Classifications

Is the initiative financially independent (e.g. through voluntary donations, voluntary work or self-organized funding (soliparties, crowdfunding) or is its funding by the state, foundations or other external funders linked to certain conditions?

Context:

• Financial independence often means real independence and vice versa. Depending on the type of service, complete financial independence is probably impossible, because even with self-organized funding, people are dependent on donations, for example. The dependence becomes problematic if the practice of the offer or the other political classifications are restricted by the donor.

Criteria:

• Who gives the money. Is it direct government or commercial funding, or is there a foundation behind it (if yes, which one)? (As non-independent the EU paper mentions: State and its agencies, political parties, church institutions, trade unions & employers' associations).
• Which foundation is funding? What is the orientation and motivation of this foundation?
• How much of the initiative's budget is covered by grant money? (The Transparent Civil Society Initiative sets a threshold at 10% of total revenue).
• Is there a deliberate choice of funding source to maintain as much independence as possible? (KuB communicates that: "We are independent. In order to be able to do the work in the KuB, we are often dependent on funding institutions/donors. We do not get involved in funding conditions that contradict our basic attitude and want to express criticism publicly and not keep quiet for fear of (potential) funders."

Sources:

• Transparency Deutschland
• Selbstverständnis KuB
• Die Förderung der Rolle gemeinnütziger Vereine und Stiftungen in Europa

Is the initiative organized on a grassroots level? Can co-workers bring in their concerns and criticism and do they have influence on the offer? Is criticism (also from those seeking support) taken seriously?

Context:

• Grassroots democratic structures are able to adapt better to real needs and circumstances. For example, power-critical approaches or demands for independence of the offer can be enforced more effectively. Moreover, grassroots democracy reflects a way of working that anticipates a coming society and practices it already now.

Criteria:

• "The initiative/organization is organized in a grassroots democratic way. Each member has equal rights and influence in matters that affect everyone. Restrictions are only possible for temporary or probationary staff members with regard to decisions that go beyond their own retention in the company. There is openness regarding the form of co-determination, e.g. with or without consensus & with or without the right of veto. Likewise, it is open whether everyone must always have a say in everything or is only responsible for their area, etc." (Label Union Coop, adapted for initiatives)
• Criticism and suggestions from users / support seekers are taken seriously.

Sources:

• Die union-coop-Prinzipien / The union coop principles

Does the service think about structural power relations in its subject area and position itself against these relations? Does the initiative internally reflect its own reproduction of them?

Context:

• Power is a very broad concept. In the context of offers of mutual help, the power hierarchy consists primarily in the fact that the person offering help has something that the person seeking help needs. This hierarchy can overlap with structural power relations.

Criteria:

• Are structural relations of power addressed in the work/service (e.g. white, European/German passport, male, educational background, good income and financial reserves, abled)?
• Are these addressed and made transparent by the advisors/providers?
• Does the group exchange information internally about its power relations, does it reflect on them and educate itself to deal with them critically?
• Are measures taken to (somewhat) defuse these power relations? (E.g. donation basis, undocumented access, offer by those affected by the same power relations, infrastructure that facilitates access).

Sources:

• Gender_Sexualitäten_Begehren in der machtkritischen und entwicklungspolitischen Bildungsarbeit
• Machtkritische und emanzipatorische Bildungsarbeit im Kollektiv

Is the initiative independent of government structures? Or is it organized within the state framework or does it fulfill an intended state mandate?

Context:

• Self-organization is at the core of political independence and, for us, most likely points to a different society in which certain structural problems have been overcome. We assume that the institutions that help cause these problems cannot lead to overcoming them in the long run. For this reason we critically oppose e.g. the welfare state principle, clientelism and charity.

Criteria:

• NOT self-organized are: Organizations of the state or other (state, district) governments, organizations of the church, the state or church aid organizations (Red Cross, Malteser, THW), political parties and their sub-organizations, (established) trade unions and offers of commercial companies.
• Who founded the organization? Did it come into being by 'free association' or was it prompted by one of the above actors?

Level of self-organization:

• Beyond a certain size and level of entanglement with state or market actors, we would no longer speak of self-organization. For us, typical forms of self-organization are local, independent and critical organizations NGOs and larger, established political organizations form a case of doubt. However, the decision criterion is mainly their credibility (how much are they really critical and do they practically oppose institutions of market, church and state), and therefore can hardly be determined 'objectively'.

Overlap with the other 'classifications':

• Self-organized groups are more likely to be critical of power and grassroots democratic, and are likely to strive for as much financial independence as possible.