Nick Kristof writes approvingly in the New York Times about faith based aid organisations:
Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground….. A root problem is a liberal snobbishness toward faith-based organizations. Those doing the sneering typically give away far less money than evangelicals. They’re also less likely to spend vacations volunteering at, say, a school or a clinic in Rwanda.
I have two observations about this.
First, it is an indictment of the aid system that we have no way of knowing whether these organisations are more effective, less effective, or about the same, as their non-religious counterparts. Kristof’s claim that they are “indispensible” is completely without evidence either way.
Second, World Vision, which as Kristof says is the US’s largest development and organisation, has an explicit policy against hiring non-Christians:.
World Vision United States has diverse opportunities for qualified and committed Christian professionals who are willing to share the life, light, and hope of Christ.
All applicants for staff positions with World Vision United States will be screened for Christian commitment. The screening process will include:
– Discussion with the applicant of his/her spiritual journey and relationship with Jesus Christ;
– Understanding of Christian principles;
– Understanding and acceptance of World Vision’s Statement of Faith and/or The Apostles’ Creed
Either religion is irrelevant to the work these organisations do, in which case they should not discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring; or religion is important in the work they do, in which case they should not be allowed to spend public money in its pursuit.
Even if you believe that these organisations should be allowed to discriminate against possible employees on the basis of religious belief, this surely means that they cannot be allowed to receive money from the taxpayer, or be used as a contractor for government aid.
So those people (whom Kristof calls “liberals”) who want to stop channelling taxpayer money through organisations that discriminate on the basis of religion must surely be correct.
31 responses to “Faith based aid organisations”
Adam Smith, Thomas Reid, and yes, even David Hume would have faced similar screening processes, would they have not?
Just as former British colonies, who coincidentally adopted Scottish Enlightenment principles, bear much lower systemic poverty than former French colonies, perhaps poverty is inversely correlated with cultural respect given to the biblical Jesus.
Perhaps, there might even be a causal relationship. And that might be important in the effectiveness of the individuals and institutions that are part of the aid solution (and not the zeitgeist).
I think you’ve got it wrong. Surely it is the responsibility of aid recipients to refuse to accept help from such organizations. If they don’t have the self-respect to do so, then why should the taxpayer mind?
Owen replies: The taxpayer is entitled to mind if they are funding religious organisation whose work is sufficiently religious that they cannot hire non-believers.
yes. yes. yes. Every single word of this should be forwarded to everyone who read Kristof’s article.
I was also hugely bemused by his use of the word ‘liberals’. Surely a ‘liberal’ is one who takes a more live and let live attitude on religion? I believe that no public money should ever go to a religious organisation (if religion is not central to their work, they need not be a religious organisation). I am against state funding of Faith Schools in the UK for this reason.
Chris Blattman’s blog has a great discussion of this issue. Frankly the development community has bigger problems to worry about than if a Christian organization is handing out a bible with its bag of rice (or whatever). In this postmodern world (or is post-postmodern now?) I think the privileged position, in this case for criticism, that religion has traditionally received deserves to be withdrawn. Every organization has a guiding ideology and will not hire those who do not agree with it, religious organizations are not unique in this regard. Case in point: Libya’s leadership of the UN Human Rights Commission was roundly condemned and cited as an example of that organization’s dysfunction. Nor are non-religious ideologies arguably less puritanical, or more adaptive than religious ones.
Tiresomely, religion still tends to get people fired up on both sides. Thats a shame. We could direct our limited energy more wisely.
Could it not be the case that World Vision only want to hire Christians because they believe them (rightly or wrongly) to be better employees? If that is the case, it is not that the work is “sufficiently religious” to necessitate a given belief system but rather they think it is easier to have a group that are all aiming at the same goal for the same reason.
If religion is important to the work they do as a motivating factor and they do it better than anyone else, why shouldn’t a donor choose to fund this organisation? As you say though, without any idea of the efficiency of these organisations we shall never know what makes them efficient.
“Either religion is irrelevant to the work these organisations do, in which case they should not discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring; or religion is important in the work they do, in which case they should not be allowed to spend public money in its pursuit.”
Isn’t this a false dichotomy? Surely an organisation based on Christian values has the right to hire people who share these values, but holding Christian values doesn’t mean ‘actively engaged in evangelism’.
As for the word ‘liberals’, it’s definition varies widely with context, I wonder if it’s still coherent. At least, we need to be careful when criticizing other’s use of the term.
I’m with Chris Blattman on this (see his blog) and Justin’s comments here are wise.
On your first observation…my experience is that some faith based organizations do well (though not in all things) in delivering aid and some don’t; just as some secular organizations suck and some don’t.
Should the faith based organizations not get taxpayer money? Well that should probably be determined by the taxpayers themselves, but my guess is that most won’t object given their own faith and experience in giving to these types of organizations (and giving in large amounts given the number of faith based organizations at the top of the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s index of 400 foreign aid non-profits).
With regard to the composition of the workforce and who aid gets delivered to and in what form (i.e. is it bundled with some form of evangelism); you will find that faith based organizations are all over the map.
There are some organizations like Catholic Relief Services who don’t just hire Catholics but people of all faiths but restrict senior management and board positions to only Catholics. They similarly don’t dole out religion with their aid and don’t discriminate in the delivery of their aid to only Christians. They provide a substantial amount of taxpayer supported aid. Church World Service would be another organization in that vein. World Vision, Food for the Poor and Feed the Children, three of the fastest growing and largest non-profits are closer to their missionary roots given that they are younger organizations but are forced to confront these issues as they grow and mature. The first step in the evolution of these organizations is to come to the understanding that they cannot discriminate in the delivery of their aid as they grow and with that they begin to learn that they also have to de-couple the evangelization from the aid and become more professional about it. One interesting aspect of that, is that organizations like USAID, with their rules and regulations and oversight play a role in the process of professionalization. All these organizations, at some point confront the issue of who should be employed by their organization and run it and a key consideration is how can they evolve in their efectiveness and professionalism while maintaining the faith based values and institutional culture that ties them to the churches and people of faith who are at the root of their being.
One interesting side note, I know that the German and Dutch governments (and possibly some others governments in Europe) do allocate foreign aid dollars to faith based organizations not on the basis of contracts and proposals, but on the basis of their share composition of the population. I bet some US organizations wish they had it that easy.
The argument should perhaps be turned upside down. Within all current aid thinking, the local population should be in the drivers’seat. This means that faith based organisations have no role to play amongst populations that don’t explicitly invite them.
It is one thing if Caritas or Tearfund supports the local community. It is definitely another thing if they start a mission in a new territory.
Now I can imagine that amongst an already faithful homogeneous community, it is possible they can give aid in a neutral way, without all the posters. However, if the objective is missionary, it is definitely not development aid as it has been defined internationally.
Another aspect is the funding. If faith based organisations get tax exemption, it is in some states a de facto subsidy of up to 30 %. So withholding USAID money is not really relevant.
[…] engaged in full on efforts to convert the masses. Fair enough. I tend to agree more with Owen Barder’s take, who argues that “Either religion is irrelevant to the work these organisations do, in which […]
Owen’s argument — which I fully endorse — is derived from an American principle: separation of church (religion) and state. And Owen isn’t even an American! of course, this idea developed in response to the violence and repression in Europe that had so often resulted from close state-church ties.
What should this principle mean when it comes to tax-payer support to development NGOs? In my view, organizations that exist to proselytize and thus feel the need to confine their hiring to fellow believers have no business getting public money. On the other hand, organizations that are motivated by religious values to help others, but do not evangelize and thus do not feel the need to confine their hiring to coreligionists, should be able to receive public funds. I’ve just checked and my favorite development/relief charity, American Jewish World Service http://ajws.org/ seems to take this approach.
Lawrence, I don’t follow the logic of the ‘thus’. Whether you exist to proselytize or not, has a degree of independence from whether you confine your hiring to people who share your values. It is reasonably possible to i) exist not to proselytize ii) hire people of the same values.
Every organisation has its values, and it would make sense for organisational values to be reflected in employee values. If there was a vegan development organisation, I would be fine with such an organisation limiting its employees to vegans without feeling any proselytizing was going on, or at least people who share vegan values. Equally, if Gay Pride were in development, it would be reasonable for them to only employ people who shared the values of the organisation.
Doesn’t this just highlight the general problem of States taking people’s money and then using it however they want? As an American my tax money is taken from me and used in many ways I would never voluntarily have it used: Iraq War, predator drone attacks, AIG, GM, etc. Certainly States shouldn’t fund religions (it’s bad for both) but, I think, these issues will be with us as long as there is taxation.
Some working evidence of their effectiveness, courtesy of the World Bank: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVDIALOGUE/Resources/WfG-Nov-9-2008.pdf
If the findings of this study are correct,it may be true that faith-based aid money is indeed better spent…
The thing is…whether you like it or not…the vast majority of people in developing countries are VERY religious. So Kristoff is not wrong to point out that those who would scoff at FBOs are doing so at the risk of fundamentally disconnecting themselves from “the people they are trying to help”.
Everyone peddles their own ideology and calls it universal truth. Would you be offended at an interview with the UN or UNIFEM that asked you about your demonstrable commitment to human rights and women’s rights? Even if you were just a project manager working on a technical area (nutrition) – it would be fair enough for them to ask you about your overall development paradigm.
DOn’t know much about World Vision’s hiring policies – other than that they rejected me for a job once, ha ha – but I do believe they are different in each country – e.g. I was asked about my faith but not asked about my “journey”. I know non-religious people that DO work for WV and while they might opt out of the communal prayers – they are generally ok with it.
the Aid industry realized the value of FBOs late in the game…so while you might feel excluded from things smacking of religion – it would be retrograde to think you can engage local populations without them.
In some countries WV’s budget/programme is actually BIGGER than some UN agencies. Why would you want to cut them off?
A comment to Lawrence who said about separation of church and state:
“this idea developed in response to the violence and repression in Europe that had so often resulted from close state-church ties”….
You might just want to keep in mind the even nastier violence and repression in Europe that had resulted from the starkest SEPARATION of church and state: that of Communist Russia, Romania, etc..we can move east to China, Cambodia too if you want.
W.V. is seriously spooky, it’s too bad they are such a presence. It infuriates me that people cannot simply do something good for others out of basic human empathy and decency, but feel the need to bundle their theological baggage in the deal. It’s just so damn self-serving and borderline evil to offer aid with an asterisk attached.
It’s also alleged that a major driver behind the recent rise in homophobia in Sub-Saharan Africa is the presence and preaching of evangelical organisations.
Just FYI – not all World Vision offices have the same policy. I have worked for World Vision in Australia. I am not Christian and was never asked what my religious beliefs were at any stage (even when I offered to share them). The only question I was asked in the interview was what expectations I had about working for an organisation with Christian values. I said I expected mutual respect from myself and the organisation of each other’s beliefs, to which they whole-heartedly agreed.
Some religious organisations do amazing work, other’s use their values to exclude or evangelise. There are good and bad, just like there are among secular organisations. If a secular NGO behaves in a corrupt or immoral way, it doesn’t lead us to argue that all NGOs are the same. I think it’s unfair to lump all religious organisations together and pretend that they all work the same way.
This debate seems to beg many questions about the point of life. To many many people in the world, the ‘point of life’ is closely connected to their understanding of God. Perhaps to everyone. People’s belief has motivated people for centuries, or thousands of years. Are we now trying to draw a line under that?
“to ignore the spiritual dimension of life is to ignore the main driving force of many of the poorest people in the world” (Krige 2008:23). (Krige, Skip, 2008. ‘Towards a Coherent Vision for Faith-based Development.’ 16-37 In: Journal for Theology for Southern Africa. 132. (November 2008)) Meagher’s research in West Africa revealed the key role of ‘faith organisations’ to people’s organising of their economic lives.
To offer aid, without a ‘theological bundle’, it seems to me, (reflecting on a comment above) is unkind. If we say the West is ‘better’ – and if they are not why is the rest assuming that they are? Then we need to ask what got it to where it is? Is America’s history entirely secular? Let’s not push away the ladder that ‘we’ used to climb to where we are so as to stop others doing the same.
Aid should be in the service of theology. If it is not, then I am afraid that it is of limited long-term value.
Owen replies: you are entitled to your views, Jim. But you should not be entitled to spend tax dollars pursuing them – whether in the form of grants from government agencies, contracts or tax relief.
Jim
Hi Owen,
Interesting comment.
I am not really in favour or tax relief, grants from government agencies etc.
But, let’s nevertheless attempt to expand my case a little.
I suggest that there is an implicit theology in everything that one does. The implicit theology in the secular West at the moment may be secularist. Kind of – there is no God theology. Does a government have more right to spread that theology than any other?
Add to that, that a theology communicated may not be (actually, surely won’t be) a theology received. Translation vagaries make sure of that. For instance, it could be argued that for many people in the world, ‘secularism’ is either a non-entity, or grossly misunderstood.
There is an aspect of theology that I consider to be essential to human ‘development’, in the broad sense of that word. That is – the separation of God from the world. Many people in this world are monists – God is the world. Christians and Muslims etc. strictly are monotheists, or theists – God is distinct from the world. It is only when God is distinct from the world that one can begin to look at the world other than as a realm governed by ‘spirits’ (animism).
I think that to consider the world other than as a realm of spirits is a necessary foundation for ‘development’. If secular approaches do not take us to that position, and I suggest that they do not, then they are in essence immoral, and thus should not be promoted by public funds.
Jim
Owen replies: the logical hole in your argument is that you attempt to describe secularism as one among many kinds of theology. It isn’t, of course, so the rest of your argument does not follow.
Incidentally, I’m genuinely surprised that you think that America’s growing religious beliefs make a positive contribution to her economic and social progress. My impression is that the opposite is true: America seems to me on the brink of a long term decline, brought about by its growing rejection of science and reason.
Hi Owen,
Well, interesting that you consider that secularism does not make theological presuppositions. I don’t know how you can come to such a conclusion?
I guess you have come across Weber’s well-known thesis re. the rise of capitalism on the back of Protestantism in Europe? Not that it is conclusive, or ‘religion’ is necessarily in favour of economic advance … I have never before heard the theory that American could be in decline due to a rejection of reason.
Unfortunately this seems to be two way debate. I gather you are in Addis? I’d be interested in the kind of work you are doing.
Before leaving the West, I did not realise how communities can be that have not had a long and deep Christian influence over centuries. Coming to Africa, and the role of the Gospel in bringing peace, harmony, and joy into people’s lives has been incredible to see. Not suggesting that amounts to perfection by any means. But certainly to be encouraged.
Jim
Hi Owen,
Thanks for this post. A couple of thoughts. First, there’s a huge range of FBOs—from the behemoths, like World Vision, to the mom and pop church-based missions. The latter are sometimes worrisome, whether they receive government funds or not. They often proselytize, and lack professionalism. They sometimes assume their religious character will automatically afford them understanding of the communities they partner with and this is rarely the case. And accountability for the funds they spend is practically nonexistent. (Although this a generalization and not true across the board.)
But others, such as World Vision, are quite professional, have explicit policies against proselytizing, and a huge reach into communities. Moreover, these larger FBOs aren’t going anywhere. Their support is fairly predictable, unlike that of many donors. And though the evidence is limited, certainly they are at least as effective as big, secular NGOs.
The issue of discrimination in hiring is fraught, I agree, and I’m torn about it. On the one hand, there is longstanding precedent for channeling U.S. government funds to faith-based social service providers overseas and at home.
But you’re right: U.S. taxpayer money supporting a World Vision means that some Americans’ tax dollars are supporting an organization that wouldn’t hire them because of their beliefs (over 98 percent of U.S. government funding to faith-based organizations goes to Christian groups), and this is troubling. FBOs would argue, I think, that they have a right to protect the religious character of their organization, even if they agree not to evangelize. E.J. Dionne and Melissa Rogers did a great analysis of the legal history of this issue in the U.S. in their report for Brookings, Serving People in Need, Safeguarding Religious Freedom, and it’s worth a read. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/12_religion_dionne.aspx
I still think, however, that FBOs should be able to compete with other NGOs for government funds for overseas development work. For one, if the tap was turned off it would leave a huge hole—the U.S. and other countries need these groups and their connections and reach to deliver humanitarian relief and health services. But also, allowing/forcing FBOs to compete means that they have to play by established rules and report on what they’re doing.
Hi Lindsay,
Just lost all that I had written because I had given a wrong email address.
I suggest that bans on proselytism are really ‘crazy’ in a way. If I am working for WV, and proselytism is banned, what do I do when I meet someone under the oppression of witchcraft? Just tell him ‘sorry, they’ve got yer this time mate’? Not to share a message of hope with such a person is inhuman and cruel.
As we’ve said, messages of science are hard for people in holistic worldviews to ‘get’. They almost invariably also result in creation of dependency, with all that this implies.
In short to repeat: there can always be abuses. The real ‘crime’ in today’s world of international relations, I suggest however, is that the West always (?) relates on the basis that they are the donors. This is problematic whatever is being ‘promoted’, not only if it is ‘religion’. As I pointed out above, everybody is an FBO – like if you are not promoting faith in God, then you are probably promoting faith in no-God. Or to be more precise, in your particular understanding of God. Even if you are promoting the use of fertilizers – as soon as you subsidise those fertilizers you are in a sense forcing people to do what they otherwise most likely wouldn’t have considered doing.
What is important is that there be a section of the Western based aid movement that NOT base their operations on foreign money. Then they can begin to be subject to the market place of ideas and strategies instead of buying their way (forcing their way) in wherever they go – as you don’t stare a gift horse in the mouth.
In Christian mission circles this is known as ‘vulnerable mission’ – http://www.vulnerablemission.com
Jim
Jim,
What do you mean by this “If I am working for WV, and proselytism is banned, what do I do when I meet someone under the oppression of witchcraft?”
Most people we currently hear reports of being “under oppression” connected with witchcraft are innocents accused by local evangelicals, often pastors, of being witches and are tortured or killed to ‘save their souls’.
Do you mean animists or pagans? Are they following the historic religion of that area? Do you honestly believe that really is oppression? What about a Lutherian who believes in evolution – or a Catholic (the previous Pope, for example)?
Thanks for the above questions.
I am not of course fully aware of the source(s) of your information about people ‘under oppression’ etc. Allow me to answer your question on what I suppose is the case.
I saw a video produced in Nigeria about killing witch children, and pastors were strongly implicated in that.
I think it is widely known that witchcraft is endemic in the African continent (sub-Saharan Africa). People see their problems as arising from wcraft. It is often, I find, helpful to say ‘for wcraft read jealousy’, because the two are so closely linked. The church(es) often being very close to the people, many churches these days are African founded and run, means that they are very aware of the (perceived) source of people’s problems, thus will attempt to address the problems as perceievd by their parishoners.
One thing we know with wcraft, is that as you recognise it, thus you empower it. That is a difficult catch 22 situation, it seems to me, that many are under. Ignore it, and you are irrelevant. Respond to it, and you can easily be empowering it. So, what to do about it?
The Bible, and more liberally I guess one could say many ‘world religions’ it seems to me, have been means of countering wcraft. They set up an alternative explanatory system. For example, that actually God determines fate, and not someone else being jealous of you. Thus a Christian missionary offers hope to someone embroiled in wcraft.
Now you could ask, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Does ‘hope’ produce ‘development’, or does ‘development’ produce hope? Of course, it must be some of both.
The secular world, it seems to me, works on the ‘development produces hope’ thesis. Foundationally, the Gospel message if anything is the other way around. Someone with hope, who ceases to fear the jealousy of his neighbour, is empowered to ‘produce’ a surplus etc. One big advantage of this latter route of course is that it doesn’t produce dependency and many (most) of the other pitfalls that big aid folks end up facing.
Thus it is my general conviction (with lots of fuzzy edges) that the (only) truly legitimate basis for intercultural intervention is theological.
I have not clearly understood all the questions in the above comment. Please clarify if I have not addressed the concerns.
Jim
Jim,
A trivial selection of sources: Kenya, Nigeria (as you noted) and even London, albeit a very recent move from Angola and linked to a Congolese church. I do appreciate that the plural of anecdote is not ‘evidence’ and that much of what happens around the world simply isn’t reported.
You haven’t answered what you mean by ‘witchcraft’ – whether it is simple claims to have magical powers, the animist religions native to much of Africa, Satanism, paganism in its widest context or something else. I assume you mean one of the first two?
What should a Christian do, especially if proselytism is banned? You don’t need to convert somebody to explain to them that magic is nonsense (although it clearly isn’t in the most technical sense – the placebo effect can cause harm as well as healing and magicians, stage as well as charlatan, are experts in exploiting distraction and human misunderstanding).
“One thing we know with wcraft, is that as you recognise it, thus you empower it.”
I don’t think that you have logically demonstrated the truth of that conclusion. Treating with local “witches” as representatives of the community will enhance their status but that isn’t what you actually said.
“Thus it is my general conviction (with lots of fuzzy edges) that the (only) truly legitimate basis for intercultural intervention is theological.”
I don’t know. There are generally accepted a-theological standards of behaviour – the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child – for example.
“The Bible, and more liberally I guess one could say many ‘world religions’ it seems to me, have been means of countering wcraft. They set up an alternative explanatory system.”
Oh, right. I thought from what you have said that you would treat the Bible as “the Word of God”. It is clearly an “alternative explanatory system”, if confused, internally inconsistent and, in places, simply wrong.
Thanks SE!
A few responses.
The Bible is certainly more difficult to understand than many books. To rush to say it is ‘wrong’, may however be premature.
As to what is ‘witchcraft’. I frankly don’t think that African witchcraft can be articulated to the dominant culture of the limited linguistic / cultural capacity of the native English speaking world.
The roots of wcraft, though, I don’t think are so foreign to the West – although the way they are categorised is very different. ‘Affront’ for example. Being impolite. Revealing one’s lusts, say, for someone else’s wife. Resentment at some abuse being raised if the abuse happened to have occurred at a time of wider misfortune. etc. etc.
Surely we all recognise the theological roots of conventions on the rights of children? Personally speaking, familiarity with a ‘third culture’ (African) over many years has helped me to appreciate just how tilted many such rights issues etc. are to historical Western Christianity.
I did not use the term ‘God’ – you are right. I think He tends to be over-narrowly defined. Straw man kind of syndrome.
Hi Owen and all the commentors,
I actually have a question that strikes me: is hiring discrimination based on faith legal in the US? I am not American, but I actually couldn’t tell you the rules on this in Canada either.
But if it is true, than that is disturbing. I can accept some complexity and rules about professionalism when it comes to giving grants from our secular-law government, however, I cannot believe that any organisation, of any type, registered in the US can discriminate on hiring for any reason in today’s age. So if World Vision had a policy that in line with its self-determined internal culture that it couldn’t hire someone based on race, or gender, or even sexual orientation, I believe that is strong illegal. So can they legally exclude someone from joining if they were not Christian, or their particular brand of it? I’m surprised. The constitution protects citizens against most other forms of discrimination.
Linday said
“I think, that they have a right to protect the religious character of their organization”
So the question to everyone here is, in the US do they have that right? What if Ford Motor Company or Microsoft wanted to be only Christian? Surely they couldn’t. Remember in this how big an organisation World Vision is here.
This isn’t being anti-religious or anti-Christian or anti-World Vision specifically. I happen to like what they do in many locations I’ve seen and support them getting funding of all sorts to do what they do. Anyone know how this really works and how it came about? If they turned someone away and they sued, wouldn’t WV lose?
Hi,
More a philosophical response.
How can the US or any government insist on organisations having a pluralistic philosophy? In other words, how can one insist that employees be secular?
Pluralism, the ‘belief’ that all faiths are somehow ‘equal’ is surely a belief like any other? If all faiths are ‘equal’, then one can believe whatever one wills, and it doesn’t matter. But, that is nonsense. There must be ‘better beliefs’ and ‘worse beliefs’.
An organization like WV must have direction. That’s its whole purpose. If it gets its direction from Christianity, how can then one then insist that it not discriminate in recruiting on the basis of faith? Is it illegal to be Christian? Is it only legal to be pluralistic? Says who?
Can that be workable?
From the WV Career site….
“Who we are:
Motivated by our faith in Jesus, we serve the poor as a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for all people. Our faith is at the heart of all we do. Foundational to our work is the commitment to a shared faith by staff, volunteers and interns, and a common understanding of how that faith is lived out day-to-day.
Who you are:
You are a committed Christian eager to put your faith into action every day as you use your life to make a tangible difference for children in need. You recognize the importance of working together with diverse partners–including individuals, churches, corporations, and governments–to help build a better world in which all people are free from oppression, where peace and justice flourish, and where the most vulnerable live in confidence.”
Didier wrote above here (March 3):
” ….One interesting side note, I know that the German and Dutch governments (and possibly some others governments in Europe) do allocate foreign aid dollars to faith based organizations not on the basis of contracts and proposals, but on the basis of their share composition of the population. I bet some US organizations wish they had it that easy…..”
That is quite some time ago. We (The Dutch) are on the sam track nowadays; contracts and proposals. It is even ‘worse’ recently Dutch organizations could apply for Government funding (2011-2015). They were requested to apply in coalitions not independently. There were two independent applications and they have not been allowed into the second round (detailed proposal). From the 43 coalitions who wrote a round 1 proposal (draft) a maximum of 30 coalitions would be invited by the Government to move to the second round.
Ten days ago 20 coalitions were invited to move on and 23 were not able to move on which means that some of them (who now have large amounts of Government funding) will have to find news sources quickly and/or cut down on their work and size quickly.
List of the 23 is here:
http://vanstokkom.blogspot.com/2010/03/mfs-ii-afvallers.html
[…] Faith based aid organisations – World Vision, Food for the Poor and Feed the Children, three of the fastest growing and largest non-profits are closer to their missionary roots given that they are younger organizations but are forced to confront these issues as they … […]