Ever since I came across the concept of Circuit Riders as a solution to voluntary sector IT support problems, I have been something of an evangelist (for the theory at least), trying to persuade partners and friends who work with the voluntary sector to either emulate the model or help build support for the project that a consortium including NCVO, NACVS, LASA and IT4Communities are trying to put together - see LASA for more details.

A social solution to vountary sector IT woes that gives organsiations access to genuinely experienced and committed professionals rather than the poorly qualified, low-end "trainers" that generally populate this low-end market. Yes! Just as MySociety tries to tap into the expertise and creativity of otherwise busy professionals to give them a socially aware outlet for their skills, the Circuit Riders idea tries to do the same thing for IT support in the voluntary sector.

So, I am delighted to hear from David Wilcox that the model is receiving some initial funding and recognition: Circuit riders scoop support pool.

I have worked with more voluntary sector, third sector and non-profit projects than I care to mention and I have often been frustrated by the vicious circle of IT inadequacy that keeps these organisations from being the powerhouse of social change that many of them could and should become.

It goes something like this: low paid / voluntary staff are afraid of computers, and this is reinforced by the fact that the organisation has poor IT kit bought years ago, which they cannot replace because their funders won't allow them to spend money on admin. The computers and/or network don't work properly and they fall prey to inept "local" firms or (worse still) those who specialise in helping small charities, and as a result they receive poor service, yet feel powerless to do anything about it. This reinforces staff's sense that IT doesn't work and therefore they should just get on and do things how they have always done them. Sometimes they have a single poorly paid IT support person who plays the same role of reinforcing the idea that far from being a potentially liberating tool, IT is instead something they don't do well and should avoid.

Why should the voluntary sector settle for second best? Why should they feel they are outside the revolution that has taken place in online communication over the past decade? No reason at all. In fact, as organisations committed to providing a service within society, and in some cases to delivering social change, the opposite is the case. As government retreats from the provision of services provided by voluntarism, they need to be able to interact with and deliver using online technologies.

I had a fascinating chat recently with somebody from a government department who has been struggling to help voluntary agencies and charities pitch for funding and assistance to deliver what have traditionally been state-provided services. If they are to step into the breach and help fill this gap, then they must be confident and organised when it comes to interacting with government systems, and my experience tells me that engendering a completely different relationship with IT - based on it being an empowering enabler, rather than an embarrassing mess - is a key part of this process. Of course, there are other things government can do to support this, such as better aggregation and syndication of information AND online services, but that is another issue.

Most good voluntary agencies are networks of people sharing common aims, yet they are rarely organised in a way that reflects this. They deserve the best that IT can offer, and given the large number of talented IT professionals with a conscience who are willing to give bits of time, the social network approach to IT support and capacity building should be a no-brainer.

We will be watching the evolution of the Circuit Riders model closely, and wish them every success in what is a vitally important underpinning area of operations for the non-profit sector.

UPDATE: I have been woefully late in mentioning David's mea culpa about a lack of fact-checking in his original piece. Essentially, David's original piece drew upon a press article to imply that this was mainly a LASA initiative, whereas it is in fact led by a consortium of organisations. In his updated piece, he quotes a communiqué from Colin at LASA that clarifies the status of the project and dampens expectations that it will in fact create a Circuit Rider system:

"The Consortium's workplan doesn't centre on Circuit Riding. The Consortium is currently developing a business plan to assess how the current members could work together most effectively to deliver the sort of services the ACU mentioned in their Infrastructure discussion document (and which will presumably be amended somewhat after consultation.) Part of those discussions is assessing whether other organisations should be invited to join the consortium. There are also plans to assess the current state of voluntary sector ICT, so the consortium can measure the success of any future work. Should the consortium gain further funding this autumn, it will also provide some co-ordination between local work funded from the Infrastructure money."

We live in hope that the consortium will succeed, and we are happy to help in any way we can.

The fact that David was so concerned by this reflects his background as an old-skool journalist (i.e. somebody who doesn't just recycle press releases or wire copy). He observes a stricter reporting process than both contemporary journalists and us blogalysts, although his role (and heart) is closer to the latter. Also, if you don't already know this, his weblog is an excellent source of thinking and reflection on community networking among other things, and his pieces are ever-present in my list of articles-I-would-blog-if-I-had-the-time.