Faith-Based Organizations as Service Providers and Their Relationship to Government

Abstract

The welfare reforms initiated in the 1990s prompted increased discussion of the use of faith-based organizations for the provision of social services. This is the second of two articles examining the progress of this debate. The first article provides the scope of inquiry, defines specific characteristics of faith-based organizations, and outlines methods used to study them. This article discusses specific services provided by faith-based organizations and how these organizations are related to the government. Faith-based organizations compared favorably to secular organizations in the services they provided while providing a somewhat narrower range of services. The implementation of Charitable Choice and other faith-based initiatives as policy required consideration of constitutional and practical issues with the implementation of collaborations and partnerships between government and faith-based organizations along with increased government funding and contracting for these organizations.

Small Faith-Related Organizations as Partners in Local Social Service Networks

“…The need of small faith-related organizations for relatively high levels of technical assistance in order to manage government contracts, at least initially, is supported by all the five cases [3,42,44,45]. However, it will be difficult for government or other intermediaries to plan and implement these efforts with broad brush approaches or uniform results.…”

“…The difficult work of supporting individuals in need requires pragmatic, locally-specific coordination to improve service integration and network governance [28,29]. Research shows that most clients receive social services from multiple agencies simultaneously [6,30]; that the services of faith-related organizations are intricately braided with those provided by publicly funded social service agencies [4,5]; and that there are few major differences between the efficacy of services provided by faith-related and secular organizations [3,31]. The challenge is less to find a single best provider according to pre-set criteria than to coordinate community assets to meet the specific needs of program participants and community partners.…”

“…Less obvious is the manner in which a niche is defined in our three enduring cases. Research has focused on the ability of faith-based organizations to specialize in the services they provide, and/or on clients who are selected or self-select based in part of religious affinity [3,31]. By contrast, findings from this research suggest that the three successful organizations combined: (1) highly specialized niche clientele, defined primarily in terms of individuals with substance abuse related drug convictions and/or incarceration, and only secondarily in terms of possible religious affinity with the organization, which was often not the case; and (2) broad service portfolios, which attempted to meet a wide range of client needs from spiritual and emotional support, to system navigation and referrals, to material support resources for daily needs, as well as some form of mental health services.…”

“…Evidence suggests that government collaborations with faith-related organizations will require nuance and flexibility on both sides, attending both to the community context and to the specific nature and attributes of the faith-related organization [1,3]. The difficult work of supporting individuals in need requires pragmatic, locally-specific coordination to improve service integration and network governance [28,29].…”

“…Charitable Choice provisions in the 1996 legislation sought to expand the role of faith-related organizations as government partners, with some viewing this as a way to shore up the safety net for poor citizens. Subsequently, community-level research has found that Charitable Choice did relatively little to alter pre-existing service delivery patterns, in part because congregations and other faith-related organizations were already integral parts of local social service networks, whether or not government policy or funding is involved [1,[3][4][5][6]. This was true long before welfare reform and will no doubt persist, for two fundamental reasons.…”