Bridging demand and supply

In general

This function is not about offering guidance or self help, but focuses on the bridge function between different ‘worlds’. Local churches and mosques, as well as other FBOs regularly act as intermediaries between people in need and professional service providers. They help people with papers and bureaucratic procedures and provide information about social services. Local authorities increasingly perceive religious communities (especially migrant communities) as places to find the socially excluded (in Dutch vindplaatsen). Referring people and members to other organisations is also an important part of FBO-work, employed by almost every organisation to some extent, in a formal or informal way. When bridging demand and supply, FBOs often operate in strong organisational networks, creating relations with other FBOs, NGOs, welfare providers, secular self-organisations, neighbourhood organisations and municipal departments. Building bridges between the (own) community and the rest of society is often part of the empowerment of individual members of the

community and strengthens the community as a whole. Therefore this function is strongly related to the fifth function.

Cities under research

In Tilburg, like in the other two cities, especially the mosques function as a bridge when it comes to information about laws and regulations. They invite professionals to explain these things to the rank and file. But also the Trinity Chapel and the Protestant church in Tilburg refer people to the appro-priate institutions, like social work, the municipal social service and family coaches.

In Amsterdam, the All Saints church deploys incidental relations with healthcare organisations, while the Fatih mosque and the Salvation Army maintain consultative structures with local government and care institutions. In addition, the Parish San Nicolas has an important bridging function partly due to the low accessibility of its building. An organisation with the bridging function as core task is the Open Door foundation, part of the Parish San Nicolas Amsterdam, providing people with information, a conversation, advice and support to professional care and assistance agencies.

In Rotterdam this function is present among many FBOs. Members of migrant churches, for example, often accompany people to their appointments with hospitals, doctors or Social Service, to translate or just to ‘hold their hands’. Abou RakRak functions in a chain in which partners within youth care directly cooperate. “(…) we are actually some kind of intermediary, for youth as well as adults. You try to be a link between the target groups and the general institutions where they can get professio-nal help.” The Aya Sofia mosque in Rotterdam established a separate project ‘Link Aya’, which creates a bridge between visitors of the mosque and its facilities and the regular welfare services in the district. In this project they cooperate with two regular welfare providers, the local municipality of Delfshaven and the municipality of Rotterdam. The Rotterdam umbrella organisations of SKIN (migrant churches) and SPIOR also create bridges between the municipality and the member organisations.

4.4 Discussion

FBOs in the Netherlands are working for the benefit of various groups. In some domains were social exclusion occurs, the organisations and associations are prominently present, in others their role is limited. Besides national developments, the local context is important in understanding differences in the level of FBO activity. The presentation of seven functions carried out by the organisations in the (local) social system might contribute to help clarifying the impact of the activities in the social domain.

The relative importance of the religiously inspired social activities in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Tilburg has remained relatively stable over the last decades, yet the type of work has changed. The activities of local parishes/ groups of the major, traditional churches are dwindling, due to a decrease in membership and financial means. However, this decrease has been compensated for in terms of innovative working methods of (independent) organisations affiliated with the Catholic and Protestant communities and through the creation of new contacts between FBOs, funds with an ideological background, general organisations and public authorities. This leads to less ‘innate’ and more communal projects, in which the religious inspiration takes on new forms. In these new alliances, projects and networks, religion either plays a role in the background or is a prominent constituent of activities, together with other identities. Examples of what might be labelled

postse-cular co-operation include, Food Banks, schoolfunds for children from poor families, youth work, anti-poverty campaigns, buddy projects, welcome programmes to new citizens, inter religious dialogues, neighbourhood meetings or medical and legal assistance to undocumented migrants.

Second, the role of the ‘new’ religious communities is growing, which is not always visible. They provide many services for members of their own communities and for people belonging to their own ethnic group. The social position of some of their adherents demands it - in terms of a lack of money, lower levels of education, partly unsuccessful integration (unable to speak Dutch, low participation levels of women) - according to the representatives of these communities. They increasingly cooperate with other organisations and the authorities, which enables them to offer better help, referrals, etc., to their own members. Criticism from within and from public officials can be heard on several issues. First, on the ability of these communities and organisations to reach out to young people and marginalised others not attending the religious services and activities.

Second, on the slow progress of raising the level of professionalization in terms of leadership of mosques, churches and organisations.

There is a third development which, albeit indirectly, supplies the FBOs with new initiatives in the field of combating social exclusion, namely the increase of inter-religious dialogue. Where this used to be a token of goodwill, contacts over the last 5-10 years have clearly increased. This has occurred predominantly between the evangelical and traditional Dutch churches, followed by co-operation between Dutch churches and the so called migrant churches, and finally, between mosques and (mainly) the traditional Dutch churches. Nevertheless, dialogue, and certainly further cooperation, often depends on a few people in these communities. Representatives of organisations, who strive for openness, are aware of the scepticism concerning cooperation with other faiths, and hence, the vulnerability of their own position.

As described in many of the other FACIT reports, welfare retrenchment is not a clear cut trend. For instance, the interviewees active in homeless services have witnessed an increase in available funding and state intervention, albeit this intervention taking the form of increased centralisation in policy design and regulation, in setting agendas and facilitating institutional environments for joined-up working. This proves the hypothesis that welfare state restructuring and the forms of neoliberal urban governance do not simply entail a roll-back manoeuvre wherein the state cuts its direct involvement in welfare provision; rather, there are simultaneous roll-back and roll-out manoeuvres that bring about new institutional forms of regulation. These are premised upon the centralisation of policy design, evaluation and regulation within the powers of the local and central government, and the decentralisation of risk and responsibility for service delivery to voluntary, private, non-profit and faith-based organisations (see also the concluding chapter).

Verwey-Jonker Institute