Manifesto of cultural centers: a call for collective action

This manifesto is not only a reflection but also a call to action. It invites collective action: to continue seeing and supporting cultural institutions as essential links in an inclusive, democratic, and connected European society. Below you will find the Dutch version of the manifesto.

Cultural houses help to preserve local memory, provide space for diversity, and create places where people can come together and collaborate without barriers or fear. In times when crises accumulate and trust is lost, we are not a luxury. We are part of the basic services that make social life, the 'togetherness' of life, possible.

We keep the doors open while daily life becomes more expensive, polarized, and exhausting. People come in isolated, sad, angry, or confused, feeling the need to rediscover themselves in a place that feels human. We do not necessarily see them in the most optimal circumstances. We meet them as they are, in a real context.

We do not work after the crisis. We work in the midst of it.

What we do

We bring culture into daily life. We ensure accessibility, not as a slogan but in practice: a welcoming environment, low-threshold ways to walk in and participate, and the time and space to simply pass through without having to prove that you belong.

We bring together people who would otherwise never meet. We bring people together regardless of language, social class, migration background, neighborhood, or political opinion.

We respond to conflicts by ensuring dialogue and safety and making restoration possible. When tensions rise, we help prevent escalation. When conflicts arise, we encourage connection and reconciliation.

We create space for reflection, shared struggle, shared joy, and the slow (re)building of dignity. We provide ways to express oneself and feel part of something, without needing the right words, background, or status.

Much of this work may appear very ordinary from the outside. That is precisely why it works. It is built through repetition: familiar faces returning, deepening relationships, and small 'repairs' that prevent a community from falling apart.

It is the kind of value that you only notice when it is no longer there.

What is missing

Funding and evaluation systems continue to ask us to demonstrate the impact of our work in the most obvious forms: visitor numbers, publicity, figures, and reports. These can be useful, but they overlook the majority of what really matters.

They do not show how trust develops between people who initially distrusted each other. They do not show that prejudices decrease. They do not show that someone remains involved instead of disappearing. They do not show how a neighborhood learns to talk to each other again.

Because these measures dominate, they determine what is possible. The focus shifts from people to paperwork. Grant programs bend towards what fits in a form or checklist. Organizations learn to prioritize what can be reported, even if that is not what is needed for real, lasting impact.

We are expected to demonstrate our value in ways that take time away from the work that creates that value.

Communities do not live according to funding cycles

A cultural house does not start when a grant is awarded. It does not end when the report is submitted. People go through seasons, school years, and caregiving tasks, face rising costs, health crises, sudden turns, and long recovery periods.

Short-term funding with strict rules clashes with the long-term nature of socio-cultural work. The first thing to go is the time to build relationships: the patient work of gaining trust, returning regularly, and belonging somewhere. Then the stability of the team falls away. Next, continuity. The cultural house thus becomes a patchwork of projects without roots, instead of a place where people can fall back on.

Here, the contradiction also becomes visible: the workload increases while the conditions for connection decrease. The result is not sustainable, neither for the public nor for the people doing the work. We feel it in our bodies and in our teams: underpaid work, burnout, brain drain, constant improvisation, and the quiet disappearance of people who can no longer cope.

What we are, and what we are not

We are cultural houses: places where culture is part of daily life. We work with people as they are, not as target groups. We build public space in practice: places where people can step in without knowing the right language or codes, without paperwork, and without having to already feel at home.

We do more than just organize events. We provide a stable and welcoming place, week after week.

We are not a stage that only exists when there is a performance.

We are not a stage that only exists when there is money for programming.

We are not a business that merely rents out rooms.

We are not a service provider that performs predetermined tasks to meet a request.

We are not a marketing tool for the promotion of the city or municipality.

We are not an instrument of social policy to fill gaps or compensate for shortcomings elsewhere, while we are funded as a 'nice cultural extra.'

We are not here to give unrelated policy agendas or initiatives that have little to do with culture, community, or care, a cultural touch.

We are not a machine that runs on unpaid labor, exhaustion, and constant uncertainty.

What we refuse

We reject the idea that value only begins when it becomes visible to a funder.

We refuse a system in which the best work disappears into archives because it is not measurable.

We refuse to normalize burnout.

We refuse the 'project logic' in which continuity and stability are considered a luxury, even though continuity is precisely how trust is built.

We reject the idea that accountability equates to paperwork.

The invisible work that holds the visible work together.

We build trust through repetition. We keep showing up. We stay long enough for people to return on their own, without a nudge or marketing trick. We bridge communities that would not naturally meet until real contact is established.

We use culture as a common language when other languages fall short.

We build with and for people. Ownership grows when responsibility is shared.

A large part of our impact is preventive and restorative: we prevent tensions from escalating, and we help people pick up the pieces when something goes wrong.

Funding pays for programs, but rarely for the daily work that makes this possible. The result is unpaid work, burnout, and instability.

Our demands

We want cultural houses to be treated as social infrastructure. We want funding and policy that align with practice, not with bureaucratic processes.

We ask the EU and member states to: establish a special budget line for cultural houses; make multi-year operational support mandatory as a standard; limit the reporting burden in relation to the grant; and recognize mediation and community building as fundable costs.

recognition

We want cultural houses to be recognized at the EU level as social infrastructure, and for that recognition to be implemented in national and local practice. Recognition means that:

Socio-cultural work is accurately named in policy and budgets;
Small cultural houses count, not just the large institutions;
Invisible work counts, not just large-scale events;
Time for networking and building relationships is seen as legitimate work.

funding that aligns with reality

We want three types of funding:

Basic funding
Multi-year operational grants that cover rent, materials, staff time, maintenance, coordination, and community building.
Microgrants
Simple microgrants for experiments and local initiatives, with reporting requirements that are proportionate to the scale, so that funding does not primarily go to the best project writers.
Program funding
Project funding is valuable, but as a supplement to a stable base, not as a replacement for it.
We want an accessible funding line for socio-cultural goals, with special attention to grassroots initiatives and organizations focusing on inclusion. organizations focusing on.

proportional accountability and real learning

We are open to accountability. We reject checkbox ticking.

We want:

Reporting requirements that are tailored to the size of the grant and the capacity of the organization;
Practical knowledge as a valid outcome;
Evaluation that measures what has changed, what has been learned, and what communities have built sustainably.

This is what real change looks like: people come back and bring others; participation grows; neighbors find each other, with fewer prejudices and less fear. Dignity and self-confidence grow; partnerships emerge; communities take over projects.

working conditions

We want work to be possible without compromising personal health.

We demand:

Sufficiently funded working hours for staff, including coordination and networking;
Multi-year contracts that align with the long-term nature of socio-cultural work;
Mentorship and talent development for younger cultural workers;
Support for mobility and exchange.

collaboration
We want conditions that enable us to no longer be competitors, but where we contribute together to shared values.

We demand:

Funding criteria that reward collaboration between cultural houses, neighborhoods, and groups;
Support for shared systems, shared staffing models, shared spaces, and exchange between colleagues;
Time to network and build relationships.

governance and feedback loops
We want policy that aligns with reality, shaped by local knowledge and practical experience.

We demand:

Supported, regular dialogue between policymakers and cultural houses;
Local expertise seen as essential input;
Time for reflection and alignment that is funded as legitimate work.

The sfift we need

Less micromanagement, more funding based on trust and accountability in relation to the grant. Support that is sustainable and consistent, with a special budget line for socio-cultural activities.

Stop rewarding the best reports, allocate resources to the best work. Recognize the socio-cultural sector for their intrinsic value, not just as a tool for other policy goals.

We do not set unrealistic expectations. We ask for conditions that make our work possible. We refuse a system that replaces stable funding and professional work with unpaid work, and we ask to be treated as legitimate workers creating social value.

We do not ask for more paperwork. We ask for more time with people.

This manifesto was created within FULCRUM. FULCRUM is a project of: Association des Centres Culturels de la Communauté française de Belgique (Belgium), Bundesverband Soziokultur (Germany), cult! (Belgium), DireFareBaciare (Italy), European Network of Cultural Centres (EU), Eesti Rahvamajade Ühing (Estonia), IG Kultur Österreich (Austria), Latvijas Kultūras Darbinieku Biedrība (Latvia), associated partner: Arci Nazionale (Italy)

This publication is co-financed by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Executive Agency for Education and Culture (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor the EACEA can be held responsible for this.