Solution 3: Back to the status of action group.

If whatever the NGO has tried finding funds has proved to be impossible, the option of returning to the status of action group could be considered.

Funding and the lack of funding is an overwhelming burden for NGO's and its members. As long as NGO's depend on funding, the presence of funding can mean the survival or death of the organisation. The choice to go on without funding, returning to the status of action group, is not always easy. Maybe the attitude of the members of the organisation has changed over time, maybe people are dependent of their income earned in the organisation and other paid work may be scarce.

The quality of the output of the organisation is sometimes dependent on the expertise of paid staff members and on housing (shelters for instance), matters that have to be paid for.

Nevertheless, some organisation would do better if they changed their identity back to being a volunteering action group.

Differences between pressure group and labour organisation

Many differences exist between being an action group or a labour organisation. Being an pressure group means: the freedom of choosing political angles, a high level of autonomous decision making, the necessity to be ahead of the mainstream ideas and opinions, cherishing a fighting spirit, the possibility to take ideology as the main or even only guiding principle, and maybe above all: the freedom of not compromising, of no adaptation, of no moderations of pretensions.

Some pressure groups gradually change their identity. Sometimes because developing and offering alternative services is one way to realise one's goals. In this way some pressure groups become voluntary service providers. If the services are successful and funding is available, then the next step often will be to be funded for the operational work.

In this gradual way some pressure groups lose their original status and become NGO's with proposals, paid staff, policy plans, accountability procedures and funders, So far so good. Some NGO's are doing quite good, are successful in their new identity and develop a natural growth. In those cases the development from activist to paid staff member is a desirable one.

But for other activists the situation is different. Some of them are unhappy with the developments. They just do not fit in this new situation. Some even may define the actual situation as being enclosed by capitalist manoeuvres, bereft of their vitalising political work. Even if the NGO succeeds combining being an action group with being a labour organisation. (Read: the fan of mainstreaming.)

Motives for returning to the status of action group.

In some cases the organisation should no longer strive for funding, but return to a former phase, accepting the fact that its real identity is in being a pressure group.

. What could be motives to do so? We sum up five.

• the organisation (or the majority of its members) has grown mainly because of external interventions: big financial allocations, powerful assigners etc. (Also look at: solution 5: reducing the size of the organisation.)
• the organisation (or the majority of its members) feels forced to do activities that differ from the core competence or key identity, only in order to obtain financial resources.
• the organisation (or the majority of its members) experiences that it not possible to do enough in the domain the organisation has been founded for, only for funding  reasons.
• the organisation (or the majority of its members) feels sorry for gradually alienating from the activist roots and/or regrets gradually losing credibility in the eyes of those who make up the movement they once came from.
• the organisation (or the majority of its members) has to admit that the growth of the organisation is mainly caused by contracting professionals who may do the job competently, but without the same affinity and ideological inspiration.

. What could be reasons for not doing it?

• the wish to return to an action group might reflect the fact that the organisation has lost its connections with the activist side of the scene. Maybe the organisation is directed one-sided  towards being a market party, thereby neglecting its political angle. In this case restoring the full scope of the organisation would be a better solution. (Read: the fan of mainstreaming.)
• the group within the organisation that would like to return to the status of action group is composed only of the founders/former activists. Their wish could be considered as the problems of the pioneering leaders growing towards a more professional status. (Look at solution 2: from pioneer to professional)

If they persist in their preference, maybe splitting up the organisation would be  a more realistic option. (Look at solution 7: splitting up the organisation.)