that when the national network was emerging, local practitioners were connecting with and inspired by people working in other provinces. However, in a place like Manitoba where many feel that other regions don’t understand the context, having a local leader made a difference.

7) Formalizing structures of accountability

Sarah: The organizational structures were collaborative. How did you sustain that moving forward?

Brendan: Through some humbling moments where we were challenged to do better. CCEDNet was called out for presenting ourselves as representing other communities while lacking a formal democratic process that would give us the legitimacy as representatives of the sector. And they were right. We thought we were being representative but we weren’t doing enough. The network wanted it with more formality and accountability. They wanted a clearly outlined structure and decision making process, especially when it came to public policy advocacy. 

Editor’s note: CCEDNet Manitoba now uses a member voting structure and resolution framework, particularly with the Manitoba public policy advocacy work. The models are closely reminiscent of co-op and union models likely reflecting the strong co-op and union networks that span much of Winnipeg, and Manitoba more broadly. Brendan’s note: In fact, the people who helped CCEDNet form our current process all (from what we recall) came from student union backgrounds including one long-time policy forum facilitator. 

8) The importance of resourcing paid positions 

Sarah: We definitely had alignment with the government for a long time which made a difference, but the work of CCEDNet Manitoba kept going even when the alignment wasn’t there. How come we were able to sustain? 

Brendan: There are other factors. As mentioned, there were resources from other sources as well, along with a well-established network of leaders who were committed to the common vision. But one key was that we had paid staff in Manitoba, whereas when we looked into other regions we saw how volunteer-based networks struggled to sustain their work and impact.

Sarah: So how important is it to have paid positions?

It’s about building resilience and sustainability over time, and this is more possible with a dedicated staff person who is able to build a network over time. .

Brendan: It is very important, as you need dedicated time for building a strong and effective network and that is very difficult to do without having a person who is able to fully focus on doing that. It’s about building resilience and sustainability over time, and this is more possible with a dedicated staff person who is able to build a network over time. 

Mike: When provincial support ended, the Manitoba network could survive because they’d built ongoing support with other local funders like United Way Winnipeg and Winnipeg Foundation.

9) Strategic positioning of leadership

Brendan: I’ll add one more key to the evolution in Manitoba, that the ecosystem being built created a very fertile and nurturing environment for CCEDNet Manitoba. Over time, community leaders who aligned with CCEDNet’s emerging vision were strategic about positioning themselves and advocating for change in key institutions like governments, funders, and financial institutions. I think that the fact that my original Prairies Coordinator role was in Winnipeg was likely, in part, because of the existing organizing work of local leaders in these institutions.

10) Balancing Action and Structure

Brendan: We had a mentality of needing to figure out what needs to be done and then doing it. Manitoba leaders were very focused on action and outcomes that mattered most to communities. It was the belief that we needed real change in communities.

Mike: Interesting contrast between outcomes versus structure. In Quebec they say it isn’t worth trying to predetermine and focus on set outcomes — those will change as situations evolve, but if you have good, community-rooted structure, positive outcomes (often previously unpredictable ones) will happen.  

Sarah: Structure is sustainability. 

We had a mentality of needing to figure out what needs to be done and then doing it.

Brendan: It has to be both, but you can’t have just structure at the beginning or people will be tired of investing their time in building structure without seeing outcomes that matter to their mission and vision of community. 

Editor’s note: Beatrice, from Chantier, QC, has mentioned before the importance of having short term wins that can bolster motivation and resolve of the network so momentum is not lost. This may be part of the nuance behind why the formally structured Quebec model was so successful. Similarly, the action heavy Manitoba model was likely sustained through implementing the formal structures shortly thereafter, which were noted above. The trick is likely understanding which approach would be better received in a region during the initial years, and finding ways to lean into that approach while counterbalancing it with the other. They may not need to be treated or understood as opposites, but complementary approaches. 

11) Balancing the thinking and action for systems change 

Melissa: What about the different roles that practitioners and systems thinkers played as this ecosystem emerged? 

Sarah: Community development practitioners care about the change, and what change looks like. 

Brendan: Which came first?
The practical practitioners or the system change thinkers? 

I think an interesting thing in Manitoba is the number of leaders who are both practitioner and system thinkers: we had top-level academics who were actively involved in co-op development, network leaders who were system-thinkers and practitioners leading music festivals and on boards of neighbourhood renewal corporations, we had practitioners of community organizations who completed PhD while they were at it, and so forth.

[A]n interesting thing in Manitoba is the number of leaders who are both practitioner and system thinkers.

It’s about understanding you’re part of a broader system and having a vision for a whole community. 

Sarah: There was some intentionality behind it. 

12) Balancing pragmatics, changers, philosophers, and visionaries

Brendan: Part of building this network was regular meetings over coffee and chats: talking, disagreeing, addressing issues and opportunities. 

Sarah: The network we have here is full of community organizations, the front line folks. In other regions, there is more emphasis on networks-of-networks, which probably makes sense in larger provinces. In Manitoba though, there is less separation between the networks and the front-lines, and lots of connections between research and everyone else. An example of this is the Urban and Inner City Studies program with professors who are involved, experiencing the reality of work in communities.

Brendan: What’s clear is you need a balance:

  • You need pragmatic people, but not just pragmatic practitioners
  • You need architects of systems change, but not just systems changers
  • You need philosophers and visionaries, but not just philosophic academics and visionaries 

It’s all of them together. 

Mike: Also a Theory of Change. 

13). Collectively imagining a shared, better future as a powerful tool for sustaining the movement

Sarah: What I am hearing is networks have to bring these different types of people together because they balance each other – practitioners might struggle to continue believing in the possibility of change or feel they have the time to connect across sectors as they navigate heavy day-to-day challenges while academics or collaborative leaders might lose sight of the day-to-day realities in community without being grounded in it. 

Brendan: Perhaps that’s the role of CCEDNet to teach the network? The collective imaginary. Intellectual and creative. Bring together the practitioners, the visionaries, the intellectuals and the creative solution builders, and all others involved to build the common imagination and vision of the world we want to build.

Sarah: With the Manitoba Gathering, we started to think differently in how we designed it. We created a day where the community comes together each year imagining that the whole economy could be this. ‘Oh, there’s hundreds of us, maybe we can make change!’ It’s not marginal anymore. It is when they click into that imaginary, that solidarity. It’s so powerful. It is what sets the Gathering apart. But it’s hard to write that into a funding report! 

[When people]
click into that imaginary,
that solidarity.
It’s so powerful.

Brendan: Probably one of the hardest things to do, to explain in a funding application. Has CCEDNet done that successfully in other places? 

Sarah: I’m not sure we’ve achieved it completely, but this is what we are trying to work towards doing here with the Regional Initiatives program! 

14) Hosting frequent get-togethers and predictable annual gatherings 

Melissa: Two recurring and interconnected threads I am hearing are balancing voices and approaches and doing this by keeping everyone connected, including: 

  1. Frequent informal small get-togethers: such as the small weekly coffee chats of “talking, disagreeing, addressing issues and opportunities”  that Brendan mentioned earlier. 
  2. Formal structured gatherings: including reliable and predictable events for collaborative action and accountability such as the annual formal policy convenings.
  3. Morale boosting visioning gatherings: such as the larger annual events for building and feeding the imaginary to maintain long term momentum like the Manitoba Gathering. 
  4. Ongoing meetings and convenings: such as all the frequent meetings and partner convenings that go on behind the scenes that sustain those connections throughout the year. 

All this ties back to the earlier point made on the importance of having a paid staff for sustaining ecosystems in the long term, because the amount of energy needed for building and maintaining these types of connections and systems is quite significant. 

Thank you Brendan, this conversation has been so insightful! 

_________

Thank you Brendan!

We would like to extend a warm thank you to Brendan Reimer for taking the time to chat with us on the history of CCEDNet Manitoba and for all the thoughtful revisions that added deeper nuance to the conversation.

Ecosystem Blog Series:

Blog 1) Pan-Atlantic
Ecosystem Building
Blog 2) Saskatchewan
“On the Cusp of Change”
Blog 3) Ontario
Weaving Together…
Share
This is Part 5 of our Ecosystem Building Blog Series.
Read part 1) Pan Atlantic, part 2) Saskatchewan, part 3) Ontario, part 4) Newfoundland and Labrador – 1

Read Section 1 of our conversation with NL Partners: Creating Luck: “Where opportunity, preparation, and relationships intersect

Stay tuned throughout May for the rest of the series! Ecosystem building is a core focus of CCEDNet’s Regional Initiatives Program.

Can’t quantify relationships:

6 reasons why funding for ecosystem building is essential
(and why it’s tricky to obtain)

Conversation with NL Partners: Section 2

Interview With

Gillian
Morrissey

CSE

Mariana
Jiménez Ojeda

CSCNL

Cheralyn
Chok

Propel Impact

Melissa Sinfield
(Interviewer)

CCEDNet

Interviewer and Editor:
Melissa Sinfield, Regional Initiatives Manager 
 

Blog Summary

Read this if you are: 

  • Questioning the value of ecosystem building?
  • Feeling like ecosystem building initiatives are yet more projects competing for scarce resources (hint, it can actually help buffer against scarcity in the long run)
  • Wondering why it is so hard to find funds for ecosystem building despite its ability to empower communities?
  • Doing transformative ecosystem building already, but appreciate being reaffirmed that it’s worthwhile and the struggle to gain resources is real.
  • Want to learn more about Newfoundland and Labrador’s growing community economic ecosystem?

Blog Notes:

Region: Newfoundland and Labrador

We spoke with Gillian, Mariana, and Cheralyn who are working on an ecosystem building project hosted by the Centre for Social Enterprise (CSE), Community Sector Council of Newfoundland and Labrador (CSCNL), Propel Impact, and the Community Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador (CFNL).

The project’s aim was to quantify the size and stage of the social enterprise ecosystem in Newfoundland and Labrador in order to understand the potential demand for an impact investing fund in the province. This project is supported by CCEDNet’s Regional Initiatives Program

Note: interview has been edited for length and clarity.


Need for Dedicated Funding for Ecosystems Building.

Melissa: Linking back to something Cheralyn said about funding in an earlier conversation. I’ve heard similar things echoed in relation to how difficult it is to find funding that supports this kind of early stage work for ecosystem building. I’m just wondering if you could speak to that a little bit more in terms of your experiences?

Cheralyn: We have done this type of work before–understanding the needs of social enterprises in various regions– but always framed it as ”community-based research.” It was always self-directed. I was always asking myself, “who am I to do this work? Living in a city like Vancouver while interviewing these folks in other regions and writing these reports.” 

Having dedicated funds available to be able to do work that doesn’t expect the typical project-based outputs and outcomes that we’re used to seeing makes a difference. I think in order for any project or program to be successful, this is the work that needs to happen so that we understand needs, and don’t come in thinking that we know best or we know exactly what’ll work.

Having dedicated funds available… that doesn’t expect the typical project-based outputs and outcomes… makes a difference.

1) The Intangible value of ecosystems. It’s hard to measure and communicate.

[I]t’s hard to measure ecosystem-building and partnership development activities…

It’s intangible.

Mariana: Well, I honestly don’t have much experience in that piece about finding funding for ecosystem-building work. I do see that the dynamics of the community sector tend to be more results-driven, and it’s hard to measure ecosystem-building and partnership development activities in that way. That might relate to the hardship of funding such activities, partly because reporting and communicating their impact is challenging. However, having a supportive ecosystem plays a crucial role in the future success of other initiatives. 

Melissa: I think that truly does get to the heart of some of the issues that a lot of the folks I’ve been talking to have in relation to sustaining ecosystem building. They all say it’s really hard to measure and communicate the value of it, because the value is so intangible.

2) “We created inspiration” is not easy to add to an application or report. 

Gillian: It’s very hard to measure. It’s hard to say, ‘we’re creating this vision together,  building a sense of community and shared direction.’ That’s very hard to communicate on a funding application. “We created inspiration.” How do you quantify that?

‘We created inspiration.’ How do you quantify that?

[T]here’s no financial proxy for trust, goodwill and relationships.

People understand dollars and cents, but there’s no financial proxy for trust, goodwill and relationships. It is challenging to explain the value of a relationship. How do I quantify that?

Melissa: Absolutely, how does a person quantify the power of relationship building, trust, and shared visioning on applications and reports.

3) Can’t quantify relationships: Setting and maintaining connections

Cheralyn Chok: I think it’s important to note that if we hadn’t already built a relationship, we wouldn’t be doing this project.

For ecosystem projects, there already has to have been that work put in by organizations. Organizations do it all the time. We build relationships and discuss and share resources even if there’s no funding or nothing telling us that we need to do it. I want to flag that it didn’t start with a project proposal and then we said, oh, suddenly we need to go look for this person in Newfoundland because we want to work on this. There needs to be a foundation.

Melissa: Yes, I remember you mentioned earlier that “Propel connected with Mariana a couple years ago… and [you] kept in touch over the years.” (refer to Part 1 “Creating Luck”)

For ecosystem projects, there already has to have been that work put in by organizations

There needs to be a foundation.

The ones with an ecosystem already growing

They are not reactionary, but rather primed for opportunities.

It makes sense. From my still early experience in this world of ecosystem building, I already am starting to see such a difference when projects that are building on the seeds that are already planted. The ones with an ecosystem already growing (pardon the pun). They are not reactionary, but rather primed for opportunities. Even in situations where it is early stages, strong relationship connections make a world of difference.

Gillian: I think this is a central tenant to our work in this sector, though. I’ve often heard it said “We work at the speed of trust.” Relationships are above all else. There’s no point in me looking for a funding proposal or trying to start a new project unless I have the relationship and the trust first. You build the relationships, and success comes from those.

4) Collaboration as response to scarcity (and scarcity mindset as an obstacle to collaboration)

Melissa: This leads me to the question of scarcity. 

I’ve been hearing in conversations with other folks that scarcity mindset really is an obstacle to creating regional ecosystems. There can be pushback around funding going to ecosystem building when some folks in the sector think maybe the funding should go somewhere else like direct services. This sentiment is understandable considering the economy we’re living in right now. 

Admittedly, I might have been one of those people at the beginning until I saw firsthand an established functional ecosystem and how it generates resources and buffers against times of scarcity. Ecosystems like the Manitoba Network and Quebec’s Solidarity economy even arose as a response to economic hardships.

So, I’m curious in terms of the scarcity mindset, is it in your case an obstacle or is it something that’s kind of bringing people together in the sector or maybe a complicated combination of both? Or something completely different? 

Mariana: So I guess a little bit of both. From what I’m hearing, I think that some organizations have reached the point where scarcity is leveraged in terms of ‘we are aware of this, and that triggers how we partner, collaborate and do things together.’ However, I’ve also seen some organizations being very protective of their programming or knowledge because of that scarcity mindset. So, I think it’s a little bit of a double-edged sword.

[E]cosystems become a tool to enable collaboration and resource sharing, and we divest from mindsets driven by fear.

I think here is where the ecosystem-building piece is really important. Then ecosystems become a tool to enable collaboration and resource sharing, and we divest from mindsets driven by fear, protectiveness and guarding ‘something’ under the belief that it will lead to the organization’s continuance. This behaviour is natural, it has become a survival instinct rooted in the passion and desire to keep serving their communities and beneficiaries.

[T]hat’s where the ecosystem building, partnerships, and trust you were saying are critical and come into play.

And I think that’s where the ecosystem building, partnerships, and trust you were saying are critical and come into play. Without it, it’s hard to evolve into that mindset of collaborating and co-creating. Without it, there’s no sharing of intel, which could prevent us from using the ecosystem to map and fill the gaps. Without trust, we won’t be able to understand the real problems and needs of the people served, resulting on superficial or incomplete solutions instead of the identification of clear gaps and complimenting services in which every party can benefit and thrive. 

Unfortunately, there are plenty of social and environmental challenges and issues out there. So, there won’t be a lack of activities to be accomplished and problems to be addressed. For us to switch from a reactive approach (rooted in a legitimate fear of missing out, of being left out, of losing grants and supports, and ultimately of being unable to serve our communities) to a constructive or co-creating perspective we need to focus on building more supportive ecosystems and a less competitive access to resources. 

[Supportive ecosystems help] to switch from a reactive approach …to a constructive or co-creating perspective.

5) Ecosystem builders can model collaboration as strategy for greater abundance and resources

Gillian: I was going to say the same. I haven’t been part of the interviews we’ve been conducting, but I read all the summaries and the notes and I would agree. In some cases, there’s some really good examples of leadership, but there is definitely a scarcity mindset and fear among folks in our ecosystem too. I think one of the best things we can do as capacity builders and ecosystem builders is to model the abundance mindset and collaborative nature. Collaboration is becoming a necessity, as well due to the lesser amounts of funding available. As a sector we have to be more creative and build partnerships to secure funding.

[O]ne of the best things we can do as capacity builders and ecosystem builders is to model the abundance mindset and collaborative nature.

Cheralyn: To bounce off of that: I’m a huge proponent and fan of mergers that bring organizations together. Propel went through one; we merged two nonprofits together to make our programs and operations more efficient. I’ve seen a lot of value from this process and interest from other organizations in how we went about it. I think mergers are something that we can progress towards: from building relationships; to collaborating on proposals; to perhaps coming together with shared back office pieces such as HR, bookkeeping, and evaluation. In some cases, becoming one larger  organization makes the day-to-day easier to manage.

6) Greater sector resilience and sustainability 

Melissa: I guess the takeaway is that economic hardship could be a catalyst to move people to build ecosystems to buffer and support one another to create change, but the scarcity mindset sabotages us. And I agree, it really is understandable as a survival response in our current systems. I think this really gets to what I have been hearing reiterated by partners like the National Indigenous Friendship Centres and SETSI about shifting our mindsets to abundance. 

[E]economic hardship could be a catalyst to move people to build ecosystems to buffer and support one another to create change, but the scarcity mindset sabotages us.

Collaboration is almost the antithesis to scarcity mindsets in this context.

It is not an easy thing to do in times of hardship, but one thing that gives me extra hope is the nature of reciprocity and collaboration as a survival strategy that is often built into a number of community cultures, which lay the ground for the formation of ecosystems. Collaboration is almost the antithesis to scarcity mindsets in this context. If people already have those connections they can fall back on each other and navigate through those hurdles. Whereas when the connections don’t exist, it becomes more fractious and harder to navigate and there’s more of that feeling of competition over resources.

It reminds me of something Sarah Leeson-Klym previously said in this Ecosystem series: 

[With an established ecosystem like the Manitoba Network] the routine of keeping people together… means the field comes together a little bit more easily in hard times or for opportunities. They already have a bit of a sense of what they want to do and each others’ approaches, and when something, an opportunity, comes available they are ready to strike at that moment.” (Reposted from Blog 2 “On the Cusp of Change”)

This is reflected a bit in what you folks were saying on how this project came to be, where you already had those connections, on a smaller scale, but then this opportunity came about and it’s like, ‘hey, this might work out’ in terms of the vision you have in place for building out a stronger ecosystem in Newfoundland and Labrador.

All that rambling to say thank you for this conversation. There is so much food for thought from this one discussion.

Gillian: Melissa, I have one final thought. My dad, a business man himself, has this saying that,
‘luck is where opportunity meets preparation.’ But I think in our context of social innovation and social enterprise, it could also be: 

‘Luck is where opportunity, preparation, and relationships intersect.’ (Quote reposted from “Creating Luck” Blog

‘Luck is where opportunity, preparation, and relationships intersect.’

Read Blog 4: “Creating Luck
Section 2 of our conversation with NL Partners

My dad, a business man himself, has this saying that,

‘Luck is where opportunity meets preparation.’

But I think in our context of social innovation and social enterprise, it could also be:

Luck is where opportunity, preparation, and relationships intersect.’

Gillian Morrissey

(Reposted from “Creating Luck” Blog)

Read part one of this conversation: “Creating Luck: ‘Where opportunity, preparation, and relationships intersect.’


Ecosystem Blog Series:

Blog 1) Pan-Atlantic
Ecosystem Building
Blog 2) Saskatchewan
“On the Cusp of Change”
Blog 3) Ontario
Weaving Together…
Share