The following are results of a February 1995 survey of homeless providers that are members of the Internationl Union of Gospel Missions.

• 127 ministries responded
• 39 or 31% have taken some type of government funding
• 88 had taken no government funding (69%)

Of those taking government funding:

• 24 had taken federal funds
• 12 had taken state funds
• 19 had taken local funds

Some of the above had taken from more than one source.

Of those taking government funds:

• 31 noted it as a positive experience (79%)
• 8 noted it as a negative experience (21%)

The following comments reflect those who noted a POSITIVE experience:

• Yes, there were no restrictions placed concerning our religious teaching, but they were unhappy because we didn't spend all the money allocated (Local funding).
  
  
• We used county funds to fund our family shelter, but they now have asked us not to have Bible Study (required), so we no longer take the funds (Local).
  
  
• We have had the opportunity to display consistency and quality as a witness for Christ, but as funding has increased the camel has stuck his nose further in the tent, and it is likely that we will no longer receive these funds. Changes are now being made in the contract stipulations (Local).
  
  
• Funds used for food, red tape is the only problem (Federal, State, & Local).
  
  
• Due to local publicity, the county commissioners changed their ruling and we received funds (State, Local).
  
  
• Use money for bricks and mortar, and we have segregated functions which have helped us focus on the spiritual (Federal, State & Local).
  
  
• We have received county funds for some time and have had no complaints. We receive no other government aid (Local).
  
  
• We were never questioned about our requiring the men to attend chapel service. We have discontinued accepting federal funds due to our concern that this could be a problem (Federal).
  
  
• Funding began to drop year by year (mostly FEMA) and we decided it was no longer worth the effort, and we felt they were beginning to interfere (Federal).
  
  
• Only did this for late night shelter during cold weather so that we did not have to compromise our religious beliefs (Federal).
  
  
• No bad experience or repercussions local government is buying food (Local).
  
  
• In all our agreements we have maintained the right to hire only Christians. We have intentionally kept government funding to a small percentage (8%) of our budget (State & Local).
  
  
• The money came in handy, but a pointed letter from United Way who distributes the money is making us re-think our involement (Federal).
  
  
• Since receipt of state funds has not yet resulted in the need to change compulsory religious programming, the funds have been very helpful (State).
  
  
• It helped us serve extra meals. We have always served breakfast and lunch with no chapel attendance, so there was no problem with these meals (Federal).
  
  
• It has helped ease the cost of providing food and shelter for the homeless (Federal).
  
  
• Money was used for food, but too much paperwork. If funds interfere with our ability to present the gospel, we will not take them (Federal).
  
  
• No unreasonable strings were or are attached. Our religious program has never been affected (Federal).
  
  
• Made it possible to reopen our family shelter (Federal & State).
  
  
• We are partners with government officials in meeting community need. We have not been prevented from carrying out our Christian work, because we do not seek funds for that purpose and we understand the rules (Federal,State & Local).
  
  
• The only agreement we made was not to charge. The government did not restrict us in any other manner (Federal).
  
  
• Local government has acted as a buffer (Federal).
  
  
• The state could not do emergency winter shelter effectively, so they have helped us to take care of that need (State & Local).
  
  
• We took a one time incentive to purchase property and move. No problems so far (Local).
  
  
• 25. Helped us develop excellent bookkeeping practices. You must learn the policies of government funding (Federal & Local).
  
  

Comments by those accepting government funding, and having a NEGATIVE experience:

• They began to put in rules against the use of Bible Classes, religious pictures, and programming (FEMA & Federal).
  
  
• Even though we had no problem, I worried about the compulsory chapel requirement, and in 1989 we stopped taking funds (Federal).
  
  
• As soon as families discovered that the government supported us, they were not satisfied with the content of our food baskets. After first allocation, we returned the money, and withdrew (Federal).
  
  
• We were told we had to stop all religious service requirements, so we stopped taking money for women staying in shelter, men in recovery (Federal & Local).
  
  
• Police department thought they were running the mission since government was paying some operating expenses (Local).
  
  
• Government wanted to control program content (State).
  
  
• One disgruntled client used his knowledge of this funding to precipitate a negative newspaper response. We lost considerable private funding from this.
  
  
• The ACLU threatened to sue the county if they paid us because of our mandatory chapel (County).

Purposes for which funds were taken and from whom:

Federal=(F), State=(S), Local=(L)

• Educational Materials 1 (F)
• Food and Lodging 32: 16 (F & FEMA), 7 (S), ll (L). Some had more than one source.
• Equipment 3: 2 (F), 2 (S), 1 (L) Some had more than one source.
• Operating 8: 4 (F), 1 (S), 4 (L) Some had more than one source.
• Work Training 2: 1 (F), 1 (S), 1 (L) One had two sources.
• Alcohol-Drug Treatment: 2 (S)
• Client Services: 1 (S)
• Capital-Facilities and Relocation 5: 3 (F), 2 (S), 2 (L) 1 had three sources.
• Medical Clinic 1 (L)

Accommodating Religious Programming Relating to Government Funds

• 27 Ministries (accepting government funds) reported no designing of religious program to accommodate government funding.
  
  
• 7 Ministries reported the following accommodations:
  
  • Non-compulsory Chapel 4
  • Separation of Religious and Social Program 2

Of those taking government funding:

• 18 require compulsory chapel/Bible Study (58%)
  
  
• 13 do not require compulsory chapel/Bible Study (42%)
  
  
• Of those NOT taking government funding:
  
  • 54 require compulsory chapel/Bible Study attendance (90%)
  • 6 do not require compulsory chapel/Bible Study attendance (10%)
  • It should be pointed out that only 4 ministries stated that the government
  • funding had to do with this change.
•  

The following other reasons were listed:

• It is our belief that chapel services should be by motivation and people will attend as the Holy Spirit directs. Our job is to show Christ all the time.
• We encourage our guests to attend, and most do.
• Good evangelism is not forced.
• We have not forced our spiritual program on anyone for as long as I can remember. This does not mean we do not have a vibrant thriving well attended spiritual ministry.
• I have difficulty turning someone away cold and hungry because they have not attended a chapel service.
• Spiritual opportunity rather than religious requirement.
• It is my belief that we are to meet physical need in the name of our Lord and then serve His Gospel with all that we do.

Of Those Having Taken Government Funding:

• 11 Listed that it is at this time no percentage of their budget.
• 8 listed either 1 or 2%
• 5 listed from 5 to 10%
• 4 listed from 10 to 20%
• 1 listed from 20 to 30%
• 1 listed 40%

The two with the highest percentage are small ministries.

Missions Deciding Against Taking Government Funds

29 Missions who have or are taking government funds have turned down government funding for the following reasons:

• We pulled away from FEMA when they added a clause about proselytizing.
• When state grant people wanted us to take Christian out of our name we rejected $32,000 for our abuse shelter.
• City has changed contract stipulations, and we expect to pull out of contract.
• We refuse those funds that compromise our beliefs.
• We have turned down grants that wanted us to hire non-Christians.
• In 1992 the Board decided to take no more government funding.
• We have looked at compromising our religious foundation on a case by case basis.
• We will accept no funds for our program (funds received were for relocation).
• The ACLU made the decision for us.
• We refused grants when they wanted religious symbols removed, but they changed their policies.
• We were required to file a form 990, and our board decided that we would not.
• We accepted money due to our small donor base, and small pro-Christian community. At some point we would like to stop receiving it.
• We have had several opportunities to apply for federal funds (we now take state), and have not due to constraints/restrictions to our religious programming.
• We dropped FEMA because we felt we were splitting hairs to qualify.
• We had a bad experience with FEMA.
• We discontinued asking for FEMA funds due to our concern relating to government regulations as to our religious program.
• We have not pursued grant money that prohibits grants to agencies which require religious participation.
• Our current board has decided to no longer seek government funding.
• We looked at a Transitional Housing grant for a new building. The plans had a chapel, so we decided not to apply. We would be okay if we build the chapel separately.
• We pulled out of all government and United Way funding in 1992. We wanted no strings attached to how we minister.

7 who have taken government funds have never decided against taking funds.

Of the 76 who have not taken government funds, 61 stated they have decided against it, and 7 have not decided against taking funds.

The others did not respond.

Most comments of those deciding against funding related to the issues of religious programming (required), and hiring only Christians. Some were also concerned of other government interference. It is unclear how many ministries have stated policy by board action, but a number do.

of a February 1995 survey of homeless providers that are members of the Internationl Union of Gospel Missions.

• 127 ministries responded
• 39 or 31% have taken some type of government funding
• 88 had taken no government funding (69%)

Of those taking government funding:

• 24 had taken federal funds
• 12 had taken state funds
• 19 had taken local funds

Some of the above had taken from more than one source.

Of those taking government funds:

• 31 noted it as a positive experience (79%)
• 8 noted it as a negative experience (21%)

The following comments reflect those who noted a POSITIVE experience:

• Yes, there were no restrictions placed concerning our religious teaching, but they were unhappy because we didn't spend all the money allocated (Local funding).
  
  
• We used county funds to fund our family shelter, but they now have asked us not to have Bible Study (required), so we no longer take the funds (Local).
  
  
• We have had the opportunity to display consistency and quality as a witness for Christ, but as funding has increased the camel has stuck his nose further in the tent, and it is likely that we will no longer receive these funds. Changes are now being made in the contract stipulations (Local).
  
  
• Funds used for food, red tape is the only problem (Federal, State, & Local).
  
  
• Due to local publicity, the county commissioners changed their ruling and we received funds (State, Local).
  
  
• Use money for bricks and mortar, and we have segregated functions which have helped us focus on the spiritual (Federal, State & Local).
  
  
• We have received county funds for some time and have had no complaints. We receive no other government aid (Local).
  
  
• We were never questioned about our requiring the men to attend chapel service. We have discontinued accepting federal funds due to our concern that this could be a problem (Federal).
  
  
• Funding began to drop year by year (mostly FEMA) and we decided it was no longer worth the effort, and we felt they were beginning to interfere (Federal).
  
  
• Only did this for late night shelter during cold weather so that we did not have to compromise our religious beliefs (Federal).
  
  
• No bad experience or repercussions local government is buying food (Local).
  
  
• In all our agreements we have maintained the right to hire only Christians. We have intentionally kept government funding to a small percentage (8%) of our budget (State & Local).
  
  
• The money came in handy, but a pointed letter from United Way who distributes the money is making us re-think our involement (Federal).
  
  
• Since receipt of state funds has not yet resulted in the need to change compulsory religious programming, the funds have been very helpful (State).
  
  
• It helped us serve extra meals. We have always served breakfast and lunch with no chapel attendance, so there was no problem with these meals (Federal).
  
  
• It has helped ease the cost of providing food and shelter for the homeless (Federal).
  
  
• Money was used for food, but too much paperwork. If funds interfere with our ability to present the gospel, we will not take them (Federal).
  
  
• No unreasonable strings were or are attached. Our religious program has never been affected (Federal).
  
  
• Made it possible to reopen our family shelter (Federal & State).
  
  
• We are partners with government officials in meeting community need. We have not been prevented from carrying out our Christian work, because we do not seek funds for that purpose and we understand the rules (Federal,State & Local).
  
  
• The only agreement we made was not to charge. The government did not restrict us in any other manner (Federal).
  
  
• Local government has acted as a buffer (Federal).
  
  
• The state could not do emergency winter shelter effectively, so they have helped us to take care of that need (State & Local).
  
  
• We took a one time incentive to purchase property and move. No problems so far (Local).
  
  
• 25. Helped us develop excellent bookkeeping practices. You must learn the policies of government funding (Federal & Local).
  
  

Comments by those accepting government funding, and having a NEGATIVE experience:

• They began to put in rules against the use of Bible Classes, religious pictures, and programming (FEMA & Federal).
  
  
• Even though we had no problem, I worried about the compulsory chapel requirement, and in 1989 we stopped taking funds (Federal).
  
  
• As soon as families discovered that the government supported us, they were not satisfied with the content of our food baskets. After first allocation, we returned the money, and withdrew (Federal).
  
  
• We were told we had to stop all religious service requirements, so we stopped taking money for women staying in shelter, men in recovery (Federal & Local).
  
  
• Police department thought they were running the mission since government was paying some operating expenses (Local).
  
  
• Government wanted to control program content (State).
  
  
• One disgruntled client used his knowledge of this funding to precipitate a negative newspaper response. We lost considerable private funding from this.
  
  
• The ACLU threatened to sue the county if they paid us because of our mandatory chapel (County).

Purposes for which funds were taken and from whom:

Federal=(F), State=(S), Local=(L)

• Educational Materials 1 (F)
• Food and Lodging 32: 16 (F & FEMA), 7 (S), ll (L). Some had more than one source.
• Equipment 3: 2 (F), 2 (S), 1 (L) Some had more than one source.
• Operating 8: 4 (F), 1 (S), 4 (L) Some had more than one source.
• Work Training 2: 1 (F), 1 (S), 1 (L) One had two sources.
• Alcohol-Drug Treatment: 2 (S)
• Client Services: 1 (S)
• Capital-Facilities and Relocation 5: 3 (F), 2 (S), 2 (L) 1 had three sources.
• Medical Clinic 1 (L)

Accommodating Religious Programming Relating to Government Funds

• 27 Ministries (accepting government funds) reported no designing of religious program to accommodate government funding.
  
  
• 7 Ministries reported the following accommodations:
  
  • Non-compulsory Chapel 4
  • Separation of Religious and Social Program 2

Of those taking government funding:

• 18 require compulsory chapel/Bible Study (58%)
  
  
• 13 do not require compulsory chapel/Bible Study (42%)
  
  
• Of those NOT taking government funding:
  
  • 54 require compulsory chapel/Bible Study attendance (90%)
  • 6 do not require compulsory chapel/Bible Study attendance (10%)
  • It should be pointed out that only 4 ministries stated that the government
  • funding had to do with this change.
•  

The following other reasons were listed:

• It is our belief that chapel services should be by motivation and people will attend as the Holy Spirit directs. Our job is to show Christ all the time.
• We encourage our guests to attend, and most do.
• Good evangelism is not forced.
• We have not forced our spiritual program on anyone for as long as I can remember. This does not mean we do not have a vibrant thriving well attended spiritual ministry.
• I have difficulty turning someone away cold and hungry because they have not attended a chapel service.
• Spiritual opportunity rather than religious requirement.
• It is my belief that we are to meet physical need in the name of our Lord and then serve His Gospel with all that we do.

Of Those Having Taken Government Funding:

• 11 Listed that it is at this time no percentage of their budget.
• 8 listed either 1 or 2%
• 5 listed from 5 to 10%
• 4 listed from 10 to 20%
• 1 listed from 20 to 30%
• 1 listed 40%

The two with the highest percentage are small ministries.

Missions Deciding Against Taking Government Funds

29 Missions who have or are taking government funds have turned down government funding for the following reasons:

• We pulled away from FEMA when they added a clause about proselytizing.
• When state grant people wanted us to take Christian out of our name we rejected $32,000 for our abuse shelter.
• City has changed contract stipulations, and we expect to pull out of contract.
• We refuse those funds that compromise our beliefs.
• We have turned down grants that wanted us to hire non-Christians.
• In 1992 the Board decided to take no more government funding.
• We have looked at compromising our religious foundation on a case by case basis.
• We will accept no funds for our program (funds received were for relocation).
• The ACLU made the decision for us.
• We refused grants when they wanted religious symbols removed, but they changed their policies.
• We were required to file a form 990, and our board decided that we would not.
• We accepted money due to our small donor base, and small pro-Christian community. At some point we would like to stop receiving it.
• We have had several opportunities to apply for federal funds (we now take state), and have not due to constraints/restrictions to our religious programming.
• We dropped FEMA because we felt we were splitting hairs to qualify.
• We had a bad experience with FEMA.
• We discontinued asking for FEMA funds due to our concern relating to government regulations as to our religious program.
• We have not pursued grant money that prohibits grants to agencies which require religious participation.
• Our current board has decided to no longer seek government funding.
• We looked at a Transitional Housing grant for a new building. The plans had a chapel, so we decided not to apply. We would be okay if we build the chapel separately.
• We pulled out of all government and United Way funding in 1992. We wanted no strings attached to how we minister.

7 who have taken government funds have never decided against taking funds.

Of the 76 who have not taken government funds, 61 stated they have decided against it, and 7 have not decided against taking funds.

The others did not respond.

Most comments of those deciding against funding related to the issues of religious programming (required), and hiring only Christians. Some were also concerned of other government interference. It is unclear how many ministries have stated policy by board action, but a number do.