NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd like to set up a scheme (England, UK (less sure of the laws in the rest of the UK so would be more difficult potentially)), as follows, for providing advice on immediate food assistance and advice on housing, and it would work in one of the following two ways. The scheme would be called PJ Croad Mission, and each place providing the service would be a Mission Centre:

WAY NUMBER 1:

(a) Every "Central" religious centre (church, mosque, synagogue, etc) in each main area (eg. Greater Manchester instead of all the areas within Greater Manchester such as the City of Salford) would be contacted, and asked to provide the above. They would each receive a list of helplines along with some brief written guidance, and they would each receive a few food packages (not sure of number yet) for each week.

(b) If someone came to the Mission Centre, a leader of the religious centre (priest, imam, rabbi, etc) would asses their circumstances and provide advice.

(c) If the advice was heeded and produced no results regarding food, the Mission Centre would provide some immediate food. Regarding housing, it would be up to the Mission Centre what to do.

WAY NUMBER 2 (the much more expensive one):

As above, except instead of (or as well as) using religious buildings to provide the advice and assistance, there would be purpose-built (or purpose-renovated, as there are plenty of empty buildings) Mission Centres, which, in regards to (b) above, would have a few "Last Resort" nightshelter-style* rooms available for use in a housing emergency. The centre would, if possible, be run by volunteers (preferably male and female to help with certain legal requirements for mixed gender accommodation).

*A nightshelter, as far as I am aware, is a building where a room (which may be shared) is provided for the night, but where the occupants can not stay during the day - however, during daytime they could go to a library or perhaps arrange a college course. It's basically the most basic of warm accommodation: provides a place to sleep and shower (showers may be changing-room style), and that's about it, though they may also provide breakfast and tea (but not in the above case).

Aside from finances, can anyone see any practical problems with the above ( especially with number 1, considering the fact that the oragnisation may have to register as a charity - see "the need to register" on here: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registration/faqpage.asp#9 ) ?

Well, one sad problem with Way #1 is that not all religious groups are all too keen on providing such services, at least on their premises. I am pretty involved with my local Church, and I could see there being some resistance to such an idea (Although plenty of other Churches do the same sorts of things, so it is not universal. Also, at my own one groups often help out at soupkitchens and the like).

Way #2 might also be more popular with devout secularists, even if it is less efficient. As you mentioned, though, finances are often a problem in social services provision.

The idea of having one central source is also a potential problem, depending on the demographics of the area. Generally, for providing food and housing assistance it is easier for the providers to go to where the need is, rather than having the system users go to a central location. I am most familiar with how these things work in Canada rather than in Britain, but here one of the biggest problems is not so much in the provision of services (Although there is always room for being able to do more for the community), but rather in the interagency communications. Now, setting up the centres to coordinate between other agencies and ensure that each part of the town/county/province/country has appropriate services would be a super thing. Even if the people who need the services never go to the coordiantion centre (Or even hear about it), having one would allow the pre-existing service providers to continue what they are doing and do it even better.

It sounds like a good idea to me, but perhaps it relies a bit too much on religious institutions?

i think(especially for catholic church) all religions should only focus thier efforts on doing charity stuff.

I love multi-faith charities. Not only do they provided much needed help to the less fortunate, they help build bridges between faiths.

Why religious institutions? That's just giving them opportunities to proselytise and spread their nonsense. Not to mention that it would make people more reluctant to seek help if they're not of the religion offering the aid, or are people who are not religious, or are likely to be discriminated against by the religious who would no doubt take the opportunity to judge and marginalise, as they always have.

Eliminate the religious contamination completely and you might have an idea. As long as you rely on something as dubious as the religiously tainted, this is stillborn. Best then to abort it.

Why religious institutions? That's just giving them opportunities to proselytise and spread their nonsense.
Well, religious institutions are already inclined towards charitable projects, so I imagine it would cut out some infrastructure and staff costs.

You obviously don't know much about religious charities if you think they exist primarily in order to evangelise.

NO.

Why mixing politics and religion?
Enough charities exist in that country and take enough money from people and local governments to do the job.
Maybe they have too many employees and not enough volunteers.
Maybe they pay too much rent and do not buy when it could be cheaper in the long run.

However let religion with their problems and try to concern more politics to involve their party in a way they hate to go.

It is easier to give a dollar for a foreign country, even if we know .75 cents will be used to send the last quarter somewhere.
Same here... give the shit to the church when we have something more interesting to do.

Amen

It sounds like a good idea to me, but perhaps it relies a bit too much on religious institutions?

I thought I might get a response like that :)

The idea of using such insititutions is that, generally, religions have an emphasis on helping people. Plus I can quote their religious book if they ignore me. :)

Why religious institutions? That's just giving them opportunities to proselytise and spread their nonsense. Not to mention that it would make people more reluctant to seek help if they're not of the religion offering the aid, or are people who are not religious, or are likely to be discriminated against by the religious who would no doubt take the opportunity to judge and marginalise, as they always have.

Eliminate the religious contamination completely and you might have an idea. As long as you rely on something as dubious as the religiously tainted, this is stillborn. Best then to abort it.


See my post directly above :)

Adverts for the organisation would make it clear that your religion (or lack of one) is irrelevant, plus the focus would be on helping people, not on spreading religious stuff.

NO.
...Enough charities exist in that country and take enough money from people and local governments to do the job.

If they did, I wouldn't have started this thread. There are indeed a large number of charities providing much needed help, but for some, for example in certain rural areas, there is no local assistance available except for State Benefits, which they may not be able to get for whatever reason (plus claims take weeks to process).

Maybe they have too many employees and not enough volunteers.
Maybe they pay too much rent and do not buy when it could be cheaper in the long run.

True. But if the food and advice is being provided by me, it costs them nothing to do this, except time.

Same here... give the shit to the church when we have something more interesting to do.

Not everyone knows that churches are almost certain to offer, or try to offer, help to those in need. Often resources are also limited, as are funds.

As for why religious places, see most recent posts above.

[/QUOTE]

See my post directly above :)

Which ignores that religions do not at all have a focus on helping people, but on spreading the religion. Now, religious people might like to pretend like spreading the religion is helping people, but that's just pishposh.

Adverts for the organisation would make it clear that your religion (or lack of one) is irrelevant

And you would force the religious institution to respect that how exactly? They're not precisely known for being tolerant, you know.

plus the focus would be on helping people, not on spreading religious stuff.

Everywhere you have religion, the focus will be on the latter. And you've still not explained why you're involving religion other than "just because." There is nothing about them that makes them suitable for charity work in and of themselves, and that's especially when compared to non-religious charities.

although i like the idea and commend you on what you are doin, there are a couple of things you should realise about the uk

religion means nothing in the uk
and although i realise the scheme is not about religion and religion has nothign to do with it people wont come to the church / other for food. religion in the uk isnt a public thing you go out and display, its something private you keep to ureself we dont parade it about, so people wont come to the church for food

additionally. i assume this scheme is aimed at helping the poor but you dont really get people that poor in the uk that they need to go ask charity for food. government schemes and benefits dont allow people to get that way

although this could be used effectively in other countries, it really would not work in the uk

Which ignores that religions do not at all have a focus on helping people, but on spreading the religion. Now, religious people might like to pretend like spreading the religion is helping people, but that's just pishposh.

I know not all do, but whilst they may focus primarily on getting people to join (though that depends on the religion and the denomination), most do seem to place an emphasis on helping people

And you would force the religious institution to respect that how exactly? They're not precisely known for being tolerant, you know.

Actually, they are becoming more tolerant. For example, priests no longer consider muslims as people who need to be killed or made to join Christianity. Imams have started relationships with other religions. Etc.

But as for forcing them to respect it, what I would do is actually ask them if they would take part in the scheme, making sure they know what it's about. If they refused a person help because they were not part of that religion, they would no longer be in the scheme. But as far as I'm aware, most religious books that have statements about helping people (Bible, Qu'ran, etc) do not state that it is exclusively for specific religious people - it is for those in need, regardless of religion or lack of religion.


Everywhere you have religion, the focus will be on the latter. And you've still not explained why you're involving religion other than "just because." There is nothing about them that makes them suitable for charity work in and of themselves, and that's especially when compared to non-religious charities.

The focus of the religious institutions would of course be on the latter, However, the focus of the organisations (the PJ Croad Mission) would be on helping people, and only those who agreed with this would be signed up.

The reasons for using religious institutions are as above (because they usually already believe they are supposed to help people, so are more likely to take part in the scheme), plus it would mean no need to pay for new buildings to use as the Mission Centres. However, unlike Way number 2 above, it would have the distinct disadvantage of no co-ordinated approach to getting people in a place to stay.

I'm looking for advice on either/both ways.

although i like the idea and commend you on what you are doin, there are a couple of things you should realise about the uk

religion means nothing in the uk
and although i realise the scheme is not about religion and religion has nothign to do with it people wont come to the church / other for food. religion in the uk isnt a public thing you go out and display, its something private you keep to ureself we dont parade it about, so people wont come to the church for food

additionally. i assume this scheme is aimed at helping the poor but you dont really get people that poor in the uk that they need to go ask charity for food. government schemes and benefits dont allow people to get that way

although this could be used effectively in other countries, it really would not work in the uk

The UK may have a welfare state but a significant number of people still live below the poverty line.

although i like the idea and commend you on what you are doin, there are a couple of things you should realise about the uk

religion means nothing in the uk
and although i realise the scheme is not about religion and religion has nothign to do with it people wont come to the church / other for food. religion in the uk isnt a public thing you go out and display, its something private you keep to ureself we dont parade it about, so people wont come to the church for food

additionally. i assume this scheme is aimed at helping the poor but you dont really get people that poor in the uk that they need to go ask charity for food. government schemes and benefits dont allow people to get that way

although this could be used effectively in other countries, it really would not work in the uk

The fact that religious buildings would be used if Way Number 1 was implemented does not mean an excuse for evangelism - it simply means a place to hold a Mission Centre.

And people do go to churches for help anyway - look up news reports, or ask a few homeless people. I asked churches for help myself even when I was totally against the idea of joining Christianity. They usually helped me in some way.

Could you rephrase this please? It's a bit difficult to understand:

"additionally. i assume this scheme is aimed at helping the poor but you dont really get people that poor in the uk that they need to go ask charity for food. government schemes and benefits dont allow people to get that way"

If you mean that poor people won't go to charities for assistance, that's not true if they know about the charities and what they offer. If you mean government schemes are available instead, they are not always sufficient, or do not provide sufficient assistance quickly enough (for example, getting Jobseekers Allowance takes a few weeks for the first payment). If you mean there's not many poor people, then please take a walk (accompanied, for safety) around late at night, and look in a few old buildings, doorways, bridge arches, etc. There are resources, but not enough, and they don't always help. I was nearly homeless once and my local Council wouldn't help. They referred me to Manchester Council who also refused to help. In addition, there's two friends I've been trying to help, one who definitely needed FOOD rather than money as she wanted me to send some noodles to her (I did) - these are just the two I've managed to meet, I'm certain there are many more. I also remember seeing a woman searching in a bin for food, and I've seen people do that before.

The UK may have a welfare state but a significant number of people still live below the poverty line.

True, for a number of reasons, here's a few:

> Under 16's (in some cases under 18's can not get benefits) who are homeless, their choice seems to be either nothing, or care home (which have obviously had negative publicity so care homes are not appealing). And there are only 10 purpose-built beds across the UK for the thousands (or is it a hundred thousand) runaways each year.

> Takes time to get first payment

> Difficulties in getting it due to supposedly not being eligible

> Sudden expense that the Social Fund won't help with (or won't sufficiently help with)