AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper

AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper

Sample Answer for AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper Included After Question

AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper

Description

How does the ‘Caring Community’ Model differ from the ‘Service-Organization’ Model? Please provide an example of a ‘service’ community organization, and an example of a ‘caring’ community organization. Please describe their characteristics.

Resources:

Read Chapters 2, 3, & 11-13 in this course text: Serving Those in Need: A Handbook for Managing Faith-Based Human Service

ARTICLES:

Holistic Faith-Based Development: Toward a Conceptual Framework

By: John M. Wallace, Jr., Ph.D. – University of Pittsburgh, Valerie L. Myers, Ph.D. – University of Michigan, & Jim Holley, Ph.D. – The Historic Little Rock, Missionary Baptist Church

Faith-Based Community Economic Development – Principles and Practices

This article discusses the principles and best practices of faith-based community economic development.
By: T. David Reese & Christina A. Clamp, Ph.D.

Faith-Based Organizations In Community Development

This article discusses the role of faith-based organizations in community development.
By: The Urban Institute & Avis C. Vidal, 2001.

Connections Between Faith Communities and Their Non-profits

By: Jo Anne Schneider, Katie Day, & Gwynneth Anderson, 2005.

Organizing Faith-Based Services

This article explores the ways that different religious groups organize social support systems for themselves and others.
By: Jo Anne Schneider, George Washington Institute of Pubic Policy

Faith & Organizations Project (Links to an external site.)

This website includes links to reports that outline how different faith communities can maintain connections with their nonprofits.

Empirical Evidence on Faith-Based Organizations in an Era of Welfare Reform

 

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper

Title: AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper

This article analyzes the characteristics of clients who seek and receive help from faith-based organizations, particularly focusing on how exposure to the effects of welfare reform affects help seeking behaviors and the receipt of help.
By: David A. Reingold – Indiana University–Bloomington, Maureen Pirog – Indiana University–Bloomington, & David Brady – Duke University, 2007.

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Holistic Faith-Based Development Toward a Conceptual Framework By John M. Wallace, Jr., Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh Valerie L. Myers, Ph.D. University of Michigan Jim Holley, Ph.D. The Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church An independent research project of the Rockefeller Institute of Government Supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts Holistic Faith-Based Development: Toward a Conceptual Framework By John M. Wallace, Jr., Ph.D. University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work Valerie L. Myers, Ph.D. University of Michigan School of Public Health Jim Holley, Ph.D. The Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church April 2004 Toward a Conceptual Framework Holistic Faith-Based Development: Toward a Conceptual Framework PURPOSE The purpose of this paper is to expand knowledge about the active role that many faith-based organizations can and are taking in their communities. A central goal of the paper is to increase understanding of “holistic” faith-based development— the kinds of work progressive congregations and their affiliated organizations are doing across the country, meeting not only the need for a bag of groceries and a listening ear, but also providing job training for people leaving welfare, educational opportunities for children in under-resourced schools, entrepreneurial opportunities for investors, housing for seniors, the revitalization of old neighborhoods, and the development of new ones. To date, the literature on holistic faith-based development is limited, largely descriptive and focuses on the work of a few large congregations, typically led by dynamic African American clergy and located in poor inner-city communities. While descriptive research is important and often provides valuable insights into a new field of inquiry, it fails to provide the theoretical foundation upon which to build knowledge or to provide a conceptual map or “blueprint” for taking action. To begin to address the gaps in knowledge about holistic faith-based development, this study briefly reviews the African American church’s historical and contemporary role in this area, discusses the theoretical framework implicit in much of the work, and presents a broad conceptual paradigm that faith-based practitioners can use to guide future efforts. The paper concludes with a case study of a ministry engaged in holistic faith-based development that is working both independently and with other churches, non-profits, for-profits, and local government to transform a neighborhood in the inner city of Detroit, Michigan. BACKGROUND As a result of the Charitable Choice provision (i.e., section 104) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the Welfare Reform Act) and President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative, policy makers, academics, and clergy have focused considerable attention on the role of faithbased organizations in the delivery of social services. The Charitable Choice provision permits states to use federal dollars to contract with religious organizations to provide social services, while protecting the religious nature of these organizations and permitting them to retain their independence from The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 1 Holistic Faith-Based Development government. While some national faith-based organizations (e.g., Catholic Social Services, Lutheran Social Services, the Salvation Army) have long received significant portions of their budgets from the federal government, the current debate focuses on the extent to which individual congregations can receive federal tax dollars to support their social service programs. Recent research suggests that although the majority (between 60 percent and 90 percent) of American congregations support at least one social service, community development, or neighborhood organizing project, only 3 percent receive federal funds and only 11 percent receive any funds from outside sources (Chaves, 1999). Implicit in the debate around whether or not churches, mosques or synagogues should be allowed to receive federal monies is the assumption that they would seek government dollars if they were available. Research on the willingness of congregations to apply for federal funds indicates that there are significant differences, with the racial composition of the congregation being the strongest predictor (Chaves, 1999). More specifically, 64 percent of African American clergy expressed a willingness to apply for federal funds to support their social service efforts compared to only 28 percent of white clergy (Chaves, 1999). The greater willingness of African American clergy to apply for federal funds is not surprising given that African American congregations are significantly more likely than white congregations to be located in poor communities and more likely to provide services that meet the needs of the poor, including education, mentoring, substance abuse, job training or assistance, meals, community development, and promoting civil rights and social justice issues (Chaves and Higgins, 1992; Chaves and Tsitsos, 2001). Many African American pastors and congregations have, of necessity, sought to address needs not of the nameless “poor,” but of their members, and their members’ family and friends. In fact, even among churches located in urban areas, African American congregations offer more programs than their white counterparts despite having less educated clergy, fewer staff, and smaller memberships (Boddie and Cnaan, 2001). When taken in total, research suggests that African American churches have a greater demonstrated commitment and perhaps necessity than their white counterparts to meet the pressing needs of disadvantaged urban populations. While necessity has driven many African American congregations to attempt to provide social services, the need for programs and services that ameliorate the conditions of the poor will continue to far outstrip the resources of the church and what government can or will provide. Additionally, social services alone are insufficient to change the conditions that create the need for them—more holistic strategies are required to change conditions that plague our nation’s inner cities. In light of this reality, innovative and entrepreneurial African American and other urban pastors and congregations are developing strategies to minister holistically to the human, economic, and community development needs of individuals and families both within and outside their congregations. 2 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework HOLISTIC FAITH-BASED DEVELOPMENT AND THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH Although the recent debates about Charitable Choice and President Bush’s FaithBased Initiative have brought national attention to the work of a few prominent African American pastors such as Floyd Flake in New York, Kirbyjon Caldwell in Houston, Eugene Rivers in Boston, and Charles Blake in Los Angeles, the holistic development mission of the African American church is not new. Historically, as a result of the persistent racial discrimination that denied African Americans access to the religious, social, business, governmental, educational and recreational resources of the larger society, the church emerged as the central community entity, created and controlled by African Americans to meet their spiritual as well as secular needs and desires (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990). In discussing the historical social service role of the African American church, W.E.B. Dubois (1898) noted that: It is natural that today the bulk of organized efforts of Negroes in any direction should center in the Church. The Negro Church is the only social institution of the Negroes which started in the African forest and survived slavery; under the leadership of the priest and medicine man, afterward the Christian pastor, the Church preserved in itself the remnants of African tribal life and became after emancipation the center of Negro social life. So that today the Negro population of the United States is virtually divided into Church congregations, which are the real units of the race life. It is natural therefore that charitable and rescue work among Negroes should first be found in the churches and reach there its greatest development (pp. 4-5). Echoing and expanding Dubois’ point, nearly a century later, Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) note: The Black Church has no challenger as the cultural womb of the black community. Not only did it give birth to new institutions such as schools, banks, insurance companies, and low income housing, it also provided an academy and an arena for political activities, and it nurtured young talent for musical, dramatic, and artistic development…in addition to the traditional concerns of worship, moral nurture, education and social control” (p. 8). While there is evidence suggesting the “all encompassing” nature of the church has diminished as opportunities for African Americans to participate in the larger society have increased, the church remains the central—and in many inner cities, the only—institution seeking to enhance the well-being of poor African Americans and to revitalize their communities. Additionally, the church The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 3 Holistic Faith-Based Development continues to be the place where African Americans, poor and affluent, commit over a third of their volunteer time and 75 percent of their charitable giving (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990). Even where other organizations and agencies like the Urban League, the NAACP, fraternal organizations, and social service providers appear to have assumed the church’s historic role, its influence remains because leaders of these organizations—African American politicians, businesspeople, teachers, lawyers, doctors and social workers—are pastors, deacons, trustees, Sunday school teachers, ushers, or at least active members of local congregations. The church also plays a key role in African American communities as a mediating structure between individuals and the larger society. Mediating structures act as liaisons between individuals in their private lives and the larger “megastructures” of public life, such as the social service system, big business, and government (Berger and Neuhaus, 1996). Research suggests African American churches are particularly important in poor communities where citizens often lack the resources to manage or influence megastructures (Wood, 2002). The mediating function that the pastors in Boston’s Ten Point Coalition served to reduce conflict between the city’s police and its young African American males is an important example of this role (Berrien and Winship, 1999). In short, through its mediating function, the African American church has been, and continues to be, an important vehicle through which to address the social, political, cultural, physical, and economic conditions of poor African American communities. A variety of other characteristics of African American churches make them ideally, and in many ways uniquely, suited as mediating structures (Wallace and Myers, 1998). These include: 4 • Empowering African Americans to counter racial, economic, and social oppression is fundamental to their historical and contemporary mission; • Churches, physically located in African American neighborhoods, share knowledge and experience of the challenges residents face; • Churches are economically independent and thus able to advocate for the community without being beholden to outside interests; • Churches have ready access to a wealth of human capital through the skills and talents of their members; • Churches are able to create and sustain initiatives through their own resources and thus do not have to end successful programs when external funds dry up; • Unlike government, the health care industry, and traditional social service agencies, churches do not categorize people by their “needs” and treat them as “clients.” Rather, they view people holistically (i.e., mind, body and spirit) and welcome them as brothers and sisters who The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework can both give and receive in the context of an extended church family; and • Churches have expertise in empowering people to plan, organize and mobilize around the achievement of individual and shared goals. EMPOWERMENT AND THE HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT MISSION OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH Research has consistently recognized the role of religious participation as a significant catalyst for African Americans’ engagement in political activities, volunteerism, community involvement, environmental activism, organizational membership and other behaviors through which people seek to control their lives and exert power (Alex-Assensoh and Assensoh, 2001; Mattis, Jagers, Hatcher, Lawhon, Murphy and Murray, 2000; Musick, Wilson, Bynum, 2000). Yet, despite the relationship between African Americans’ religious involvement and their efforts to exercise power and mastery over their lives, research has yet to explicitly connect the work and mission of African American churches to the growing theoretical literature on empowerment (see Zimmerman, 2000). The limited body of research that does investigate the empowerment function of religion for African Americans has focused largely on political activity and participation (see Arp and Boecklman, 1997; Harris, 1994) and thus has not considered its role in areas like economic and community development. In her seminal work, Black Empowerment, Barbara Solomon notes that “powerlessness of black individuals, groups and communities arises through a process whereby valued identities and roles on the one hand and valuable resources on the other are denied—all of which are prerequisite to the exercise of interpersonal influence and effective social functioning” (p12). Many efforts to address the conditions of African American individuals, organizations and communities have relied on deficit-oriented social services models that denied them power and viewed increases in services as the solution to their problems. These deficit-based models, though different in focus and degree, have often sustained, if not promoted, powerlessness among poor African Americans. Specifically, traditional strategies to address the needs of poor African Americans and to revitalize urban communities have often resulted in distorted, disconnected, disjointed and disempowering development. Below we describe briefly some of the failed strategies of the past and then discuss the central role of empowerment in the holistic approach that guides the work of effective faith-based organizations around the country. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 5 Holistic Faith-Based Development FAILED SOCIAL SERVICE EFFORTS OF THE PAST Increases in many urban problems over the past two decades are attributable, in large part, to economic factors (e.g., loss of well paying industrial jobs). Nevertheless, economic development is often neglected as an important component in programs intended to meet the needs of poor inner-city residents and their communities (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1995; Midgley, 1995). When social service programs do not help recipients find jobs, recipients can become dependent upon the services for their livelihood. Because many social service programs are funded through taxes on employment wages, programs and services for the poor are greater in number and better funded when the economy is thriving. When the economy is failing, however, demand for services increases as funding decreases. Thus when people are not connected to the economy through paid employment, their situation is bad when economic times are good and worse when times are bad. This is distorted development. A related problem, disconnected development, occurs when the concerns and needs of community residents are compartmentalized and “treated” without regard to other aspects of their lives, and when services delivered do not increase awareness, access, or use of resources or institutions within or outside the local community. An example of disconnected development is a job training program for mothers on welfare that prepares recipients for jobs that aren’t available, does not provide child care, or fails to address the mother’s needs for health care and transportation. When development initiatives occur in a piecemeal fashion without a clear plan, without a long-term guiding mission, and without regard to the desires of the community, the result is disjointed development. When there is disjointed development, programs and policies are established according to what is being funded, current trends, or goals of agencies or special interest groups, rather than by the real or felt needs of the intended program recipients. When there is funding for a particular population or problem, programs that target that population or problem abound. When the funding shifts, or disappears, the programs do the same. In the absence of a bottom-up community-driven strategy for development, relatively little lasting progress is made toward solving problems or even reducing the impact of their effects. Although most development initiatives are designed, at least ostensibly, to help the poor, often programs inadvertently remove people’s initiative to do for themselves. In time, community residents come to feel powerless—or disempowered—over their circumstances. Disempowering development occurs when people are taught: “[T]he nature and extent of their problems, and the value of services as the answer to their problems. As a result, many lower income urban neighborhoods are now environments of service where behaviors are 6 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework affected because residents come to believe that their well-being depends upon being a client. They begin to see themselves as people with special needs that can only be met by outsiders (Kretzmann and Mcknight, 1995, p.2). The effects of disempowerment include self-blame, self-perceptions of failure, and the belief that there is nothing they can do to improve their circumstances (Lerner, 1986) EMPOWERMENT THEORY In stark contrast to the disjointed, disconnected and disempowering strategies that have failed in the past, research suggests that successful efforts to revitalize urban communities build upon the skills and talents of local residents, their network of voluntary associations, the strengths of local institutions, available physical property and the local economy (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1995). The process by which people use these individual, organizational, and neighborhood building blocks to gain mastery over their lives is called empowerment (Rappaport, 1987). Empowerment is multidimensional, describing both a value orientation for action and a theoretical framework for organizing and developing knowledge (Zimmerman, 2000). As a value orientation, a faith-based empowerment perspective focuses on developing the assets of individuals, faith-based organizations and neighborhoods to solve problems and achieve desired outcomes rather than emphasizing their needs and deficiencies. An empowerment value orientation is congruent with what Kretzmann and McKnight (1995) have termed “asset-based community development.” From a faith-based perspective, assetbased community development concentrates on the agenda setting and problem solving capacities of congregation members and community residents, building on their relationships with each other, the faith-based organization and other key entities in the community (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1995). Empowerment theory, adapted to fit a faith-based perspective, examines the processes by which people of faith, their organizations and their neighborhoods gain control over their lives and the outcomes of empowering processes. Empowering processes are the mechanisms by which people, faith-based organizations, and neighborhoods become empowered. Empowered people, faithbased organizations, and neighborhoods have the ability to cause positive change in their circumstances. Individual level empowerment refers to beliefs about one’s competence, efforts to exert control, the capability to understand one’s socio-political environment, and the ability to identify and use faith and other resources to achieve goals (Zimmerman, 2000). A central purpose of religious faith and faith-based organizations is to connect people with God and with each other. The processes for establishing these relationships include spiritual activities such as individual and group prayer, meditation, study of scriptures and The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 7 Holistic Faith-Based Development fellowship, as well as involvement in the less overtly spiritual activities of the church (see Table 1). Given the lack of power that many African Americans experience in their day-to-day lives (e.g., work) as a function of their race and social class, churches are potentially key empowering settings in which people have opportunities to share leadership, develop group identity, learn skills and participate in key organizational tasks (Zimmerman, 1995; Maton and Salem, 1995; Speer and Hughey, 1995). Table 1 presents examples of the relationship between faith-based empowering processes and the empowered outcomes that result from these processes at the individual, organizational and neighborhood levels. Table 1. Faith-Based Empowerment Processes and Outcomes Across Levels of Analysis LEVEL OF ANALYSIS EMPOWERING FAITH-BASED PROCESS (How faith empowers individuals and families, organizations, neighborhoods and beyond) • • INDIVIDUAL (& FAMILY) • • • FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS • • • • • NEIGHBORHOOD (& BEYOND) • • EMPOWERED FAITH-BASED OUTCOMES (The results of empowering faith-based processes) Relationship building Opportunities to learn and practice service/ministry skills Social support Growth through spiritual disciplines (e.g., study, prayer) • • • • Helping members discover spiritual gifts, natural talents, passions, and purpose Develops members’ leadership skills Provides members social support Program (i.e., ministry) development Develop organizational capacity • • • • Actively involved members Shared organizational leadership Increased organizational capacity Ability to acquire and effectively manage resources, influence public policy and deliver formal services Collaboration with other faith-based organizations Community organizing around social issues Developing linkages across sectors • • • • Collaboration across sectors Transformed communities Political power Coalitions of organizations • Strong interpersonal relationships Sense of mastery and control Church attendance and participation Influence on church operations and policy Spiritual maturity Adapted from Zimmerman (2000) For example, faith-based individual level empowering processes attempt to connect people with God and with others, to provide them opportunities to grow intellectually and spiritually, and to help them identify and use their gifts and skills. The outcomes of these processes are people with strong relationships who are mature and confident in their abilities. Empowering faith-based organizational processes help members to identify and nurture their skills and talents, and provide them opportunities to use them to strengthen and influence the organization. The outcomes of these processes are empowered faith-based organizations that are strong, growing and able to manage and expand their 8 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework resources, provide services, collaborate with other organizations (faith-based and others) and impact their social environment. Faith-based neighborhood empowerment processes often link empowered individuals and organizations to work together to influence their social environment and improve the quality of their collective lives (Zimmerman, 1995). At the neighborhood level, empowerment processes include developing relationships between churches and other sectors of the community (e.g., law enforcement, schools, business), developing formal linkages across sectors, and collaborating to address issues of common concern (Speer and Hughey, 1995). The key outcomes of these empowering processes are strong, interconnected communities that are able to shape community life and provide opportunities for active citizen involvement (Speer and Hughey, 1995; Zimmerman, 2000). Although faith-based individual, organizational, and neighborhood empowerment are theoretically distinct, in practice they are mutually interdependent—both cause and consequence of each other (Zimmerman, 2000). For example, empowered people create empowering processes that build empowered faith based organizations and neighborhoods. Empowered faith-based organizations implement empowering processes that empower individuals and help to build empowered neighborhoods. Empowered neighborhoods engage in empowering processes that impact individuals and organizations. In short, empowering processes create empowered outcomes for individuals, faith-based organizations, and neighborhoods resulting in a self-perpetuating individual, organizational and neighborhood empowerment cycle. THE HOLISTIC FAITH-BASED EMPOWERMENT MODEL1 Lincoln and Mamiya (1990:4) note that “the inherent genius of the Black Church is its holistic ministry that seeks to encompass all of life because human beings are not only spiritual, but also physical and social creatures.” The distinguishing characteristic of holistic faith-based development versus other forms of development is the belief that “changing a life or changing a community is ultimately a spiritual issue.” (Perkins, 1993, p. 80). From a faith-based perspective, humans’ spiritual needs are inextricably linked to their mental, physical, material, and other non-spiritual needs. Accordingly, a holistic faithbased perspective on development recognizes that “spiritual redemption begins with a full stomach, a warm place to sleep, and a hope for something better than perpetual handouts” (Reed, p. 15). Meeting basic needs of individuals and families for food, jobs, and homes is the foundation of holistic faith-based development. According to John Perkins, founder of the Christian Community Development Association, those persons who are not indigenous members of a community who desire to create sustainable faith-based community revitalization 1 Portions of this section are adapted from Wallace and Myers, 1998. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 9 Holistic Faith-Based Development must make a long-term commitment to meeting the felt needs of neighborhood residents through what he has called the “three Rs”: relocation—physically moving into the target neighborhood; reconciliation—restoring the relationship between people and God, and people and each other; and redistribution— voluntarily giving of one’s self to empower the disadvantaged to do for themselves (Perkins, 1996). Perkins’ three Rs are inherent in the strategy of many African American churches. In fact, in cities all over the country African American churches have made the conscious decision to remain, and to invest their time, talents and treasures in efforts to bring life and hope to communities that others have abandoned. The Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model (Figure 1) is a multipurpose analytic tool that can be used to study empowerment processes and outcomes, to categorize holistic development strategies, and as a conceptual map or “blueprint” that faith-based practitioners can use to develop, refine, and realize the visions that they have for their communities. 10 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework Figure 1. The Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model MEGASTRUCTURES Government Legal System TARGETS DOMAINS ROW 3 NEIGHBORHOOD • • • • ROW 2 • • FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATION • • ROW 1 • • INDIVIDUAL • • • Non-Profits Education Economics Business Religion COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CELL A3 Charter School Health Clinic Welfare-to-Work Program Community development corporation CELL B3 Community credit union For-profit business (e.g., catering) • • • • • CELL A2 Worship services Religious education classes Leadership development opportunities Board and administration service CELL A1 Pastoral care Referral to social services Social support Prayer Religious rites (e.g. baptism) • • • • • • • • • CELL B2 Church credit union Stewardship campaign Scholarship program Endowment CELL B1 GED program Emergency financial assistance Financial counseling Employment referral Individual development accounts • • • • CELL C3 Real estate development (e.g. senior housing) Commercial development (e.g., strip mall) Community garden CELL C2 Church facilities and grounds o Worship center o School o Family Life Center CELL C1 Emergency shelter Housing assistance and referral Home maintenance and ownership classes FAITH START HERE The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 11 Holistic Faith-Based Development The targets of holistic faith-based development are individuals (and families), faith-based organizations themselves, and physical neighborhoods. The three broad domains in which faith-based interventions seek to bring about development are human, economic and community. As shown in Figure 1, the intersection of these three targets and three domains can be graphically represented in a three by three matrix. For heuristic purposes, the figure presents the intersection of the targets and domains as nine distinct categories; in reality, however, there is considerable overlap between cells, and the distinctions between the different levels and domains are often blurred. Although the distinction is often not made by people of faith, some of the activities within the cells might be considered “sacred” while others could, particularly for the purposes of external funding, be considered “secular.” The figure presents examples of both “sacred” and “secular” programs and activities that take place in each of the nine cells. Faith serves as the foundation upon which the Model is built. For people of faith, the concept means seeing people, situations, and conditions “through the eyes of God”—not as they currently are, but believing in what they can become and acting to realize that vision. The Model represents faith-based organizations’ mediating structure function by placing them between individuals and the societal “megastructures” (e.g., government, legal system) at the top of the figure. The figure suggests that these megastructures influence, and are influenced by, the actions of individuals, faith-based organizations and neighborhoods. Consistent with the bottom-up approach characteristic of asset-based community development, the application of the Model begins with human development at the individual and family level (cell A1) as the initial empowerment target. Within the context of the Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model presented in Figure 1, meeting individuals’ and families’ basic human needs for things like a full stomach (cell A1), economic need for something better than perpetual handouts (i.e., a job, cell B1) and community need for shelter (cell C1) are foundational. Often, when their basic needs are met, those helped join the faithbased organization that helped them, as members or volunteers. As they experience the empowering processes (i.e., ministries) of the church, they voluntarily commit their talents and resources to empower its human, economic and community development efforts (cells A2, B2, C2), and it can, in turn, better meet the human, economic and community development needs of individuals beyond the walls of the church (i.e., the neighborhood and beyond—cells A3, B3, C3). Below is a hypothetical example of how the holistic development “cycle” just described might take place and some potential pitfalls along the way. Imagine that a faith-based organization’s goal is to create a revitalized neighborhood with a particular focus on the development of businesses and affordable housing. The Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model is based upon the belief that holistically healthy individuals and families are the backbone of holistically healthy faith-based organizations and holistically healthy neighborhoods and broader communities. Accordingly, the first priority is to 12 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework address fundamental human needs at the individual and family level (cell A1). In fact, experience suggests that successful development within any of the remaining eight cells of the model is contingent upon success in this area. Accordingly, the faith-based development strategy begins in the bottom left hand corner of the matrix (i.e., human development at the individual and family level, cell A1) and proceeds systematically from there to address the economic and community development needs of individuals and families, faith-based organizations, and the neighborhoods that they serve. Experience also suggests that efforts to revitalize communities that do not attend to the pressing human development needs of individuals and families (cell A1) will experience little long-term success. For example, the creation of low-cost housing is often seen as a first step in neighborhood revitalization. As a result, millions of dollars are often spent to build low-income housing (community development at the neighborhood level, cell C3) that targets the poor. While the creation of low-income housing in poor communities is important and necessary, it alone often has relatively little impact on the long-term revitalization of a neighborhood. When people do not have jobs that enable them to pay rent, no matter how low the cost, they cannot take advantage of the housing. Similarly, in environments where residents have no stake in, or hope for, property ownership, they often have little concern with maintenance of the new housing. As a result, the initial positive impact of the new housing is short-lived as the properties become unkempt and often damaged by vandalism and neglect. Like the short-term “quick-fix” approach just described, a long-term, holistic, faith-based approach might begin its mission with the goal to build low-cost housing. But while preparations are made for construction, a holistic approach might consider addressing the human and economic development needs of individuals that would enable them to obtain jobs, pay rent, get mortgages, and care for property that they will own. So, rather than immediately starting to build homes (cell C3) or trying to start large businesses (cell B3), a long-term, holistic, faith-based approach to achieving the goal would begin its work by addressing pressing spiritual and material needs at the individual and family level (cell A1) through programs like a food pantry, substance abuse counseling, a literacy program, parenting classes, and pastoral care. As people’s needs are met and as they are empowered by these programs, some will join the church, while others may volunteer to “give back” to others what was given to them. With the skills and talents of the people helped, along with those of existing members and the expertise of professionals outside the congregation, the faith-based organization is empowered to improve its organizational infrastructure (cell A2). This improvement might come in the form of training in program design, implementation, and evaluation, or on how to manage and leverage its existing resources to acquire more dollars for human, economic, and community development efforts. As a result of success in this empowering process, the faith-based organization might choose to create a separate 501 (c) (3) The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 13 Holistic Faith-Based Development community development corporation (CDC) to expand and institutionalize its human development programs that target the neighborhood and beyond (cell A3). Depending upon the extent of assets in the community and congregation, and an assessment of the needs expressed by neighborhood residents, the CDC might create, alone or together with churches or other organizations, new empowering processes like a welfare-to-work job training program, a preschool, a health clinic, or an adult day care center. While growing in its capacity to deliver secular human development programs, the church can also expand neighborhood-level spiritual development efforts, bolstered by the strengths, resources and talents of new participants and the spiritual growth of existing members, Spiritual programs that reach beyond the walls of the church might include starting a religious school, sponsoring a foreign mission project, and conducting evangelistic outreach to the neighborhood. Returning to the individual and family level (Level 1), initial human development programs (column A) might be followed by, or offered simultaneously with, emergency financial assistance and economic development programs like personal money management, job training and referral, and entrepreneurship education, coupled with instruction in scriptural principles like stewardship and economic justice (cell B1). As the financial well-being of its members improves as a result of these programs, the financial resources of the faith-based organization improve as well, through the increased giving of those helped and the decreased need to provide emergency assistance. The increased economic capacity of members empowers the organization to increase its own economic development capacity (cell B2). This could occur by creating an endowment, adding an accountant to the church staff, providing venture capital to help members start new businesses or increasing its knowledge about how to create and operate its own businesses (e.g., a Christian bookstore or a gospel music recording company) (cell B2). A key benefit of church- owned forprofit entities is that they can provide revenue to support the church’s human development work, both sacred and secular (cells, A1, A2, A3), and thus reduce dependency on external funds from government, foundations or other sources. Using revenue generated from member contributions, investments and its own business involvement, the faith-based organization might then seek to broaden the economic well-being of its community through collaboration with other churches and community members to establish a credit union or community reinvestment corporation, or by co-developing larger scale business endeavors, to provide jobs and other financial resources (cell B3). Increased individual and organizational economic development translate into the potential for increased community involvement (column C). At the individual level (cell C1), employed people able to manage their resources can buy homes and other property. As a result they also become more concerned with their immediate surroundings and more attentive to ways their tax dollars and other 14 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework resources can be used to improve conditions. To meet the needs of these people, faith-based organizations might organize neighborhood watch groups, use the expertise of members to network with other organizations (e.g., banks, businesses, non-profits) to facilitate training in tenants’ rights, homeownership and maintenance, encourage voter registration, and to provide biblical training in civic responsibility (cell C1). As the faith-based organization grows economically, it may buy or rehabilitate property for its own use, pay off its mortgage, improve the physical appearance of its facility, purchase vacant buildings and land around the church to lease to local businesses, become informed about local, state, and federal policy and resources for community development, and discover how to collaborate with the relevant government entities to accomplish its desired community development goals (cell C2). Finally, the faith-based organization (or its subsidiary for-profit and non-profit organizations) may use its experience, reputation within the community, relationships, and the power of its members and those it has helped to advocate on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged around important community issues (e.g., crime, housing, provision of city services). Or it might conduct larger scale community development of strip malls, senior citizens’ centers, and low- to moderate-income housing owned by community residents who will take pride in their homes and have vested interests in the stability, cleanliness, and well-being of the community (cell C3). As a result of this long-term, systematic, sustainable development strategy, along with an entrepreneurial perspective on its work, the faith-based organization arrives at its goal as an empowering and empowered organization able to shape its own future and benefit those it serves. An additional result is that as the local tax base expands, property values increase, revenue is generated to provide for improved community infrastructure, and the community becomes attractive for homeowners, new business and community life—key ingredients necessary for sustainable community development. Clearly, the scenario developed above is hypothetical, ideal, and certainly one that only the largest and most sophisticated faith-based organizations can accomplish alone. Nevertheless, it provides a picture of what is possible. We recognize that the real world is much more complex and messy than the step-by-step process just described. Necessity and/or opportunity may suggest starting in different places, skipping cells, and working on multiple pieces simultaneously. While we presented the process in a systematic, “cookbook” fashion, the content is not contrived; rather it is a composite of actual strategies that have been and are being used by progressive inner-city churches and their faith-based partners and subsidiary organizations around the country. Accordingly, the potential to achieve the type of success described in the example above is possible where there is vision, wisdom, knowledge, flexibility, strong organizational infrastructure, assistance from relevant professionals (e.g., attorneys, accountants, architects, developers), willingness to learn, a spirit of collaboration, and faith that motivates action. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 15 Holistic Faith-Based Development Concrete examples abound of the creative ways that faith-based organizations are working to revitalize communities across the nation. Perhaps one of the most comprehensive and innovative holistic faith-based development efforts in the country is being undertaken in Detroit, Michigan under the leadership of Reverend Jim Holley at the Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church. Following, we present a case study of the Holistic Faith-based Empowerment Model in action. REVEREND JIM HOLLEY AND THE HISTORIC LITTLE ROCK MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, DETROIT MICHIGAN2 Reverend Robert E. Tate founded Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church in 1936 with six members in the basement of a home on the east side of Detroit, Michigan. Between 1936 and 1972 the church grew and moved four times, and had five pastors. Reverend Jim Holley assumed the pastorate of Little Rock on June 9, 1972. Reverend Holley was born in Philadelphia on December 5, 1943 but was raised by his grandmother in Wolfe, West Virginia. In addition to bachelor’s and master’s degrees in divinity from Chicago Theological Seminary, Reverend Holley earned degrees in several other subjects: a bachelor’s in pre-law and master’s in international The Historic Little Rock Baptist Church relations from Tennessee State University, a doctorate in Higher Education from Wayne State University, and a D.Min in Economic Development from Drew University. When Reverend Holley began to pastor Little Rock, services were being held in the sanctuary of a former Lutheran church on the east side of Detroit that had a seating capacity of 350. By the time that Holley became pastor, the church’s membership had dwindled to 43 as a result of a court adjudication that resulted in the dismissal of the church’s pastor (Holley, 1999). Under Reverend Holley’s leadership Little Rock grew to approximately 900 by 1978. In 1979 the church moved from the east side of Detroit to its present location, 9000 Woodward Avenue, in what was known as Piety Hill, Detroit’s “street of churches” in the city’s northern corridor. Prior to the 1950s Piety Hill served as the home of some of Detroit’s most prominent white congregations. 2 This section is based upon a series of interviews with Reverend Holley and selected church officials, participant observation of church meetings and activities, review of organizational records and census data, as well as information from newspapers, Reverend Holley’s books and his doctoral dissertation. 16 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework After the early 1950s, however, these congregations began to move to the suburbs and sell their buildings to African Americans. The landmark building purchased by Little Rock formerly housed the Central Woodward Christian Church, built in 1927-1928 at a cost of $500,000 and valued at $1.2 million when Little Rock purchased it in 1978 for $350,000. The 1,560-seat neo-gothic structure has more than twenty meeting rooms, a nursery, daycare facilities, a banquet room, men’s and women’s lounges, and a gymnasium. In 1982 the building was listed on the National Register of Historic places, prompting the church to change its name 10 years later from the Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church to The Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church. Between 1979 and 1992 the church continued to grow in membership and establish numerous internally focused human development ministries. As Little Rock grew the community in which it was located continued to experience significant job loss and social decline. By 1990, many buildings were vacant, crime was high and nearly 40 percent of the population lived below the federal poverty level. Although Reverend Holley had long envisioned that Little Rock would play an integral role in revitalizing its neighborhood, it was not until 1993, at the Annual State of the Church sermon, that he introduced “Vision 2000,” an explicit holistic development plan focusing on strategically meeting human, Family Life Center, a family friendly community center economic, and community development needs of individuals, the congregation, and the neighborhood. According to Holley (1999), the specific components of Vision 2000 were as follows: • Each child with a parent on welfare would receive a new pair of shoes at Christmas • A guaranteed college education for all of the church’s high school graduates • College scholarships for children through the CHIP (Children in Progress) Foundation • Creation of a charter middle and high school • Building 200 new units of housing in Detroit • Creation of a family life center • Supporting a homeless shelter • Job training, development, creation and placement program The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 17 Holistic Faith-Based Development • Developing a strip shopping mall The holistic vision and mission of the church are reflected in its current purpose statement: The Historic Little Rock Baptist Church believes in providing spiritual, social and economic nurturing for the total person. The Kingdom of God is advanced through the transforming of lives, by the proclamation of God’s word and teaching of the gospel and cultivating Christian values for daily living. The Historic Little Rock Baptist Church believes in the proposition that all men and women are saved by grace but helped by accepting a larger share of responsibilities for our lives. We do not believe that we will produce strong soldiers by complaining about what the enemy has done to us. Since 1993 the church has continued to grow, reaching nearly 3,700 members and over 2,100 people who regularly participate in church activities. In addition to its numerical growth, the church has also grown toward achieving many of the aspirations of Vision 2000. Below, we use the Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model as the framework within which to categorize Little Rock’s key ministries and to describe the traditional and non-traditional ways in which the church is engaged in strategies to holistically meet the needs of individuals, the church and its neighborhood, through human, economic, and community development ministries (see Table 2). HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Little Rock has a host of ministries designed to meet the spiritual, physical, relational, psychological and other human development needs of individuals and families served by the church (cell A1, human development at the individual and family level). These empowering processes provide nurture, care, and relationship development opportunities for all age groups and for special populations. The programs target groups including men, women, people with incarcerated family members, those who are sick and unable to attend worship services, and those in need of spiritual counseling. Little Rock also has a wide range of organizational opportunities, including its board of directors—the group responsible for property acquisition, building concerns and security—as well as the various traditional church groups, including multiple choirs, usher boards, and committees handling worship services and Christian education. Job Placement Center 18 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework Table 2. The Ministries of The Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church Human Development Neighborhood & Beyond Organization Individual & Family Economic Development Community Development • Detroit Academy of Arts and Sciences—K-12 Charter School • CHIP (Children In progress Foundation • Project GET (Get Employed Today)—job training, development and placement • 143 Bed Convalescent Home • 200 Bed Homeless Shelter • Shoes for Children • Detroit Preventive Institute—leadership development, crime, drug and violence prevention • SWAT (Soul Winning Action Team)— evangelistic outreach • Prison ministry—outreach to incarcerated • Weekly Radio and Television Broadcast • Country Preacher Foods • Country Preacher Bakery • Country Preacher Preferred Meals • Rock Plaza Strip Mall • Subway • Little Rock Non-profit Housing CDC • Little Rock Village Property • Odell Jones senior citizen’s building • Sunday Morning Worship • Sunday School • Hour of Power Christian Education • Prayer Meeting • Children’s Church • New Member Orientation and study • Bible Institute • 5 Choirs • 5 Usher boards • Scholarship Program • Girl & Boy Scout Troops • Family Ministry • PACE (People Aiding Caring and Encouraging) • JAM (Jesus and Me) youth fellowship (ages 6-14 and 15-18) • Singles Ministry • Senior Ministry • Sick and Shut-in visitation • Pastoral Counseling • Homeless and Substance Abuse Referral Center • Prison Ministry—outreach to incarcerated • Tithes, Offerings and Gifts • Wayne County Community College Computer Resource Center • Rock Property Management • Carpenter Shop Bookstore • $30 million of real estate • Property Improvements • Stained Glass • (SHIP) Self-Help Investment Program • Business and Professional Club • INC Academy youth entrepreneurship program • Homeownership Instruction • Sermons, lectures, workshops • Voter registration • Civic education The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 19 Holistic Faith-Based Development In addition to its traditional internal church activities, Little Rock has a number of important human development ministries designed to empower those in the neighborhood and beyond. The sacred ministries include the SWAT (Soul Winning Action Team) that evangelizes in the community and weekly radio and television broadcasts of the worship services. Key secular ministries include a recently purchased 143-bed convalescent home for seniors, support of a 200-bed homeless shelter, Project GET (Get Employed Today) a 501 (c)(3) welfare-towork program with a $500,000 budget funded through the State of Michigan that provides job training and placement for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF), an annual fundraising program that provides 7,500 pairs of shoes for children of welfare recipients (Shoes for Children), a 501 (c)(3) educational organization that provides tutoring and college scholarships–the CHIP (Children In Progress) Foundation, and a $30 million K-12 charter school that employs over 200 people and educates more than 2,200 African American children (Detroit Academy of Arts and Sciences). ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT In light of the loss of jobs in Detroit and federal cutbacks in educational grants and programs for the poor, the need for Little Rock’s human development programs has grown over time. Despite the church’s numerical growth, its financial growth from tithes and offerings has not been sufficient to meet the increased needs of the congregation and the community. Recognizing the gap between the need and the church’s ability to meet it, a central focus of Vision 2000 was to empower individuals and the church to create for-profit entities to address individual and Detroit Academy of Arts & Sciences Jefferson Campus (elementary school) community need for economic empowerment. Economic development activities at the individual and family level focus on increasing people’s financial knowledge, power and resources. The mechanisms for accomplishing this goal include: Reverend Holley’s sermons on biblical principles of financial stewardship; his personal example as a business owner (e.g., Cognos, a full service advertising agency); a church member-owned investment club—SHIP (Self-Help Investment Program); the church’s business and professional club; INC Academy—Little Rock’s youth entrepreneurship program; and the church’s involvement in 1000 Churches Connected, a financial education program sponsored by the Rainbow-Push Coalition. The accomplishments of the church’s investment club are particularly notable. In addition to providing its members with knowledge about stocks, bonds, real estate, and business opportunities, club owners invested a portion of the $100,000 they had earned to buy a Subway restaurant in partnership with an existing 20 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework franchisee. The Subway provides a healthy alternative to fast food, provides valuable hands-on training in entrepreneurship, is located in the neighborhood and employs local residents. The primary sources of economic development at the organizational level for churches are the tithes, offerings and pledges of its members. In addition to these, Little Rock has established other sources of income. One is a lease with the local community college, in which the college pays a monthly fee to use the church’s third floor for its Computer Resource Center. The church also generates revenue through Rock Property Management, its 501(c)(3) non-profit that manages the two buildings that house the charter school and its co-ownership of a portion of Rock Plaza, the strip mall in which the Subway is located. The church also runs a small Christian bookstore, the Carpenter’s Shop, in its basement to distribute books and other religious materials. The centerpiece of Little Rock’s economic development work at the neighborhood level and beyond is the Country Preacher line of businesses: Country Preacher Foods—a distribution company that provides food, and janitorial and paper supplies to Northwest Airlines, several Detroit area hospitals and the Detroit Public Schools; Country Preacher Bakery—which provides fresh baked goods to area hospitals and the Detroit Lions’ stadium; and Country Preacher Preferred Meals—a business that provides more than 30,000 pre-cooked meals to the Detroit Public Schools each day. According to Holley, in 1994, the church received 87 requests for financial support from students at 42 colleges and universities. One request in particular caught his attention and ultimately sharpened the focus of Little Rock’s entrepreneurial ventures. The student wrote, “You are the reason I am in school, your life-sharing experiences and your belief that education is the passport from poverty to prosperity.” The church’s inability to meet the financial needs of students whom Reverend Holley had motivated to attend college, but whose financial difficulties threatened their ability to complete their education, provided an important impetus for the church to start its for-profit businesses. The explicit purpose of Country Preacher Foods is to support the outreach ministries of the church, with a particular focus on education. In 2001, Country Preacher grossed over $5 million with all of the profits going to Little Rock’s Children in Progress (CHIP) Foundation for college scholarships. In addition to providing scholarships Holley is negotiating with selected colleges around the country to commit spaces and provide financial aid to qualified graduates of the church’s charter school. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 21 Holistic Faith-Based Development COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The goal of community development at the individual level is to encourage and empower residents, members of faith-based organizations, and others to build their community, maximize their use of available resources and participate fully in civic life. Little Rock achieves these goals by providing sermons, lectures, workshops and training in topics like homeownership, political issues, and civic engagement. Community development at the organizational level involves the ways the congregation itself contributes to the development of the community. At Little Rock, this includes the political power that the church wields as a large congregation of people who are encouraged to vote and be involved in issues that affect the community. The church also contributes to community development through the maintenance and improvement of its own facility, a highly visible part of the landscape. In this regard, Little Rock has undertaken extensive renovations of its property, with one of the most significant additions being 1,500 square feet of hand-blown stained glass comprising more than 13,000 individual pieces depicting famous African American preachers, stages of the crucifixion, and various symbols representing ministries of the church. The beauty, significance and community development role of Little Rock’s facility is evidenced by the church’s inclusion in the Detroit Historical Society’s Historic Houses of Worship tours. In addition to being important sources of human and economic development, the various properties that Little Rock and its related organizations have purchased and renovated contribute to the physical appearance of the community at the neighborhood level. In addition the church building itself, the two large buildings that were renovated to house the charter school, the Subway, and the Rock Plaza strip mall greatly increase the desirability of the community as a place to live and invest. To further advance the community development mission of the church, Little Rock has created the 501 (c)(3) Little Rock Non-Profit Housing Community Development Corporation. Important projects that the community development corporation will undertake in the near future include working with the city, developers and other partners to build the Odell Jones senior citizens building (a 69 apartment senior high rise) and Little Rock Village—property on which 75 single family homes will be built. Detroit Academy of Arts & Sciences Medbury Campus (middle school) 22 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework CONCLUSION In sum, the Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model is a tool for describing the theory of holistic faith-based development and, by identifying and ordering the key pieces of the holistic development process, it also serves as a conceptual map for those who desire to engage in holistic faith-based development. Based upon our research and observation of faith-based organizations engaged in holistic development, successful efforts are founded on sacred aspects of human development that bind people into congregations as places where they are willing to invest themselves and their resources to benefit others. As people experience faith-based empowering processes they further invest themselves in the creation of empowered faith-based organizations. It is through empowered and empowering faith-based organizations that both the pressing felt needs of individuals as well as larger, more systemic needs of organizations and neighborhoods are met. As congregations decide what they are called to do and whom they are called to reach, the holistic faith-based empowerment model can help them to identify where they are and the steps they should consider to expand their efforts. Recognizing that people build organizations, the model explicitly encourages that people be developed first, both spiritually and socially. It then encourages the development of the economic foundation, particularly that of the organization itself, which will allow flexibility to choose what can and should be done, both in terms of human development and community development, even if government, foundations, or other entities do not choose to support it financially. The model describes the theory of holistic faith-based development by articulating the nature of the relationship between empowering processes (i.e., how individuals, faithbased organizations, and neighborhoods become empowered by faith) and what empowered individuals, organizations and neighborhoods are able to accomplish—the creation of processes to strengthen the next level of development. The model elucidates that holistic empowerment does not occur only in human development but requires economic and community development as well. Rock Plaza, a six-store mini-mall is owned by The Historic Little Rock Baptist Church’s investment club and operated by community residents Many churches across America are working independently, interdependently and collectively to bring about the holistic development of people, faith-based The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 23 Holistic Faith-Based Development organizations and communities. To date, relatively little research has been done to examine this phenomenon. In the absence of models, tools and examples, many faith-based organizations start from scratch, making predictable mistakes and re-learning the hard lessons discovered by many before them. While it is no panacea, nor a substitute for experience or hard work, the Holistic Faith-Based Empowerment Model can provide a starting point to guide the development of empowerment theory applied to faith-based organizations and as a template for practitioners to follow as they go about the work of revitalizing our nation’s inner cities, through faith. 24 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework References Arp, W. and Boeckelman, K. (1997) “Religiosity: A Source of Environmentalism and Empowerment.” Journal of Black Studies 28: 255-267. Alex-Assensoh, Yvette; Assensoh, A. B. (2001). “Inner-City Contexts, Church Attendance and African-American Political Participation.” Journal of Politics 63: 886-901. Berger, P.L. and Neuhaus, R.J. (1996). “To Empower People. 2nd Edition.” Novak M. (Ed.). Washington D.C.: AEI Press. Chaves, M. (1999). “Religious Congregations and Welfare Reform: Who Will Take Advantage of “Charitable Choice.” American Sociological Review 64: 836-846. Chaves, M. and Higgins, L.M. (1992). “Comparing the Community Involvement of Black and White Congregations.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31: 425-440. Chaves, M. and Tsitsos, W. (2001). “Congregations and Social Services: What They Do, How They Do It, and With Whom.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(4): 660-683. Cnaan R. and Boddie, S. (2000). “Black Church Outreach: Comparing How Black and Other Congregations Serve Their Needy Neighbors.” Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society Report. DuBois, W.E. (Ed.) (1898). “Some Efforts of American Negroes for Their Own social Betterment.” Atlanta, GA., Atlanta University Press. Harris, F.C. (1994). “Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-American Political Activism.” The Journal of Politics 56: 42-68. Holley, Jim. (1999). “The Business of Christ in the City: Developing a Model for Christian Community Economic Development.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drew University. Lerner, M. (1986). “Surplus Powerlessness: The Psychodynamics of Everyday Life, and the Psychology of Individual and Social Transformation.” Oakland, Calif.: The Institute for Labor & Mental Health. Lincoln C.E. and Mamiya, L.H. (1990). “The Black Church in the African American Experience.” Durham: Duke University Press. Mattis, J., Jagers, R., Hatcher, C., Lawhon, G., Murphy, E. and Murray, Y. (2000). “Religiosity, Volunteerism, and Community Involvement Among African American Men: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Community Psychology 28: 391-406. Maton, K. I.; Salem, D. A. (1995) “Organizational Characteristics of Empowering Community Settings: A Multiple Case Approach.” American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 631-656. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 25 Holistic Faith-Based Development Midgley, J. (1995). “Social Development: The Developmental Perspective in Social Welfare.” Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moore, T. “The African-American Church: A Source of Empowerment, Mutual Help, and Social Change.” Prevention in Human Services 10: 147-167. Musick, M.A. Wilson, J., Bynum, W.B., Jr. (2000) “Race and Formal Volunteering: The Differential Effects of Class and Religion.” Social Forces 78: 1539-1571. Perkins, J. (Ed.) (1996). “Restoring At-Risk Communities: Doing It Together and Doing It Right.” Grand Rapids: Baker. Perkins, J. (1993). “Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development.” Grand Rapids: Baker. Reed, G.J. (1993). “Economic Empowerment Through the Church.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan Press. Solomon, B.B. (1976). “Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed Communities.” Columbia University Press. Speer, P.W. and Hughey, J. (1995). “Community Organizing: An Ecological Route to Empowerment and Power.” American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 729-748. Wallace, J. M., Jr. and Myers, V.L. (1998). “People of Faith Partnering to Rebuild Detroit’s Neighborhoods.” Michigan Neighborhood Partnership. Winship, Christopher and Berrien, Jenny. (1999). “Boston Cops and Black Churches.” Public Interest 136: 52-68. Wood, R. (2002). “Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America.” University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). “Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations.” American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 581-600. Zimmerman, M.A. (2000). “Empowerment Theory: Psychological, Organizational, and Community Levels of Analysis.” In Handbook of Community Psychology. Rappaport, J and Seidman, E. (Eds). New York, NY, US: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 43-63. 26 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy Toward a Conceptual Framework About the Authors John M. Wallace, Jr. is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Pittsburgh. His research examines the impact of religion as a protective factor against adolescent problem behavior; racial and ethnic disparities in substance abuse; and the role of faith-based organizations in the revitalization of urban communities, through the provision of social services, economic empowerment activities and community development. He is the principal investigator on a five year project funded by the Skillman Foundation to evaluate it’s A Call To Service, ACTS faith-based initiative and is a co-investigator on the University of Michigan’s on-going national study of drug use among American young people, Monitoring the Future. Dr. Wallace’s research has appeared in numerous professional journals, books and monographs including Social Work, the American Journal of Public Health, and the Journal of Studies on Alcohol. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Michigan. Valerie L. Myers is an Adjunct Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health’s Department of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan. Her research examines the ways in which spiritual health influences individual, organizational and social life, both in private and non-profit organizations. Dr. Myers also studies spirituality as a strategic advantage in individual and organizational performance and faith-based interventions for organizational and health behaviors. She received an MSW in Social Work Policy and Planning and a Ph.D. in Social Work and Organizational Psychology, both from the University of Michigan. Reverend Jim Holley has been Pastor of the Historic Little Rock Missionary Baptist Church since 1972. During that time, Little Rock’s membership has grown from 43 to nearly 3,700 members. Under Reverend Holley’s leadership, Little Rock has established numerous social service programs including job training, a convalescent home, a homeless shelter, and a ministry to prisoners and their family members. Reverend Holley also serves as the founder and board president of a 2,000 student charter school, the Detroit Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the chief executive officer of Country Preacher Foods, a for-profit social entrepreneurship venture that provides food products to airlines, prisons, hospitals and the Detroit public schools. All profits from the Little Rock’s business ventures go to its Children in Progress (CHIP) Foundation, to provide college scholarships for students. Reverend Holley earned a Ph.D. in Higher Education from Wayne State University and a D.Min. in Economic Development from Drew University. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy 27 The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy www.religionandsocialpolicy.org (518) 443-5014 The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government State University of New York 411 State Street Albany, NY 12203 This article explores the ways that different religious groups organize social support systems for their members and others Catholics, Jews, and Muslims utilize an institutional model in which social supports are considered the responsibility of the entire community, organized through community-wide structures like Jewish Federations and archàocese Parishes, temples, and synagogues rarely are directly involved in social supports, but work through Federations or archdiocese to support organizations In contrast, Protestants and Peace Churches see the congregation as central for organizations In these congregational models, volunteers, funding, and other resources come from direct appeals to congregations and calls for service are based on individual faith Analysis of these two models has practical implications for ministry, • § • • jll aith communities have always been integral to social support ^ ^ ^ ^ | systems in the United States (Cnaan, 2002, Cnaan, Wineburg ¡¡¡Ι & Boddie, 1999, Hall, 1990) However, not all religious groups iiiil organize social service and health systems in the same way Catholics and Jews developed social support systems through communitywide institutionalized systems, with congregations playing a limited role in providing services On the other hand, denominations stemming from the Protestant Reformation center social supports through their congrega­ tions, which continue to play a role even after nonprofit agencies have been created to provide specific services This article outlines the differences between two models the congregational and institutional models of faithbased service provision These differences suggest ways that congregations and organizations can work together within each model Family and Community Ministries 2 5 DATA A N D METHODS This article draws primarily on research con­ ducted in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and Philadelphia between 2004 and 2005 for the pilot study of the Faith and Organizations proj ect, a national research/practice project examining the relationship between faith communities and 1 the nonprofits they create. 1 also will draw on my study of Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, and Mainline Protestant social service agencies and their con­ stituent communities m Philadelphia during the 1980s (Schneider, 1988), dissertation research that included several of the agencies m the Philadelphia 2 Faith and Organizations pro]ect sample. FAITH C O M M U N I T Y INVOLVEMENT IN U.S. SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS Although the picture of social welfare m the United States shows a prominent role for faith communities, all religious groups do not orga­ nize social supports m the same way. Both com­ munity” representatives and researchers recognize differences among various religions and Christian denominations, yet most persist m attempting to develop one model for faith-based involvement in social supports. The Sider and Unruh model (Sider, Olson, & Unruh, 2002; Sider & Unruh, 2004), which presents a range of forms from what they call “faith saturated” to secular organizations, is one currently popular example of this trend. The Faith and Organizations pi- ι _ ^ _ β β β mm^—Êmmm^ This model uses outwardly visible lot project compared organizations behaviors and symbols of religious created by several religious groups: Both community identity to categorize various orgaCatholics, Mainline Protestants, representatives nizations and programs. In contrast, Jews, Peace Churches (Quakers, this study’s findings support Jeavons’ Mennonite, Brethren), Evangeli­ and researchers (2004) observation that the Sider cal Christians, and Muslims. It also recognize differences and Unruh typology is profoundly contrasted ministries founded by Af­ influenced by the theology and rican American, Asian, and White among various cultural expectations of Protestant communities. Study questions fo­ faith, particularly Evangelical forms cused on the relationship between religions and Christian of Christianity. Organizations that faith communities and their non­ denominations, appear secular on the surface often profit organizations, the impact of reflect embedded religious values and religious structure and theology on yet most persist in structures. This is particularly true for organization form and activities, the Jews and Mainline Protestants, who attempting to develop impact of type of service and outside often consider open displays of relifunders on organizations, and inter­ one model for faithgion a violation of deeply held valactions with program participants.’ ues supporting religious freedom and The project compared organizations based involvement in equal rights (Schneider, Day, & Anproviding services in three sectors social supports. derson, 2006). Project findings chalwith different funding mechanisms „ . ^ ^ lenge assumptions that faith-based and systems: social services; health ^ • β ^ ^ β β service should necessarily grow out and senior services; and commu­ of the activities of individual congregations. The nity-based and -developed services evolving from various religious groups in the pilot study not only faith community organizing efforts. The project expressed their faith in different ways, they also creused comparative multi-methods ethnography, ated different models to provide for the health and which combines a series of qualitative methods social welfare of their members and for society. (participant observation, interviews, focus groups, content analysis of secondary source material) with analysis of administrative databases, and appropri­ ate regional statistics. In this article, discussion is limited to analysis of the two models within broad religious groups, while exploration of ministries founded by various ethnic groups will be the focus of a separate article. ‘ 2 6 Baylor University School of Social Work If one uses only the congregational model to assess social support, it may seem at first glance that there is an apparent lack of involvement from individual congregations among Catholics and Jews. However, it is clear that the Catholic and Jewish organizations we studied through the Faith and Organizations project had significant ties to their founding religions through institutional systems (Hehir, 2002). These organizations were connected to their faith communities through communitywide structures such as the Catholic archdiocese and Jewish Federations. INSTITUTIONAL MODELS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT: CATHOLIC, J E W I S H , A N D M U S L I M EXAMPLES The institutional model in Catholic organizations Catholic organizations providing social welfare echoed the hierarchical structure of their parent church and reflected the church’s traditional teachings on charity and social justice. Hehir (2002) describes Catholic social welfare as institutionalized because most social welfare service provision is managed through organizations such as Catholic Chanties or Catholic Social Services rather than local parishes. Local affiliates are connected to the diocese, and a national Catholic Charities office generates public policy positions and offers other supports to local agencies (Hehir, 2000). The Catholic social service system in the United States reflects the concept of subsidiarity, or local control over services. This idea acknowledges a partnership between the state and organizations of civil society like Catholic social service agencies. However, subsidiarity suggests that private organizations first try to help those m need themselves, only turning to government when their resources fail (Hehir, 2000). In the United States, subsidiarity often meant creating separate Catholic institutions initially designed to provide religiously appropriate services to the Catholic population. In both the Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia examples we observed, umbrella organizations served as the central structures for planning, governance, and organization of social supports in these institutionalized models. Catholic Chanties or Catholic Social Services organizations were directly under the archdiocese, which provided overall governance to the various social service components. Parishes were encouraged to send parishioners m need to these formal service structures. None of the Catholic agencies in the Faith and Organizations project or my earlier research had strong direct connections to parishes. For example, in Washington, D.C., St. Mary’s Housing organization4 – a program for people recovering from substance abuse and their families – had no visible connections to parishes. The family center that housed the GED program encouraged parishes to use archdiocese-wide referral networks rather than provide supports through parish resources. This organizational system, with the archdiocese as the center for social welfare support, may help explain why many Catholic parishes may appear on the surface to be less active in social welfare provision than Protestant churches. If the archdiocese is considered the appropriate venue for seeking aid, volunteering, and donating funds for these kinds of activities, then individual parish initiatives would be contrary to the established system. Catholic churches may support parish activity in addition to contributions through archdiocese-sponsored activities, but the Church at large is considered the culturally appropriate entity to support members or others in need. The institutional model in Jewish organizations Jewish Federations serve as planning organizations for all Jewish agencies within its membership. In the examples we studied, Federation agencies often worked together to provide social supports, bringing together national and local organizations. In the United States, most Federations evolved around the turn of the twentieth century as a way to organize social supports in each community. Local Federations created a national organization, renamed United Jewish Communities (UJC) in 1999 when the earlier Council of Jewish Federations merged with the two major fundraismg organizations for Jewish causes, United Israel Fund and United Jewish Appeal (Roseman, 1974; Solomon & Wachstock, 2002). The UJC and other Jewish national organizations differ from the Catholic structures in two important ways. First, Jewish institutions are created from the bottom up – they are professional associations for their constituent members rather than hierarchical organizations that provide guidance to lower level organizations. Although umbrella organizations and rabbinical training colleges exist for the various forms of Judaism in the United States, Jews lack the hierarchical religious structures of the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations. Authority comes from the constituent members and their local leaders for both the congregations and the various nonprofit organizations. Like the local Federations, synagogues Family and Community Ministries 2 7 and temples are voluntary organizations formed by their members. The second important difference we observed between Jewish and Catholic institutional social service structures was that Jewish religious organizations were separate from philanthropic, cultural, educational, and social service agencies. This disconnection between the religious institutions and social welfare systems influenced the relationship among individual members, the congregations, and the Jewish nonprofits in the study. For example, the Jewish social service organization we studied in Philadelphia maintained an ambivalent relationship with its Federation and had no relationship or outreach with any of the synagogues or temples in the area prior to our study. In addition, refugee services m Philadelphia during the 1980s involved four separate agencies working together closely: HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) was responsible for initial resettlement activities, Jewish Family Service provided social services, Jewish Employment and Vocational Service offered employment assistance, and a large Jewish community center offered recreation and programs for the elderly. Jewish refugees also had access to a number of other programs through the Federation. Following the institutional pattern, synagogues and temples were considered separate from the Federation, and these social service agencies had tenuous and sometimes conflicting relationships with worship communities. The Federation and its constituent agencies could only informally encourage congregations to reach out to Jewish émigrés or provide low-cost synagogue and temple memberships to refugees. Similar patterns appeared among Jewish organizations in Washington, D.C. Families in need were encouraged to contact directly the hot lines for the Jewish Social Service Agency (JSSA), the Federation social service agency, or the aging agency for supports, while congregations had limited direct connections to the agency. The importance of community-wide structures for Jewish and Catholic social welfare provision did not necessarily mean that constituent agencies, worship communities, and Federations were always comfortable with the community-wide system. Both of the Jewish agencies in the Faith and Organizations project experienced tensions with their Federations when the agency mission clashed 2 8 Β ay lor University School of Social Work with Federation goals. In both cases, disagreements centered on alternative interpretations of Jewish theology for social support.^ One of the Catholic agencies expressed concern that funds raised by their program would instead be used for archdiocese-wide priorities. Jewish agencies expressed frustration that congregations seemed disinterested in outreach, while Catholic agencies wanted parishes to use their centralized systems more often. Institutional models for Muslims Research on Muslims conducted for the Faith and Organizations project and Religion and the New Immigrant Study6 remains preliminary given the limited sample, but this community also exhibited the institutional model, similar to that of Jews (see Schneider, Day, & Anderson, 2006; Schneider & Foley, 2002). Both Muslim organizations we studied relied on community-wide contributions for Zakat – a religious requirement for Muslims to donate a percentage of their income to provide for the poor or others in need (Weiss, 2002). These organizations drew on most of the Muslim community through e-mail systems, informal communications, and Mosque newsletters to share information and find staff and volunteers. Muslims in need found their way to the organizations through similar mechanisms. Although formal structures like a Federation or archdiocese did not exist, the Muslim community did show a sense of group ownership for these organizations and their activities more similar to institutional systems than congregational social service provision. CONGREGATIONAL MODELS In contrast to the Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim institutional models, Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals, and Peace churches (Quakers, Mennonites) considered congregations central to the development and maintenance of social support systems. The differences between institutional and congregational models for social welfare service provision stemmed from religious culture. Although each of these denominations has larger judicatory bodies that sometimes provide support to nonprofits under religious auspices, social welfare activities were generally founded either by particular congregations or several congregations working together. For example, one Mennonite congregation founded Jubilee, a Mennonite group home system for developmental^ disabled adults. The in need represent equally valid, but fundamentally current executive director is a member ofthat con­ different, approaches. The institutional systems gregation who was asked to take on this ministry. created by Catholics, Jews, and Muslims assumed A significant percentage of the board comes from that social support should be the responsibility that congregation. Likewise, a Quaker retirement of the faith community as a whole, through the community retains close ties to the Friends meeting structures of the archdiocese or Federation. For that founded it, even though it is also a member of Jews and Catholics, social supports are consid­ a national umbrella organization for Quaker retire­ ered communal. Carp (2002) comments that “the ment communities. Similar connec­ responsibility for those in need is a tions between individual congrega­ Jewish requirement that is rooted at tions and organizations existed for all the very foundation of our commu­ of the congregational organizations nal processes … Jewish people have in the study. A middle ground: the Lutheran example As Thiemann and Perabo (2005) point out, while Lutherans are a Protestant denomination, they and the Episcopal Church both maintain closer relationships to Catholicism in terms of denominational struc­ ture and some cultural aspects of the denomination. Lutheran Chanties, a Philadelphia agency providing a wide array of services to children, the elderly, im­ migrants, and refugees, was founded by the Penn­ sylvania ministenum m 1922 and incorporated as a separate entity from the Lutheran synod in 1965. However, it consistently reaches out to individual congregations to support activities such as refugee resettlement and elder care and recently has reinvigorated its relationship with local congregations. This organization represents a middle ground for congregational and institutional forms of social welfare service provision. It benefits from the strengths of both systems – drawing on the critical mass and hierarchical systems of the parent min­ istenum, while also developing relationships with local congregations. The Lutheran Rehabilitation always understood that caring for the poor and sick was too important to be a matter of individual conscience alone” (182). In contrast, congregational systems came out of the individual calls to ser­ vice from a particular congregation or a key member, such as a pastor or influential member. Denominations arising from the Protestant Reforma­ tion envision all members of a con­ gregation, not just ordained clergy, as actively involved in all aspects of reli­ gious experience, including developing ministries to provide for those m need. For instance, both the Quaker retirement community and the Lutheran Rehabilitation and Shelter Center came out of a felt need among congregation members to provide support to populations of concern to congregation members. The founding Quaker meeting expressed concerns about caring for its rapidly aging popula­ tion, while the Lutheran congregation found itself in the midst of a homelessness crisis that led it to create a formal social service organization. The Mennonite group home initially came out of the leading of one member, which was supported by others in that congregation. and Shelter Center, the other Lutheran organiza­ tion in the study, was founded by one congregation, ASPECTS OF SOCIAL SUPPORT but those ties became less central to the organi­ SYSTEMS: CIVIC ENGAGEMENT A N D zation as it developed an mterfaith constituency SOCIAL CAPITAL that moved it away from reliance on its founding congregation. As we have seen, these two models profoundly affect the ways that organizations interact with their faith communities. Each model uses different C O M P A R I N G THE T W O MODELS These two models for organizing social welfare supports for faith community members and others mechanisms to attract financial support and volun­ teers. Each relates to individual congregations in different ways. In this section, I will introduce the concepts of civic engagement and social capital, Family and Community Ministries 2 Θ and outline how institutional and congregational systems draw support, with particular emphasis on volunteers and financial support. Organizations rely on resources from their constituent communities in order to carry out their work. Supports come through a combination of networks and community-wide supports related to generalized trust in an organization as a representative ofthat community (Putnam, 2000). Civic engagement and social capital are different, but sometimes linked phenomenon (Schneider, 2007). Civic engagement means citizens working together for the common good, while social capital refers to rehtionships based in patterns of reciprocal, enforceable trust that enable people and institutions to gain access to resources like social services, volunteers, or funding.7 Civic engagement relies on generalized trust in an organization while social capital depends on specific social networks. For example, a nonprofit may rely on civic engagement of donors by putting out a general appeal for supports through their Web site, newsletters, and appeal letters. The same nonprofit may use social capital to garner support by appealing to long-established networks of individuals or organizations. Often the two types of support are linked; for example an organization may use social capital links to congregations in its denomination, through an archdiocese or Federation, in order to get access to mailing lists to generate a generalized funding appeal. In both cases, social capital and civic engagement refer to avenues to access resources, not the resources themselves. the faith communities that participated in developing the transitional housing project for supports. The Quaker and Mennonite organizations both had strong ties to their founding congregations and also received supports through the community of agency program participants and their families. Both organizations drew on their wider judicatory systems to dispense information to other congregations as they located program participants and other resources. In contrast, faith-based organizations in institutionalized models drew supports through their community-wide umbrella institutions (archdiocese, Federations, and independent associations of members ofthat religion or denomination) rather than contact congregations directly. For example, Catholic organizations seldom connected to parishes directly, relying on resources through archdiocese-wide mechanisms such as the Bishop’s appeal, a fundraising appeal from the spiritual leader of a particular archdiocese or the St. Vincent DePaul system, an international layperson’s service orga- DIFFERENT MODELS; DIFFERENT nization that coordinated service opportunities such as food pantries. Catholic lay institutions provided a range of resources; for example one program received a donation of books collected by the John Carroll Society, a Washington, D.C., Catholic lay association. Catholic organizations collaborated with other Catholic institutions and with other social service agencies offering similar services. Although individual organizations using this institutional model might rely on their board members or program participants for supports, they did not reach out directly to parishes. Board members came from a variety of connections in wider Catholic networks. AVENUES FOR BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL A N D CIVIC E N G A G E M E N T Both civic engagement and social capital worked differently for faith-based organizations coming out of congregational versus institutionalized social support systems. As anticipated, organizations in congregational systems developed connections directly to congregations for support. For example, Lutheran Charities involved Lutheran and other Protestant congregations in its refugee program as sponsors and used a similar system to provide supports for the elderly. A boy’s choir from a local Lutheran church held a fundraiser for the agency. The other Lutheran organization in the study relied primarily on social capital through its founding congregation, various religious volunteer corps, and 30 Baylor University School of Social Work Likewise, Jewish agencies sought support and developed collaborations through their Federations, other Jewish agencies, non-Jewish agencies offering similar services, and through the personal networks of staff. For example, the Cohen Center, an adult day care center, worked with several Jewish schools to do arts and crafts projects and other kinds of programming with elderly participants. Their parent agency drew many of its board members from its Federation and its networks. Both Jewish organizations in our sample worked closely with other Jewish agencies and community-wide membership organizations like B’nai Brith, an international Jewish human rights, community action, and humanitarian organization founded in 1843, to share information about the agency and their programs. procedure to gather information about care. In another example, the agency decided to reach out to congregations to advertise their services. Our fieldworker helped with the outreach effort by contacting synagogues and temples. She found that congregation staff members were mostly nonplussed with requests to do presentations to the congregation or put information about agency services in the newsletter because direct contact between agencies and congregations was outside of the cultural norms for the Jewish community. If the agency had placed an advertisement m the Federation newsletter, the response would have been more positive. Both the Catholic and Jewish agencies relied on community-wide systems to identify program participants. For example, the various Catholic programs encouraged parishes to refer people in need to the centralized intake system m order to ensure that they receive the full range of services available. The agency hoped that parishes would use the archdiocese-wide system rather than use parish resources for benevolences. The Jewish community in Washington, D.C., had a referral system through J SSA, the umbrella social service agency, in addition to the aging agency’s hotline. The two hotlines became a disputed issue between the Federation and agencies as the Federation wanted the hotlines to privilege Federation member agencies in making referrals in order to keep social supports in-house. Jews needing services for their elderly relatives sought supports through these community-wide professional systems rather than congregational networks. This pattern of congregation members seeking support through wider religious community structures was characteristic of institutionalized systems. Catholic parish members turned to the priest and wider church systems when in need, rather than congregation members. Jewish social welfare systems are highly professionalized, and the various agencies under the Federation umbrella offer services primarily through professional staff. Members of the Jewish community expect this level of service, and prefer to use the formal community-wide systems than informal mechanisms. This lack of connection between congregations and the social service agencies was clearest in the Jewish community. Catholic organizations occasionally created connections with nearby parishes, but Jews saw no direct connection between congregations and agencies. Two examples illustrate this pattern. In one instance, our field researcher attended an informational interview with a family active m the same congregation as a key staff person. Although the families knew each other well, it had not occurred to the woman seeking services to ask the staff person directly about the agency. Likewise, the staff person had not been aware that the elderly relative needed adult day care. Instead, the family heard about the organization through the formal referral network and followed the professionalized Thisfindingdoes not suggest that Jews and Catholics are less involved in social welfare. However, their fundraising, volunteering, and other support systems involved a three-way connection. Parishes and congregations provided resources for community-wide social service systems primarily through the Federation and archdiocese, or contributed to other community-wide organizations that, in turn, contributed to the centralized system. That centralized system provided support to the various faith-b…

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:AHS 7615 Wilmington University Week 3 Service Community Organizations and Caring Community Organizations Paper