organizations deliver services and the way a government agency delivers ... Multi-method approach to data collection: â Surveys of executive ... External Relations ... shelter, and substance abuse recovery. ... FBOs Reach Hard-to-Serve.
Comparative Case Studies of Faith-Based and Secular Service Agencies By John Bartkowski Susan Grettenberger Leda Hall Steven Rathgeb Smith
1
A Theory of Faith-Based Services Compared to secular nonprofit or government service providers, the testable claims are that FBOs: 9 Are more holistic in their approach: they treat the whole person, and therefore; 9 Stress spiritual renewal and personal transformation; 9 Place program participants in an ongoing support network that provides role models and assistance and connects clients to the community; 9 Have frontline workers who are more caring and more personal in their approach to clients; and that 9 This translates to “more effective” service
2
Elements That Define an FBO • • • • •
Organizational – denominational affiliation Administrative – board/staff coreligionists Environmental – symbols; facility use Funding – resource dependency Programmatic – “spiritual technologies” are: – explicit/implicit, – integrated/segregated – mandatory/voluntary
3
Key Research Questions • • • • • • •
What are the differences, if any, between the way faith-based organizations deliver services and the way a government agency delivers services? How, if at all, does government funding influence the provision of services by religious-affiliated organizations? How, if at all, does a provider’s level of religious integration influence its delivery of social services? How do clients’ perceptions and a program’s effects on their lives vary? What explains similarities and differences in service delivery, client perceptions, and effects? How does an organization define and measure program effectiveness? How does performance by faith-based providers compare?
4
Comparative Case Studies • Matched sets of faith-influenced and secular providers • Multi-method approach to data collection: – Surveys of executive directors; – A faith integration survey; – Face-to-face interviews with executive directors and frontline workers; – Observations of provider-client sessions; – Focus group interviews; – Documentary research.
5
Research Methodology • Survey of the universe of faith-based and secular agencies in two different geographic areas within a particular state • Selection of 5-8 agencies that differ on two key dimensions: the role of faith in the program and source of revenues.
6
Four Different Case Studies 1. Parent Education in Mississippi ¾ 8 agencies – 12 clients
2. Workforce Training in Indiana ¾ 9 agencies – 96 clients
3. Transitional Housing in Michigan ¾ 5 agencies – 17 clients
4. Residential Substance Abuse Programs in Oregon and Washington ¾ 16 agencies – 167 clients
7
Shared Goals • FBOs and other service providers share broad goals common to their field: ¾Parent Education: all service agencies share the goal of making parents better caregivers. ¾Workforce Development: the emphasis was on moving individuals into permanent employment. ¾Transitional Housing: HUD outcome goals for stable environments have broad influence even among agencies that do not receive public funds. ¾Substance Abuse: interaction with the courts, parole officers, and other government personnel tend to influence content of all programs.
8
Underlying Differences About Mission • Parent Education – secular programs tend to view effective parenting as a matter of technical competence whereupon FBOs approach parenting as a moral endeavor with spiritual significance. • Transitional Housing and Workforce Development programs – secular and FBOs tend to share similar views on solutions. • Substance Abuse – small, faith intensive programs more likely to view addiction as reflecting a lack of faith in a person’s life.
9
Constrained Choice of Providers • Clients in substance abuse, transitional housing and workforce development programs are often steered there by government mandates, orders or requirements. The exceptions: • Very small FBO programs where clients selfrefer; • Parent Education programs, where there’s greater client choice and voluntarism.
10
External Relations • Large Multi-Service Secular and FBOs: tend to have extensive community ties with public and private funders, and other service agencies. These agencies also tend to have the most volunteers. • Small Faith-Intensive Agencies: have less extensive community ties. Inward rather than outward focus.
11
Are FBOs More “Holistic”? • Transitional Housing and Substance Abuse – lack of significant differences between secular and FBOs in this area. • Workforce Development – FBOs without government funding tend to view the clients more holistically. • Parent Education – all agencies provide a holistic approach to services.
12
FBO Services Do Differ • Longer Time Horizon. In transitional housing and substance abuse, FBO programs tend to be much longer than comparable secular programs. • Connected Services. FBOs often combine work training, shelter, and substance abuse recovery.
13
Religious Integration • Many publicly funded FBOs in parent education, substance abuse, and transitional housing have extensive religious and/or spiritual discourse as part of their programs. • Religious symbols also found in secular agencies and publicly funded FBOs.
14
Faith as Support not Indoctrination FBOs: 9tend to emphasize individual choice and client dignity; 9tend to avoid overt proselytizing and finding fault with client behavior; 9favor a benevolent approach that emphasizes “gracefulness.”
15
FBOs Reach Hard-to-Serve • FBOs serve people in serious distress such as poverty, illness, long-term addiction, and with chronic mental health problems. • Often, FBOs are “programs of last resort” – help to those who have tried and failed before. • Many faith-intensive programs, due to their staffing and orientation, are challenged in dealing with multiple-need clients.
16
Program Effectiveness • All programs – both secular and FBOs – were interested in effectiveness. • Programs receiving government funds tend to define effectiveness in ways consistent with government performance expectations. • No significant differences reported by clients in effectiveness among the different types of providers. • Reputation for effectiveness appears related to program design and leadership, not faith content of programs.
17
Lessons Learned • Tremendous Diversity in Faith-Based Organizations • Organizational Auspice Does Not Predict Much About the Spiritual Component of the Agency or Program ¾Some faith programs have a strong spiritual component, while others do not.
18
Implications for Policy and Practice • FBOs provide important services and often are the largest social service agencies in a community. • Certification and Infrastructure Requirements can be a barrier: – harder in substance abuse treatment; can affect a group’s capacity to win contracts and sustain itself over time. – easier in transitional housing and parent education.
19
Summary In each policy area, secular agencies and FBOs tend to occupy different market niches. Initiatives that disrupt these market niches may increase the risk of a mismatch between organizational capabilities and their services.
20
