Another reason to avoid a subsidy relation with the government is the bureaucracy that comes with it, which according to some is quite complex. Some FBOs are also of the opinion that the municipa-lity thinks in “terms of procedures and not in terms of people” (Paulus church, Rotterdam). Further-more, FBOs feel that instead of taking the time to write reports for the government their time is better spent on activities for the target group. Besides the paper work, meetings with the govern-ment also take a lot of time, which the volunteers quite simply do not always have. “There is an overflow of meetings. Our people work to survive and have no time during the day to go to these meetings. Meetings are sometimes from 2pm until 6pm, then you just have to go to your work.” (La Sagrada Familia, Rotterdam).
Another complaint concerns the durability of relations with the government. According to the Spark Foundation in Tilburg, it is a continuing problem that the government only thinks in terms of projects. “It costs a lot of money. You start, and build up knowledge en than you have to stop after three years.” Furthermore, because civil servants and politicians change rapidly, it is difficult to establish sustainable relations. Another consequence of this is that civil servants don’t always possess the right knowledge and skills. Either “they are scared to follow their procedures, because they are afraid to be judged by the politicians, or they do not know the procedures very well” and are therefore not able to provide the necessary services fitting the individuals (Paulus church Rotterdam). Nonetheless, building up relations with public officals will, in the long run, lead to positive changes in policies, most FBOs in Tilburg believe: “The municipality of Tilburg gives FBOs room to take part in conversations about (poverty) policies. Elsewhere in the country it is said ‘in Tilburg everything is possible.’ But before, this was not true, it is something we achieved. In Tilburg the poverty policy has improved. The clients really benefit from this. They are treated more friendly at Social Affairs (Sociale Zaken) and supplementary benefits (Bijzondere Bijstand) are more gene-rously granted. The cooperation between the different care providers is improved. We have achieved this by showing how necessary it was” (The Spark Foundation).
7.5 Discussion
Overall we can postulate that in the Netherlands, just as in a lot of other countries, the separation between church and state, just as the principle of the neutral state, has never been an unambiguous principle. It has known different interpretations over the years, because of different circumstances.
Consequently, in practice, the concept is always connected to the situational context and object of changing interpretations; a recipe for a lively debate (Davelaar and Van Waesberghe, 2010). “The different social views on the role of religion in society’ in this way influence the realization of neutrality”, the mayor and alderman of Amsterdam concluded (2008: p.7). Nickolson (2008) summa-rises the situation as follows: “the separation in the Netherlands [is] historically and legally indeed not really strict (…) On the one hand it provides support for the ‘stretchers’, but on the other hand it gives the ‘precise ones’ the opportunity to plea for a strict separation.” He points out that the separation between church and state, just as the freedom of religion, as principle is no static known fact. “The realization of these principles in the end depends strongly on the vision one has on the role of religion in society, and on the attitude the government should have towards religion.”
In general, Dutch national and local governments have always welcomed alternatives for statutory services or the possible added value to statutory services offered by FBOs. Welfare provision through general services is the rule at all levels, though. The total amount of public funding to FBOs seems
to have been reduced (national level) or remained stable (local level) since the 1990s. Contact between religious communities or organisations and municipalities, however, has clearly increased over the last 5 to 10 years. The forms of cooperation show an increasing variety, as we say already in chapter 4. The reasons to cooperate are divers, too. Recapitulating the views of the three municipa-lities, we can distinguish the following reasons for cooperating with FBOs.
With respect to content:
● Keeping in touch with certain parts/members of society, who can only be reached through these organisations, such as excluded groups.
● Appreciation for the socially relevant work of FBOs in general and especially for voluntary work.
● Acknowledgment of the quality of the services by these organisations.
● The contribution of these organisations to dialogue in the city between groups with different cultures and religions.
For practical reasons:
● Religiously inspired volunteers are more persistent and on average work more hours per week than other volunteers.
● FBOs provide services at a low cost.
Many FBOs are satisfied with the recognition by the local and national authorities of their role in society, although especially churches, mosques and other faith-based grass-roots organisations complain of being simply addressed as entrances for government agencies or NGOs to get in touch with their members. Yet, all FBOs want to shape their own course. For almost all communities and organisations, being able to give a voice to the problems and concerns of their members or clients is crucial.
In sum, we can distinguish the following reasons as to why FBOs would choose to cooperate with the government:
● The wish for acknowledgement by the government.
● Lower thresholds: enhance contact between beneficiaries or members of organisations and the government.
● Influence governmental policies concerning the target group/ the membership.
● The possibility to acquire financial support of the government.
Reluctance to cooperate can stem from:
● The wish to organise activities as free as possible and to approach target groups in a manner which they think is right.
● The wish to be autonomous in the choice of benificiaries.
● The idea that FBOs need distance from the government to be able to remain critical.
● The fear for bureaucracy when cooperation with the government becomes more intense.
● The fear for taking up responsibility for the execution of top-down policy.
Verwey-Jonker Institute
8 Future perspectives of organisations and broader tendencies
At the end of this report we like to shift our focus from the present to the future. We asked all representatives of the FBOs in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Tilburg about their opinion on the chances and threats regarding their organisations, goals and activities. What do they expect to be the decisive developments in the near future? We end this concluding chapter with some general tendencies based on all the information we encountered during this project.
8.1 The future from the perspective of the Faith-based Organisations
Chances
It is a harsh reality that the opportunities for FBOs are dependent on the problems of people. There will always be people who fall through the cracks. Although most interviewees believe that the government should take more responsibility here, many of them see also a special task for FBOs in solving the problems of people who fall through the safety net. This is because FBOs have “the knowledge, the involvement, the emotion and also a substantial membership.” (Meeting Foundation, Rotterdam). Furthermore, the government tends to only offer ‘physical’ help, while “there are many more spiritual/psychic problems in society” which FBOs are more capable of dealing with (Christian Family International, Rotterdam). A large majority of FBOs therefore want to expand their activities, in terms of accessing more target groups and locations as well as organizing new activities in the future. In Tilburg especially, activities concerning integration and participation were mentioned, such as activities for children and youth (Majid El-Feth), dialogue (Liberal Jewish Community), language courses (Majid El-Feth), art and cultural activities (Suleymaniye mosque), and solidarity between generations (Suleymaniye mosque). In Rotterdam, the focus is especially on expanding activities for children and youth, like homework classes, sport activities or a community centre. A shortage of activities available for children above the age of twelve was often mentioned. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam, several FBOs wish to move to another (larger or better equipped) building. Several Amsterdam based FBOs plan to provide better support for hard to reach target groups such as women of closed religious communities, undocumented people, victims of the sex slave trade and ex-convicts.
Besides expansion, multiple FBOs want to improve their methods of working, especially in terms of ways of reaching out to people in need. Several organisations see good opportunities in the empha-sis on personal development and empowerment of clients, and the implementation of this in existing activation schemes. Many FBOs in Rotterdam stress they can accomplish more through cooperation:
“If you want to do things in the long run, you need cooperation.” (Paulus church). FBOs feel that it is especially important to cooperate at the neighbourhood level, because of decentralisation tenden-cies in government: “It has to happen in the neighbourhoods.” (SPIOR). In Tilburg, New Song and the
Trinity Chapel, for example, would like to see better cooperation between the Evangelical communi-ties, while in Amsterdam, several FBOs have advocated more cooperation between the established churches and migrant churches. However, according to the Evangelical-Lutheran Diaconate, the main challenge will be how to balance cooperation with partners, without losing focus and becoming too much of an ad-hoc organisation.
Future prospects are also influenced by the maintenance or reshaping of the relations between religious institutions and work conducted by groups in the periphery. As the Theological Working Group of Eurodiaconia (Jourdan et al., 2005, p. 53) expresses: “Diaconal work is sometimes done without clear organisational ties to church institutions in a kind of ‘diaspora’ situation. This happens e.g. in urban mission with regard to poverty, unemployment and other socially problematic areas […]
[The] official church should be more aware and supportive of this kind of work. After all, it is diaconal and therefore part of the church”. While many active members of these initiatives will probably agree that churches should be more supportive, many also cherish their independence.
More support might imply more financial means and a larger audience. Independence, however, might increase the credibility of the organisation among client groups and within certain denominati-ons. It might also allow organisations to be more flexible in their responses to social developments and in their choice in selecting other groups and institutions to work with.
In addition, especially in Rotterdam, FBOs see opportunities in terms of cooperation with the government. They strive for contact on a regular basis on issues and developments. In addition, (more) government funding would enable FBOs to offer more support to people in the margins of society. Subsidies are also seen as a sign of appreciation for the work that they do.
Threats
An important reason for wishing to cooperate with government originates from the fear of financial shortages in the future. Original money sources, such as faith-affiliated charitable funds, slowly dry up. The membership levels are decreasing (traditional Dutch denominations) or members are not able to contribute enough (non-western communities and organisations), because they themselves belong to the poorer sections of society. One of the effects of declining financial resources is that paid employees can no longer be afforded. According to the Neighbourhood Pastoral Care Middel-land-South, this affects the quality of work because “mutual relations between people and problems are often so complicated that you need highly qualified, devoted, affectionate and reliable paid staff to keep standing in between.”
However, as we have seen before, FBOs want to be able to shape their course. For many organisati-ons, being able to give a voice to the problems and concerns of their members or clients is crucial, while the fact of the matter is that whoever controls the finances ultimately gains (some) control over the way that it is spent. Subsidized FBOs also have to cope with political changes. In Rotterdam for example, the government pays a lot of attention to target groups which FBOs also focus on, such as migrant women, lonely elderly, youth at risk and the homeless. Although most FBOs feel that they are appreciated for their work and are seen as important partners by policy makers, they are aware that policies can change quickly in the relative unstable political situation in the Netherlands since 2002.
Future concerns also relate to the fact that basically all FBOs tend to use volunteers to carry out their work. This may strengthen the quality of their work, because volunteers are often involved for many years and are not tied to achievement norms, targets, strict numbers of contact hours, etc.
However, this also makes the work vulnerable, as volunteers can quit any time they like. There is also a limited amount of time and responsibility you can ask of them. The Suleymaniye mosque in Tilburg, for example, wants to pay people for giving homework classes in the future: “Because we do not believe in volunteering [in education], you do not attain the quality you want.”
Many FBOs struggle due to a shortage of volunteers. Within traditional organisations, aging and secularization cause a decreasing membership and therefore a decrease in available volunteers. In migrant churches, on the other hand, the rank and file seems to grow and rejuvenate. However, this last group does voluntary work in addition to their paid job and family and therefore has less time.
In this group, FBOs also experience individualization; ambitious people with better jobs are often more difficult to recruit for voluntary work. They are too busy with their own career. The church
“no longer ranks first”. Furthermore, many (young) people are no longer connected to their neigh-bourhoods. While most older church or mosque goers have been living in a particular neighbourhood for most of their lives, new residents will likely move on elsewhere after a few years. Without enough volunteers FBOs risk to “go under by our own success” (The Worldhouse).
8.2 Challenges for FBO action on exclusion
In this section we will summarise some major tendencies that might influence the role of FBOs in catering for the needs of vulnerable citizens in in the Netherlands.