Community Groups In Context Local Activities And Actions Angus Mccabe Editor Jenny Phillimore Editor

Community Groups In Context Local Activities And
Actions Angus Mccabe Editor Jenny Phillimore
Editor download
https://ebookbell.com/product/community-groups-in-context-local-
activities-and-actions-angus-mccabe-editor-jenny-phillimore-
editor-51808790
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
Theological Interpretation Of Culture In Postcommunist Context Central
And East European Search For Roots Ivana Noble
https://ebookbell.com/product/theological-interpretation-of-culture-
in-postcommunist-context-central-and-east-european-search-for-roots-
ivana-noble-51624186
Grab Gather Grow Multiply Community Groups In Your Church 1st Edition
Jennifer Cowart Jim Cowart
https://ebookbell.com/product/grab-gather-grow-multiply-community-
groups-in-your-church-1st-edition-jennifer-cowart-jim-cowart-51565912
Working With Children In Groups A Handbook For Counsellors Educators
And Community Workers Kathryn Geldard
https://ebookbell.com/product/working-with-children-in-groups-a-
handbook-for-counsellors-educators-and-community-workers-kathryn-
geldard-6787866
Making Life Work Freedom And Disability In A Community Group Home Jack
Levinson
https://ebookbell.com/product/making-life-work-freedom-and-disability-
in-a-community-group-home-jack-levinson-4963668

Small Populations Large Effects Improving The Measurement Of The Group
Quarters Population In The American Community Survey 1st Edition
National Research Council Division Of Behavioral And Social Sciences
And Education Committee On National Statistics Panel On Statistical
Methods For Measuring The Group Quarters Population In The American
Community Survey Krisztina Marton Paul R Vos
https://ebookbell.com/product/small-populations-large-effects-
improving-the-measurement-of-the-group-quarters-population-in-the-
american-community-survey-1st-edition-national-research-council-
division-of-behavioral-and-social-sciences-and-education-committee-on-
national-statistics-panel-on-statistical-methods-for-measuring-the-
group-quarters-population-in-the-american-community-survey-krisztina-
marton-paul-r-vos-51980318
Family Group Conferencing New Directions In Communitycentered Child
And Family Practice Gale Burford
https://ebookbell.com/product/family-group-conferencing-new-
directions-in-communitycentered-child-and-family-practice-gale-
burford-43861758
Natural Resources Tourism And Community Livelihoods In Southern Africa
Challenges Of Sustainable Development Taylor Francis Group
https://ebookbell.com/product/natural-resources-tourism-and-community-
livelihoods-in-southern-africa-challenges-of-sustainable-development-
taylor-francis-group-56235980
Community Policing In A Rural Setting 2nd Edition Quint Thurman Edmund
F Mcgarrell
https://ebookbell.com/product/community-policing-in-a-rural-
setting-2nd-edition-quint-thurman-edmund-f-mcgarrell-51310406
Managing It Community Partnerships In The 21st Century Jonathan Lazar
https://ebookbell.com/product/managing-it-community-partnerships-in-
the-21st-century-jonathan-lazar-2149442

Edited by Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore
Community groups
in context
Local activities and actions
Third Sector
Research
Series

COMMUNITY GROUPS
IN CONTEXT
Local activities
and actions
Edited by Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore

First published in Great Britain in 2017 by
Policy Press North America office:
University of Bristol Policy Press
1-9 Old Park Hill c/o The University of Chicago Press
Bristol 1427 East 60th Street
BS2 8BB Chicago, IL 60637, USA
UK t: +1 773 702 7700
t: +44 (0)117 954 5940 f: +1 773-702-9756
pp-info@bristol.ac.uk sales@press.uchicago.edu
www.policypress.co.uk www.press.uchicago.edu
© Policy Press 2017
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN 978-1-4473-2777-6 hardcover
ISBN 978-1-4473-2781-3 ePub
ISBN 978-1-4473-2782-0 Kindle
ISBN 978-1-4473-2779-0 ePDF
The right of Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore to be identified as editors of this work has
been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of Policy Press.
The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the editors
and contributors and not of the University of Bristol or Policy Press. The University of
Bristol and Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting
from any material published in this publication.
Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race,
disability, age and sexuality.
Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol
Front cover image: istock
Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd,
Croydon, CR0 4YY
Policy Press uses environmentally responsible print partners

iii
Contents
List of tables and figures v
Foreword vi
Sara Llewellin
Series editor’s foreword vii
John Mohan
Acknowledgements ix
Notes on contributors x
Introduction Why get below the radar? The importance of 1
understanding community groups and activities
Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore
Part One: Scoping and mapping community actions and activities 5
one Below the radar? Community groups and activities 7
in context
two Getting below the radar: micro-mapping ‘hidden’ 27
community activity
Andri Soteri-Proctor
Part Two: Community groups and activities in context 49
three Are we different? Claims for distinctiveness 51
in voluntary and community action
four Community as policy: reflections on community 71
engagement, empowerment and social action in a
changing policy context
Angus McCabe
five Lost to austerity, lost in austerity: rethinking the 91
community sector in Ireland
Niall Crowley
six All change? Surviving below the radar: 113
community groups and activities in hard times

iv
Community groups in context
Part Three: Under-explored radars 133
seven The UK Gypsy,Traveller and Roma third sector: 135
a Gypsy industry or route to empowerment?
Andrew Ryder and Sarah Cemlyn
eight Understanding grassroots arts groups and practices 155
in communities
Hilary Ramsden, Jane Milling and Robin Simpson
nine Is there a black and minority ethnic third sector 177
in the UK?
Lucy Mayblin
ten ‘More than a refugee community organisation’: 199
a study of African migrant associations in Glasgow
Teresa Piacentini
Part Four:Thinking about voice, learning and emotion 219
below the radar
eleven ‘Almost a whisper’: black and minority ethnic 221
community groups’ voice and influence
PhilWare
twelve Learning to sustain social action 241
Jenny Phillimore and Angus McCabe
thirteen Authentic and legitimate? The emotional role 263
of ‘grassroots’ community activists in policymaking
Rosie Anderson
fourteen Conclusion: thinking back and looking forward 281
Index 291

v
List of tables and figures
Tables
2.1 Types of below-radar groups and activities 39
3.1 Profile of respondent groups/organisations 53
5.1 The community sector as an agent of social change: 108
advantages and disadvantages
6.1 Summary of participating groups/organisations 114
11.1 Urban interview summary profile 225
11.2 Rural interview summary profile 225
12.1 Groups participating in the research 245
Figures
2.1 Map of High Street 31

vi
Foreword
Voluntary action is embedded in the culture and communities of the
UK. From helping neighbours and running play groups, to planting and
nurturing local green spaces and helping our biggest national charities,
voluntary work and voluntarism forms the web and weft of our society.
The Charity Commission records show that there are over 160,000
registered charities in the UK. But of course this is only part of the
picture. Registered charities are dwarfed by the sheer volume of small
informal groups whose members come together on a voluntary basis
to carry out charitable activities day in and day out, every week of
the year. Those informal groups are found in all communities and
at all levels of society – they are certainly in every village and town,
probably in every street and housing estate. They bring together old
and young, men and women, those of every faith, colour and creed, in
joint efforts to solve social problems and improve the lives of individuals,
communities, themselves and others.
Despite being such an important part of our daily lives, these ‘below
the radar’ groups were under-researched prior to the foundation of
the Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) in 2008. Over the ensuing
years, the team has produced a set of research papers that help shine a
light on the variety and richness of smaller community organisations.
The range and scope of these organisations is hinted at in an early
paper from the TSRC, in which micro-organisations were painstakingly
mapped, door to door: in just 11 English streets, an astonishing 58
micro-organisations were found to be alive and well, and the researchers
concluded that this is likely to be a substantial underestimate of activity.
In subsequent papers, TSRC looked both wide – for example, at the
impact of austerity on below the radar groups – and deep, investigating
less well understood corners of the voluntary sector such as those of
the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
This book sets out a body of evidence about this vital aspect of
our society and culture. It is a work to be welcomed by academics,
community workers, sociologists, policymakers and all those with an
interest in the wellbeing of communities in the UK today.
Sara Llewellin
Chief Executive
Barrow Cadbury Trust

vii
Series editor’s foreword
Third sector scholarship has often been criticised for a focus on highly-
visible, quantifiable, and mappable elements of the organisational
universe, such as the distribution of voluntary organisations, or levels
of formal volunteering through those organisations. Yet over forty
years ago scholars were warning of the regressive consequences of
such approaches. Cartographic and scientific metaphors pervade the
critiques of David Horton Smith and others, with their emphasis on
lost continents, dark matter and so forth. It is crucial that a series such
as this one does not have a focus solely on formalised and regulated
third sector activities and Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore’s edited
collection on Community groups in context gives expression to that
aspiration. It draws on extensive work in the Third Sector Research
Centre both by the Centre’s research staff and by its associates.
Although there are discussions of the challenges of definition and
measurement in this field, the authors would agree that objective
representation and cartographic exactitude are impossibilities in this
area. Panoptical attempts at quantification have been attempted on
numerous occasions, with variable results, and often for cathartic
rather than academic reasons. It is to be hoped that serious funders
don’t continue to pour resources into such exercises – at least if they
believe that the aim is to arrive at an authoritative estimate of the scale
of community-led, grassroots activity. They won’t find it – or, more
accurately, they won’t find any agreed estimate. They will certainly
find, however, a kaleidoscope of initiative which raises many important
questions about the nature of the third sector.
This book will appeal to those engaged in or having a stake in
grassroots community activities (for example funders, academics,
policymakers, practitioners and activists) for four key reasons.
Firstly, it offers unique insights into the identity of grassroots
community organisations: what it is that makes them distinctive, enables
them to provide a voice that is authentic and recognised as legitimate?
Secondly, a classic theoretical rationale for third sector activity is the
identification and meeting of social needs – whether these be those of
minority groups who lack leverage through the democratic process,
or emerging issues as yet unacknowledged through formal welfare
structures. Without descending into an instrumentalist, policy-oriented
search, in which below-radar groups are trawled for signs of emerging
social enterprises, as in the recent efforts of some thinktanks, this
book offers important studies of innovation, through investigating

viii
how grassroots groups respond to the needs of small but distinctive
communities.
Thirdly, there are concerns about independence, as with almost
all parts of the third sector: how do groups which began life urgently
articulating the needs of excluded groups without fear or favour
maintain that position and retain the rootedness in community which
gives them strength?
Finally, there is inspiration: the accounts given here are not rose-
tinted narratives of heroic individuals who succeed against great
odds. Instead they show how below-radar groups develop alternative,
progressive visions, and articulate their case even in unpromising,
austere times.
Concluding with quotations from Samuel Beckett may evoke
negativity, but it also highlights the seemingly inexhaustible capacity
of organisations not just to “try again, fail again [and] fail better” but
also their determination, even when they may feel that progress is
impossible, to “go on”.
John Mohan
Director
Third Sector Research Centre

ix
Acknowledgements
The editors wish to acknowledge the contribution of all the authors
included in this publication as well as all those academics, activists and
practitioners who have contributed to, and guided the work of, the
Below the Radar work stream at the Third Sector Research Centre,
University of Birmingham.
In particular, the editors acknowledge the continuing commitment
and support of the Barrow Cadbury Trust, which made the research
into small-scale community groups and activities possible.

x
Notes on contributors
Rosie Anderson is a Teaching Fellow in Social Policy at the University
of Edinburgh. She completed her doctoral thesis, ‘Reason and emotion
in policy making: an ethnographic study’, in 2015. Prior to returning
to academia, she worked in journalism and as a policy manager in the
third sector, specialising in communities policy and small to medium
voluntary groups. She first became involved in the TSRC as a member
of its practitioner advisory group, then latterly as an Associate Fellow.
Sarah Cemlyn is a Fellow in the School for Policy Studies, Bristol
University, formerly a senior lecturer in social work and social policy.
She has worked alongside Gypsy and Traveller communities for over
30 years as a community advice worker, education liaison worker and
researcher focusing on equality, human rights and anti-discriminatory
practice. Projects include a national study of social work affecting these
communities, a review of inequalities across multiple domains for the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, a UK country study for
the European Parliament, and involvement in other local, national and
international studies. She co-edited Hearing the voices of Gypsy, Roma
and Traveller communities with Andrew Ryder and Thomas Acton.
Niall Crowley is an independent expert on equality and diversity
issues. He is convenor of the Claiming Our Future network in Ireland
and chairperson of the Equality and Rights Alliance. Prior to this,
he worked for ten years as Chief Executive Officer of the Equality
Authority in Ireland, the statutory body with a mandate to promote
equality and combat discrimination on nine grounds. Before that he
worked for 12 years with Pavee Point, a community organisation
promoting Traveller rights. He is author of An ambition for equality
(Irish Academic Press, 2006) and Empty promise: Bringing the equality
authority to heel (A&A Farmar, 2008).
Lucy Mayblin is currently an Assistant Professor in the Sociology
Department, University of Warwick. Previously she was an Economic
and Social Research Council (ESRC) Future Research Leaders Fellow
at the University of Sheffield. She has degrees in human geography,
European studies, social research methods and sociology. Lucy has
worked as a research associate at the Centre for Economic and Social
Research at Sheffield Hallam University, the Centre for Urban and
Regional Studies at the University of Birmingham, and for the

xi
Interdisciplinary Centre for the Social Sciences at the University of
Sheffield. Lucy is co-convenor of the British Sociological Association’s
Study Group on Diaspora, Migration and Transnationalism. Her research
interests include: asylum, immigration, human rights, postcolonialism,
cultural political economy and practices of policymaking.
Angus McCabe is a Senior Research Fellow at the Third Sector
Research Centre, University of Birmingham. He has a background
in community development work both in inner city and settings on
peripheral estates. His research interests include resident-led change,
social action and community-based education. He is currently
leading on the Below the Radar work stream, which is researching
the experiences of small community-based groups and activities,
supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust. Angus is a board member
of the International Community Development Journal and an Associate of
the Federation for Community Development Learning.
Jane Milling is Associate Professor of Drama at the University of
Exeter. Her current research is around participation, community and
creativity in contemporary culture, and the place and role of amateur
theatre in our cultural ecology. She has written on Modern British
playwriting (Methuen, 2012) and Devising performance: A critical history
(2nd edn) (Palgrave, 2015). She also writes on popular and political
performance in the 18th century.
Jenny Phillimore is Director of the Institute for Reseach into
Superdiversity at the University of Birmingham and Professor of
Migration and Superdiversity. She has researched widely in the
fields of migration and superdiversity. Over the past decade, she has
managed teams of researchers focusing on access to health, education,
employment, training and housing integration, with a particular focus
on integration and organisational change in the UK and EU. Jenny
is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts,
Manufactures and Commerce, and of the Academy of the Social
Sciences. She has advised local, regional, national and European
government. She currently leads the ESRC/Norface-funded UPWEB
project (The Welfare Bricolage Project), which is developing a new
concept of welfare bricolage to explore how residents in superdiverse
areas address health concerns.

xii
Teresa Piacentini is a sociologist at the University of Glasgow. An
experienced researcher, interpreting practitioner and activist, she
has spent most of her professional and academic career working and
researching with asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in Scotland. Her
research interests lie in the broad field of migration studies, specifically
focusing on migrants’ experiences of ‘settlement’, integration and
belonging. She is particularly interested in everyday bordering practices
and the creation and development of spaces of resistance to bordering
within asylum seeker, refugee and migrant populations.
Hilary Ramsden is an artivist and lecturer at the University of South
Wales in physical and visual theatre, street arts, rebel clown and walking.
Her practice is guided by an overarching thematic concern of the
investigation of play and humour within performance and how this can
be used in learning and knowledge creation. She is currently involved
in the Wye Valley River Festival 2016, with partners Desperate Men
Street Theatre and Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
She was a member of lesbian-feminist Siren Theatre Company, founder
and co-artistic director of Walk & Squawk Performance Project and a
co-founder of the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army.
Andrew Ryder has a long history of work with and for Gypsy, Roma
and Traveller communities. Between 1990 and 2001, he worked as a
teacher in state schools and with the British Council and taught Gypsy/
Roma children in the UK, Hungary and Portugal. From 2002 until
2006, he was the policy officer for the Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform
Coalition (GTLRC 2002–2006), an umbrella group that lobbied for
more Traveller sites and greater social inclusion. The GTLRC was
awarded the Liberty Human Rights Award in 2004. Andrew also acted
as researcher to the All Party Parliamentary Group for Traveller Law
Reform from 2002 to 2007 and continues to provide support and
advice. Between 2006 and 2009, he was the National Policy Officer
for the Irish Traveller Movement in Britain. Andrew is currently an
Associate Professor at the Corvinus University of Budapest and an
Associate Fellow at the Third Sector Research Centre, University of
Birmingham.
Robin Simpson has been Chief Executive of Voluntary Arts (VA)
since September 2005. VA provides a universal voice for approximately
63,000 voluntary arts groups across the UK and Ireland, involving more
than 10 million participants in creative cultural activities. VA provides
information and advice services, undertakes lobbying and advocacy

xiii
work, and delivers, and supports the delivery of, projects to develop
participation in creative cultural activities.
Andri Soteri-Proctor is an artist and works within her local community.
Prior to this, she was a researcher on a variety of projects concerning
the voluntary and community sector. For her PhD she examined the
sector’s engagement with government employment initiatives (under
the Labour government). She later joined the Third Sector Research
Centre at the University of Birmingham where she worked on the
adaptation of different methods to develop tools that would help
identify small and informal social groups and activities that do not
always appear in official records. The aim was to contribute towards a
fuller understanding on the voluntary and community sector landscape.
This work was inspired by the methodological challenges arising from
work on women’s voluntary sector activities and organisations, which
she carried out in the 1990s at the University of East London.
Phil Ware is an Associate Fellow of Third Sector Research Centre,
working on research linked to the Below the Radar programme. His
background is in community development and play, working in and
with the community and voluntary sector in Birmingham and Dudley.
Phil’s interests include the impact that community groups, and black
and minority ethnic (BME) groups in particular, can have both in
relation to the internal environments of the sector, and to external
policymakers and funders. His most recent work looks at the voice and
influence of BME community groups in relation to this, and includes
research undertaken with groups in the West Midlands, the North West
and the South West, together with strategic organisations regionally
and nationally. ‘Very small, very quiet, a whisper.’Black and minority ethnic
groups: Voice and influence was published by TSRC in Briefing Paper
and Working Paper formats in 2013. ‘Black people don’t drink tea.’ The
experience of rural black and minority third sector organisations was published,
again by TSRC, in 2015.

1
INTRODUCTION
Why get below the radar?
The importance of understanding
community groups and activities
There is a growing body of literature on the voluntary, or third,
sector (Milbourne, 2013). Equally, there is a long tradition of research
into communities, stretching back in the UK to the series of reports
produced by the Community Development Projects in the UK in the
early to mid-1970s (Craig et al, 2008).
However, the former tends focus on formal voluntary organisations:
those constituted and regulated by the Charity Commission or
the Regulator of Community Interest Companies or third sector
organisations involved in the delivery of public services (Rees and
Mullins, 2016). Even in studies on smaller groups in the sector, the
focus tends to be on organisations with incomes of between £25,000
and £1 million – namely smaller charities (Crees et al, 2015; Hunter
et al, 2016) – rather than community groups without paid staff, with
little, or no, income and not involved in the delivery of public services.
In the case of the latter, much of the community development
literature has a theoretical focus (Somerville, 2011) or relates to
professional interventions with communities (Taylor, 2015). In short,
relatively little attention has been paid to informal, or semi-formal,
community groups and activities. This situation is neatly summarised
by Toepler (2003) as follows:
Perhaps one of the few remaining big mysteries in non-
profit sector research is the question of what we are
missing by excluding those organisations from empirical
investigations that are not easily captured in standard data
sources. (p 236)
This assertion remains largely true 15 years after it was written.
Yet, as the following chapters in this book argue, it is important to
understand the role of the informal in what is now termed civil society.

2
First, although the statistics are difficult to verify, community-based or
below the radar groups are the largest part of the sector. Across time,
the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’almanacs and profiles
of the sector (Jas et al, 2002; Kane et al, 2015) estimate the number of
such groups at between 600,000 and 900,000. This compares with just
over 165,000 registered charities as of March 2016. Again, much of
the literature on the impact of austerity measures and funding cuts in
the UK has focused on this cohort of organisations to the detriment of
understanding the effects on small-scale community activity (Davidson
and Packham, 2012). Second, this is the space in which, perhaps, a
majority of the population experiences voluntary action – while,
again, the literature tends to focus on formalised volunteering (Ellis
Paine 2013). Finally, successive governments have placed increasing
emphasis, or pressure, on small community groups to deliver on a wide
range of policy agendas: from neighbourhood regeneration through
to community safety, the promotion of health and wellbeing and the
prevention of violent extremism, to name but a few.
In the absence of detailed research on small, informal community
groups and activities, only a partial picture, or understanding, of
voluntary action is available. This may skew understandings of the
nature of civil society and the willingness, or capacity, of informal
groupings to respond to those wider political agendas. It is this gap in
knowledge that the current book attempts to address. It is only a start.
Much remains to be done.
What Community groups in context: Local activities and actions aims to
offer is a picture of the richness and complexity of informal and semi-
formal community activity. The term ‘community’itself has been, and
remains, contested (Hoggett, 1997). The policy focus on community,
either as ‘a problem’ or ‘a solution’, waxes and wanes (Taylor, 2012).
The idea of ‘community groups’ is equally contested. They ‘fail’ to
grow – or, to use the political jargon, ‘scale up’. This has been seen as
evidence of poor management – rather than a desire to stay small and
locally focused (Ishkanian and Szreter, 2012). They can be exclusive,
if not oppressive, in defending entrenched interests to the detriment of
others within communities. Alternatively, they can be a celebration, a
confirmation, of the importance of associational life (Gilchrist, 2009)
or a vital resource supporting vulnerable individuals with limited
recourse to state welfare.
Further, the position of community activity within a distinct entity
called the third sector is subject to debate. Is there a continuum between
large, multimillion-pound charities and small-scale community activity
or is the concept of ‘a sector’ false (Alcock, 2010)? Alternatively, is

3
Introduction
community action qualitatively different either in focus or modes of
working from formal organisation (Gilchrist, 2016)?
This book attempts to capture the complexities and contested nature
of informal community groups and debates on community action.
In Part One, Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore, by way of a
more detailed introduction, offer definitions of the terms used, lay out
the size and scope of small-scale below the radar community activity
and Andri Soteri-Proctor identifies the methodological challenges of
research at a community level.
Part Two opens up the debate on whether community groups
are ‘distinctive’ (Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore), the changing
policy environment within which such groups operate in the UK and
Ireland (Angus McCabe, Niall Crowley) and how they are managing,
or surviving, austerity (Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore).
Part Three places the focus on identifying the diversity of below
the radar community activity and then examines aspects of community
activity that are relatively under-researched in the mainstream third
sector literature – the work of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma groupings
(Andrew Ryder and Sarah Cemlyn) and the role of grassroots arts
organisations (Hilary Ramsden, Jane Milling and Robin Simpson),
black and minority ethnic groups (Lucy Mayblin) and the idea of
‘beyond refugeeness’ for long-established refugee and migrant groups
(Teresa Piacentini). The authors also begin to open up the discussion
on the nature of ‘the sector’ addressed in Part Four.
Part Four explores three emerging themes in voluntary sector
literature. Phil Ware identifies issues of voice and influence for
black and minority ethnic groups, particularly in rural settings.
Angus McCabe and Jenny Phillimore examine activist learning for
community engagement and organising. Finally, Rosie Anderson
examines the role of emotion in community activists’ engagement
with policymaking processes.
The Conclusion then summarises key themes from the current book,
identifies priorities for future research at a community level and reflects
on possible futures for grassroots community action.
References
Alcock, P. (2010) ‘A strategic unity: defining the third sector’, Voluntary
Sector Review, vol 1, no 1, pp. 5-24
Craig, G., Popple, K. and Shaw, M. (eds) (2008) Community development
in theory and practice: An international reader, Nottingham: Spokesman.

4
Crees, J., Davies, N., Jochum, V. and Jane, D. (2015) Navigating change:
An analysis of financial trends for small and medium sized charities, London:
NCVO.
Davidson, E. and Packham, C. (2012) Surviving, thriving or dying:
Resilience in small community groups in the North West of England,
Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University.
Ellis Paine, A., Moro, D. and McKay, S. (2013) ‘Does volunteering
improve employability? Insights from the British Household Panel
Survey and beyond’, Voluntary Sector Review, vol 4, no 3 pp 355-76.
Gilchrist, A. (2009) The well-connected community: A networking approach
to community development, Bristol: Policy Press.
Gilchrist, A. (2016) Blending, braiding and balancing: Combining formal
and informal modes for social action, Working Paper 136, Birmingham:
Third Sector Research Centre.
Hoggett, P. (1997) Contested communities: Experiences, struggles, policies,
Bristol: Policy Press.
Hunter, J. and Cox, E. with Round, A. (2016) Too small to fail: How
small And medium-sized charities are adapting to change and challenges,
Manchester: IPPR North.
Ishkanian, A. and Szreter, S. (2012) The Big Society debate: A new agenda
for social welfare?, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jas, P., Wilding, K., Wainwright, S., Passey, A. and Hems, L. (2002)
UK voluntary sector almanac 2002, London: NCVO.
Kane, D., Jochum, V. Dobbs, J., Pikoula, M., James, D., Crees, J.,
Ockenden, N. and Lloyd, G. (2015) UK civil society almanac 2015,
London: NCVO.
Milbourne, L. (2013) Voluntary sector in transition: Hard times or new
opportunities?, Bristol: Policy Press.
Rees, J. and Mullins, D. (2016) The third sector delivering public services:
Developments, innovations and challenges, Bristol: Policy Press.
Somerville, P. (2011) Understanding community, Bristol: Policy Press.
Taylor, J. (2015) Working with communities, Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, M. (2012) ‘The changing fortunes of community’, Voluntary
Sector Review, vol 3, no 1, pp 15-34.
Toepler, S. (2003) ‘Grassroots associations versus larger nonprofits: New
evidence from a community case study in arts and culture, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol 32, no 2, pp 236-51.

5
PART ONE
Scoping and mapping community
actions and activities

7
ONE
Below the radar? Community groups
and activities in context
Chapter aims
This chapter addresses:
• definitions of ‘below the radar’ community groups and activities;
• the size and scope of informal and semi-formal community activity;
• the contested nature of concepts of below the radar community groups and
activities.
Background
Interest in small-scale, below the radar community groups and activities
has grown in recent times and cuts across a wide range of policy
concerns: from engaging black and minority ethnic (BME) community
organisations in community cohesion agendas and combating violent
extremism, through to commissioning public services at the local level,
supporting grassroots community economic development in excluded
neighbourhoods and involving community-based organisations in
modernising local governance, community safety, asset management,
health and wellbeing.
Under New Labour administrations, it was possible to identify two
key strands to policy relating to small-scale community groups: first,
the expectation that such groups, along with the wider voluntary
sector, would take on a greater responsibility for the delivery of public
services (Home Office, 2004) or the management of previously public
sector assets (Quirk, 2007); and second, an assumption that they had
a role in promoting active citizenship, addressing ‘democratic deficit’
and (re)engaging citizens in democratic processes (Mayo et al, 2013).

8
These developments coincided with a series of investments in
small organisations or, indeed, individuals to develop their capacity
to engage in policy and service delivery, including, for example, the
Active Learning for Active Citizenship programme, Community
Empowerment Networks and, subsequently, Regional Empowerment
Partnerships. In this context:
A healthy community sector is critical for the sustainability
of local communities. It is not an end in itself. It helps
deliver social capital, social cohesion and democratic
participation. Better public investment in the [voluntary
and community] sector will result in a better quality of life
for local people and local communities, partly through their
own direct activities and partly through their interaction
with public services. (CLG, 2007, p 1)
Under the UK coalition and subsequent Conservative governments,
this interest was sustained in the short-lived Big Society initiative
and, subsequently, the Localism Act of 2011 – albeit with both
demonstrating a changed language (from community engagement
to social action, for example) and offering substantially less resource.
Further, the emphasis shifted: citizens, and groups of citizens, were to
be managers of, and volunteers in, what had been public services (such
as libraries) rather than influencing the configuration of those services.
Beyond official government policy, there has also been a growing
interest in community-, or resident-led, change. This has ranged from
the adoption of asset-based community development approaches in the
promotion of health and wellbeing (Glasgow Centre for Population
Health, undated), the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s programme of
light-touch support for community groups involved in neighbourhood
regeneration (Taylor et al, 2007) and the Big Local programme of
resident-led change in England (NCVO et al, 2015).
The wider policy context in which below the radar groups operate
is explored in more detail in Chapters Five and Six.
Defining ‘below the radar’
The phrase under the radar is ungainly, but is the best
available terminology for those organisations which are not
included in the main national registers. The term is often
associated with small community organisations which are
not large enough to register with the Charity Commission

9
Below the radar?
or Companies House and are perhaps associated more
closely with community building and participation
than with service delivery. However, many very small
organisations do register and so suggestions that the under
the radar segment of the sector is synonymous with smaller
charities can be misleading. (OTS, 2008, p 2)
The phrase below, or under, the radar (BTR) is often used to describe
small, community-based organisations and activities in the UK. There
are a number of ways of conceptualising the term. Strictly interpreted,
it refers to groups that do not have a recognised legal status and are not,
therefore, on the Charity Commission or other regulatory registers.
Indeed, the innovation charity Nesta (Marcus and Tidey, 2015, p 10)
takes an even wider view in its definition that ‘below the radar is taken
to mean [any] network of unrecorded social activity’.
Consideration of legal status has dominated understandings of under
or below the radar (BTR) in the literature. For example MacGillivray
and colleagues (2001) use the term BTR to refer to those groups or
activities that are ‘unregulated’or ‘semi-formal’and, therefore, do not
appear in official databases. While it could be argued that this legal or
regulatory approach is appropriate for some parts of the sector, many
very small operations do register in some way, so that they are able to
access funds from grant-making trusts (Zetter et al, 2005; Phillimore
et al, 2009).
The over-reliance on legalistic and financial definitions of below
the radar has been acknowledged (OTS, 2008). Accordingly, some
commentators argue that very small registered organisations and
activities may operate under a financial, rather than regulatory, radar.
There is no consensus about the threshold of income that leaves
activities under the financial radar. The National Council for Voluntary
Organisations (NCVO) describes charities with incomes of less than
£10,000 per annum as ‘micro-charities’(NCVO, 2009). Further, in a
study of resilience in charities using an analysis of the Scottish Charity
Register, McCrae and Nowak (2010) found that 80% of organisations
on the register had incomes of less than £25,000 per annum and that
the majority of these were ‘micro-groups’ with annual turnovers of
less than £2,000.
Thompson (2008), researching BTR third sector groups working
with children and families, identified two funding thresholds:
organisations with funding less than £250,000, which are small, relative
to the big children’s charities; and ‘smaller’under the radar organisations
with income of less than £50,000 per year.

10
Alternatively, CEFET1
(2007) used an annual income of £35,000
to define ‘grassroots or street-level’ organisations when researching
EU-supported social inclusion projects. This level of finance was,
it argued, unlikely to support more than one worker, meaning that
these small groups were likely to be managed from within excluded
communities. Such levels of funding were likely to leave groups with
limited capacity to work beyond their immediate area, or secure longer-
term ‘sustainable’ income streams.
MacGillivray and colleagues (2001) do not identify any maximum
annual income levels associated with being under the radar, preferring
instead to stress the lack of dependable funding of any significance.
This, however, ignores organisations that may hold substantial capital
assets, for example tenants or village halls, but limited annual revenues.
Others may have annual turnovers of over £50,000, or even £250,000,
generated through trading activity such as community centres with bars
or room hire facilities, but employ no full-time or professional staff. The
majority of such groups are likely to fall under a support definition of
under the radar, with incomes of less than £10,000 per annum that are
largely self-generated (Community Matters and LGA, 2006). Similarly,
although the existence of a distinctive BME third sector is contested (see
Chapters Nine and Thirteen), research in this area demonstrates that
it is dominated by small organisations and semi-formalised activities.
A combination of low incomes and irregular funding therefore placed
most migrant and refugee community organisations (MRCOs) below
the radar whether registered or not (Zetter et al, 2005; Phillimore et
al, 2009).
Closely related to the issue of finance, other commentators have
noted the absence of capital resources in small-scale community groups
(NCVO, 2009). Micro-activities or organisations often have no regular
premises or full-time or permanent staff, use of volunteers’ homes or
donated spaces (MacGillivray et al, 2001) – a situation that is particularly
mirrored in small MRCOs (Zetter et al, 2005; Phillimore et al, 2009).
Other forms of radar below which small community groups fall
include:
• a support, funding or capacity-building radar, where activities do not
receive any kind of resource from the state or network organisations
such as Local Development Agencies;
• a policy radar, where organisations or activists are not engaged in any
kind of policy agenda either because they have not been recognised
or credited with any role or have elected to remain outside this
particular radar;

11
Below the radar?
• a technological radar, where community groups have no website or
social media presence (Harris and McCabe, 2016);
• an influence radar, where, despite a desire to influence policy or
provision, organisations are unable to raise awareness about their
concerns.
Once definitions of below the radar groups move beyond purely
legalistic terms of reference, the boundaries become ‘fuzzy’. What
is being researched, or discussed in the policy literature, are ‘micro-
charities’, small-scale cooperatives and social enterprises as well as
unregulated groups. Such a ‘loose and baggy’ approach may therefore
raise questions over the usefulness of the term in understanding small-
scale civil society actions, although it is an issue that also plagues research
into the voluntary sector as a whole (Kendall and Knapp, 2005).
In terms of systemic analysis of community actions, the lack of a
clear definition may be problematic. It is, however, possible to offer
a counter-argument. The majority of literature on the third sector
focuses on formal voluntary organisations and charities. What this
omits is the informal and its importance. For example, while attention
has been paid to the growth of foodbanks (Loopstra et al, 2015)
and time banking (Gregory, 2015), substantially less is known about
informal community exchange and barter systems (McCabe et al,
2013). Attention to formality, therefore, offers only a partial picture
of civil society actions.
The scale of below the radar activity
Little is known about the exact extent of small-scale voluntary,
community or below the radar activity. Discussing the rural voluntary
sector, Blackburn and colleagues (2003) note the absence of a detailed
knowledge about, and therefore the need to map the extent, scale and
nature of, micro-voluntary organisations and community groups in
rural areas. Looking at infrastructure development needs in Greater
Manchester, where mapping has taken place, Martikke and Tramonti
(2005) note that there is still no authoritative list of services and
question whether there can be such a list, given the diversity of the
sector. A lack of understanding of the extent and workings of civil
society organisations, particularly within smaller/more recently arrived
communities, is a recurrent theme, particularly in the literature on civil
society within recently arrived communities (CLG, 2009).
This lack of knowledge about the nature and extent of small-scale
community activity is not just a UK phenomenon. In the US, Holland

12
and Ritvo (2008) argue that the majority of third sector organisations
are not on the Internal Revenue Service records and are not legally
constituted. Toepler (2003) suggests that over 70% of US voluntary
and community organisation (VCOs) are very small organisations, of
which only 30% are registered.
This situation is neatly summarised by Toepler (2003), who concludes
that:
Perhaps one of the few remaining big mysteries in non-
profit sector research is the question of what we are
missing by excluding those organisations from empirical
investigations that are not easily captured in standard data
sources. (p 236)
In terms of measuring, or quantifying, the third sector, there are
161,300 registered charities in the UK (Kane et al, 2015), with a
further 10,000 community interest companies (ORCIC, 2015) and
6,796 cooperatives (Co-operatives UK, 2015). Beyond this there are
estimates of 6,700 (based on data held by Companies House) for the
number of non-profit enterprises with social goals, and of between
3,490 and 5,091 for the number of exempted charities (NCVO, 2009).
In total, therefore, there are just over 200,000 third sector organisations
that are known to regulatory bodies. An additional 127,000 sports and
recreational groups might also be considered as part of the mainstream
sector (Sport England, 2002).
Once the wider term of civil society is applied, the third sector
becomes far more difficult to quantify in robust statistical terms.
MacGillivray and colleagues (2001) argue there are more than 900,000
micro-organisations in the UK. The New Economics Foundation
suggests that there are between 600,000 and 900,000 (cited in NCVO,
2009/Kane et al, 2015) and NCVO consistently estimates that there
are some 870,000 ‘civil society’ organisations. However, over at least
the past decade, the various NCVO almanacs note that the quality of
data on informal community organisations is poor. Further, profiles of
community action do not, as yet, include or quantify virtual/online
actions associated with new social movements (Della Porta and Diani,
1999; Harris and McCabe, 2016).
Depending on which estimate is accepted, these figures suggest that
small community organisations are some three to five times greater
in number than the ‘mainstream’, registered and regulated, voluntary
sector. Yet, as noted, comparatively little is known about the definition,
scale, or functioning of this part of the sector, despite the assumptions

13
Below the radar?
that small-scale community groups and activities can address a wide
range of policy concerns and agendas.
The nature of below the radar activity
Academic research into the third sector is a relatively recent
phenomenon in the UK and beyond. Archambault (1997) describes
the voluntary sector in France as ‘terra incognito’, while American
authors (Minkler, 2005; Holland and Ritvo, 2008) have commented
on the lack of systematic and longitudinal research into voluntary, let
alone community, organisations. The first major studies on scope,
definitions and typology emerged in the early to mid-1990s (Kendall
and Knapp, 1996; Salamon and Anheier, 1997). International and
comparative literature is also in its relative infancy (Barbetta, 1997)
and research into below the radar community activities is even less
developed. Most publications focus on the formal service delivery part
of the sector, and the larger agencies with capacity to formally provide
services (Kendall, 2003; Milbourne, 2013). Research on below the
radar groups is most likely to appear in the community development
literature (Ledwith, 2005; Craig et al, 2008) and to focus on contested
concepts of community and models of working with communities,
rather than community organisations themselves (Banks et al, 2003;
Gilchrist, 2009). Substantive research into below the radar activity is
underdeveloped and relies heavily on anecdote and received wisdom
rather than, necessarily, rigorous evidence.
For example, proponents of asset-based community development
have sought to highlight the social and economic value of small-scale
community activities (O’Leary et al, 2011). In austere times there
has been a particular focus within the formal voluntary sector on
demonstrating their added value, largely in financial terms through
approaches such as social return on investment and social auditing
(Kay, 2011). These techniques have largely been applied to individual
charities delivering public services in an effort to demonstrate cost
effectiveness related to tendering for services and the cost savings that
that effectiveness affords the state. As Mohan and Clifford (2016, p
80) note, unincorporated associations are ‘less likely to report public
service delivery as a key element of their activities’ and have therefore
not adopted or (as Ramsden and colleagues argue in Chapter Eight)
actively resisted such techniques. Quantifying, empirically, the
collective added (or possibly negative) value of community groups
and activities is, therefore, currently, impossible and relies on intuition
rather than evidence.

14
Despite the paucity of quantified data, surveys of small-scale
community activity undertaken to date (RAWM, undated; Soteri-
Proctor, 2011; Robinson and Chapman, 2013) suggest an extremely
diverse ‘sector’. The focus may range from self-help around particular
healthcare and support needs through to short-life community
campaigns on, for example, environmental improvements. Activities
are wide-ranging:
• from arts and sports groups through to informal finance arrangements
(for example, the Pardoner and Committee schemes within BME
communities; Soteri-Proctor, 2011);
• from the sharing of food and clothing (McCabe et al, 2013) through
to informal advice services;
• from the organisation of regular community events through to
‘walking buses’ on routes to and from schools;
• from housing ‘care and repair’ through to ‘shared care schemes’
with older people;
• form service user movements in mental health and learning disability
through to house mosques and churches;
• from local history groups through to those involved in culturally
specific celebrations of religious or other festivals and significant
events in countries of origin;
• from groups campaigning for change through to those committed
to maintaining the status quo or actively resisting change.
The above list is by no means exhaustive. What is not captured, even
in the more detailed, local, surveys, is what might be describes as
‘home-based civil society’: the reading or craft groups that meet in
members’houses rather than any public venue (see Chapter Two of this
volume). Further, these initiatives, more often than not, exist outside
(or actively resist) attempts to formalise the informal through schemes
such as time banks or the creation of local alternative currencies (for
example in Brixton and Bristol).
What merges is a rich tapestry of activity that ‘may … either be
marginal (from the economic perspective) or crucially important (from
the voluntarism or social capital perspective)’ (Toepler, 2003, p 238).
A below the radar sector?
In the US, Toepler (2003), studying ‘grassroots organisations’, notes that
traditional foundational theories of the non-profit sector have taken
the twin failures of markets and governments as their starting point

15
Below the radar?
(Kalifon, 1991). Thus, it may be argued that third sector organisations
exist as alternative providers of goods and services and bring added
value in their capacity to innovate and reach particularly marginalised
groups (Boateng, 2002). Alternatively, others argue that very small
VCOs may make very little contribution in this sphere where they are
driven more by notions of solidarity, mutuality and voluntary altruism
than the provision of professionalised services (Barnes et al, 2006).
Indeed, reflecting on the diverse below the radar activities listed
earlier (and the estimated number of unincorporated associations),
there remains a series of shared, if not unifying, characteristics: an often
implicit belief in the importance of associational life (Gilchrist, 2009),
degrees of informality and being driven by volunteers and activists
rather than paid professionals.
Yet, returning to the literature, what emerges (see, for example,
Chapters Eight and Nine) is a series of reports and research papers
not on ‘a sector’ but a series of sub-sectors. There are, for example,
literatures that are specific to BME groups; faith-based organisations;
tenants’ and residents’ groups; and voluntary arts groups.
BME groups
The literature argues that BME groups are generally concerned with
two main types of activity: filling gaps in public services where the
mainstream has failed to meet needs, and cultural solidarity or identity
(Sivanandan, 1982; Carey-Wood, 1997). Chouhan and Lusane (2004)
found that BME VCOs often provided a range of specialist services
for young people, older people and disabled people, including advice,
health services (mental and physical) and welfare and income support.
Others have noted that such groups also play a role in community
advocacy, campaigns for increased rights, anti-discrimination and access
to mainstream services (McLeod et al, 2001). These studies focus on
the whole BME sector rather than simply BTR activity. Smaller BME
groups focus less on service provision and more on identity politics,
social and cultural support (McCabe et al, 2013).
Faith-based organisations
Little research was undertaken on the role and function of religious/
faith-based social action (FBOs) until the late 1990s (Cnaan and
Milofsky, 1997). FBOs are characterised by their small scale and reliance
on volunteers, with much activity happening in often unconsecrated
and therefore ‘unregistered’places of worship. Since the events of 9/11

16
in the US and 7/7 in London, there has been a growth in research
into FBOs, though again this focuses on two dimensions – their role
in the prevention of violent extremism (Allen, 2010) or addressing
austerity and ‘plugging the gaps’ in welfare systems (Dinham, 2012;
McCabe et al, 2016).
Tenants’ and residents’ groups
Many of the definitions of neighbourhood and residents groups
incorporate BTR activity. Downs (1981, cited in Cnaan and Milovsky,
1997) identifies two types of neighbourhood-based organisations, both
with the primary aim of improving the quality of life of residents. The
first incorporates any group (voluntary, public or for profit) operating
within a neighbourhood and serving the interests of residents. Many
of these will be on the radar of housing providers and social landlords.
The second includes neighbourhood representative organisations.
These are local, completely voluntary, managed by local residents
and seek to represent all residents. Many of them could be argued to
operate BTR financially, if not in terms of campaigning profiles at
the hyper-local level.
Voluntary arts groups
Dodd and colleagues (2008) estimate that there are around 49,140
voluntary and amateur arts groups in England. Of these, it is unclear
how many are below the radar. Churchill and colleagues (2006) see
the voluntary arts as a movement in which people take part voluntarily
for enjoyment, community development, self-improvement and social
networking. Activities are largely self-financed, run by dedicated
volunteers who are passionate about one particular art form, and take
the form of societies, clubs and classes. Little is known in research
terms about the role of formal cultural and arts-based organisations,
let alone BTR activities in this field. Indeed, Benns and Fox (2004)
further sub-divide voluntary and community groups into art forms and
activities, craft, literature, performing arts, visual arts and cross-form,
finding that performing arts represented over two thirds of all groups
in their study area of Dorset and Somerset.
Then, there is an even smaller, specific, literature on rural community
groups (Grieve et al, 2007) and community-based sports associations
(Sport England, 2002), which reflects the segmentation of research
in this field.

17
Below the radar?
Common challenges
While the existing literature tends to sub-divide small-scale community
groups into particular spheres of activity (such as housing), identity
groups (for example, BME organisations) or settings (urban or rural),
there is considerable agreement on the challenges facing such groups
across their spheres of interest. Common themes include access to
finance, policy and influence, and volunteers.
Access to finance
There is a long-established literature, both academic as well as local
surveys, on the difficulties of accessing finance, particularly for small
community-based organisations – whether formally constituted or not.
This stretches back to Rochester and colleagues (2000), Kendall (2003)
and Thompson (2008). Since 2008, with the global financial crisis
and the coalition administration’s introduction of austerity measures,
there has been a growing body of research into the impacts of cuts on
the sector as a whole (Crees et al, 2015; Hunter et al, 2016). Smaller
groups that are particularly below the radar may face a number of
additional disadvantages in the current climate. First, while there is
an emphasis on increasing the role of such groups in service delivery,
it has been argued that pre-qualifying questionnaires and the criteria
outlined in invitations to tender, around annual turnover, fully audited
accounts and so on, actually exclude them from the commissioning
or procurement process (BVSC, 2009) and that the system favours
larger, long-established voluntaries (Kenny et al, 2015). Second, such
small groups may either be ignorant of statutory funding opportunities
(Blackburn et al, 2003) or fail to understand often complex eligibility
criteria (Garry et al, 2006). Third, writing about refugee and migrant
organisation, Lukes and colleagues (2009) make a point that may be
more generally applicable to below the radar groups:
The current trend in funding arrangements is increasingly
pushing MRCOs towards structuring along standard
mainstream principles to increase their chances of securing
commissioned service delivery. This seems to create a
dilemma for MRCOs since it is the case that, the more a
MRCO becomes structured along mainstream standards
the higher the likelihood that it erodes its nature and value
as a grass-roots community initiative. (p 1)

18
Much of the above research, however, applies to small voluntary
organisations historically in receipt of some form of state funding –
whether grants or the now defunct Area Based Initiatives monies. The
experiences of unfunded community groups is qualitatively different.
It may not be cuts to funding per se that threaten such groups but,
for example, the loss of no- or low-cost access to meeting places and
increased difficulties in recruiting volunteers or accessing pro-bono
advice (McCabe, 2010). It is this multiplier effect that threatens such
groups rather than the loss of any single funding source.
Policy and influence
A number of commentators have noted the lack of representation of
informal activities and organisations in policy arenas and the difficulties
they have influencing policy. Thompson’s (2008) research on small
VCOs working in the children and young people’s sector noted the
difficulties groups had trying to gain influence. For example, one of
the informants stated:
‘Small voluntary organisations are not always invited
to consultation sessions and only hear about them in a
roundabout way – again these tend to be held during the
week – even after school is very difficult for us.’ (p 19)
Lack of influence, despite localism and the Big Society initiative,
remains a central issue. While successive governments have stressed
the importance of community engagement in policy formation
and delivery – and more recently on the concept of co-production
(Stephens et al, 2008) –below the radar groups are frequently excluded
(deliberately or unconsciously) from expressing interests or exerting
influence (Ishkanian and Szreter 2012; see also Chapter Thirteen of
this volume).
Volunteers
The Big Society, localism and the transfer of public services is predicated
on the assumption that volunteers, active citizens, are an infinite
resource (Stott, 2011). Yet, looking at longitudinal and social class data,
Mohan (2012) proposes that, over time, the ‘pool’of voluntary activists
is relatively stable and goes on to argue that those in poor communities
are least likely to volunteer. While this may be contested (depending on
the definition of volunteering adopted), recent evidence indicates that
small community groups are struggling to recruit and retain activists

19
Below the radar?
in the face of increasing levels of demand for, and the complexity of
presenting needs faced by, their services (McCabe et al, 2016).
Conclusion: some contested issues
This chapter has argued that the term below the radar has been used
in rather unprecise ways to describe small-scale community activity.
The realities are much more nuanced and complex. Indeed, just as
the concept of community is contested (Hoggett, 1997) so is the idea
of below the radar and the role of small-scale community groups and
activities (Somerville, 2011).
Community, and therefore, community groups, is not simply a
shorthand for ‘good’ – a harking back to a supposed golden era of
‘voluntary-ism’ (Green, 1993). Such groups can be exclusive and
discriminatory as well as inclusive and liberating for participants. They
can respond, at the local level, to the demands of a vocal minority at
the cost of addressing the needs of the less powerful (Cooper, 2008).
Further, the term below the radar has the potential to be patronising.
It is a top-down categorisation, adopted, on occasion, by researchers
and policymakers, rather than a term used by community groups
themselves. It has been described as a deficit model of community
action (McCabe and Phillimore, 2009); such groups fail to grow and
‘scale up’ because they are poorly managed – rather than wishing
to retain a highly local focus and rejecting expansion in favour of
replication.
Much of the contestation about below the radar activity is located
within a wider debate on the current and future position of the third
sector as a whole. Debate has focused on the role of the voluntary
sector in the delivery of public services (Rees and Mullins, 2016) or
on more theoretical, and politicised discussions on the sector’s identity
and independence (Milbourne and May, 2014; NCIA, 2015), with, for
example, Meade (2009, p 124; see also Chapter Four of this volume)
arguing ‘that state-funded NGOs are colonising the few political and
discursive spaces that might otherwise accommodate more “organic”
social movements’. Others (including the coalition administration of
2010-15) suggest that state interventions ‘squeeze out’voluntary action
(Dominelli, 2006) or, alternatively, that ‘community groups transform
the private troubles of support groups into public issues for policy
remediation’. (Labonte, 2005, p 89).
Whatever the limitations of the phrase below the radar as a
description of small-scale community groups, it is increasingly
important to acknowledge, and develop a more nuanced understanding
of, informal community actions and activities that have been marginal

20
in the debates discussed here and under-represented in the mainstream
literature on the third sector. Otherwise small-scale community groups
will remain, in the words of the Community Sector Coalition (CSC,
undated) ‘unseen, unequal, untapped’.
Key learning
• The term ‘below the radar’ is contested. For some it is a useful
shorthand description for small scale civil society actions. For others
it is a pejorative term, implying that community groups lack the
skills and knowledge, rather than the desire, to grow.
• There are various definitions of ‘below the radar’ community
groups. Strictly, the term refers to those not appearing on Charity
Commission data sets or the registers of other regulatory bodies.
Some commentators, however, include ‘micro-charities’: those
organisations that appear on the lists of the regulators, but have
insecure income of under £25,000–£35,000 per annum.
• Small community groups may have a high profile within their own
neighbourhood or community of interest, but exist below various
‘radars’. They may not appear on local voluntary sector or local
authority directories, are unknown to funders and policymakers
or have no online presence.
• ‘Below the radar’community groups and activities form the largest
part of the third sector, but are the least researched and therefore,
perhaps, the least understood part of that sector. Research in this
field has tended to focus on larger, formal and funded voluntary
organisations delivering public services.
Reflective exercises
• Is the term below the radar useful in describing, or understanding, small-scale
community groups and actions?
• What is the role of below the radar activity in austere times: campaigning and
lobbying for change, mitigating the impacts of poverty and inequality though
delivering services or sustaining social relationships?
• In the research literature, below the radar groups tend to be sub-divided
into a series of sub-categories: sports groups, craft associations, faith-based
organisations, refugee and migrant community groups and so on. Such sub-
divisions suggest that such groups have more differences than things they have
in common.To what extent do you agree?

21
Below the radar?
Notes
1
The European Social Fund Technical Assistance organisation for the East Midlands
from 1991 to 2013.
References
Allen, C. (2010) Islamophobia, Farnham: Ashgate.
Archambault, E. (1997) The nonprofit sector in France, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Banks, S., Butcher, H., Henderson, P. and Robertson, J. (2003)
Managing community practice: Principles, policies and programmes, Bristol:
Policy Press.
Barbetta, P. (1997) The nonprofit sector in Italy, Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Benns, K. and Fox, R. (2004) Valuing voluntary arts: The state of the sector
in Dorset and Somerset, London: Voluntary Arts England.
Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2006) Discursive arenas:
deliberation and the constitution of identity in public participation
at a local level’, Social Movement Studies, vol 5, no 3, pp 193-207.
Blackburn, S. Skerratt, S., Warren, M. and Errington, A. (2003) Rural
communities and the voluntary sector: A review of the literature, Plymouth:
University of Plymouth.
Boateng, P. (2002) The role of the voluntary and community sector in service
delivery: A cross cutting review, London: HM Treasury.
BVSC (Birmingham Voluntary Service Council) (2009) Commissioning
and the third sector, Birmingham: BVSC.
Carey-Wood, J. (1997) Meeting refugees’ needs in Britain: The role of
refugee-speciﬁc initiatives, London: Home Ofﬁce.
CEFET (2007) The key to inclusion: A report on the state and potential
of empowerment approaches to inclusion work in the English regions,
Nottingham: CEFET.
Chouhan, K. and Lusane, C. (2004) Black voluntary and community sector
funding: Its impact on civic engagement and capacity building, York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Churchill, G., Brennan, M. and Diamond, A. (2006) ‘“Inform, Include,
Inspire”– the voluntary and amateur arts in the East Midlands’, online
report available at: www.voluntaryarts.org/inform/Inform_Include_
Inspire_CDROM_draft/report_24.html (accessed 13 March 2016).
CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2007) Report from the
Local Community Sector Task Force, London: CLG.
CLG (2009) Summary report: Understanding Muslim ethnic communities,
London: CLG.

22
Cnaan, R. and Milofsky, C. (1997) ‘Small religious nonprofits: a
neglected topic’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol 26,
S3-S13.
Community Matters and LGA (Local Government Association) (2006)
Community buildings – maximising assets, London: LGA.
Cooper, C. (2008) Community, conflict and the state; Rethinking notions
of ‘safety’, ‘cohesion’ and ‘wellbeing’, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cooperatives UK (2015) The cooperative economy 2015, Manchester:
Cooperatives UK.
Craig, G., Popple, K. and Shaw, M. (eds) (2008) Community development
in theory and practice: An international reader, Nottingham: Spokesman.
Crees, J., Davies, N., Jochum, V. and Jane, D. (2015) Navigating change:
An analysis of financial trends for small and medium sized charities, London:
NCVO.
CSC (Community Sector Coalition) (undated) Unseen, unequal,
untapped, unleashed: The potential for community action at the grass roots,
London: CSC.
Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (1999) Social movements: An introduction,
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Dinham, A. (2012) Faith and social capital after the debt crisis, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Dodd, F. Graves, A. and Taws, K. (2008) Our creative talent: The voluntary
and amateur arts in England, London: DCMS.
Dominelli, L. (2006) Women and community action, Bristol: Policy Press.
Garry, K., McCabe, A. and Goodwin, P. (2006) Opening the door: An
evaluation of the Heart of Birmingham Teaching Primary Care Trust Health
and Regeneration Grants Programme, Birmingham: Digbeth Trust.
Gilchrist, A. (2009) The well-connected community: A networking approach
to community development, Bristol: Policy Press.
Glasgow Centre for Population Health (undated) Asset based approaches
for health improvement: Redressing the balance, Glasgow: Glasgow Centre
for Population Health.
Green, D. (1993) Reinventing civil society: The rediscovery of welfare without
politics, London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Gregory, L. (2015) Trading time: Can exchange lead to social change?,
Grieve, J. Jochum, V. Pratten, B. Steel, C. (2007) Faith in the Community:
the contribution of faith-based organisations to rural voluntary action,
Commission for Rural Communities with NCVO, London.
Harris, K. and McCabe, A. (2016) Community action and social media,
Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.

23
Below the radar?
Hoggett, P. (1997) Contested communities: Experiences, struggles, policies,
Holland, T.P. and Ritvo, R.A. (2008) Nonprofit organisations: Principles
and practices, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Home Office (2004) Think smart … think voluntary sector! Good practice
guidance on procurement of services from the voluntary and community sector,
London: Active Communities Unit, Home Office.
Hunter, J. and Cox, E. with Round. A. (2016) Too small to fail: How
small and medium-sized charities are adapting to change and challenges,
Manchester: IPPR North.
Ishkanian, A. and Szreter, S. (2012) The Big Society debate: A new agenda
for social welfare?, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Kalifon, S.Z. (1991) ‘Self-help groups providing services: conflict
and change’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol 20, no 2,
pp 191-205.
Kane, D., Jochum, V., Dobbs, J., Pikoula, M., James, D., Crees, J.,
Ockenden, N. and Lloyd, G. (2015) UK civil society almanac 2015,
London: NCVO.
Kay, A. (2011) Prove! Improve! Account! The new guide to social accounting
and audit, Wolverhampton: Social Audit Network.
Kendall, J. (2003) The voluntary sector: Comparative perspectives in the
UK, London: Routledge.
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. (1996) The voluntary sector in the UK,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kendall, J. and Knapp, M. (2005) ‘A loose and baggy monster:
boundaries, definitions and typologies’, in J. Davis Smith, C.
Rochester and R. Heldley (eds) An introduction to the voluntary sector,
London: Routledge.
Kenny, S., Taylor, M., Onyx, J. and Mayo, M. (2015) Challenging the
third sector: Global perspectives for active citizenship, Bristol: Policy Press.
Labonte, R. (2005) ‘Community, community development and
the forming of authentic partnerships’, in M. Minkler (ed) (2005)
Community organising and community building for health, New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Ledwith, M. (2005) Community development: A critical approach, Bristol:
Policy Press.
Loopstra, R., Reeves, A., Taylor-Robinson, D., Barr, B., McKee, M.
and Stuckler, D. (2015) ‘Austerity, sanctions, and the rise of food banks
in the UK’, British Medical Journal (Clinical research edn), 350, h1775.
Lukes, S., Jones, V. and San Juan, Y. (2009) The potential of migrant and
refugee community organisations to influence policy, York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.

24
MacGillivray, A. Conaty, P. and Wadhams, C. (2001) Low flying heroes.
Micro social enterprise below the radar screen, London: New Economics
Foundation.
Marcus, G. and Tidey, J. (2015) Community mirror: A data driven method
for ‘below the radar’ research, London: Nesta.
Martikke, S. and Tramonti, S. (2005) Spinning the spider’s web,
Manchester: Greater Manchester Centre for Voluntary Organisation.
Mayo, M., Mendiwelso-Bendek, Z. and Packham, C. (2013)
Community research for community development, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
McCabe, A. (2010) Below the radar in a Big Society? Reflections on
community engagement, empowerment and social action in a changing policy
context, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
McCabe, A. and Phillimore, J. (2009) Exploring below the radar: Issues
of themes and focus, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
McCabe, A., Buckingham, H. and Miller, S. with Musabiyimana, M.
(2016) Faith in social action: Exploring faith groups’responses to local needs,
Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
McCabe, A., Gilchrist, A., Harris, K., Afridi, A. and Kyprianou, P.
(2013) Making the links: Poverty, ethnicity and social networks, York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
McCrae, A. and Nowak, I. (2010) Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator:
A short study of resilience in Scottish Charities, Glasgow: Axiom
Consultancy.
McLeod, M., Owen, D. and Khamis, C. (2001) The role and future
development of black and minority ethnic organisations, York, Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
Meade, R. (2009) ‘Classic texts: Jo Freeman. The tyranny of
structurelessness (c. 1972)’, Community Development Journal, vol 44, no
1, pp 123-7.
Milbourne, L. (2013) Voluntary sector in transition: Hard times or new
opportunities?, Bristol: Policy Press.
Milbourne, L. and May, U. (2014) The state of the voluntary sector: Does
size matter?, Paper 1, London: NCIA.
Minkler, M. (ed) (2005) Community organising and community building
for health, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press.
Mohan, J. (2012) ‘Geographical foundations of the Big Society’,
Environment and Planning A, vol 44, no 5), pp 1121-9.

25
Below the radar?
Mohan, J. and Clifford, D. (2016) ‘Which third sector organisations
are involved in the delivery of public services? Evidence from charity
accounts and from survey data’, in J. Rees, J. and D. Mullins (eds)
The third sector delivering public services: Developments, innovations and
challenges, Bristol: Policy Press.
NCIA (National Coalition for Independent Action) (2015) Fight or
fright: Voluntary services in 2015. A summary and discussion of the inquiry
findings, London: NCIA.
NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) (2009) UK
civil society almanac 2009, London: NCVO.
NCVO, Institute for Volunteering Research and Office for Public
Management (2015) Big local: The early years evaluation report, London:
Local Trust.
O’Leary, T., Burkett, I. and Braithwaite, K. (2011) Appreciating
assets, Dunfermline: International Association for Community
Development.
ORCIC (Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies)
(2015) Annual report of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies
2014-15, London: ORCIC.
OTS (Office of the Third Sector) (2008) Draft guidance: National survey
of Third Sector Organisations ‘Under the Radar’ Pilot, London: OTS.
Phillimore, J., Goodson, L., Hennessy, D. and Ergun, E. (2009)
Empowering Birmingham’s migrant and refugee community organisations:
Making a difference, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Quirk, B. (2007) Making assets work: The Quirk review, London:
Communities and Local Government.
RAWM (Regional Action West Midlands) (undated) Under the radar:
A study of voluntary and community organisations not on the business or
charities register, Birmingham: RAWM.
Rees, J. and Mullins, D. (2016) The third sector delivering public services:
Developments, innovations and challenges, Bristol: Policy Press.
Robinson, F. and Chapman, T. (2013) The reality check: Final report from
the second phase of the Third Sector Trends Study, Newcastle: Northern
Rock Foundation.
Rochester, C., Hutchinson, R. and Harris, J. (2000) Small agencies
project report, London: Centre for Voluntary Organisation, London
School of Economics.
Salamon, L.M. and Anheier, H.K. (1997) Defining the nonprofit sector:
A cross-national analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sivanandan, A. (1982) A different hunger: Writings on black resistance,
London: Institute of Race Relations.
Somerville, P. (2011) Understanding community, Bristol: Policy Press.

26
Soteri-Proctor, A. (2011) Little big societies: Micro-mapping of organisations
operating below the radar, Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
Sport England (2002) Participation in sport in England 2002, London:
Sport England.
Stephens, L., Ryan-Collins, J. and Boyle, D. (2008) Co-production:
A manifesto for growing the core economy, London: New Economics
Foundation.
Stott, M. (ed) (2011) The Big Society challenge, Cardiff: Keystone
Development Trust.
Taylor, M., Wilson, M., Pardue, D. and Wilde, P. (2007) Changing
neighbourhoods: The impact of ‘light touch’ support in 20 communities,
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Thompson, J. (2008) Under the radar. A survey of small voluntary and
community sector organisations working with children, young people and
families, London: NCVCCO.
Toepler, S. (2003) ‘Grassroots associations versus larger nonprofits: new
evidence from a community case study in arts and culture’, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol 32, no 2, pp 236-51.
Zetter, R., Griffiths, D. and Sigona, N. (2005) ‘Social capital or social
exclusion? The impact of asylum-seeker dispersal on UK ethnic
minority organisations’, Community Development Journal, vol 40, no
2, pp 169-81.

27
TWO
Getting below the radar:
micro-mapping ‘hidden’
community activity
Andri Soteri-Proctor
Chapter aims
This chapter aims to:
• identify techniques for mapping small-scale and semi-formal‘below the radar’
community groups and activities;
• explore the challenges of getting below the radar;
• place these activities within the wider context of civil society, the voluntary
sector and policy initiative.
Introduction
As noted in Chapter One, below the radar has been used as a shorthand
term for small voluntary organisations, community groups, semi-formal
and informal activities in the third sector (Phillimore et al, 2010), more
traditionally known as the ‘community sector’.
The majority of statistical analyses on the third sector are drawn from
administrative records collected for other purposes, such as the Charity
Commission register of recognised charities in England and Wales or
the register of Companies Limited by Guarantee in Companies House
(Backus and Clifford, 2010; Clark et al, 2010). While knowledge from
these sources contributes towards understanding an important part of
the sector, it is only a part (Clark et al, 2010; Phillimore et al, 2010).
With claims that most organisations in the sector do not appear on
official lists, combined with assertions about their ‘distinctiveness’, there
has been interest in capturing those ‘uncounted groups’ that do not
appear in national data sets and local directories. Examples include a

28
pilot study commissioned by the Cabinet Office (Ipsos MORI Social
Research Institute, 2010), research for the Third Sector Trends Study
commissioned by the Northern Rock Foundation (Mohan et al, 2011)
and Marcus and Tidey’s (2015) pilot data-driven approach to identifying
below the radar groups.
Whichever research approach is taken, there still remain challenges in
capturing and understanding the differences between what constitutes
‘above’ and ‘below’ the radar groups. To illustrate, in the case of work
that adopts an approach of exploring a perceived ‘absence’of voluntary
activity (so-called ‘charity deserts’ – Lindsey, 2012), Mohan (2011)
notes ‘formidable’ challenges in matching information between local
listings and administrative records both in terms of the quality of
local listings and the different definitional boundaries used for what
is included. Further, he notes that this has contributed to varied
estimated ratios on the size of what is on or below the radar: ‘… in
terms of entities with at least some recognisable degree of organisation,
the numbers of third sector organisations might vary by a factor of as
many as nine’ (Mohan, 2011, p 4).
Despite shifting use of terminology (see Chapter Four), government
interest in this part of the third sector is, if still under-researched,
far from new. There have been various policies across different
administrations that are relevant to below the radar activity. These
include black and minority ethnic (BME) community organisations’
engagement with community cohesion agendas (Harris and Young,
2009), grassroots economic development in excluded neighbourhoods,
and the involvement of community-based organisations in modernising
local governance, community safety and health planning and policy
(McCabe, 2010; Phillimore et al, 2010). Alongside these could be
included investment in developing the capacity of small organisations
to engage with policy formation and service delivery, including
Community Empowerment Networks and Regional Empowerment
Partnerships (McCabe et al, 2010).
Under the coalition administration, at least a rhetorical, interest in
community activities reached a high watermark with the Big Society
agenda and the development of community rights in the Localism Act
(2011). While that interest has waned at a national policy level, for
practitioners, it has re-emerged at a more local level alongside asset-
based community development models, particularly in the field of
public health (Glasgow Centre for Population Health, undated; CLES
and NEF, 2013). Here, support for below the radar community activities
(from knitting groups to reading circles) has become a mechanism for

29
Getting below the radar
promoting health and wellbeing and building community resilience
in hard times (Norman, 2012).
Yet, below the radar community activity remains the least well
researched and, perhaps, the least understood part of the voluntary
sector. This chapter draws on the Third Sector Research Centre’s
(TSRC) micro-mapping, or street-level mapping, project. It aims to
further empirical understanding of small, informal and semi-formal
groups and activities through a series of key research questions,
including:
• What do below the radar groups, activities and organisations look
like? What is their role and function and how do they operate?
• Is it possible to more accurately quantify such groups and their
contribution to civil society?
• What are the motivations of those involved in below the radar
groups and activities?
• What is the lifecycle of small-scale community group organisations?
• What is the impact of more informal community action and
organising?
• What is the relationship between informal groups and the formal
third sector?
Mapping the below-radar third sector
To date, most voluntary and community mapping exercises have relied
on secondary data (Mohan et al, 2011). This has involved starting
with regulatory authority (for example Charity Commission) datasets
and supplementing these with information held in local directories.
However, it is the very small informal groups that are least likely to be
captured in regulatory or local listings – a view echoed by other scholars
who have undertaken systematic analyses on different types of listing
(see, for example, work in the US by Grønbjerg and Clerkin, 2005).
Attempting to move beyond official and semi-official sources, TSRC
developed an innovative methodology to complement this work for
the piloted Street-Level Mapping Project (SLMP). This involved going
out on to the streets to actually see what lies beneath these formal,
regulated, third sector radars. The methodology was adapted from
the Local Voluntary Activity Surveys (LOVAS), which was carried
out in 1994 and 1997 and aimed to map and subsequently survey the
entirety of ‘volunteering’ in a number of localities (Marshall, 1997;
Marshall et al, 1997).

30
The definition of below the radar community groups was more
than two people coming together on a regular (rather than one-off)
basis to do activities in and around (public and third sector) space for
not-for-profit purpose. Even with this, however, there are conceptual
biases that are further exacerbated by place-based fieldwork in which
some types of below the radar groups are still likely to be excluded.
These include, for instance, groups that do not have a fixed base, such
as mobile groups and virtual networks, and those that operate from
private dwellings, public houses and cafes – types that are documented
elsewhere (see, for example, Craig et al, 2010). Furthermore, this does
not include those ‘very active citizens’ who in and of themselves are
recognised by some authors as considerable resources to their local
communities – referred to in some literature as ‘great keepers together’
(Seabrook, 1984) but are not necessarily attached to any specific
organisation – formal or informal.
Building on the earlier LOVAS research, the purpose of SLMP was
to find all (or, more strictly, as much as possible) organisational activity
that was taking place in small local areas. The specific commitment
was to go beyond existing records and listings of third sector groups
to seek out activity that might not be listed, indeed might not have an
address or even a name. In other words, those activities that tend to
go ‘uncounted’ and perhaps be described as a ‘hidden’ population of
voluntary action. The research, from the initial data trawls of regulatory
databases and local directories through to the completion of the street-
level work, took one year on a part-time basis, using the support of
volunteers with existing local knowledge and networks.
The areas selected for the street-level mapping, in the West
Midlands and North West of England, were chosen for their differing
demographics. While both score highly on indices of deprivation,
High Street is a superdiverse inner-city locality, while Mill Town is
predominantly a white working-class area. Both the areas involved were
anonymised to comply with the requirements of ethical approval for
the research. The areas studied may be summed up as follows.
High Street
High Street is a residential area consisting of six streets, one of which
includes a high street with restaurants and supermarkets selling a diverse
range of foods, and a mix of faith-based buildings and public buildings,
including a jobcentre and library. Within a few miles of a busy city
centre, High Street is situated in a highly populated ward with more
than 25,000 residents. The ward has a high BME population (82%)

31
compared with the city’s average (30%). It has a long history of migrant
settlement, with an established Asian and Black-Caribbean community
and a recent increase in migrant and asylum-seeking groups. At the time
of the fieldwork in 2009-10, 54% of the population at ward level was
economically active, which was lower than the city’s average of 61%.
Mill Town
Reflecting on experiences from the High Street pilot, a different
approach was used to construct the route in Mill Town to allow more
detailed investigative time. This involved developing contacts and
meeting staff from regional and local infrastructure agencies as well
as local authority neighbourhood liaison officers. Using information
from these meetings, an area was selected with contrasting features
in terms of the ethnic demographic – that is predominantly white
British – though there was anecdotal evidence of a growing refugee,
asylum and migrant population settling in the area. The route was
then constructed by identifying five focal points for voluntary and
community organisations, based on a walking interview with the Chief
Executive of the local infrastructure agency. This was followed up with
street searches and included, where possible, talking to people working
in and around the five focal points of (shared) ‘space’.
The selection of sites offered the potential for a range of insights into
the breadth of groups operating in what seemingly constitute different
Figure 2.1: Map of High Street

32
types of urban area. Further, in research terms, this selection offered
an opportunity to question findings arising from other research in this
field that focuses on formal charities. This includes, for example, the
following assertion:
Charities in the affluent area are more numerous, run by
volunteers, and meet a broad range of social, community
and cultural needs of the community. Charities in the
deprived area are less numerous, meet urgent needs related
to deprivation, and are more likely to be larger charities
run by professionals with statutory funding. (Lindsey, 2013,
p 95)
Fewer charities in deprived areas may not, necessarily, be equated with
less activity to ‘meet urgent needs related to deprivation’.
It could be argued, therefore, that the neighbourhoods selected were,
in some way, atypical of any broader picture of levels of voluntary
action. However, the methods adopted in the micro-mapping have
subsequently been replicated in very different (named) wards in
Birmingham and in one rural community (Whitehead, 2012). Butarova
and colleagues (2013), Atanga and colleagues (2013) and Creta and
King (2014) researched both inner-city neighbourhoods and peripheral
estate, some with diverse communities, others that were predominantly
white working class (but again with similar levels of deprivation), with
very similar results in terms of the volume and diversity of informal
community action.
Digging down below the radar
The process of ‘digging down’below the radar consisted of four levels
of activity. The first three involved identifying:
• regulated and registered organisations at the postcode level using
the Charity Commission and related databases;
• organisations appearing in local authority and voluntary sector
directories, again at the postcode level;
• groups that had an online presence (for example, appearing in online
commercial directories) but did not appear in ‘official’ directories
of voluntary organisations.
The fourth level of activity, undertaken at street level, consisted of
three parts:

33
• solo walks – walking through streets looking at noticeboards and
adverts in, for example, shop windows, outside buildings and
elsewhere;
• visits to buildings and open spaces that people might gather in – for
example, community centres, faith-based buildings, leisure centres
and libraries. In High Street visits were also made to shops on the
high street (attempts to speak with people in shops were, however,
dropped for the second pilot as this proved too time-consuming).
Visits involved scouring noticeboards, and picking up leaflets and
adverts for groups. In two cases, both involving community centres,
researchers were given access to diaries and appointment calendars
to collect information on groups who used rooms to meet at the
centre; and
• conversations and interviews with people who were identified as
having knowledge about activities going on in and around buildings
and the local area.
What was not attempted, largely for resource reasons, was a fifth level
of research activity, namely, the collection of social media activity data
(such as postings on Facebook and Twitter) in the areas investigated: an
approach that has since been refined by Nesta (Marcus and Tidey, 2015).
Researchers used a form to collect basic information on leads and
other potential below the radar groups. That said, even using a simple
four-page form in any systematic way presented challenges – often this
was because while individuals reported having knowledge of groups,
they did not tend to have complete information or even a full name
for the person(s) leading activities.
What does it look like beneath the ‘official’ radar?
One of the most important findings from our street-level mapping
study is the scale and range of informal activity that is going on beneath
the radar of registered organisations. From the substantial amounts of
information collated in just two small locations that amount to 11
English streets, we found at least 58 varieties of self-organised activity
that did not appear on regulatory lists.
We arrived at this figure through a process of elimination from
information on more than 215 entities in local directories by excluding,
for example, groups that did not operate within the street-walking
routes; projects and activities provided by registered charities and
other public and private sector organisations such as businesses, leisure

34
centres and libraries; and activities organised by individuals primarily
to generate their own income, such as judo and language classes.
Moreover, we suspect that this figure (of 58) is a conservative estimate
of below-radar groups and activities in these two locations: with more
time and more resources to follow up incomplete leads, it is highly
likely we would have found a greater number of activities (for example,
reading groups and informal exchange systems).
The niche, the specific, and the very local?
These 58 below-radar groups covered a diverse range of services and
activities, some of which were for those who shared a particular topic
of interest and others for a ‘target community’. These included those
from a particular ethnic background, faith or country of origin, as well
as elderly people, youth groups and disabled people and combinations
of these, such as an Asian elders. Using available data from these
groups, six ‘types’ of below-radar group were identified. While these
categorisations are somewhat arbitrary and simplistic, they have been
devised primarily for descriptive and analytical purposes rather than
to suggest that groups are one-dimensional. Indeed, in reality, findings
show substantial overlap between several of them (see pen portrait 1).
Pen portrait 1: local action group in Mill Town
Meeting place: no fixed abode, though members are known to frequent a
centre for elderly Pakistani men
This is a group of people who have taken responsibility for improving the local
environment by planting flowers in communal areas.
The local authority approached them to ask if they would continue with their
work and offered them (the potential) of a small pot of money on the condition
that they become a constituted group.They were unsure whether they wanted
to do this.
The six categories identified are explained below. Those groups that did
not fit into any of these six categories were classed as ‘other groups’.

35
Arts and music
In this category, art and music appeared to be the central focus of
activity. Four groups were categorised under this type: a jazz group, a
writers’ group, a dance group and an art group.
Multicultural and multiple faith and ethnic identities and activities
This category included activities targeted at people from several (usually
more than two) faiths, ethnicities and countries. Seven groups were
identified as belonging to this category – several of these involved
recent UK arrivals, although some included a mix of established ethnic
communities and new arrivals. Examples include a ‘multinational
football team’, initially set up as part of a community cohesion project
by a registered charity to bring together young isolated (refugee) men;
a young men’s pool club for (isolated) refugee and asylum seekers; and
a patchwork quilting group for refugee and asylum-seeking women.
‘Niche’/specialist interests
This category included groups of people who came together to share
very specific, niche interests. There were three groups in this category:
a dowser group, a group interested in (old-style) film making and film
watching, and another interested in transmitters and radios.
Self-help/mutual support
This category included groups of people who supported each other,
usually through identified shared experiences and mutual monetary
support. Eight groups were classified and included a group for single
mums; a seasonal lone-parent group that met weekly over the summer
at a church hall (see pen portrait 2); parents whose children had died
as a result of gun crime; women’s aid support; and a support group
for people who were hard of hearing.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

XVI.
Rouva Heermanin puheille pyrki hääpäivän aamuna nuori
maalaistyttö, puettuna puoliherraskaisesti. Hän tuli kadunpuoleisesta
pääovesta ja oli niin vakavan ja surullisen näköinen, että sisäkkö heti
pyysi häntä odottamaan ja ilmoitti emännälleen.
— Millä voin teitä auttaa? — kysyi Leena nähdessään tytön, jonka
syvästi murheellinen katse viilsi hänen herkkää sydäntään.
Tänään hän oli niin altis kaikille vaikutuksille, arasteleva ja samalla
valmis hellimään.
— Te ette tunne minua, — sanoi vieras ojentaen kätensä Leenalle.
— Minä olen Lehvistä, Uuraan kotoa, ja tulin — — tulin
onnittelemaan teitä.
Hänen sanansa olivat kuin ulkoa opitut ja lausuttiin vaivoin, mutta
katseessa ilmenevä sieluntuska vangitsi Leenan.
— Oletteko Anja? — huudahti Leena.
— Olen, rouva! — Hänen silmiinsä nousivat suuret kyyneleet ja
putoilivat eheinä kuin helmet rauhattomille sormille, jotka nyppivät

pienen puuhkan karvaa.
— Miksi te itkette, lapsi kulta? — sanoi Leena hellästi. — Onko
kotona jotakin tapahtunut?
— Ei, ei suinkaan!
— Mutta te olette niin surullinen!
— Olen niin — niin onnellinen, kun te pidätte Uuraasta. Minäkin
pidän hänestä. Te olette niin kaunis, ja nyt minä ymmärrän, ettei
Uuras sentään olisi voinut — —
— Rakas lapsi, puhu aivan vapaasti minulle, niinkuin sisarellesi.
Jos sinulla on suruja, niin ehkä voin auttaa.
— Ei, ei, minä menen jälleen, tahdoin vain nähdä teidät ja kaikki.
Älkää puhuko minusta Uuraalle, rouva, ettehän!
Leena alkoi ymmärtää.
— Nyt, Anja, tahdon tietää surusi syyn!
— Sitä en minä voi sanoa teille, rouva, mutta jos Uuras kertoo
teille, on kaikki oikein.
— Niinkuin tahdot — sanoi Leena miettien, — mutta sinun pitää
ymmärtää, että nyt on kysymys kolmen kohtalosta. Jos sinulla on
vaimon oikeus Uuraaseen — —
Anja punastui, niin että silmiin koski, ja hän nousi äkkiä läheten
ovea.
— Vaimon oikeus? — sanoi hän hiljaa.

— Niin, ymmärräthän!
— Ei, ei, ei! — huusi Anja, ja kyyneleet tulvivat kasvoille ja
nyyhkytys painoi hänet jälleen istumaan. — Ei koskaan. Uuras oli
aina niin hyvä, niin hyvä!
Tyttö oli niin sanomattoman avuton ja suloinen tuskassaan, ja
Leena pakotti hänet kohottamaan päätään, hyväili ja lohdutteli,
kunnes Anja kykeni jälleen katsomaan häntä kirkkain ja kuivin silmin.
Yhteinen rakkaus vei nämä kaksi erilaista naista lähelle toisiaan,
Anjan luottavana ja viattomana luonnonlapsena ja Leenan
kokeneena maailmannaisena, jolle rakkaus oli myöhästyneenä
onnena kaikki kaikessa, kiihkeää ja maltitonta. Jos Anja olisi tullut
vaativana, olisi Leena puolustautunut luopumatta oikeuksistaan.
Mutta hän tuli anteliaana, uhrautuvana ja sai vastalahjaksi syleilyn.
Vähänpä Leena aavisti, mitä Anjan mielessä piili. Hän oli itse
jäänyt osattomaksi nuoruuden ensimmäisestä rakkaudesta
joutuessaan kovin nuorena vaimoksi keski-ikäiselle, kuluneelle
miehelle, jota hän hyvin pian inhosi. Anjan rakkaus oli metsän
povessa kasvanut kaikkien hellimänä, ujona, raittiina ja kaikki
kestävänä, taipuen toivomaan, odottamaan, leikkimään suutelojen
sulolla kuin kedon kukkasten kerällä, vaikka sydän oli aina erosta
pakahtua. Hän olisi ollut valmis odottamaan ikänsä taikka
antautumaan tuokiossa hänelle, yhdelle, ja sitten ikuisesti
palvelemaan, kärsimään, jos olisi tarvittu, ja ilossa kukoistamaan.
Hän oli vakava kuin hauta, mieli pyhä ja ehyt, ja Uuraan rakkaus oli
hänelle uskontoa. Siihen hän oli kasvanut ja siinä elänyt, ja siihen oli
molempien koti heidät vihkinyt.

Nyt oli tullut Uuraan oma tahto ja uusi kohtalo Leenan kautta
tekemään kaiken sen tyhjäksi. Kuin unissakävijä, joka vaarallisissa
korkeuksissa kiipeilee itseään loukkaamatta, oli Anja tullut
kaupunkiin tuskansa ajamana. Suru vaati varmuutta, tahtoi nähdä
kohtalonsa kuin rakkaan vainajan, uskomatta kuolemaa todeksi.
Omaa sulouttaan ja puhdasta luonnettaan alentamatta hän paljasti
oudolle naiselle tuskansa luopuen kaikesta, niinkuin jalo nuorukainen
luopuu hengestään maansa onnen ja kunnian puolesta. Hän oli
rientänyt ja sitten alttiina uhrinsa antanut ikäänkuin luovuttaen
kalliin helmen, jonka arvoa ei elämä eikä kokemus vielä ollut
tunnetuksi tehnyt.
Erottuaan Leenasta Anja matkusti suoraa päätä takaisin kotiin.
Häät olivat olleet ja Ulla-emäntä mestarin kanssa palannut Lehviin,
mutta seuraavana päivänä hän ilmestyi jälleen kaupunkiin.
Uuras, joka oli muuttanut vaimonsa tilavaan kotiin, tapasi työstä
tullessaan eteisessä Leenan, kyyneleet silmissä.
— Mikä sinun on, kun olet itkenyt? — kysyi hän levottomana.
— Äiti on taas tullut tänne, — sanoi hän katsomatta mieheensä. —
Hän on surupuvussa. — Kuinka, onko isä — —
— Ei, eihän toki.
— En minä osaa arvailla! — sanoi Uuras maltittomana.
He astuivat Uuraan huoneeseen. Siellä oli äiti jo kynnyksellä
poikaansa vastassa kuultuaan keskustelun.
— Anja on päässyt rauhaan, — sanoi hän katsomatta Uuraaseen.

Tämä ei näyttänyt tajuavan uutisen vakavuutta, katsoi vain heihin
kysyvänä ja hämmästyneenä.
— Kuollutko, nuori, terve tyttö, oliko hän sairas?
— Oli ja ei, kuinka sen käsittää, — selitti äiti vältellen.
— Puhukaa nyt selvään! — huudahti Uuras maltittomana.
— Niin selvään kuin tässä voi mitään puhua. Hän oli
kuolemansairas kenenkään tietämättä. Nyt on enää myöhäistä
päivitellä. Me olemme kaikki olleet ymmärtämättömiä, — sanoi äiti.
Uuras näytti tyyneltä. Vain äiti ymmärsi hänen katseestaan, kuinka
sanoma oli koskenut. Hän jätti naiset ja poistui jälleen kotoa.
— Kertokaa nyt, äiti, kuinka kaikki on tapahtunut, minusta tuntuu
— —
— Anja oli niin terve lapsi kuin kukaan voi olla, jos onni olisi häntä
suosinut — —
Ulla-emäntä pyyhki kyyneleitään.
— Jos onni olisi häntä suosinut — ei, minä en voi sitä sanoa.
— Kuoliko hän tapaturmasta?
— Upotti itsensä.
He olivat kumpikin vähän aikaa vaiti ja itkivät.
— Älkää kertoko Uuraalle, — pyysi Leena, — kuinka Anja kuoli.

— Ei saisi tehdä syntiä synnin päälle tuntoonsa tulematta. Olen
minäkin ollut liian hellä, ja siksi tämä on tullut. Tyttö oli kuin omani
ja nyt kuolemassa vieläkin rakkaampi. Minun täytyy puhua pojalleni.
— Ei, äiti, Uuras on vielä niin nuori. Moittikaa minua.
— Ettehän te tiennyt Anjasta.
— Tiesin enkä tiennyt. Anja kävi täällä hääpäivänä.
— Mikä tuskan mierotie se mahtoi lapsiparalle olla! — huokasi
Ulla-emäntä yhä itkien. — Mitä hän sanoi?
— Hän sai minut uskomaan, että ainoa oikea vaimo Uuraalle olen
minä!
— Ja itsensä se lapsi tuomitsi kuolemaan.
— Hän oli kaunis!
— Enpä tiedä enkä sellaista kysy, rakas hän minulle oli,
jokapäiväinen iloni. Kun ei Uuras enää ollut kotona, ei päivääkään
mennyt, ettei hänen laulunsa ja pikku askartelunsa olisi minua
lohduttanut. Hän näki silmistäni, mitä tahdoin, ja teki sen sanaa
sanomatta, se lapsi.
— Kuitenkin rukoilen, älkää sanoko Uuraalle, kuinka hän kuoli!
— Miksi en sitä sanoisi?
— Uuras ei tiedä Anjan täällä käyneen.
— Se olisi ollut sanottava.

— Ei, ei nyt eikä silloinkaan. Uuras ei olisi voinut eikä tahtonutkaan
mitään muuttaa.
— Totuus on aina lukuun otettava ja tietoon saatettava.
— Ei, ei aina, silloinhan ei tuskalla loppua olisikaan. Mitä auttaa
meitä surullinen totuus, kun asia on jo tapahtunut eikä sitä voi
toiseksi tehdä? Anja on kuollut.
— On vain yksi syy, joka minua pidättää. Pojallani on vaimo.
Vaikken hyväksy tämmöistä salaamista, en tahdo tunkeutua teidän
kahden väliin.
— Mutta jos asia tulee sanomalehtiin! — huudahti Leena.
— Tulee kuolemanilmoituksena, että äkkiä kuoli. Niin on sovittu.
— Tietävätkö siitä ihmiset siellä — — kylässä? — kysyi Leena.
— Tottahan, kun löysivät joesta.
— Oh!
Molemmat naiset viettivät keskipäivän synkissä mietteissä. Ja kun
Uuras tuli, oli hänellä mukanaan sanomalehti, jossa oli Anjan
kuolinilmoitus.
— Kuinka se on tapahtunut? — kysyi hän äidiltään.
— Niinkuin kuolema toisinaan äkkiä kohtaa, — sanoi äiti.
— Minä kysyin: kuinka, älkää peitelkö!
— Rakas Uuras, äiti ei kai voi muuta sanoa! — huomautti Leena.

— Äiti tietää sen.
— Älä kiivastu!
— Tämä asia koskee minua hyvin läheisesti, ja nyt minä tahdon
sen tietää.
— Vaimosi tietää kaikki, minä olen jo kertonut hänelle. Ja nyt,
poika, ole mies ja tulkaa toimeen keskenänne.
He jättivät asian sillä kertaa, ja Ulla-emäntä lähti kotia kohti
samana päivänä.
Suru oli Leenalle vierasta. Hän ei sitä vielä tuntenut missään
muodossa eikä voinut ymmärtää miehensä tuskaa, joka suorastaan
loukkasi häntä.
— Äiti on kertonut sinulle. Puhu, älä kiusaa minua! — sanoi Uuras.
Leena katsoi ääneti ja moittivin silmäyksin miestään.
— Minun olisi pitänyt sanoa sinulle aikaisemmin, etten koskaan voi
unohtaa sitä tyttöä, mutta enhän itsekään tiennyt, kuinka lähellä
sydäntäni hän oli. Kerro, kuinka…? —
— Anna minulle aikaa. Se ei ymmärtääkseni ole liikaa. Uskoin
olevani ainoa nainen sinun maailmassasi, ja nyt — — —
— Olet kuolleelle mustasukkainen.
— Soisin voivani olla, se olisi luonnollinen tunne. Ei, elämääni on
tullut jotakin kolkkoa, ammottavaa tyhjyyttä. Uuras, näin ei olisi
pitänyt käydä.

— Sinä ajattelet itseäsi. Mutta nyt onkin puhe Anjasta, ja Anjasta
tahdon tietää. Etkö sinä käsitä, puhu hänestä!
— Kuinka se sinuun koskee! Sinä rakastit häntä, sinä rakastit
häntä ja otit minut.
Uuras painui tuoliinsa peittäen kasvot käsiinsä ja pyysi yhä:
— Kerro, kerro, mitä tiedät!
Leena puristi yhteen huuliaan ja sanoi ääntään alentaen:
— Siinä ei ole enempää kerrottavaa kuin mitä jo tiedät!
Uuras katsoi häneen epäillen ja tarttui väkivaltaisesti ranteeseen:
— Sinä et puhu totta!
Leena irroitti kätensä ja hillitsi suuttumuksensa.
— Me kaksi olemme syypäät. Siinä on jo kylliksi, enempää en
tiedä!
Hän jätti miehensä yksin, poistuen hitain askelin.

XVII.
Oli kulunut viisitoista vuotta. Pienen kaupungin kehitys oli näinä
vuosina ollut ripeä. Uusi, yksityinen rautatie vei nyt täältä sisämaasta
etelää kohti rannikkokaupunkiin. Satama oli kokonaan uudestaan
rakennettu tyydyttämään suuresti vilkastunutta laivaliikettä. Uuraan
rakkaat suunnitelmat, joiden mukaan Onttolan kartanosta
lunastettaville tonteille oli rakennettava uusi, komea kaupunginosa
lähemmäksi asemaa, olivat toteutumassa, ja vanhasta
esikaupungista oli vain muisto jäljellä.
Heti ensimmäisinä vuosina oli Uuras rakentanut Leenan talon
uudestaan. Se oli nyt kaunis puutalo puiston keskellä, mutta
huoneiden luku ja järjestys, muutamia mukavuuden ja parannusten
muutoksia lukuunottamatta, oli jotakuinkin sama kuin ennenkin.
Vaimonsa kautta hän oli alusta saakka joutunut ahdasmielisessä
pikkukaupungissa tarkoin valikoitujen johtohenkilöiden piiriin ja
saanut enemmän sananvaltaa kuin täällä yleensä kellekään
yksityiselle suotiin. Se oli ollut Uuraan kehitykselle verrattoman
edullista, ja se ero, joka siinä suhteessa oli ollut Uuraan ja Leenan
välillä iän ja aikaisempien olosuhteiden luomana, oli vähitellen
tasoittunut. Mutta rauhaton, kiihoittunut toiminnan elämä oli
katoavan nuoruuden mukana haihduttanut myöskin sen vähäisen

lämmön, jota luonto niin säästeliäästi oli Uuraalle suonut, ja hänen
jyrkkä ja käskevä tapansa käsitellä kotioloja, aivan kuin jatkaisi työn
komentoa rakennuksilla, teki usein Leenan elämän raskaaksi ja
tukalaksi. Toisaalta tämä kiireinen toiminta ei suonut aikaa eikä
antanut aihetta varsinaiseen hengenviljelykseen, ei edes siinä
määrässä kuin pikkukaupungin oloissa olisi käynyt päinsä.
Aluksi Uuras oli Anjan kuolinsanoman saatuaan tuntenut
vastenmielisyyttä Leenaa kohtaan, ja hyvin tietäen, että sellainen
tunne oli väärä ja kohtuuton, hän moitti siitä itseään tekeytyen
huomaavaiseksi aviomieheksi. Mutta tämä ristiriitaisuus hänen
elämässään nyhti irti kaikki aikaisemmin vaalitut hennot
lemmentaimet tehden maaperän niille karuksi ja samalla laajentaen
juopaa aviopuolisoiden välillä.
Oli taaskin kevät ja Lehvin seppä, jota Leena puhutteli ukiksi,
vieraili poikansa ja miniänsä luona, osaksi auttaakseen poikaansa
töiden kaitsemisessa, mutta oikeastaan ollen "itseään
tuulettamassa", kuten hän sanoi.
Leena viihtyi herttaisen ukon seurassa ymmärtäen tämän
leikinlaskua, vaikka se toisinaan olikin hiukan karkeatekoista. Hän
nauroi ensin sydämen pohjasta ja punastui sitten jäljestäpäin, jos
oikein kovalle otti.
— Minä nautin keväästä niin sanomattomasti, — sanoi Leena. —
Tunnen itseni kymmentä vuotta nuoremmaksi. Oh, kuinka nämä
päivät kulkevat nopeaan, tahtoisin pidättää niitä ja elää uudestaan ja
uudestaan jokaisen hetken. Aika on niin kallista, niin kallista!
— Kyllähän se maksaa paljon rahaa, täällä teillä! — sanoi ukki.

— Kuinka niin? — ja samalla Leena vilkaisi ukkiin.
— Täällä on niin hiivatin suurellista.
— Pelkkää jokapäiväisyyttä. Elämän pitäisi olla kuin juhlaa. Minä
taistelen vanhuutta vastaan ja puolustan urhoollisesti elämäniloani.
Maailmassa on niin paljon onnea, ja minun asiani on sitä itselleni
anastaa.
— Kaihan Leenan kelpaa, mutta ollappa Uuraan pöksyissä — siinä
saa olla kuin ukkosen jyrinä! Työmiehet reistailevat.
— Ainahan ne rettelöivät.
— Rettelöivät niin, kun näin kaupungin oloissa kaipaavat tätä
tällaista komeutta ja elämän makeutta.
— Eikös ukki sitä kaipaa? Eikö elämä täällä tunnu aika somalta?
— Ei se minulta täällä oikein luonnista. Pitäisi olla tärkkikaulus ja
lankkisaappaat enkä minä vanha mies sellaisiin kakkuloihin rupeaisi.
Leena siirtyi lähemmäksi ukkia ja lyöden polvelle kehoitti:
— Kertokaa nyt taas jotakin hauskaa!
— Mistä, Uuraastako?
— Niin, tietysti. Millainen Uuras oli siellä kotona, ennen muinoin?
— Aika veijari, juoksi keinut ja tanssit ja rimputteli hanuria.
— Taisi olla aika velikulta!

— No, ennen varjelen kapallisen kirppuja, ennenkuin sellaista
poikaa hulluttelemasta!
— Sellainen monihenkinen veijari! — nauroi Leena.
— Ja suurellinen. Ei kelvannut enää olla Henrikssonni, se oli
moukkamaista ja ruotsalaista ja mitä lienee ollut sonnimaista! Ja kun
se opettajakin, se niin Tohu, sitä komenteli, niin poika otti nimekseen
Uuras, ja se on sitten aina vaan pelkkä Uuras. Taitaa sentään
asiapapereissa olla Karl Henrik Uuras. Sen nimen mukana häneen
sitten meni sekin työpiru. Sen työn kanssa se yötä ja päivää reistaili.
Ahjossa piti olla sellainen tohu, että toiseen kylään kuului, ja
pajamies sai lyödä moukarilla, niin että mäki notkui, ja itse se
tanssitti vasaraa raudalla ja käänteli pihtejä kuin masiina, ja kalu tuli
aina kuin valettu. Mutta sitten se äkkiä jätti kaikki ja meni Helsinkiin.
— Hänen paikkansa ei ollut kyläsepän pajassa.
— Lieneekö tämä sen parempaa elämää?
— Ainoata mahdollista hänelle.
— Rettelöitä ja rahan kanssa pelaamista.
— Onko Uuras puhunut teille rahoista?
— On, kuuluu tarvitsevan uutta työtä päästäkseen vähän
väljemmälle.
— Oh, nyt kun minäkin olen niin ahtaalla. Olen ottanut velkaa.
— Eihän Leenalla voi olla velkaa. Sehän on sitten Uuraan velkaa!
— Minulla on kuitenkin, — sanoi Leena hiljentäen ääntään.

— Tietääkö Uuras?
— Ei, sehän siinä onkin tukalaa!
— Sanokaa suoraan pojalle kaikki!
— En uskalla, sanokaa te hänelle, minä pyydän teitä sanomaan.
— Ei, en minä mene puun ja kuoren väliin! — torjui ukki nostaen
kämmeniään.
— Uuras ja minä emme ole puu ja kuori, — sanoi Leena huoaten
raskaasti.
— Mitä puhetta se on?
— Älkää välittäkö. Tänään on meidän kuudestoista hääpäivämme.
— Senkö vuoksi täällä on ollut koko viikon vieraita?
— Niitä on aina. Minä rakastan iloa ja elämää!
— Entä Uuras?
— Uuraalla pitää aina olla kaikkein komeinta ja kalleinta, aina joku
suuri työ ja armeija ihmisiä ympärillään. Minä taas rakastan
päivällisiä ja iltakutsuja ja muuta seuraa, pidän ompeluseuroja ja
muita kokouksia. Minulla on paljon yhteisiä hommia kaupungin
naisten kanssa. Oh, mitä niistä, se kuuluu jokapäiväiseen leipään.
— Onpa se suurireikäinen leipä, — huomautti ukki.
— Niin, reikää se kyllä on tehnyt. Kas niin, nyt olen taas unohtanut
tanssiaispukuni. Tilalla on suuri juhla kaupungintalolla.

Leena-rouva jätti ukin yksin tupakoimaan Uuraan huoneeseen ja
kiirehti salin kautta omalle puolelleen.
Hetken kuluttua joku avasi oven ulkopuolelta, ja Uuras astui
sisään. Hän oli matkapuvussa, päällystakki hiukan savessa ja
matkalaukku kädessä. Hänen säännölliset piirteensä olivat
muuttuneet jyrkiksi, tuima katse oli pistävä ja ryhti entistä
käskevämpi. Hän oli koko lailla hermostunut, rauhaton ja helposti
tulistuva, kuten mies, joka tahtoo kiihkeällä työllä saavuttaa
mahdollisimman nopeasti jonkin päämäärän. Hän ei mitannut
koskaan voimiaan, ei empinyt toimissaan, oli kaikkia kohtaan
suorasanainen ja vaatelias ja omaisilleen itsekäs ja kova.
— Terveisiä matkalta, isä! — sanoi hän laskiessaan
matkalaukkunsa makuuhuoneen ovelle ja riisui päällystakkinsa sen
päälle.
— Tulet kai työmaalta, kun takkisi on savessa, — sanoi ukki ja vei
päällystakin eteisen naulaan.
— Menin sinne suoraan junasta, — sanoi Uuras astellen lattialla
kiivaasti kuin mieltään lauhduttaakseen. — Poissa ollessani ne vintiöt
ovat tehneet vallan ihmeitä.
— Katselin sitä minäkin, — muistutti ukki.
— Katselitte kyllä, miksette sitten sanonut niille? — kivahti Uuras.
— Ovat muuranneet kutomasalin seinään ne kelvottomat tiilet, jotka
jo hylkäsin. Niissä oli huonoa savea.
— Kyllähän minä sitä toimitin, ettei saisi ottaa siitä kasasta.
— Päätyseinä pullistaa hiukan yhdeltä kohtaa.

— Eikö miehet itse huomaa? — ihmetteli hänen isänsä.
— Kyllä minä ne panin huomaamaan, mutta niillä peeveleillä on
jokin syy kiusantekoon. Se on aivan ilmeistä.
— Eikös voi sopia? — kysyi ukki katsoen sivulta poikaansa.
— Sopiako, hoh, yksi tahtoo yhtä, toinen toista, kaikki ovat sisua
täynnä eikä kukaan tottele!
— Valitatko sinä, ettei totella? Sinähän olet aina saanut kivetkin
kiirehtimään!
— Kiirehän sillä tehtaan työllä on. Ne juupelit tietävät sen, että
joka päivä merkitsee minulle paljon. Ja nyt ne tahtovat näyttää
olevansa herroja markkinoilla. Tehdään erehdyksiä — pura pois,
juopotellaan — odota! Tehdas kiristää, ja minä saan maksaa sakot
myöhästyneestä työstä. Tämä nahjusteleminen on niin vietävää!
Leena tuli salista sanomalehti kädessä.
— Vihdoinkin pääsit kotiin, tervetuloa! Katsos, tässä on sanottu,
mikä päivä tänään on! — sanoi hän yrittäen lepyttää miestään, joka
yhä astui lattialla otsa rypyssä.
— Se onneton hääpäivä kummittelee joka vuosi, ja ne lahjoitukset!
— Sinä et sitä koskaan muista.
— Et ole puhunut minulle mitään.
— Muutama satanen, onhan se aina ollut tapana Onttolassa,
vanhat palvelijat — —

— Emmehän toki iankaikkisesti ole velvollisia elättämään Onttolan
palvelijoita, kun ei ole mitään tekemistä kartanon kanssa!
— Kuitenkin oma hoitajani — —
— Ota tänne hoitaaksesi! — huusi Uuras suuttuneena. Äkkiä hän
muisti matkalaukkunsa ja otti sieltä pienen salkun laskien sen
työpöydälleen. — Meillä ei ole liikoja rahoja, sen olen sinulle tuhat
kertaa sanonut. Elämme ihan yli varojemme, ja minä olen saanut
suuria tappioita. Koeta pitää muistissa!
Leena katseli miestään alistuvaisena ja ääneti.
— Sinä kai tarvitset talouteen. Tässä on muutama kymmen, —
jatkoi Uuras ottaen kukkarostaan seteleitä. — Minulla ei nyt ole edes
kahta tuhatta. Täytyy saada sairashuoneen urakka päästäkseni taas
käsiksi rahoihin. Sekin, minkä nyt naapurikaupungista sain, on jo
ennen suolattu.
Ukki oli Leenan tultua pujahtanut ulos ja palasi nyt mukanansa
joukko työmiehiä.
— Käykää peremmälle! — sanoi hän.
— Tulimme ilmoittamaan, ettei sitä seinää pureta eikä muurata.
Syy ei ollut meidän, tiilet olivat työmaalla, — puhui eräs muurari
kaikkien puolesta, sittenkuin Leena oli poistunut.
— Hyvä on, menkää sitten muualle työhön! — sanoi Uuras
varmasti.
— Ja mestari tuottaa väkeä muualta?

— Jos hyväksi näen.
— Olemme tässä ajatelleet jatkaa töitänne kaikessa sovussa, jos
te, mestari, luovutatte sairashuoneen urakan meidän työkuntamme
omaksi. Se ei olisi mestarille kovinkaan suuri eikä tärkeä, mutta
meille se sopisi hyvin, — puhui mies.
— Vai sopisi hyvin! Onko teillä takuita?
— On ja hyvät onkin! — vastasi mies.
— Saako tietää, keitä ne ovat? — kysyi Uuras hiukan ihmetellen.
— Se on toistaiseksi liikesalaisuus, — sanoi muuan nuori
työnjohtaja Murtola, joka oli parina viime vuonna suorittanut pikku
urakoita yhdessä eräiden muurarien kanssa.
— Eihän ne takuut häviämästä pelasta, mutta vapaus yrittää teillä
tietysti on niinkuin minullakin. Miksi te panette tehtaan työn
riippumaan tästä?
— Herrat eivät sokaise herrain silmiä, ja jos te, mestari, kilpailette,
ei sitä meille anneta.
— Kiristystä siis.
— Me odotamme päätöstänne.
— Tehkää hiivatissa, mitä tahdotte, ja menkää! — huusi Uuras.
— Mestari komentaa. Kyllä mennään, jos haluttaa, ja tullaan, kun
mieli tekee. Me olemme omia herrojamme. Jos sisu kiehuu
meikäläisen mekon sisässä, niin siihen on syynsä. Te elätte
ruhtinaiksi, tahdotte käskeä ja komentaa ja herrastaa ja hallita.

Kerran se tulee meidänkin vuoromme. Me tahdomme ensin syödä
kylliksemme ja sitten koetella voimia. Nyt se alkaa, mestari,
jumaliste, nyt se alkaa — —!
Miehet murisivat hyväksymisensä, ja Uuras huusi:
— Hiljaa, tämä ei ole markkinapaikka!
— Tarjoukset tarkastetaan pian ja — — huomautti Murtola.
— Kuulutte olevan hyvä työnjohtaja! — keskeytti Uuras.
— Teen aina parhaani, — sanoi Murtola.
— Osaatteko totella?
— Osaan, kun näen sen hyväksi! — vastasi nuori mies ja katsoi
tiukasti Uuraaseen.
— Murtolaan me luotamme, — sanoi muurari, — mennään miehet,
ei tää pyytelemisestä parane! — ja he poistuivat.
Murtola aikoi seurata heitä, mutta Uuras pidätti.
— Jääkää, tahtoisin kysyä teiltä muutamia asioita.
Murtola astui lähemmäksi pysyen kunnioittavassa asennossa. Hän
oli nuori, hartiakas, avokatseinen mies, joka vaatteiltaan ja
esiintymisensä puolesta näytti sivistyneeltä.
— Ettekö tahtoisi ruveta minulle töihin ja sitten liikekumppaniksi?
— kysyi Uuras suoraan.
— Minä olen heidän yhtiömiehensä.

— Ettekö voisi luopua?
— En!
— Sanon teille edeltäpäin: ellei teissä ole miestä ottamaan työtä
miehistä irti, niin selkäänne saatte.
— Meillä ei ole tarpeen minun panemani pakko, kun olemme
yhteistyössä, — sanoi nuori mies tyynesti.
— Yhteistyössä, sehän se onkin niin perin ääliötä. Vai luuletteko
työmiestä sellaiseksi aasiksi, että hän raataisi hiki hatussa
kumppaniensa hyväksi? Yhteistyö, turhaa lorua!
— Rakennusalalla yhteistyö on mahdollista, — väitti Murtola.
— Siinäkin tapauksessa, että työväki vetäisi eri köyttä, niinkö?
— Silloin se tietysti ei ole viisasta, — myönsi toinen.
— Siinä sen näette. Se aate on kyllä hyvä, mutta sen perustaksi
pannaan toinen aate ihmisten täyspätevyydestä, mutta se pettää.
— Periaatteessa täytynee kuitenkin myöntää, että työmme yleensä
on jonkun verran yhteistyötä.
— On, minä olen esimerkiksi rakennuttanut itselleni tämän talon,
suunnitellut piirustukset, antanut mitat ja suhteet, tehnyt
luonnoksenkin. Soveltaminen ja tekniikka on arkkitehdin, mutta syy,
miksi näin olen rakentanut, ei ole enää minusta riippuvainen.
— Sellaisten syitten toteuttaminen onkin juuri yhteistyötä, —
muistutti Murtola.

— On, mutta se juuri on heikkoutta ja varman suunnan puutetta.
Minä en silloin enää ole oma itseni, en määräämässä enkä
päättämässä, enkä myöskään vastuussa.
— Ja kuitenkin voi sellainen yhteistyö olla joukolle edullista, sen
onneksi, vaikkei olekaan persoonallista.
— Mutta minulle se on vastenmielistä, painaa minut
mitättömyyteen, narriksi. Teidän yhtiönne on joukko sellaisia narreja.
Tuohon käteen, herra Murtola, me teemme liiton! — puhui Uuras
ojentaen kättä nuorelle miehelle.
— Emme, herra Uuras!
Uuras astui maltittomasti sivuhuoneen ovelle ja raotti sitä.
— Eliisa, tulehan tänne, tahtoisin saada sairashuoneen
piirustukset.
Herra Murtolan on vuoro saada ne katseltavikseen.
Pian ilmestyi ovelle nuori nainen. Hän oli vaalea ja hento; kasvot
olivat pitkäkkäät, kapeat, otsa leveä ja kaunis ja leuka suippeneva.
Hoikka vartalo oli hiukan etukumarassa, mutta kaikki elo oli hänen
harmaissa silmissään, jotka enimmäkseen kätkeytyivät luomiensa
suojaan alas painuneina, vain toisinaan omituisesti välähtäen, ja
silloin vasta hänet huomasi ja heräsi kysymään: — Kuka hän on?
Hän astui piirustustelineen luo Uuraan laajan työhuoneen toiselle
puolelle ja nyökättyään Murtolalle antoi Uuraalle muutamia
paperikääröjä.
— Tässä ne ovat, käärinkö ne paperiin?

— Tee se, lapsi! Mitä sanot, Eliisa, jos meidät vapautetaan
sairaalan urakasta?
— Luovutteko kilpailusta, mestari Uuras? Eliisa kätteli Murtolaa
tutunomaisesti.
— Oletteko ennestään tutut? — kysyi Uuras.
— Olemme olleet luokkatovereja yhteiskoulussa, — selitti Eliisa.

XVIII.
Eliisa oli orpotyttö, jonka molemmat vanhemmat olivat kuolleet,
ensin isä, Uuraan töissä ollut työnjohtaja, ja sitten myöhemmin äiti
tytön ollessa kymmenen vanha. Vanhemmilta oli jäänyt hiukan
varoja, ja kun Uuras määrättiin holhoojaksi, päätti hän kasvattaa
tytön omalla kustannuksellaan. Alusta saakka oli Eliisaa pidetty kuin
omaisena perheessä, ja vuosien kuluessa tämä läheinen suhde oli
yhä vahvistunut.
— Niin, sinähän kävit kuusi luokkaa, — sanoi Uuras. — Oletteko
ylioppilas? — kysyi hän Murtolalta.
— En, erosin jo viidenneltä ja menin teollisuuskouluun, — selitti
nuori mies.
Saatuaan Eliisalta paperit käärittyinä hän poistui.
— Saat panna tulojen puolelle kerrankin taas kymmenen tuhatta,
jotka nostin loppueränä Isakssonin työstä. Se oli hyvä urakka, kiitos
vain sinulle, lapsi, yhteistyöstä!
— Kassa onkin aivan tyhjä, — sanoi Eliisa.

— Mutta kulkutautisairaalan menot ovat pennin päälle kuitatut, ja
minä saan olla onnellinen, kun vielä on takki päälläni ja housut
jalassani ja ne aivan ehjät, — puhui Uuras nauraen.
— Onhan tämä talokin omanne, — huomautti nuori tyttö.
— Sitä en koskaan laske. Sehän kuuluu Leenalle.
— Te olette tehnyt niin hirveästi työtä nämä vuodet.
— Niin, en ole yhtään arkiaamua saanut nukkua kello neljästä
eteenpäin. Katsos, korvalleni on ilmestynyt hopeata. Mutta hittoko
sitä muistamaan! Nyt olemme perillä, ja valtion tarkastaja piti
minulle päivälliset ja sanoi puheessaan, ettei hän ollut koskaan vielä
sattunut tarkastamaan niin suurta työtä eikä niin suurella tappiolla
suoritettua eikä niin erinomaisen hyvin tehtyä, aivan yksityisseikkoja
myöten ensiluokkaista työtä. Mitä sinä, lapsi, siihen sanot?
— Se on suurenmoista ja niin surullista, kun teiltä meni suuri
omaisuus.
— Kolme vuotta sitten ei voitu tietää, että työpalkat äkkiä
nousisivat melkein puolella, samoin rakennusaineet ja kaikki
kustannukset. Jos olisin vähänkin hidastellut tai itse väsynyt, olisin
nyt yli korvieni velassa, — selitti Uuras nuorelle konttoriapulaiselleen.
Eliisa oli jo pari vuotta hoitanut Uuraan tilejä käytyään
kauppakoulua yhteiskoulusta erottuaan.
— Niin monet ovat sanoneet, että mestari teki siinä urakassa liian
hyvää työtä — —

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Community Groups In Context Local Activities And Actions Angus Mccabe Editor Jenny Phillimore Editor

More Related Content

Similar to Community Groups In Context Local Activities And Actions Angus Mccabe Editor Jenny Phillimore Editor (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Community Groups In Context Local Activities And Actions Angus Mccabe Editor Jenny Phillimore Editor