Washington DC Sites:
Philadelphia Sites:
Washington Sites:
1. Catholic Ministries Downtown Family Center in Washington DC
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
The relationship between Catholic Ministries and the Catholic Church is clear. The church plays a strong role in administering Catholic Ministries. For example, the archdiocese provides the health insurance for the employees of Catholic Ministries. One staff member commented, “The insurance is through the archdiocese, so therefore it doesn’t cover birth control.” She and others were complaining about the health insurance. Catholic Ministries and its employees who disagree with key teachings of the church have deemed these values to be sensitive and do not talk about them. The downtown family center relies on volunteers from off the street and the parish next-door. While I looked for a connection between the downtown family center and the church, none was readily apparent.
The staff is diverse, but power is very hierarchical
90% of all volunteers are Catholic and either came to the downtown family center through a connection to the church or from St. Patrick’s. Most of their activities are funded through the Catholic Church and grants. The Cardinal’s Appeal, a large fundraiser conducted via the parishes raises large funds for Catholic Ministries.
From a content perspective, Catholic Ministries balances a line between professionalism and faith. Catholic ethics dominate and everyone is aware of them, but an effort is made to maintain a professional atmosphere. Numerous times staff members have pointed out what can be discussed in the classroom and what cannot.
The staff orientation contained numerous references to Catholic values GED teachers and Parent education staff limited discussions avoiding topics such as abortion, evolution and birth control.
Emails include requests for prayers and include Catholic prayers and quotes from the Bible
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served come either from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
While Catholic Ministries will help everyone, being Catholic can help one receive more funds through knowing the priest who will help a parishioner.
In the tenants’ empowerment program, a housing and recovery program for former drug users, the staff were a combination of two white nuns and African American counselors, some of which appeared to have come through the program or have recovered from substance abuse themselves. Here, the participants were African American women who may or may not have been Catholic. Counselors in this program stressed “spirituality” rather than “religion where God might sit in judgment of you.” It is unclear if this distinction was meant to make nonreligious people feel more welcome, or suggest a different kind of religion.
Race and class issues were clear issues at Catholic Ministries, with distinctions made between staff and participants, with the inference that participants were lower class or had made bad choices. Several incidents were recorded of white staff saying or doing something that indicated that they felt that their non-white participants or staff that came out of the community served did not have the same values or skills as the white Catholic staff. For example, in one incident white staff refused to give an African American staff person who had come out of the community venison because they presumed that she wouldn’t know how to cook it. On the other hand, an African American staff person reported that some participants viewed the nun running the program as “white and stupid” (meaning not street smart) while she presumed the nun thought the participants were “stupid” (i.e. not knowing middle class strategies for saving money, etc.)
Building connections between Catholic Ministries and parishes in D.C. has led to effort to build bridges and networks among various parishes. This project has yet to develop fully, but given time, this effort could lead to less hierarchy outside of Catholic Ministries and more connections between the parishes. Barbra facilitates this when she contacts one parish and asks for help with a member of another parish, but as long as these connections flow through outreach coordinator. They will flow through Catholic Ministries and be monitored. The success of these networks is contingent on these connections not flowing through Catholic Ministries. This was a common concern. For example, when trying to raise money for the tenants’ group, many of the volunteers were concerned with keeping the money away from the CEO of Catholic Ministries. To the best of my knowledge, all of the volunteers were Catholic. They did not want him and Catholic Ministries general fund to receive the money they raise for their organization.
Some examples:
While Catholic Ministries GED and emergency services center will serve everyone, most of its clients are not Catholic. People who use their services do not view Catholic Ministries as a Faith-based Organization, but the staff and the founding organization do.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
The influence of the Catholic Church is strong here as well. One center focuses on helping homeless men with the GED, Parent Education and emergency aid via a social worker and a staff member. The mission and program are not strictly based on Catholic ideals, but follow them. Staff members who run these programs are not all Catholic, but do make sure the programs follow Catholic teachings.
The staff is diverse. There is an even mix of African American and white staff members and religious background is mixed. However most of staff agrees the Catholic Ministries does good work and are united behind the idea of doing something good for the community.
These connections are still strong, but slightly less visible at the tenant empowerment program. In that program, lead staff were both nuns, an indication of strong Catholic presence. On the other hand, all of the artwork and symbols referred to African sayings and related materials that were spiritual, but not Catholic.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Further research is necessary to answer this question adequately.
The organization has received a substantial government grant as a result of the governmental faith-based initiatives. While the organization is not congregationally based, it supports congregations through its parish outreach office and is supported by parishes. The Cardinal’s Appeal supports Catholic Ministries and the archdiocese works closely with Catholic Ministries by providing infrastructure like the loaning the headquarters building for $1 a year.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
This question has been addressed in “a” of the “Big Questions” section. The organization is run by separately from the Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church has a large presence. For example, the Archbishop serves as the head of Catholic Ministries. The relationship with the church influences governance, finances, volunteer participation staffing, program content and mission. Catholic Ministries funds come from a combination of grants and private donations.
At Catholic Ministries, social capital comes alive at meetings when a GED teacher suggests alternative avenues of funding for the parenting program and when volunteers from the neighboring Catholic Church feel comfortable with Catholic Ministries to walk over and ask about volunteering.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
In Catholic Ministries, religion does play a key role for the staff. Many of the staff members identity themselves as “spiritual” and they share conversations about their faith. The director openly discussed her experience at a meeting and remarked at the end of a meeting that she is, according to Catholic doctrine “living in sin,” because she divorced her first husband in the 1970s. For example, outreach coordinator and the social worker are openly Catholic and the other staff members are aware of their religion. The director is not Catholic, but openly discusses her faith and is in the process of becoming Catholic. In sum, at the downtown family center the religion of the director is not influential, but higher up the hierarchy religion is important and does influence organizational behavior.
At the tenant empowerment program, key staff refer to spirituality as opposed to Catholicism. This program interweaves African American spiritual traditions with those a more generalized spirituality. A key staff person who has recovered from substance abuse herself, talked to program participants about the importance of spirituality in her recovery, indicating that participants should look for similar spirituality.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
The relationship between Catholic Ministries and the Catholic congregations is maintained via the Parish Liaison and newsletters about the work Catholic Ministries does for the community. Cultural and Social capital do influence these interactions. For example, a priest who heard about her work through another priest contacted the parish liaison.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
This question cannot be fully answered with the current research.
5. What is the impact on the faith community of their organization’s work? On its understandings of the issues, the organizations address? On its understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their faith? On its sense of identity?
This question cannot be answered fully at this time. More research focusing on how various parishes and their members view Catholic Ministries is needed. However, the Cardinal’s Appeal and the strong relationship between some parishes and Catholic Ministries would indicate a healthy working relationship.
Part of the work by the parish liaison was to maintain contacts at various parishes and to use them when assisting clients from parishes. For example, she might tell one parish about available resources like a large food pantry at a larger wealthier parish. In this case, the outreach coordinator offered to pay half of one month’s rent and after consulting with the social worker who was interpreting, the parish would pay the other half.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
This question cannot be fully addressed at this time. Catholic Ministries does not lead new people to the Catholic Church directly. Some staff members might convert, but religion is discussed. Catholic Ministries does not have any particular mechanisms to maintain respect of other religions, but GED teachers work to create a balanced classroom.
An African American GED teacher brought up these themes. She said that during her class one student wanted to try to convert the other students to his religion. She told him this was not the place for talking about religion and changed the topic. This perspective is quite common at Catholic Ministries.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
This question cannot be addressed with the current research as this organization is firmly connected to the denominational structures.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
Yes. Catholic Ministries is strongly influenced by the Catholic Church’s ideas of social justice. The Catholic Church shapes the goals and projects undertaken by Catholic Ministries. For example, only projects and work the fits within their goals are undertaken.
2. Jewish Aging Services and the Cohen Adult Day Program
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
The Jewish Aging Services and the Cohen Adult Day Program, one of its many programs, has a unique and professional relationship with the Jewish community. It was founded in 1973 through a grant from the United Jewish Appeal, now the Jewish Federation, with the intent of helping a segment of the Jewish population who were most in need of services, senior citizens. Although it was founded to specifically help the aging Jewish community, the JAS has always been open to people of all faiths, and backgrounds. In fact the majority of JAS participants served through its many programs do not come from a Jewish background. The Cohen Center is one exception to this trend however as 80% of its participants are Jewish.
Through many of its uniquely Jewish services the JAS and The Cohen Center are providing the Jewish community with services that cannot be received from any other organizations in the area.
All of the JAS programs are closed on major Jewish Holidays.
The Jewish community’s relationship with the JAS is very professional in its nature. Community and volunteer involvement within the organization tends to take on two specific trends, financial donations, and board membership. Non-professional volunteer participation from the Jewish community is less frequent.
The JAS has over 100 individuals involved in its organization as volunteer board and committee members. The majority of these individuals are Jewish and come from professional backgrounds. Committee members of the Cohen Center’s advisory committee in particular also held professions in the elder care industry. Other committee members include the adult children of Cohen participants.
Interestingly research at The Cohen Center revealed that, while the Jewish community is very involved with the JAS and Cohen Center on an individual basis, particularly through board membership and individual financial donations, Jewish congregations seem reluctant to become involved. A culture of professionalism within the Jewish community seems to encourage individuals to seek information and help from trained experts rather than from their spiritual community.
It is also important to note the JAS has developed a number of social capitol relationships with other professional Jewish organizations. On a whole these organizations are connected to each other through the Jewish Federation. These large Jewish community organizations, such as the Jewish Social Service Agency and the Hebrew Home, are also referral sources for the Cohen Center.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
There is a strong historically based belief within the organization and the Jewish community that as a people the Jewish population must provide for its own members when they are in need. This desire to provide for their own members should in no way be interpreted as a desire to exclude other groups. The JAS and its many programs have been open to people from all backgrounds and faiths since inception. Staff and volunteers involved with the JAS are on a whole very proud of this openness and regularly emphasize the organization’s non-sectarian status. The Center’s name has even been changed from “Cohen Center for Jewish Senior Day Care” to the “Cohen Adult Day Center”. This change stemmed from a desire to be more open to people of differing backgrounds.
All Cohen Staff members frequently emphasize the Center’s non-sectarian status with pride.
Religion, ethnicity, and background truly are a non-issue for Cohen staff members. Although the majority of the Center’s participants come from Jewish backgrounds, approximately 20% do not. The Center currently serves individuals who come from Protestant, Catholic, and Hindu traditions. They also cater to people of varying ethnicities and nationalities. All participants at The Cohen Center are respected, loved, and cared for equally.
Although The Cohen Center is proud of its inclusive nature there continues to be debate over when and how the cultural and religious backgrounds of non-Jewish participants will be recognized through official activities. At the heart of this debate is whether the organization on a whole is designed to serve the Jewish community primarily or the greater community. Current research suggests that no one directly affiliated with the JAS or The Cohen Center believes that services should be denied to non-Jewish individuals, but there appears to be a debate over the level at which Jewish customs and practices will be sacrificed for the inclusion of other people’s traditions.
Interestingly the Center’s past director, who was not Jewish, believed that she had a responsibility to exclusively focus on Jewish traditions and holidays in the Center’s program content. In contrast, the Center’s current director, who is Jewish, feels that it is her responsibility to actively include non-Jewish holidays and traditions in some of the programs content in an effort to reach out to participants who are not Jewish.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
It is interesting to note that on a whole The Cohen Center staff had an aversion towards the term “faith-based”. Many of the Center’s staff members viewed the term as being representative of evangelical Christian organizations that focus significantly on proselytization as a primary goal. The Cohen staff, particularly the director and assistant director who are both Jewish, view goals of that nature in a negative light and want to distance The Cohen Center from any comparison to them. When conducting interviews with key staff members, the director even requested that the term faith-based be replaced in questions with “non-sectarian organization affiliated with the Jewish community.” This aversion to the term faith-based stems from a fear that the term denotes organizations that actively discriminate in hiring practices, and other operating areas on the basis of faith orientation. The Cohen Center and JAS are opposed to these practices and so chose to distance themselves from the term “faith-based”. This aversion also seems to spring from the Jewish community’s desire to distinguish itself from the dominant Christian culture of the United States.
Jewish culture also greatly affects the staffing trends of the JAS and the Cohen Center. Roughly half of the JAS’ staff members are of Jewish heritage, while the other half come from a variety of backgrounds. Religious or ethnic background is not a determining factor when making hiring decisions for the JAS. On the whole a person’s level of expertise tends to be the primary factor in hiring decisions. Interestingly, few if any low pay positions within the organization are staffed by Jewish individuals. From a socio-economic perspective the Jewish community in the Washington DC region tend to be composed of members from higher economic brackets, which gives them access to education in professional fields. Due to this socio-economic and professional standing attracting the Jewish population to low paying, low status jobs is difficult.
Social capital through the Jewish community is diffuse and clearly lacking in some instances. For example, we saw few social capital links through the congregations, but staff did rely on their own social networks to bring in volunteers and programming to the organization. On the other hand, the institutional structures of the Jewish community – JSSA, the major social service agency, the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington, Federation, and Cohen center’s parent organization—Jewish Aging Services -- providing significant social capital for this program.
Please look to questions A and B for further information related to question C.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
The JAS and particularly The Cohen Center are largely impacted by the sector in which they operate. The Cohen Center in particular has developed very strong relationships with other non-profits, for-profits, and public agencies that operate within the same sector. Many of the Cohen Center’s top referral sources come from private doctors, care managers, and rehabilitation hospitals. Recognizing this strong connection with the professional sector the Cohen Center particularly targets its outreach efforts at organizations and individuals from within the sector rather than to the Jewish community.
The Cohen Center is also keenly aware of the other elder care service organizations with which it competes. The Cohen Center prides itself on being the best adult care center in the region. The Center is in close communication with the other service providers in the region and attends many networking meetings to maintain these relationships.
The center also competes with other programs for clients and thinks that it needs to rely on marketing techniques characteristic of the for profit elements in healthcare to compete for clients. For example, in one presentation to hospital social workers, the outreach coordinator was very concerned that the candies that she was handing out were not good enough incentives. To the contrary, some of the social workers did not want the candy, and one – who had long experience with Cohen — became the social capital voice during the presentation by praising the program to her coworkers.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
Please look to questions A, B, and C.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
A number of the staff members at The Cohen Center are from Jewish backgrounds. Currently, both the director and assistant director of The Cohen Center are Jewish, although it is important to note that the last director for many years was not Jewish, as it is not a requirement for employment. The director and assistant director’s Jewish identity undoubtedly plays an important role in the Cohen Center’s program, however the Assistant director in particular plays a very visible role in the continuation of the Center’s Jewish identity.
The assistant director is the only Orthodox Jew on staff at the Center, and as such she takes on the responsibility of monitoring and maintaining the kosher status of the Center’s kitchen. She also takes on the responsibility of orienting non-Jewish staff members with Jewish customs and traditions, and leads Shabbat services each week. The Assistant Director is also the self-reported predominant voice at the Center against the celebration of non-Jewish holidays. Her desire to exclude non-Jewish traditions from the Center’s programs is in no way linked to a desire to exclude non-Jewish participants from the Center’s services, as she fully believes it is the Center’s moral and ethical duty to be accepting of everyone. The Assistant Director simply feels however that as a Jewish center supported by the Jewish community it is the Center’s prerogative and responsibility to cater to the unique cultural needs of the Jewish community.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
Please refer to question A.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
The Jewish community’s continued support of the Organization through substantial financial donations, as well as through board membership helps to keep the JAS firmly connected to the Jewish community it was first designed to serve.
5. What is the impact on the faith community of their organization’s work? On its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their faith? On its sense of identity?
Further research is needed to address this question.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
Please look to questions A, B, C, and D.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
Further research is needed to address this question.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
The Jewish faith tradition and the Jewish community have a very strong connection to community service and social activism. In particular however Jewish community outreach tends to be historically targeted at other Jewish community members.
Cohen Center service also fits the Jewish model for social welfare provision in several ways. First, this is institutionalized social welfare provision through Cohen, JAS, JSSA and the other formal institutions rather than congregational based service. Families seeking care for an elderly relative went through these formal channels in the Jewish community rather than talk to congregation members who worked at the organization. Cohen’s outreach to synagogues and temples chiefly focused on making these congregations aware of Cohen services, not seeking donations or volunteers. Fundraising from the Jewish community occurs through the Jewish Federation, other Jewish organizations, and through the JAS’ personal fundraising methods. Second, the organization stresses professionalism in its service provision, a hallmark of Jewish social service. This is clear both in hiring strategies and office procedure. Third, Cohen programs emphasize the dignity of the individual – there were many examples of staff talking about what a person had done before they developed dementia for example. Finally, the tensions within the Center regarding serving the Jewish community vs. serving others reflect differing cultural and religious strands within the U.S. Jewish community. On the one hand, some parts of the community feel that they have an obligation to “heal the world” through social justice and quality service – activities like participation in the civil rights movement as well as programs like this Center. On the other hand, another part of the community feels that Jews remain a persecuted and excluded culture and should provide a safe, culturally and religiously appropriate venue for their older, at-risk community members.
3. Jubilee Association of Maryland, Mennonite Housing for developmentally disabled adults
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
Jubilee has a very strong relationship with its founding Mennonite community and specifically its founding congregation. Although it is financially independent, receiving 90% of its funding from the State, and 10% of its funding from program fees, Jubilee has worked to develop a close connection with its founding congregation, and by working to maintain this strong connection Jubilee has fostered numerous social capitol and cultural capitol relationships.
· Initially Jubilee’s staff members were volunteers found through the Church’s social networks. Volunteers were recruited from the Church and staff members were recruited from Mennonite colleges and agencies.
· Jubilee’s bylaws dictate that a majority of its governing board members be of the Mennonite faith, and a majority of the board members coming from the Mennonite faith are required to be members of the founding congregation. The current executive director is also a member of the founding congregation. He uses this position to recruit Church members to Jubilee’s board.
· The founding congregation’s youth group conducts projects for Jubilee’s participants, such as singing Christmas Carols.
· Once a year the founding congregation holds a Disability Awareness Sunday. The service is led and organized by Jubilee staff and volunteers, and the organization’s participants are actively involved.
· Jubilee offers a general orientation program for staff and volunteers to introduce them to the Mennonite faith.
· The organization is actively connected to Mennonite Health Services, an umbrella group for Mennonite non-profits providing similar services. Through their connection to this organization Jubilee’s understanding of itself as a faith-based program has been reinforced. The executive director in particular feels that their connection to Mennonite Health Services has helped him to better understand how to implement his own personal Mennonite convictions in his work at Jubilee.
Jubilee’s program content and behavior is also strongly affected by its connection to a Mennonite congregation. Jubilee does not require that its staff members, board members, volunteers or participants be of a Christian faith. In fact a number of the organization’s participants, staff, board members, and volunteers are not of a Christian faith. This has caused some small conflicts within the organization.
· Many staff members feel that Jubilee should celebrate and acknowledge other faith traditions through organized activities. Some staff members have suggested for example that the annual Christmas party be expanded into a holiday party to include Chanukah, and other religious and cultural traditions practiced by participants, but not practiced by the Mennonite Church. As of the present however these suggestions have not been implemented by the board, which feels that as a Mennonite organization they have the prerogative to make program decisions in light of their religious connection.
· Another conflict has arisen within the organization about the religious affiliation of staff members. One staff member in particular is not comfortable with the inclusion of non-Christian staff members. In some incidences this staff member has openly told non-Christian staff members that she/he is uncomfortable with their involvement in the organization. These incidences, while they are important to acknowledge, appear to be infrequent and limited to only this one individual. The organization on a whole appears to be very open to people from non-Christian traditions.
Participants admitted to the program are not required to be of a Christian faith, and many of them are not. Participants are also generally not members of Jubilee’s founding congregation. Jubilee openly encourages its participants to maintain their own cultural and faith traditions, and proselytization is not a part of Jubilee’s mission. This openness to other religions and cultures is characteristic of this arm of Mennonite faith. Spirituality is however openly encouraged by Jubilee.
· A large minority of the participants are involved in Faith and Lights, an ecumenical Christian movement designed for developmentally disabled adults. This organization is run and organized by the parents of one of Jubilee’s clients. The organization meets once a month and shares prayer, and scripture lessons. Although this organization is supported by Jubilee, Jubilee’s participants are not required to become a part of it, and the majority of them chose not to.
· Staff members are required and encouraged to help participants connect with the faith communities of their choice.
· Staff members are expected to reserve time for prayer before meals.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
Jubilee has a very strong, supportive, and nurturing relationship with their participants and their participant’s families. As one participant’s mother and the leader of the faith and light organization explained in an interview, “it was a difficult time for us and they stepped right in and made us feel very welcome.” This same woman also explained that Jubilee’s connection to the Christian faith was comforting and attractive to her since she was Catholic and wanted her disabled son to be in a nurturing Christian environment.
The researcher’s notes also emphasize the participant’s enthusiasm and appreciation for the program. Throughout the researcher’s notes frequent reference is made to participants voicing their approval and gratitude for the program. Many participants, it appears, believe that Jubilee has given them freedoms and opportunities they did not think they would ever be able to enjoy.
As an organization that serves developmentally disabled adults, Jubilee must grant their participants many adult freedoms, while continuing to nurture and support them as dependant individuals. This fine-balance appears to be well maintained by Jubilee. The participants are treated with respect, and included in decision making processes, while they are also guided, supported, and monitored by live in counselors.
As mentioned above Jubilee participants are also closely monitored, guided, and supported by Jubilee counselors. From the researcher’s perspective the counselor’s actions were often interpreted as being unnecessarily condescending, while in other incidences the counselor’s actions were viewed as clearly necessary and appropriate. Institutionally Jubilee also maintains policies that limit the participant’s freedoms, in hopes of creating a more secure and supportive environment for the developmentally disabled adults.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
Mennonite culture and its effects on the organization are evident at Jubilee. The researcher frequently observed that the Jubilee program was specifically dedicated to community development and human dignity. This dedication can be directly linked to Mennonite theology, which as with other Peace Churches, is very focused on these goals. Group activities are an important part of the Jubilee program. Participants not only gain a place to live through Jubilee, but they also have the opportunity to develop friendships and community.
As was discussed before Jubilee employs and serves many individuals who are not from Christian backgrounds. The founding congregation does however maintain significant control over Jubilee through bylaws mandating that a significant number of board members must be members of the Church and the Mennonite faith.
Also in terms of the Mennonite faith’s cultural influence on the Jubilee program it is important to note that Jubilee encourages openness and equality. One board member, who is herself a Catholic, described Jubilee’s board as being representative of the Mennonite faith. “Just the atmosphere, the fairness, the openness,” she said, “it’s a very comfortable atmosphere.” The same women also insisted that this atmosphere was carried over into the board’s decision making. She described the board as being genuinely open and interested in everyone’s ideas.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Jubilee, as discussed before, is financially supported by the government. Jubilee has been receiving funds from the government for its program since it began 27 years ago. It has been in the past 10 years however that the program has received such a substantial portion of its revenue from the government.
Jubilee is a highly respected agency within the community of organizations serving the developmentally disabled and their families. As such, they follow all national standards for care, staffing and program style, often exceeding them. They have served in leadership roles in encouraging changes in state policy.
Further research is necessary to see how other non faith-based programs in its sector affect this organization.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
Please look to question “A” for the answer to this question.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
As was discussed above, while the staff members of Jubilee are not generally from the founding community the executive director and the board members on a whole are. The prevalence of Mennonite members on the board insures that the founding congregation will continue to maintain control over Jubilee. Please look to sections A, B, and C for examples of how this influence manifests itself.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
Please look to section A for examples of how the founding congregation interacts with Jubilee.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
The founding congregation ensures that Jubilee has a future as a faith-based organization by maintaining control over the organizations decision-making board. Through this control, as well as through their staff orientation talks the organization works to maintain its Mennonite identity.
5. What is the impact
on the faith community of their organization’s work? On
its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
Further research is necessary to completely address this question. The founding congregations continued involvement with the Jubilee program is evidence of the Mennonite dedication to social work, and outreach to the vulnerable. Organizational program design, decision-making patterns and structures directly reflect the founding community. Please look to sections A, B, C and D for examples of how Jubilee is representative of the founding community’s culture and identity.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
As has been discussed above many of Jubilee’s participants do not practice the Mennonite faith. Jubilee is equally open to these participants as it is to participants from the Christian faith. As was discussed in section A, however, there appears to be some resistance among some board and staff toward the celebration of non-Christian religious traditions. However, the executive director and other staff actively encourage people from other religions to carry out their beliefs and at one point the board chair was Jewish.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
Further comparative research in necessary.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
Clearly Jubilee’s program demonstrates that the Mennonite faith works to preserve human dignity, and is specifically focused on the creation of community and the defense and protection of the vulnerable. The unique organizational structure, with the client at the center and teams of staff working with them to achieve their goals – a completely non-hierarchical model, also reflects this particular faith tradition.
4. Asian Evangelicals in Washington DC: The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program was founded as an independent community outreach program and is not officially linked to any specific denomination or congregation. It was however founded by two evangelical Christians of Asian-American decent who met through Asian Evangelical Christian campus centers. The program draws heavily on volunteers through the evangelical Asian student network, as well as other Asian Christian churches. It is unique in that it is a national, pan-Asian network which also draws from several Washington DC based Asian churches – Chinese as well as Korean. The founders belong to an evangelical church that appears to be white dominated and worship with the largely African American evangelical church located in the same building as the organization. The organization continues to be predominantly controlled and dominated by evangelical Asian-American Christians.
From a content perspective The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program is highly influenced by Evangelical Christian values and beliefs. The researcher’s notes reveal countless instances when the organization’s staff and volunteers make reference to evangelical Christian theology and values in their interactions with the children. Improper behavior is condemned as “un-god-like” and the male and female participants are encouraged to become “god-like” men and women. The researcher’s notes make reference to wall decorations in the organization’s locations which encourage children to behave as good Christians and abstain from behaviors such as saying swear words.
The Organization’s effect on the community they are serving cannot fully be addressed with the limited research available. It is clear however that the community’s children heavily use the services offered by the organization. The children’s opinion of the organization’s services and Christian identity cannot be determined from the current research. The opinion of the children’s families, and other members in their community who do not use the services offered by The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program are also unknown at this time.
It is important to note that the community being served is predominantly African-American and locally based. Children of immigrants, including El Salvadorian immigrants and African immigrants, are also served but make up a small minority.
Relationships between the founding community and the organization do foster social capital, and cultural capital relationships. Clearly the organizations solid link to the Evangelical Asian-American tradition has helped it to foster relationships with numerous Asian-American churches that in turn supply volunteers and some funds. In turn its relationship with evangelical Christianity has helped it to gain office space from a number of non-Asian American churches as well, including the African American community Church that the executive director and his wife attend, and other predominantly Caucasian churches.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
The relationship between The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program and the people who use their services is still unclear. Clearly the children who participate in the organization’s activities continue to return and seem to enjoy themselves while greatly benefiting from the services. Churches from the community are also involved in the Organization, however the only church that appears to be a member of the community being served is the small African –American church that the executive director and his wife attend. It is important to note however that this very small congregation gives The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program office space for very low rent costs, and is also attended by some of the children who participate in The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program. Also, the organization is helping a community that is drastically different from its founding community, ethnically, culturally, and socio-economically.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
Again, the organization’s Evangelical Asian-American connections are extremely evident. The organization’s mission is to help improve the lives of low-income children who are generally neglected and ignored by society. A major part of the services the organization offers to meet this goal are distinctly religiously motivated. Proselytization is a major part of the organization’s mission.
From a staffing perspective the organization is still staffed and controlled by Asian American evangelical Christians.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Further research is necessary to adequately answer this question.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
This question has been addressed in “a” of the “Big Questions” section. Again the organization is privately run, however it is controlled by Evangelical Asian-American Christians, which deeply affects its program content, staffing, volunteer participation, and mission. The majority of the organizations funds appear to come from private donations. No reference to the backgrounds of these private donors can be found in the current research. The organization’s governance seems to be predominantly controlled by members of the board and the executive director. Again, the board dominated by individuals who are evangelical Asian-American Christians
Social and cultural capitol does play a role in these relationships. Please look to the last part of section “a”.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
All three paid staff members at this organization are Evangelical Asian-American Christians. It is important to note that at the time the interview was conducted with the executive director one of the paid staff members was Asian American, but had been adopted by a Caucasian family as a young child. The executive director seemed hesitant to include her in the “Asian American” category since she had been culturally raised by a white family.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
In the case of The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program the organization appears to have a good relationship with other evangelical churches in the area, from which it receives donations and volunteers. Social and cultural capitol does play a role in these relationships. Please look to the last part of section “a”.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
This question cannot be fully answered with the current research.
5. What is the
impact on the faith community of their organization’s work? On
its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
In the interview with the Organization’s executive director he makes reference to the fact that he and others from his organizations sometimes give lectures at local churches to educate them about their mission. Clearly this helps to educate the faith community about the issues The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program seeks to address.
At this time the Organization’s impact on its own founding Asian-American Evangelical community is unknown. The staff and volunteers involved in the organization appear to be deeply motivated by their faith to help others and improve the community.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
This question cannot be fully addressed at this time. The organization’s services are clearly faith saturated, yet no incidence where the prevalence of the Christian faith came into conflict with a participant’s own faith is noted in the research. It could be hypothesized that the community in which the organization serves is predominantly of Christian background so no conflict has yet arisen. Given that some of the children served by the organization attend the same African American evangelical church as the founders and that is located in the same building, children in the program may in fact share the same faith tradition.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
This question cannot be addressed with the current research on The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
I believe that the research on the Christian Children’s Inner-City Program helps to show that evangelical Christianity is often primarily concerned with proselytization and a clear linkage between specific religious faith and daily life. As the Christian Children’s Inner-City Program demonstrates the services viewed as being inseparable from Christian proselytizing.
This organization also had a clear pattern of behavior that it wanted to instill in the children in its program. “God like” behavior involved chaste behavior (limiting sexuality until adulthood, not wearing provocative clothes, boys and girls programs were separate), no swearing or other “street” behavior, and related behavior. The program used constant references to “godlike” behavior as well as sanctioning to encourage correct behavior.
5. Chinese Mainline Protestant: Chinese Immigrant Services
This summary draws from a combination of participant observation from the Faith and Organizations Project and interviews done with staff and both organizations as part of the Religion and the New Immigrants Study (Foley and Hoge).
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
This organization was founded by the major Chinese Methodist church in Washington DC by established Chinese immigrants (most government workers who had come over after the communist take over of the Chinese government in the 1950s in 1977 in order to serve a new wave of Chinese immigrants. It is located in the parish service hall for its sponsoring congregation. While the organization is located in DC’s historic Chinatown and serves primarily new Chinese immigrants who live nearby, most congregation members live in the suburbs. The organization is located in a national register property – originally an AME church, but which is now a combined congregation of whites, African Americans, and this Chinese church. The parent church also sponsors a seniors program that serves mostly African Americans, and the two programs appear to operate completely separately.
Fieldwork and interviews revealed that the project is a seamless connection between the church and the ministry. The ministry does not have a separate 501c3, but does have a separate EIN and accounts in order to maintain government accounting standards. Most of the employees and active volunteers are active members of the congregation, and fieldworkers found that staff and volunteers participated with the organization in order to help their community and “do their civic duty”.
Likewise, we found that church homilies and other statements clearly stated that members should participate in social justice and social service activities, and these ministries were a key way to do this.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
It is difficult to disentangle the connections between the congregation and the immigrant community in answering this question. Most of the people served by the organization are Chinese immigrants, who may or may not be members of this particular congregation. As such, it provides a linguistically and culturally appropriate home for Chinese immigrants needing an array of services. On paper, the organization also serves other Asian groups – namely Vietnamese and Cambodians – through collaborations among three ethnically based social service organizations for joint contracts for crime victim services and several other programs. However, the director told our fieldworker and me on several occasions, that each ethnic group serves its own.
Even though the organization is highly integrated into its faith community, it operates as a secular social service organization founded by a particular immigrant group. This raises a number of questions regarding the boundaries between faith-based and secular orgs for immigrant founded faith-based non-profits.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
As stated in question A above, the Chinese immigrant community had a profound impact on this organization. While they provided emergency services, resettlement services, training programs for adults and youth and crime victims’ assistance services similar to those provided by other communities, the style of service largely reflected Chinese culture and mainline Protestant religious belief.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
This organization was created when non-profits could not be faith based and receive government funds, and maintains a strictly secular taint to its services for this reason. The organization actively seeks funding from government and other citywide sources, and participates in coalitions of other organizations providing similar services to targeted ethnic and racial populations.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
This question has been addressed in “a” of the “Big Questions” section. This organization is significantly embedded in its founding church. However, it appears that while the ministers have succeeded in merging the three founding congregations, the service activities remain completely separate, drawing on different racial groups within the congregation for each separate ministry and serving a racially distinct populations. This is an issue to explore in a larger study. Chinese church members staff all oversight committees and all staff come to the organization through community social capital.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
All paid staff members at this organization are members of the church and use their beliefs in the way that they perform their work. We heard much about civic engagement and responsibility to ones community at this site.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
Limited research does not provide enough data to answer this question at this time.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
This question cannot be fully answered with the current research.
5. What is the impact
on the faith community of their organization’s work? On
its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
It is hard to disentangle the needs of the immigrant community vs. the needs of the religious community. The organization was created as a social ministry in order to provide adjustment services, advancement services and other services to its constituent community. New services were added more based on the needs of the immigrant community than religious values.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
This question cannot be fully addressed through the pilot research.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
This question cannot be addressed as the organization is firmly tied to the Faith community.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
The organization reflected both mainline Protestant belief systems about providing support for those in need, a social justice mission in keeping with the founding faith, and the concerns of a successful immigrant community for its newest members.
6. Muslim Organizations: Muslim Charities and 2nd Organization
This summary draws from a combination of participant observation from the Faith and Organizations Project and interviews done with staff and both organizations as part of the Religion and the New Immigrants Study (Foley and Hoge)
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
Both organizations were founded specifically in order to have services available to Muslims (particularly women) that would fit their cultural needs. As such, the organization’s staffing and behaviors reflect the cultural systems of the community. The organizations also draw heavily on social capital resources from among the various mosques and the general Muslim community
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
Participant observation at Muslim Charities did not include much observation of people receiving service. While both organizations claimed that they served everyone in the community, they also stated that they were designed to serve Muslims and that this was their primary population served. Given limited observations, the pilot and earlier research could not answer this question.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
As stated in question A above, the Muslim community had a profound impact on these organizations. While they provided emergency services, resettlement services, and domestic violence assistance services similar to those provided by other communities, the style of service largely reflected Muslim belief and culture.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Further research is necessary to adequately answer this question, however, pilot research suggests that the organization maintains a balance between secular social service expectations and culturally appropriate service.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
This question has been addressed in “a” of the “Big Questions” section. These organizations are significantly embedded in the wider Muslim communities and connected to the Mosques in both formal and informal ways. One organization draws its board from Mosque members while the other is less formal, but all board members are Muslim and an Imam at one mosque was instrumental in founding the organization. This organization was housed in a mosque for a period of time. All staff come to the organization through community cultural capital.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
All paid staff members at this organization are Muslims and use their beliefs in the way that they perform their work.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
Most relationships between these organizations and congregations were through mosque created email lists, the mosque newsletters, and donations through the charity systems set up through the mosques. As such, congregation members contributed to the organizations individually more than mosques as corporate entities supported the organizations. Social and cultural capital relationships were essential to these connections and to the work of the agencies.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
This question cannot be fully answered with the current research.
5. What is the
impact on the faith community of their organization’s work? On
its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
In both cases, it is hard to disentangle the needs of the immigrant community vs. the needs of the religious community. However, both organizations clearly stated that they were founded based on beliefs of community support for those in need in the Koran in order to provide culturally appropriate service for community members. Both organizations were started in order to address the needs of community members, and have added programs to address these needs as they arose:
- One organization was founded to provide for Muslim immigrants in an appropriate way
- The other organization was founded when Muslim children ended up in the foster care system and community members were concerned that Muslim homes would not be available for children in need.
- Muslim Charities developed its domestic violence program when a woman in a key founding Mosque was a victim of domestic violence. In order to support her and others, they supported founding this program so that other Muslim women would have a comfortable place to turn if they needed help. The organization also became this woman’s job, providing material aid as well as allowing her to move forward with what had become a religiously motivated cause.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
This question cannot be fully addressed through the pilot research.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
This question cannot be addressed as the organization is firmly tied to the Faith community.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
The organization reflected Muslim beliefs about providing for those in need in the community and providing support through the community.
Philadelphia Sites
7. Lutheran Charities
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
Lutheran Charities is one of the oldest faith-based social service agencies in the country, and currently the second largest (to Catholic Ministries) Founded in 1922, originally it was a mission to orphans. In the last 80+ years it has diversified programs to serving a wide range of at risk populations on all points of the life cycle. The relationship between Lutheran Charities and the major Lutheran body (ELCA) is essentially an institutional one. There is Lutheran symbolism on the website, in communications, etc. The ELCA continues to promote the work of the Lutheran Charities as a mission arm of the church. This is also true in the Lutheran Charities of Philadelphia. In fact, it is now housed institutionally with two other Lutheran organizations under a single umbrella (Liberty Lutheran). However, there are strong indications of distinction between the local agency and its Lutheran sponsors:
1) Lutheran Charities serves a largely urban population, which is predominantly African American (80%). The denomination, in contrast, is overwhelmingly white and suburban.
2) This demographic is reflected in the staff as well. Beyond the Executive Director who is a Lutheran clergyperson but a career social service administrator, few staff members are Lutheran. Religious holidays from a variety of traditions are honored (for example, staff are given the choice of taking either Good Friday or MLK Day off).
3) Programming is diverse and non-religious in nature. Only a fraction of the overall program (5%) is of and for Lutheran congregants (a congregation-based caregivers program). Besides the demographic difference, programs tend to be pitched to those whose life experience is very different than the Lutheran membership, including foster care and even an anti-torture program. In the case of a new program for gay teens, program can also be perceived as being in contradiction to Lutheran commitments.
4) The Board is half Lutheran but even so is more reflective of the urban population they serve than the demographics of the sponsoring body.
5) Further indication of a weak link to congregations is that few send volunteers except in the area of refugee resettlement. Currently a staff person has begun an initiative to increase links with local churches.
6) Lutheran Charities receives an amazingly low percentage of its hefty budget from the Lutheran Church. Of their $14.5mbudget, they expect only 2% to come from the denomination.
The Lutheran Charities in Philadelphia is well networked, but primarily with peer-agencies of other faith traditions as well as larger networks of Lutheran social services. Since they receive about 85% of their funding from the government, they do have a lot of interaction with local and state government agencies.
The primary contribution of the faith community is in the area of social and cultural capital. First of all, the overwhelming proportion of clients comes through referrals. On closer inspection, these often are internal referrals—former refugees who have been resettled by the agency come back for follow up services.
Occasionally Lutheran Charities does have internal conversation about whether to keep the Lutheran moniker. They finally do because it provides a sense of “trust” for both clients and funding sources.
The core beliefs, which most impact the operations of Lutheran Charities, are commitments to the dignity of all people. As this belief gets operationalized, it means that the agency is intentionally non-religious in all its practices, from hiring to service delivery. However, the large proportion of government funding suggests that there are other sources of the non-sectarianism.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
The clientele is largely urban and African American. Refugee resettlement is declining in scope. The agency is absolutely committed to nondiscrimination.
8. Jewish Organization for the Aid of Immigrants (JOAI) Research Summary
1. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community? What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
The manner in which services are provided at JOAI and to whom is part of a larger struggle that JOAI is facing in relationship to its ‘parent’ organization, the Jewish Federation of Philadelphia. Many consider the Jewish Federation to be the representative of the Jewish community of Philadelphia. As a constituent agency of the Federation, traditionally JOAI received a majority of its funding from this Jewish philanthropy. However, recently the Federation has gone under a complete restructuring process and an evaluation, and JOAI has been determined to be an agency that does not meet the priority needs of the Jewish community. Thus, JOAI’s funds from the Federation have been cut drastically. When I asked various staff members their opinion on the matter, there were some interesting patterns in the responses that I received. The executive director, who is bearing the brunt of this cut in funding, was blunt in her opinion that the Federation was essentially cutting funds because they did not like the fact that JOAI was helping non-Jewish immigrants and clients. Her response indicated a major tension between JOAI and the Federation, not only illustrating a difference in philosophy between the two entities, but also the possibilities of a severance in affiliation. My interview with the ex-president of the board revealed an interesting distinction in the relationship that JOAI had developed with the Federation as compared to other constituent agencies:
“And the other thing about the agency is unlike many other Federation-affiliated agencies, many…I would say most of our board are…well, they’re not as…I don’t know how to say it, I mean, some of them are Federation people…they’re really well-connected…but these people don’t really affiliate with Federation, they affiliate with JOAI, which is a big difference. They believe in immigration, and that is their love, and so we’re not…I always say we’re not a glitzy organization. You know, we don’t fundraise with black-tie balls and fashion shows to get the people to support us. You know, the people that are of this agency really truly believe that this is the most important thing. So, you have very committed and very bright people, and they’re not just there to say, as many people I think that give of their time in the community…. they’re not just in it to say that this is another board I’m on…I mean, they really believe in the mission.” (Fieldnotes #13)
This comment indicated some interesting things about the nature of Jewish philanthropic work. It seemed that JOAI was a ‘black sheep’ in some regards because unlike other agencies that emphasized being Jewish first and social networking, it seemed that those who were affiliated with JOAI had over time placed the immigration element of the organization over and above the Jewish aspect of its affiliation. This has obviously contributed to tensions between JOAI and the Jewish community at large.
Other staff members were not so direct in their comments on the relationship between agency and the Federation, and many tried to defend the Jewish Federation while simultaneously bemoaning the cut in funding. One of the board members tried to explain the Federation’s decision:
“Because, Federation is a Jewish philanthropy…it’s what it is. There are limited funds, and the idea is they’re raising funds to help Jews. In the heyday, when JOAI received a lot of money, with the exodus of Jews from Russia, the exodus of Jews from Ethiopia…there were just so many Jews that had to be rescued, that there was just so much, so much for JOAI to do. And, I think the disconnect is, they [meaning, the Federation] think that the majority of Jews are here, or in Israel.” (Fieldnotes # 13)
She further explained that there were many contemporary concerns within the Jewish community of maintaining Jewish education, culture and religious traditions, “because Jews tended to assimilate so easily nowadays”. Thus, in some ways the fact that the Federation chose to fund those organizations that were focusing on Jewish people was justified. However, other staff said that while they understood what the Federation was doing, the problem was that after a certain point in time, the number of Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union died down, and the demography of immigrants to the United States changed. Thus, now there were non-Jewish refugees from Africa and the Far East that needed help. Also, according to some of the staff members, the nature of immigration has changed drastically due to new, stricter immigration laws. Thus, the type of the work at JOAI has also changed. According to the supervisor of caseworkers, during the time of Russian Jewish immigration, JOAI did a lot of resettlement work with refugees. Now, their work had become more technical, related to immigration law, and some social work, due to a decrease in the influx of Jewish refugees. She said that during her earlier days at JOAI, there were no immigrant attorneys at all in the JOAI staff. However, due to changing needs, over time they have hired several such lawyers. Thus, on the basis of the changing nature of work and from various staff member’s recollections, the nature of JOAI’s services has changed as a result of changing needs. I think one of the major tensions that always lay just under the surface was the question that if JOAI now helped mostly non-Jewish clients, did that mean that it’s identity as a Jewish organization was compromised? While for some breaking away from Jewish Federation would disconnect JOAI from its Jewish affiliation, the executive director did not believe so. She felt that JOAI could still maintain its Jewish values and drives and uphold its history as an organization that helped Jewish people while still helping people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds.
2. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background? What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
While this project was limited in its access to the people who used JOAI’s services, I did get a sense of some of the issues that arose surrounding serving people from a different community or religious background than the organization. The organization’s ethos of “helping” was rooted in the fact that Jewish people needed care because of the discrimination they faced in the past and continue to face today. However, this value of support and help within the Jewish community has been taken in two different directions depending on your perspective. One resulting viewpoint has been that because nobody helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, some people in the Jewish community today believe that they too should not help anybody else except their own. On the other hand, there are some that have argued the opposite logic. They say that their background has allowed them to empathize with those in need, and thus, they feel it is their duty to help others, regardless of their religious background. This notion may perhaps have deeper roots within the Jewish tradition, one that links social responsibility with the era of Hebrew slavery in Egypt. According to Jewish thought, just as God answered the Hebrews’ cries for help during their oppression in Egypt, God expects the Hebrews to answer the cries of others in need (Cnaan et al 1999:93).
On my first day at JOAI, this divide within the Jewish community regarding helping non-Jewish people came up in an interview with the executive director. She said the more conservative end believed that the Jewish community, with its limited resources, should only help itself. The more liberal-minded believed that everyone, regardless of religion, should be helped if they are in need. Thus, depending on whether one identified themselves as more orthodox Jewish or reform/reconstructionist Jewish, there were different values and beliefs upheld. Of course, these two forms of Jewish identity are not the only types that exist, but are portrayed as two extremes along a continuum. The executive director believed that her work was motivated by two specifically-Jewish “calls” or values—tikkun olum, a Hebrew word meaning “repair the world”, and an idea borrowed from the Old Testament of welcoming strangers and providing them sanctuary. However, she said that these calls were interpreted in many different ways, and she chose to apply them to the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds/strangers alike. As a result of her perspective on Jewish values and the manner in which this translated and influenced JOAI’s services, many people in the more orthodox community expressed disapproval of the way JOAI was run.
One of the younger Jewish American attorneys that I spoke to had a very different rationale for her belief in helping people, whether they were Jewish or not. She claimed that she didn’t know any Jewish family or person in America that really needed help, because in today’s world all Jews had been helped or were helped by people in their own community. Thus, she argued, it only made sense that JOAI should aid people in need in today’s world, even if that meant helping non-Jews. Then there are those people that I interviewed who took a middle stance, arguing that it was first and foremost JOAI’s responsibility to help Jewish people, and then if they could help others, that would be fine. One long-time staff member stated, “I liked the idea of working for an organization that helped my people. Not that I didn’t want to help other people, but that was the purpose of the agency and I liked the idea that someone was helping Jewish people” (Fieldnotes #5).
Given the diversity of the staff, it is interesting to look at the dynamic ways in these concepts are played out, how one positions oneself within the Jewish organization, how the identity of the organization as being Jewish is changing, how sometimes values and identity do not necessarily coincide (or to varying degrees), and what the boundaries are in terms of accepting non-Jewish staff and clients. Furthermore, it is interesting to identify the significance and interrelationship between how each of these variables may differ situationally. For example, in interacting with me as an obvious outsider, as someone researching JOAI, and perhaps as a Muslim, the way in which various staff members articulated their Jewish identity may have been different than if they were talking to someone who was Jewish. Many times, when asked about helping “other” non-Jewish people, I would always get examples of when Muslims were helped by JOAI. I wasn’t sure whether that was the case because I myself was Muslim, or because the “other” was defined as Muslim in the case of being Jewish as a result of the on-going conflict in the Middle East. Also, I sensed that the Jewish staff felt they needed to defend themselves and their community, even though my questions were not accusatory in any manner. This defensiveness sometimes resulted in contradictory claims, where a person would strongly defend the Jewish right to help themselves because they had been discriminated against in the past, while at the same time quickly adding, “That doesn’t mean that Jewish people are biased against others or anything” (or something to that effect). One interesting example of how the Jewish identity was expressed situationally was when I was speaking to the supervisor of caseworkers at JOAI. She narrated the following incident to me:
“We have many Muslim clients. I don’t know how they feel about it or whether they know it’s a Jewish agency. But I do know we brought in, this summer, two families…I don’t know if anybody mentioned to you, but they were the Meskhetian Turks…they were from the former Soviet Union…they’re Muslim…Judy must have told you about them. And I was driving the families home…the bus had dropped them off…and I wanted them to know we were a Jewish agency…I made a specific point explaining who we are…. you know, different agents were asked by the government to help these families…and I just told them we were from a Jewish agency. I wanted them to know we help other people and that you know, so that they would understand it’s not that you only stick to your own.” (Fieldnotes #9)
It was interesting in this case that she felt the need to emphasize to the Muslim family that JOAI was a Jewish agency. The supervisor of caseworkers said that both her Jewish identity and values influenced her choice and her work at JOAI. She believed that helping her people was important. However, she felt that since due to present circumstances (where there were less Jewish refugees coming to America as compared to earlier times), JOAI should be able to help the present immigrant and refugee population, regardless of whether they were Jewish or not. In some cases, she seemed to identify “Jewishness” or being Jewish as opposed to being Muslim. Again, I do not know whether this is because she knew that I was Muslim or not, or just because of the political tensions between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. I say this because when I asked her if JOAI helped non-Jewish immigrants she said, “Sure, we help everybody, even Muslims.” However, later she also illustrated where her ideological boundaries lay, when she indicated rather explicitly that although she was willing to help Muslim clients, she could not “bring herself” to help Palestinian families. She explained, “Palestinians are the only group I personally feel uncomfortable working with. Otherwise, I don’t care about anybody’s religion. Working with Palestinians just rubs me wrong, because there is just such antagonism to Israel. And being Jewish you take it personally, not that every Palestinian obviously feels the same way, but that’s the only group that I have difficulty with” (Fieldnotes #5). It seemed that according to her, being Jewish automatically meant strongly identifying with Israel, which came hand in hand with distrust and dislike for Palestinians. This fact was exemplified in another stark incident in the office when one of the staff members, who was of Eastern European origin, expressed with great emotion her dislike for Yasser Arafat, the recently deceased leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front. Although there are many ways to analyze this sense of Israeli patriotism, I feel that I would need to gain more data in order to substantiate an interesting potential claim that perhaps this nationalism may be a focal point for some sort of diasporic imagination. Unfortunately, time did not allow me to explore this further.
3. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
Since 1882, the primary mission of JOAI & Council Migration Service of Philadelphia has been to rescue, relocate and resettle Jews and peoples of all religion and nationalities who are fleeing persecution and discrimination. JOAI and Council provides law-related immigration services to the foreign born and their families who seek asylum, family reunification, permanent legal status and citizenship in the U.S. JOAI and Council offers refugee counseling and processing assistance, acculturation, education and advocacy to, and on behalf of, prospective refugees, immigrants, their families, and friends in the Delaware Valley and the Tri-State region[1]. JOAI and Council Migration Service’s staff of four attorneys, three accredited representatives, one paralegal and three caseworkers offers legal and immigration services. As a non-profit agency authorized by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to provide legal immigration assistance, JOAI and Council Migration Service is required to keep service fees at nominal levels. Clients providing evidence of inability to pay even the lowest fees qualify for free service.
While JOAI and Council serves clients from all over the world without regard to gender, race, religion, ethnic group, national origin, physical disability or sexual orientation, the agency has a special interest and expertise in the area of Jewish migration, and in particular, in migration from and human rights in the former Soviet Union. The JOAI and Council professional staff receives ongoing training in U.S. immigration and nationality law and policy, refugee processing, post-Soviet emigration laws and human rights, etc., and has a good reputation and working relationships with the Philadelphia District Office of the United States immigration and Citizenship services (USCIS formally INS). JOAI and Council coordinates the provision of immigration and migration services with the Jewish Federation's network of resettlement services and services to New Americans which includes Jewish Family and Children's Service of Philadelphia's resettlement program, and the Jewish Employment and Vocational Service's (JEVS) Center for New Americans and Jewish Community Centers of Greater Philadelphia.
JOAI’s diverse staff that can be categorized in a number of different ways. The twelve people that make up the core of the permanent staff (not including volunteers) are all female. Their ages range from around twenty-five years to some in their late fifties. The staff is divided up into caseworkers (both accredited and those who are non-accredited resettlement workers[2]) and attorneys specializing in immigrant law. Ethnically and religiously, there are several categories. There are second, third, or fourth generation American Jews, first generation Eastern European (Latvian, Russian, Ukrainian) immigrants of Jewish heritage, a first-generation refugee from Thailand who is Buddhist, an Afro-British woman (whose religion I do not know), a Caucasian-American Christian (did not specify her denomination/sect) and an American woman whose father is Jewish and whose mother is Protestant[3]. The executive director is second-generation American-Jewish but is married to a non-Jewish man. The five attorneys include the executive director, a young third-generation Jewish-American, the half-Jewish/half-Protestant young woman, the Afro-British woman, and the Caucasian-American Christian. Two of the Eastern-European first generation immigrants are caseworkers, while the third is a newly hired secretary. The Thai woman was initially hired as a receptionist and was later promoted to office manager. The head caseworker is third or fourth-generation American-Jewish. Finally, there is an internee working at JOAI who recently graduated from the School of Social Work at Penn whose background I have not had a chance to find out about. I can only identify her as young and Caucasian-American (American because of her accent, although this again may be problematic).
Since JOAI is a Federation constituent agency, it is mandated that all board members must contribute to the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. In the past, board members would be called from the Jewish community by the HR department of the Federation. More recently, the present executive director of JOAI and the president of the board have sought to solicit those persons that work with immigrants and have contacts in the immigrant community. The current board consists of people from a wide range of backgrounds, including influential businesspeople, immigrant lawyers, and a rabbi.
4. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources
Employees of JOAI have indicated that the government’s immigration policy has always affected both the number and kinds of clients that JOAI receives (i.e. immigrants vs. refugees, vs. asylum-seekers). Further research on this topic is needed.
-How does the personal
religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and
influence organizational behavior? What is the impact on the faith community of
their organization’s work? On its understandings of the
issues the organizations address? On its understandings of those the
organizations serve? On its understandings of their faith? On its sense of
identity?
The fact that JOAI is the Jewish Organization for the Aid of Immigrants definitely brings to the forefront questions of incorporated Jewish values and the identity of the people that are involved with JOAI, whether it be staff, board members, patrons, or clientele. The fact that the JOAI office is located within the Jewish Social Services Building, was founded by Jewish people specifically for the purpose of helping Jewish refugees come to America, that the mission statement clearly states that its primary goal is to resettle Jews (and then mentions people of other religions and nationalities), and is related to the Jewish Federation all conjure up an explicit identity. However, recent tensions in the organization have called this identity into question (this is further discussed below). It is interesting to see how “being Jewish” or not, and how the “Jewish values” of the organization are or are not presented by the staff to the researcher in the present contentious and changing climate at JOAI.
Perhaps one of the most significant patterns that emerged from my research was the notion of how people’s Jewish identity influenced their choice to work at JOAI and their perspective on what JOAI was all about. After talking with the staff and one of the board members, it became apparent to me that there are inherent deep structures surrounding the Jewish identity. This was evidenced in the fact that whenever people spoke about their Jewish identity, they defined it over and against the dominant culture, talking about how “their people” were persecuted and continue to be discriminated against today. One interviewee made this explicit when she said, “And we never know in the world where Jews will need us next, because, you know, by far anti-Semitism has not been extinguished, so there is that need” (Fieldnotes #13). While there are many references in the Old Testament regarding helping others and social responsibility, when talking about their Jewish identity in the context of helping others, people I interviewed tended to refer to history rather than religion. Referring to the Holocaust and the history of persecution that Jewish people had suffered, some of the staff members argued that they joined JOAI because they believed in helping others in need. An example of the way in which the Jewish identity and its history of persecution was linked to helping others is illustrated in a quote by ex-president of the board and a current board member when she said:
“And, as a Jew, having people in my family that I never knew being wiped out by the Holocaust and reading about what the United States didn’t do and what the other countries didn’t do…to me, as a Jew, you can’t not help other immigrants in similar situations. Because, had one person, of many, stood up during World War II, 6 million people might not have died. And there are countless stories where somebody could have saved 1,000 people or somebody could have saved 500 people. So to me, that’s kind of our history, and if you believe in helping people, I think that’s kind of the cornerstone of JOAI.” (Fieldnotes # 13)
Another example of the diverse manner in which “being Jewish” was defined within the organization was the case of the two Eastern European caseworkers that I interviewed. They saw their Jewish identity as more of an ethnicity than a religion. Both of them commented on this aspect explicitly on two separate occasions, in a more informal setting as well as in the interviews. Being Jewish to them was an ethnic identity, because they said that Russian Jews (an umbrella term for people of Jewish descent in the former Soviet Union) were not very religious and also because during the Soviet era they were identified not as Tajik, Ukrainian, or by any other nationality, but just as “Jewish” (in their passports, etc.). They were targeted on the basis of religion regardless of their ethnic background, in a sense “naturalizing” Jewishness as an ethnicity. They brought this idea with them when they immigrated to America. For one of them, working at JOAI meant helping fellow Eastern European Jews. However, again because of the decline in Eastern European Jewish refugees to America, she was now open to helping others. However, at a later point I heard her say something which clearly indicated her dislike for Palestinians, thus categorizing those “non-Jewish” groups she was unwilling to help. Again, this was based more on the ethno-political conflict translated into a conflict between two religions (Israel/Jews and Palestine/Muslims), rather than tensions between two faiths, as she insisted that she herself was not very “practicing”. The other Eastern European caseworker said that although she still saw being Jewish as an ethnic identity, coming to America changed this a bit, because here “being” Jewish was seen more as a faith than an ethnicity. She now actively practiced the Jewish religion, and deemed her work at JOAI as a way to pay back the Jewish community that had helped her when she arrived in America as a refugee.
The two lawyers who could be identified as Jewish (or part Jewish), I felt that because they were younger and also because of their personal experiences, being Jewish was very different for them. While the young woman whose parents were both Jewish had been inculcated while growing up with a strong Jewish religious identity (she went to a school that was attached to a synagogue and sang both the American and Israeli national anthems each morning), she said that when she became more independent as an adult, her ideas about her religion changed. Although she claimed that she still strongly identified as being Jewish, she became less religious and also disagreed ideologically with some Jewish beliefs. She seemed to have developed an independent set of ideas, some borrowed from the Jewish faith and some not, but still considered herself to be Jewish. She specifically said that she realized that some of the rhetoric that she had been exposed to as a child was clearly biased. For her, the work she did at JOAI did not encapsulate anything “Jewish”. She said that most of her clients were in fact not Jewish, and that she made it a point to keep her faith/identity/ethnicity separate from her work. However, she did tell me that she thought that people who were Jewish “were treated differently” at JOAI than those who were not. She indicated a strong ideological divide between the Eastern European Jews and the American Jews. She said that the other young lawyer who was half-Jewish was more welcomed into the fold because her last name was Jewish and because she had strong connections with the Jewish community through her father. Interestingly, when I spoke to this latter individual, she indicated that she had been raised “without religion” as she was growing up and that working for JOAI was “the first time that she had had any exposure to Judaism”. She also worked with mostly non-Jewish clients.
The other staff at JOAI, who were non-Jewish by faith/identity, indicated a general ambivalence to the Jewish “nature” of JOAI. They did not identify any feelings or instances of marginalization either of themselves or non-Jewish clients, emphasizing that they helped clients of all backgrounds. It seemed to me that for them, the Jewish identity of the organization was latent, and they were mostly concerned with helping immigrants resettle. However, I feel that maybe they were uncomfortable to reveal how they felt about underlying “politics” to me, because that could perhaps be read as a critique of the organization’s Jewish identity. Also, it is interesting to note that one of the newer Jewish staff members told me during one of our conversations that she believed that the non-Jewish staff were treated “differently”, saying that there was “an underlying tension in the office around who’s Jewish and who’s not. You know, I’ve heard people who aren’t Jewish, you know, aren’t treated the same as those who are.” It must be kept in mind that this person was relatively new to JOAI, and therefore her observation may be flawed. As yet I cannot come up with any solid evidence to further substantiate this claim. However, from my conversations with the non-Jewish staff, they have never indicated any such discrimination. I would need to spend much more time at the office in order to determine these nuanced subtleties in relationships and interactions between Jewish and non-Jewish staff.
The relationship between “being Jewish”, Jewish values, and the identity of the organization is a complex and dynamic one. The fact that some people said they were open to helping all people regardless of their religion/nationality but then indicated some hesitancy or dislike of particular groups was interesting. The underlying ideological differences between staff members based on ethnicity and perhaps a generational divide indicated how “being Jewish” differed and how certain “Jewish values” were appropriated/or not appropriated into individual work ethics. In the case of JOAI, how one articulated “being Jewish” depended on past experiences, differences in nationality/where one was raised, different forms of appropriation, and to what extent one viewed how faith was incorporated into the services offered. The present metamorphosis of and larger tensions that are at play regarding JOAI’s position as a Jewish organization make it a particularly interesting context in which to examine the process of change and negotiation of this emic concept.
-How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
This research study was limited in its access to Jewish congregations in Philadelphia or to the members of the Jewish Federation.
-How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained? Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
The very obvious presence of tension in the relationship between JOAI and the general Jewish faith community under the Jewish Federation regarding the nature of the organizations’ services and faithfulness to its mission illustrates some of the “stakes” at hand. It highlights the resistance to organizational metamorphosis that could potentially lead to JOAI moving away from being “faith-based”.
While this tension may remain unresolved, the wavering relationship between JOAI and the Federation has influenced the former’s organizational culture. The cut in funding has caused JOAI to become under-resourced and to face a lot of financial pressure[4]. My interview with the ex-president of the board brought out the fact that without a secure funding base, JOAI’s services and efficient response to the cyclical trends of immigration would be greatly hampered. Her comments on this issue also illustrated that the manner in which the executive director runs the office greatly influences JOAI’s organizational culture. She said that the reason that JOAI is currently surviving and continuing to persevere has a lot to do with the present executive director. Her statements further illustrated that the philosophy and drive of the organization changed when directors were changed. Thus, the present executive director’s values are essentially internalized within the organization. The relentless search for the money, the belief that all people should be helped regardless of religion, and the constant activity within the office all reflect the executive director’s personality position. Particularly those staff that have been hired under her tenure have displayed concurrence with the belief that refugees and immigrants should be helped regardless of whether they are Jewish or not. This may reflect the fact that the executive director is predominantly responsible for hiring new employees, and she looks for people with a similar sense of unbiased caring and concern. The executive director’s beliefs stem from the fact that she is from the Reconstructionist movement within Judaism, one of the most liberal movements that promotes interfaith values and is seen by many of the more conservative orthodox Jews as a “secularized” movement. Even membership criteria of the board have changed as a result of the new executive director’s approach. This is illustrated by the answer given to me when I asked the ex-president of the board what the criteria is for choosing board members:
Since JOAI is a Federation-constituent agency, it’s mandated that all board members must contribute to the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. With all the boards of Federation, each board sets the minimum contribution each year by the board members to the Federation. So basically you have to contribute to Federation and you have to be willing to give them a board donation. I think in the past, board members would be called from the Jewish community, people who they thought were active in the community that could be put on the JOAI board. With Judy, it’s been a different thrust. We’ve really looked for people that work with immigrants, have contact with the immigrant community…and business people that might not necessarily have been connected to Federation, but because they would be interested and JOAI would contribute to the Federation, they would become members of our board. But Judy and some of us actively seek out people that we think would contribute. And we try and get really successful businesspeople that work with immigrants…that would have a real feel for what we’re doing. We have a lot of immigration lawyers too. Um, we have somebody on the board whose father or grandfather…I forget exactly, but he was one of the first board members. So, there are some of the older people on the board, their parents came to the United States with the help of JOAI, so they feel a particular kinship the organization. Yeah, it varies, but we as a board right now really outreach ourselves to identify those people. (Fieldnotes #13)
The present executive director also influences two other important aspects of JOAI’s organizational culture. Firstly, the importance of networking within the Jewish community for support has come out in varying instances. When speaking to one of the members of the board about the executive director, she said, “Judy brings a unique perspective to this organization in the fact that she’s not only a lawyer, but is a social worker. And her experiences have always been in the non-profit community, and she knows everybody in the city. Every immigrant community-based organization, every minority-based organization, every social needs organization…she just knows everybody, and has helped in so many different venues that it’s an amazing integration of what she’s been able to accomplish” (Fieldnotes #13). In another instance, I was told about how the board had hired someone to help raise funds for JOAI, but she had been rather unsuccessful because she was not a member of the Jewish community and was thus not able to reach out and network appropriately. This comment really gave me a sense of the importance of networking in order to particularly get financial support for a Jewish non-profit. There are cultural differences in networking within the Jewish community that influence how you approach and connect with people in order to solicit funds. The board member continued by saying:
“We need somebody who is really in touch with and understands the Jewish community. That’s what I think you need…you need to know, if you want to raise funds from the Jewish community. If you have access to money in the general population, and you have those contacts, and you know how to approach that, then it doesn’t have to be Jewish. I’m just saying, where are you going? You know part of any fund-raising is you have to solicit your own board members and the people that you know.” (Fieldnotes #13)
In terms of the organizational structure of JOAI, staff members have pointed out both positive and negative aspects of the way it is run under the current executive director. Every staff member that I spoke to said that working at JOAI made him or her feel like they had a second family. The friendly atmosphere at JOAI fosters a lot of interaction and advise-giving across the board. New employees are always warmly welcomed, and many of the staff members have been working at JOAI for over a decade, despite the low pay. The fact that all the staff are female is perhaps another reason why the environment is so comfortable and familiar. There is little competition, and people are very open with each other. The staff eat lunch together and are always joking around and laughing. I have also heard them talking very openly with each other and me about personal issues and getting advice from each other on such matters.
Another reason why I feel that JOAI’s atmosphere is family-like is because of the nature of the work that they do. Helping refugees and immigrants involves some sort of nurturing and caring, as people are aided and essentially taught how to “assimilate” and be self-sufficient after escaping a difficult life. Since some of the staff members themselves are refugees, they obviously can empathize with those looking for asylum or leaving their home country to come to America. In addition, for those staff who are Jewish, they see their identity linked to a history of Diaspora and discrimination. As one of the interviewees said, explaining her Jewish roots, “Immigration is the core of who we are” (Fieldnotes #7). Thus, many of the JOAI staff are sensitive to feelings of dislocation and believe in caring and helping others in such situations.
While all the staff emphasized that JOAI had a “family” atmosphere and environment that made it a wonderful place to work at, the lack of organizational structure and training was identified as a major weakness. The executive director explained that JOAI did not have a solid, hierarchical corporate structure because the office was under-resourced. She said that although the staff enjoyed their relative independence in working in a decentralized environment, “there should be departments…I should be overseeing two or three people and then they should be overseeing people.” However, she claimed, “I don’t have the resources to pay a senior manager, or book-keep. I mean I should have someone internal doing the bookkeeping…I don’t have that, I have to contract that out. If I had to start it from scratch, I would not do it this way” (Fieldnotes #8). Generally, the lack of structure at JOAI is a result of a lack of time on the part of the staff to organize itself. While this unstructured atmosphere allows everyone to help the maximum number of clients possible and fosters flexibility, it detracts from the efficiency of record keeping and updating the database. As the caseworker supervisor put it:
“As far as keeping up with paperwork and documenting you know notes and things, which we should be doing more, we’ve always put…I don’t know how to say it…the interest of the client or maybe just serving clients better and faster and more people…you don’t have time to do all that paperwork. But I think it really is important in this world, as Judy has shown us. Unless you can document why you’re so busy, you can’t apply for more money, and that’s our weak point.” (Fieldnotes #9)
Thus, an interesting issue that ultimately arose out of my research was the question of whether JOAI is a faith-based organization at all. As I have mentioned in the literature review, there is a serious need to re-evaluate how we categorize organizations as “faith-based” or not. The Jewish example is particularly illustrative of the need to challenge the Protestant Christian origins of the predominant typology used to identify and study faith-based organizations. It was interesting to note that many of the staff members at JOAI did not see the organization as faith-based because they associated such organizations with proselytization. In one of the conversations I had on this topic with a few of the staff members over lunch, they vehemently differentiated themselves from Catholic and Lutheran social services, saying that in Judaism, “we don’t believe in proselytizing.” I myself would argue after researching JOAI that in many ways faith does permeate the organizational culture in subtle ways. Jewish ideology and values influence the ethos of JOAI’s mission and identity. I believe that the current tensions between JOAI and the Jewish Federation embody some of the very crucial issues surrounding the redefinition of what a faith-based organization is. When I asked the ex-president of the board if she thought JOAI was faith-based, she said no, arguing that although the organization’s driving ethos is borrowed from Judaism:
“But that’s not tied in with your belief in God, and your religion. I mean, it’s a value. I mean, to me that’s the conundrum with Judaism. I mean, you know, we don’t proselytize Judaism. It’s a religion, but for many of us, it’s really an ethnicity…it’s who you are, it’s [pauses]…when I say I’m Jewish, I really think it’s different than when somebody is Catholic. I mean, I’m really not religious in any way. And most of the people…I mean, there are plenty of Jews that are that are involved in the Federation, but I’m just saying…and there are plenty of people on the board that are religious too, but we just don’t see this like, ‘Look what the Jews are doing for you, so therefore support us.’ This is what we have to do as good citizens, as good people.” (Fieldnotes #13)
Again, I believe that the way in which society defines what a faith-based organization is carries with it negative stereotypes of proselytization and discrimination on the basis of religion. These are the very labels that JOAI is trying to escape. As researchers, we must thus reconsider the parameters that are used to define faith-based organizations, particularly with the present federal administration’s “faith-based initiative” in mind.
-Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
While I would be hesitant to make general statements about the distinctive goals upheld by various faith traditions, I believe that a dominant theme that pervades the Jewish tradition (and that has been and continues to be contested and highlighted in the goals of many Jewish organizations), is the issue of helping migrants in the context of the history of the Jewish people. Whenever people spoke about their Jewish identity, they defined it over and against the dominant culture, talking about how “their people” were persecuted and continue to be discriminated against today. One interviewee made this explicit when she said, “And we never know in the world where Jews will need us next, because, you know, by far anti-Semitism has not been extinguished, so there is that need” (Fieldnotes #13). While there are many references in the Old Testament regarding helping others and social responsibility, when talking about their Jewish identity in the context of helping others, people I interviewed tended to refer to history rather than religion. Referring to the Holocaust and the history of persecution that Jewish people had suffered, some of the staff members argued that they joined JOAI because they believed in helping others in need. An example of the way in which the Jewish identity and its history of persecution was linked to helping others is illustrated in a quote by ex-president of the board and a current board member when she said:
“And, as a Jew, having people in my family that I never knew being wiped out by the Holocaust and reading about what the United States didn’t do and what the other countries didn’t do…to me, as a Jew, you can’t not help other immigrants in similar situations. Because, had one person, of many, stood up during World War II, 6 million people might not have died. And there are countless stories where somebody could have saved 1,000 people or somebody could have saved 500 people. So to me, that’s kind of our history, and if you believe in helping people, I think that’s kind of the cornerstone of JOAI.” (Fieldnotes # 13)
Thus, the notion of “helping” was rooted in the fact that Jewish people needed care because of the discrimination they faced in the past and continue to face today. However, this value of support and help within the Jewish community has been taken in two different directions depending on your perspective. One resulting viewpoint has been that because nobody helped Jewish people during the Holocaust, some people in the Jewish community today believe that they too should not help anybody else except their own. On the other hand, there are some that have argued the opposite logic. They say that their background has allowed them to empathize with those in need, and thus, they feel it is their duty to help others, regardless of their religious background. This notion may perhaps have deeper roots within the Jewish tradition, one that links social responsibility with the era of Hebrew slavery in Egypt. According to Jewish thought, just as God answered the Hebrews’ cries for help during their oppression in Egypt, God expects the Hebrews to answer the cries of others in need (Cnaan et al 1999:93).
On my first day at JOAI, this divide within the Jewish community regarding helping non-Jewish people came up in an interview with the executive director. She said the more conservative end believed that the Jewish community, with its limited resources, should only help itself. The more liberal-minded believed that everyone, regardless of religion, should be helped if they are in need. Thus, depending on whether one identified themselves as more orthodox Jewish or reform/reconstructionist Jewish, there were different values and beliefs upheld. Of course, these two forms of Jewish identity are not the only types that exist, but are portrayed as two extremes along a continuum. The executive director believed that her work was motivated by two specifically-Jewish “calls” or values—Tikkun Olam, a Hebrew word meaning “repair the world”, and an idea borrowed from the Old Testament of welcoming strangers and providing them sanctuary. However, she said that these calls were interpreted in many different ways, and she chose to apply them to the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds/strangers alike. As a result of her perspective on Jewish values and the manner in which this translated and influenced JOAI’s services, many people in the more orthodox community expressed disapproval of the way JOAI was run.
9. Christian Adult Community Day Program
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
The Christian Adult Community Day Program is profoundly affected by its relationship to its supporting church. The program is founded by and tightly connected to its African American evangelical church, which provides the bulk of financial resources, space for program activities, staff, volunteers, and the driving force or mission for the program, which infuses the program with a particular spirit and energy that is regularly commented upon by staff and participants alike. The Christian Adult Community Day Program provides services to more members of the community at large than to members of its particular faith community, though all participants share a similar Evangelical Christian religious background and similar practices of prayer, song, oral testimony, evangelization, etc. Many seniors participated in the Church’s worship services as a result of their participation in the program, (indeed, some formal activities of the program involved participation in worship services) and of these, many expressed a desire to formally join the church body. A few seniors actually did join the Church formally, though only a few, as most preferred to remain loyal to their long-time church communities.
Some program activities influenced by founding religious institution (as well as by the shared religious identity of participants which is broader than the particular sponsoring church): [This list is not exhaustive but provides an idea of the character of the program and how it is shaped by the founding religious community]
· Meals (breakfast and lunch are served each day) are initiated with group prayer led by staff and participants alike
· Greetings: staff and participants greet and take leave of each other using religious language [e.g. “How are you?” “–Good, by the grace of God”]
· Intimate concern for one another is fostered by staff and participants and expressed in numerous ways [e.g. participant will pray as a group and individually for those who are suffering health problems or other difficulties.] Along these lines, first names are used and titles of respect and fictive kinship such as “Mother,” “Brother,” and “Sister” emphasize the intimacy, devotion and love of family as all are understood to be members together in God’s family.
· Activities: songs sung: spirituals, Christmas carols, gospel music; “Hand Praise” group: this activity, led by one of the senior participants and a member of Mt Airy COGIC involves choreographed hand motions to accompany gospel music, performed at various events including special worship services of The Church.
· Information: health information sessions led by a Nurse-Missionary of The Church opened and closed with prayer and emphasized the importance of physical and spiritual wellbeing.
· Bible studies led by a volunteer member of The Church each Monday morning. Some seniors came to the Christian Adult Community Day Program only on Mondays just for this event.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
My experiences at The Christian Adult Community Day Program provide some interesting insights into this question. Just a few blocks down Ogontz Avenue from the Church where the Christian Adult Community Day Program is housed, there is a publicly run seniors center, providing similar services as The Christian Adult Community Day Program, though in a more extensive manner. Funded by the Philadelphia Corporation for the Aging, the West Oak Lane Center serves more seniors, five days a week (instead of M, W, Friday, as The Christian Adult Community Day Program), has new, more extensive facilities, and a more numerous and professionally trained staff. When speaking of their feelings and impressions about The Christian Adult Community Day Program, many seniors naturally drew a comparison between their experiences there and West Oak Lane. In these responses, a pattern emerged. Seniors contrasted the “warmth” and community they felt at The Christian Adult Community Day Program to the “colder" atmosphere of the secular organization down the street. They praised the state of the art facilities and the services provided by the secular organization, but felt that the staff was cold, harsh, and that there was not the same degree of harmony and camaraderie among participants as they felt at The Christian Adult Community Day Program. They mentioned that the Christian Adult Community Day Program staff was composed of people who receive little or no financial compensation for their work, and that this insured that they were devoted to their work on a different level. Seniors claimed that they could feel this difference in their interactions with staff. They also explained that the shared faith of participants of the Christian Adult Community Day Program led to a different feeling of warmth and caring among the participants as well. Also noted were the many things that the seniors received, all for no fees. Many seniors I spoke to explained that for these reasons of warmth and comfort they had abandoned participation in the publicly run program.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
· Mission of Christian Adult Community Day Program grows out of and is directly tied to that of founding church community [See attached mission statement]
· Organizational structure: the Bishop of The Church appoints board of directors. Board members are appointed for life but may withdraw if they so choose.
· Staff is appointed by head of the Bethesda Programs or on suggestion from the Bishop or other church leader. Many regular staff members are volunteers. All staff members of The Christian Adult Community Day Program are members of the founding religious group.
· Program design contains many elements of the church mission including promoting community of faithful, spiritual and physical well being and self discovery, expansion and enrichment.
· [See also above comments about “atmosphere” and examples of program activities, etc.]
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
[See responses to a-c]
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
Paid Staff
There are only three paid staff members that work exclusively for The Christian Adult Community Day Program: the program director; the activities coordinator; and the cook. These three staff members earn what one Church leader described as “salaries” but which the employees themselves describe as “stipends.” Their pay is for part-time work and is quite modest- more of a token of appreciation than the actual amount of compensation they are due for the nature of skills and commitment required for their jobs.
Regular Volunteers
Two other regular workers at the Christian Adult Community Day Program come to the Christian Adult Community Day Program on a fully volunteer basis. They spoke to me of their work in the program as a “ministry” and they come as “servants” [of both God and the seniors] and not as people in search of paychecks. One volunteer works every day of the program in the kitchen, helping the cook, to prepare, serve and clean up after the meals. She has been working as a volunteer in the program without lapse since its inception over two years ago. The second volunteer has also been with the program since its inception but has since moved to Delaware, south of Wilmington. She continues to remain devoted to the seniors, but only comes one day each week because of the distance.
Other volunteers:
Other volunteers come and make presentations or prepare special activities for the seniors on a less regular basis. The program director expressed amazement at the outpouring of volunteer support coming from members of the congregation. She told me that people are always approaching her with ideas for activities and projects to work on with the seniors, asking if they can come and be of help. One particular activity that arose in such a way was a creative writing project. A member of the church who is a writer offered to come in and work with the seniors on autobiography writing projects. This program was a great success and the Christian Adult Community Day Program director raved about the finished written works the seniors produced and the outcome for them personally.
Other temporary staff come for periods of up to two months as part of their training for ministry at one of the church’s theological schools or training programs. One woman participated as a full-time volunteer with The Christian Adult Community Day Program for the months of September and October as part of her “rotations” with various ministries. As an aspiring missionary, this is part of her training program with MARTI (Mount Airy Religious Training Institute) run by The Church.
Another volunteer from the church that is formally trained as a nurse and is also a Nurse/Missionary within the church comes the second Wednesday of each month to give a presentation about a health-related topic. Her presentations focused on current issues such as the flu vaccine, holiday eating, and self-pampering. Other volunteers from Mt. Airy church have come in to lead arts and crafts activities and bible study sessions, prepare packages of canned goods for the seniors, or to help with special events such as the annual Thanksgiving or Christmas dinners.
Volunteers and the shape of the Christian Adult Community Day Program:
Generating ideas and aiding with the organization and presentation of programs for the seniors, volunteers from the Mt. Airy church community provide a significant pool of human resources for the program. Though volunteers are not paid, the program’s director and coordinator make sure that their generosity is recognized, and in this way, help to ensure the continued outpouring of generous support in the future. At the end of each year, during the annual Christmas luncheon for the seniors, the program director takes the opportunity to publicly thank regular volunteers with a speech and with a tangible token of appreciation. The two regular “staff volunteers” each receive a “Christmas bonus” check from the program budget as a show of appreciation. This year, the program director presented other volunteers with personalized, wrapped gifts.
The significant presence of volunteers on staff affects the nature of the director’s job in many ways. First of all, other publicly–run seniors programs have extensive staff, which allows the director to perform a mainly administrative role behind the scenes and to remain remote from the actual program activities and participants. At The Christian Adult Community Day Program, the scarcity of staff leads the program director to be very actively involved in running discussion sessions and other activities with the seniors. On most days I attended the seniors program, the director was present in the room for all or most of the day. She led the group in singing spirituals, in extended open-forum discussions about certain issues such as exercise and spiritual and physical fitness, and often took on the task of making announcements and organizing upcoming activities with sign-up sheets. Small numbers of permanent staff at The Christian Adult Community Day Program results in the program being quite vertically integrated.
The director also takes a very open approach to organizing and planning program activities. Reliant upon volunteers, she makes it clear to program staff and to members of the Mt. Airy Church that she is open to their ideas and suggestions for program content. Being very “open to suggestions” is one way in which the program’s director garners support and resources from church members and other volunteers. The program director also takes a very open approach to program administration. She often took a very leadership style with her staff and volunteers. First of all, the staff are comfortable approaching her with their concerns. Also, I watched her mediate some conflicts and lead brainstorming sessions with staff where they all sat together at an impromptu meeting where she took charge of the proceedings, but not the content. The program director encouraged and solicited everyone present to contribute ideas and then she took immediate action on these thoughts, implementing them so that they came into effect the very next week. The director used a communal “we” conceiving of herself as an active part of the group: [“now what were we saying?”] Her manner and orientation encouraged the participation and the input of everyone present. This openness characterized her leadership of the program in general, and was influenced greatly by the program’s reliance upon volunteers.
The program benefits greatly from the presence of volunteers on staff. The desire they have to work there positively influences the orientation they take towards their tasks and their relationships with the seniors. However, there are also negative aspects to having a staff composed mostly of volunteers. Without pay, volunteers are not bound by legally formalized expectations contained within a contract. The program director pointed out that there is less consistency in the staff because volunteers will commit and give of themselves for a period of time, and then leave if they find a full-time job, if other commitments arise, or if their original surge of dedication wanes. The inconsistency in staff, she noted, results in a general stagnation of the program since they’ve had to re-train and re-orient new volunteers and staff members each time there is a change.
As a director overseeing mostly volunteer staff, the program director also faces challenges for managing existent staff. She told me that one of the most difficult things for her to do is to fire staff members, but she has had to do this a few times. Once she fired a van driver who didn’t treat the seniors with the appropriate respect and a cook who repeatedly arrived late. With staff members who are fully volunteers, there is a greater limitation on control and retribution. She explained that in order to effectively manage volunteer staff, she said she tries to foster “general respect for one another” among the staff and participants and to “try to keep the atmosphere fun”[5].
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
[My research did not directly address this question]
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
[My research did not directly address this question]
5. What is the impact
on the faith community of their organization’s work? On
its understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
The Christian Adult Community Day Program’s grows out of the mission of the church. Like the church, a principle guiding force and source of inspiration and support comes from Bishop Ernest C. Morris.
One important notion that I noted is tied to these questions is that of “ministry.” The program brochure describes The Christian Adult Community Day Program as “A Ministry of Mount Airy Church of God in Christ.” The notion of “ministry” is a key concept that ties the program tightly to the founding church body and its mission, shapes the orientation of the staff, the expectations of the participants, the content of the program, the shape of the organization and the actions of all involved.
Ministry and staff motivation:
Staff at all levels of The Christian Adult Community Day Program mentioned again and again the notion of “ministry” when describing their work there. Almost without exception, the staff characterized the nature of their activity at The Christian Adult Community Day Program as “ministry” to the seniors. Conceiving their work as “ministry” dramatically shapes the staff’s orientation to their work, and to each other as a team engaged in collective activity.
All of the staff members and volunteers of the Christian Adult Community Day Program are members of the Church. By describing their participation in the Christian Adult Community Day Program as “ministry,” they directly connect the work contribute to the program to their identity as members of a particular faith community. By engaging in ministry, these staff and volunteers are fulfilling their duties as faithful members of the church.
One aspect of ministry is to give of oneself without expecting to receive financial compensation in return. The fact that even paid staff of The Christian Adult Community Day Program receive only modest “stipends” leads to the fact that program relies on a spirit of volunteerism which contributes subtly yet powerfully to the nature of the program on many levels. Staff members and volunteers conceive of their work with The Christian Adult Community Day Program as a “ministry,” contrasting this to the standard notion of “job” and “work,” which they characterize as secular and devoid of any spiritual purpose. Thus, the attraction they feel to work there is based in a spiritual “calling” that goes well beyond a utilitarian need for money.
The Christian Adult Community Day Program director and the activities coordinator are both retired from well-paid, full-time, office-based careers. They do not see their work with The Christian Adult Community Day Program as a step up on a career ladder, but as a part of an expanded and renewed spiritual journey enabled by the financial freedom that has come with retirement from well-paid careers.
One way ministry differs from simple work is that it is an expression of love. This love for other manifests itself in many ways in the interactions of staff and volunteers with The Christian Adult Community Day Program participants. Upon meeting in the morning and departing in the afternoon, staff members usually greet the seniors by name, exchanging hugs or clasping hands in prolonged handshakes. The staff keep up with and express concern for the small details of the seniors’ personal lives. The staff are familiar with the particular medical and dietary needs of The Christian Adult Community Day Program participants, and they also know many seniors personally the way a close friend might. This aspect of their intimacy is clear when staff members ask participants about particulars of their lives upon greeting: (“How is your granddaughter doing?”; “How did that doctor’s appointment go yesterday?”; “We missed you on Monday!” etc.) The staff’s love and concern for The Christian Adult Community Day Program participants serves as a fount of patience and compassion that surface in interpersonal interactions.
Yet, the notion of ministry, at its heart is not primarily about giving. Consistent with the Christian notion of ministry emphasized in the church, working at The Christian Adult Community Day Program is not only a way staff and volunteers serve God and fulfill their responsibility as good Christians to meet the needs of others in the community. Participation in this ministry is also a means through which staff can fulfill their own needs- for it is through this action of giving of themselves in order to minister to others that they receive the benefits and blessings of God.
Staff experience at The Christian Adult Community Day Program is intimately shaped by their Christian identity and the particular way in which being a Christian is emphasized at the Church. The Christian Adult Community Day Program staff and volunteers explained that they reap rich rewards personally and spiritually from their service to the seniors. To them, the rewards they receive from involvement far outweigh the time and effort they invest.
Thus, for staff and volunteers of The Christian Adult Community Day Program, their involvement in the program is part of a very deeply personal spiritual process in which they are engaged. For them, working at The Christian Adult Community Day Program brings multiple rewards of which financial compensation, if there is any at all, is merely secondary. As the program director explained, it is this type of genuine “passion” and “love”: like a mother’s love for her child that guides the program staff in what they do[6]. And, she explained, it is this aspect of the staff’s underlying motivations that makes the Mt. Airy senior’s program different from the public seniors’ program run by the Philadelphia Council for the Aging just down the street: “You see? THAT’S what makes it different . . . Because it’s caring. And that passion for caring for that individual drives whatever need that might be . . .”[7]
Ministry- Community Outreach
The Christian Adult Community Day Program produces a brochure that advertises the existence of the program to seniors outside of the immediate church community. As part of a vision from Bishop Ernest Morris to create programs that meet “meaningful needs” in the community, the Christian Adult Community Day Program was initiated under the churches CDC “Bethesda Programs.” Distributed at community centers, apartment complexes, assisted living centers and other locations where senior citizens in the surrounding community frequent, the brochure widens the reach of the church’s message. It thus is a tangible artifact pointing to the program’s mission to reach out into the wider community.
The majority of the 92 registered participants of the program come from outside of the Mt. Airy church community. Fifty-two participants or fifty-seven percent of the total registered participants of the Christian Adult Community Day Program are not members of the sponsoring church. Most of the participants I spoke with learned about the program through “word of mouth” passed through lines of friendship or family. Most who were not already members did not have plans to join the church. In this sense, the Christian Adult Community Day Program is a ministry to the community, thereby fulfilling the ninth statement of the church’s mission statement, “to carry out the Great Commission, to go to the neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, countries and the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ.”
This mission statement is only partially met by the Christian Adult Community Day Program program, however, since participants, for the most part, are already part of the “community of saints.” In fact, the explicitly religious orientation of the program is one of the major factors attracting seniors to participation. In this respect, the program also meets the seventh statement “to preach the Gospel, teach the Bible, [and to] create community among the saints and to show compassion to the needy.”[8] This mission is stated explicitly inside the program’s brochure as the first goal of the program: “to promote a sense of belonging, purpose, dignity and connection of older members of our community who have felt disconnected, isolated or alone in their senior years.
Program staff emphasized this aspect of the program’s impact on the lives of participants in conversations with me. They explained that many seniors live alone in large homes, being largely neglected or even abused (emotionally, verbally, or physically) by their children.
The Christian Adult Community Day Program ministry serves to fulfill another of the church’s stated missions. The eighth objective of the church’s mission statement is “to use every resource at our disposal; to transform people's lives through authentic Christian Ministry.” These kinds of transformation stories abounded. While I was participating in the program, one senior became engaged to a man at the Baptist church where she is a member. This news was exciting to all who heard it. Her companions in the program made an announcement to the group at large, at which time she received enthusiastic applause.
In sum, Christian Adult Community Day Program is a true ministry, fulfilling many of the church’s missions.
Ministry- Program Content
The structure and content of The Christian Adult Community Day Program is clearly tied to the church’s notion and goal of ministry. Inside the program brochure, under the heading “Mission” is the following statement:
The Christian Adult Community Day Program is a community outreach program designed to promote the social, physical, spiritual and emotional well being of our Seniors throughout the city of Philadelphia. The Christian Adult Community Day Program is a well-rounded program of social, recreational and educational activities.
The notion of ministry as meeting the needs of the whole person is clearly inscribed in the goals outlined in this document. Similarly, this notion of ministry shapes the formalized structure and content of The Christian Adult Community Day Program.
The Christian Adult Community Day Program operates three days a week: Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Each day is structured similarly, with a continental breakfast in the morning and a hot lunch served at mid-day. Seniors begin arriving at around 10:00 a.m. and van drivers return to pick them up at around 2:00 p.m. Each day of the week is devoted to meeting a particular aspect of the program’s goals: Mondays to bible study; Wednesdays to Arts & Crafts, music and exercise videos, and Fridays to “walking club,” bowling and special outings.
Program staff are proud to note the impact that The Christian Adult Community Day Program has on the emotional well being of seniors. When talking to me of the program’s importance for seniors, staff members shared anecdotes of seniors whose lives had been transformed by their regular attendance. On my first visit to the program, the program coordinator told me that before coming to The Christian Adult Community Day Program “some of our seniors were contemplating suicide . . . most of them live alone . . . their kids are off and rarely come to take care of them.”[9] The director then chimed in:
This program really turns around their lives. They tell us how excited they get waiting for the next day to come here. They get involved in friendships here and really come alive.[10]
Simply by attending regularly, becoming part of a community, and forming social ties with people of their age group, many seniors are able to rise out of isolation and depression gaining, as Winifred Morris put it, “a new lease on life.”[11]
- Foster pride in African-American identity. (E.g. wall posters of famous and influential African-American historical figures; game: “Famous African American Jingo.”)
- “Expanding horizons”. (E.g. outings and special trips to area museums cultural events; annual extended retreat to a center in Connecticut; Arts & Crafts period on Wednesdays to foster creative talents; opportunities to develop talents and display/perform)
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
Less than half of the participants in The Christian Adult Community Day Program are members of the church. Though I never once saw any staff member explicitly promote or try to persuade one of the seniors to join the church, there is a subtle, yet powerful pull toward church membership that comes simply through participation in the program. The Christian Adult Community Day Program’s explicit mission, however, did not involve actively seeking the membership of participants. When this occurred it was seen as welcome and understandable, and an occasion for celebration, but was not an active objective of the program.
A few members of The Christian Adult Community Day Program are recently joined members of the church who learned of the program after they entered into its founding religious community. Several others have joined the Church since they began attending The Christian Adult Community Day Program, and as a result of their participation in the program. It was my feeling that the close ties of The Christian Adult Community Day Program to The church lead participants to feel a subtle compulsion towards church membership. This became clear in my interviews and conversations with seniors. When I asked seniors if they were members of The Church, most non-members responded by providing justification for their membership in another church.
One woman, for instance, told me that although she comes to the Church to worship so often that she no longer feels like a visitor, she does not feel she can join: “I just don’t feel comfortable with it . . . I have too many ties, you know, with my other church. I still go there. That’s my home.”[12] Another participant explained that she was a member of a Baptist church but then immediately told me that, though she would like to join the Church, she can’t. She said, “You know, I just can’t leave my pastor there. I love my pastor, that’s why I haven’t left to join Mt. Airy.”[13] As if to justify herself further, she then narrated a long story about suffering a hit and run accident and lying in the hospital in a coma for five days. Her daughter called their pastor and they both came in to the hospital to pray. “They prayed for me, and the Lord listened, and I woke up! So, you know, I can’t leave that church.”[14]
The fact that seniors repeatedly offered up such unsolicited accounts to justify their membership at another church, strongly suggests that there is an underlying draw or pressure to join the Church that comes from program participation. This is not a maliciously seductive force, but one that arises naturally from the tight integration of church event in The Christian Adult Community Day Program activities. Because informal conversations during meals often included references to phrases or messages from Sunday or Wednesday night worship services, church membership leads to an enhanced feeling of community or belonging. My participation in worship services even led me to experience a feeling of in-group belonging when I was able to pick up on references to worship content, acknowledge my awareness of the reference, and contribute to the “church gossip.”
Added to this element of worship context awareness in social interactions, the ethic of reciprocity, discussed above, also contributes to a feeling of compulsion to join the church. Since the program members receive everything at The Christian Adult Community Day Program free of charge, this may lead some to feel a sense of indebtedness to the Church’s faith community.
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
[This question cannot be addressed based on the current research]
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
Mission Statement
[from website at http://www.mtairycogic.com/html/MissionStatement.htm]
• To know Him and make Him known.
• To reach the lost at any cost.
• To save the
unsaved, through faith in Jesus Christ
and to support those who are saved.
• To worship our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
• To love God by loving His people.
• To exalt, edify, equip and evangelize.
• To preach the Gospel, teach the Bible, create community among the saints and to show compassion to the needy. The fulfillment of Luke 4:18.
• To use every resource at our disposal; to transform people's lives through authentic Christian Ministry.
• To carry
out the Great Commission, to go to the
neighborhoods, communities, cities, states, countries
and the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ.
• To live out the Great Commandment, "Love One Another."
• To pursue the Great Commander, Jesus Christ, our Lord.
10. Lakeside
Lakeside is a Quaker continuing care facility located outside of Philadelphia. Lakeside consists of a residential community of nearly 400 older adults, with an average age of 80. Residents live either in independent apartments, assisted living, or skilled care (nursing home). The Lakeside campus is self-sufficient, with dining facilities, a fitness center and pool, a hairdresser, library, pharmacy, bank, and mailroom. Employees do not live on site. Lakeside currently has a very strong reputation, and is considered to be a leader in the industry.
Members of the Quaker Meeting that founded Lakeside in 1967 deliberated for a decade before deciding to use the land that had been donate to create a pioneering living facility for seniors. It was the first retirement community of its kind. Lakeside’s direct mission statement, core philosophy, and initial sense of community came directly out of the core values of the Quaker Meeting members at the time, many of whom were the first residents of Lakeside. Now, nearly 40 years later, those values have been maintained through a careful process of institutionalization of formal processes and informal norms. (See Sub-question 4 for more detail on these processes.)
Lakeside maintains close ties with Quakerism. The Board is mandated in its by-laws to have 75% of its members from the faith tradition. There are few Quakers on staff, although the Executive Director and Director of Nursing are. About one third of residents are Quaker, followed by Jews and Episcopalians who each represent one fifth of the residents. The residential population is almost exclusively white and affluent.
There is a high degree of congruence between how Quaker beliefs and values were discussed Quakers and non-Quakers. Through literature, training and every day interaction, a consistent set of values could be identified as Quaker: tolerance (non-proselytizing), respect for all, equality/non-hierarchical, consensual decision-making, committed to peace (including racial justice), non-violence, savvy financial management, and simplicity. There was some ambiguity among the Quakers whether they were “Christian.” Those of the Christian (and other faiths) felt welcome, although they did not consider Quakerism to be a branch of Christianity. Because a major commitment of the religion is tolerance for all, the Quaker ethos was easily accommodated by non-Quakers who in no detectable way expressed a feeling of coercion.
For such a large faith-based organization, there was a surprising level of the tradition-specific ethos in the community culture. Quaker values are transmitted intentionally as well as unconsciously. (See sub-question 4 for more detail on the institutionalization and transmission of Quaker values.)
· The 25% of Board members who are not Quaker receive training in Quaker values. Decision-making is by consensus and values of tolerance, dignity, and independence are on the forefront of policy-making.
· Staff members are recruited and hired according to their compatibility with Quaker values. They go through a formal orientation process at a retreat center. They are trained in treating residents according to Quaker values, maintaining their dignity and independence. Further, hierarchies are minimal; staff are given opportunities for continuing education and lateral mobility.
· Residents are also screened for compatibility to Quaker values. Through orientation by staff and enculturation by other residents they learn the version of Quakerism lived out at Lakeside. Further, religious services (“meeting for worship”) are held twice a week. There is also a close relationship with the Lower Gwynnedd Meeting, including memorial services of residents who die.
· The physical space and facilities carry Quaker values as well in creating a peaceful, natural and well-maintained environment. All residents are expected to maintain the Quaker tradition of not displaying religious and political signage or symbols. Therefore holiday decorations are limited to natural wreaths, for example.
Lakeside is not-for-profit. It has an endowment, and receives money through residents paying for services. It does not receive public funding, nor does it apply to private foundations for grants. Therefore it is not required to comply with government regulations and is not dependent on foundation mandates in influencing its operations. On the other hand, in order to attract paying residents, it needs to remain competitive within the broader market of continuing care facilities.
There seem to be few organizational links between Lakeside residents and the broader Quaker community. Those links that exist are there on an individual level. There are social capital networks between Lakeside employees and professional organizations of Quaker continuing care facilities. Further research within the Quaker community as a whole would be needed to identify whether the existence of Quaker retirement facilities has an impact on social or cultural capital or civic engagement within the Quaker community.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith-based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served either come from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
There is a close relationship between the residents at Lakeside and the staff. This is largely because the employees work in the residents’ homes, so there is little room for separation. Non-Quaker residents hesitated to characterize Lakeside as a “faith-based organization”, suggesting instead that while the values that made Lakeside unique may be called “Quaker” by some, they are also consistent with many other faith and secular traditions. Their close loyalty to Lakeside and the Lakeside employees was a function of shared values, not of identification with a faith tradition.
Many staff members positioned Lakeside as distinct from for-profit environments in which they had worked. They suggest that the key difference is that at Lakeside, it is all about community and the residents, not “all about the money.” The majority of the non-Quaker staff in fact characterized Lakeside as a “non-profit” rather than as a “faith-based organization”, suggesting that the humanistic bottom line was more important to them than the explicit faith values. More research is needed to see how a non-profit, secular, good-reputation continuing care facility differs, to help flesh out how Quakerism in particular is different from other approaches that deviate from capitalist, money-making bottom line.
If the Lakeside community was entirely Quaker, I hypothesize that there would be more explicit identification of the values as “Quaker” rather than as humanistic or “best practice” for community living (as people currently identify them).
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
Quaker values permeate all aspects of the organization, as mentioned previously. For example, the organizational structure is deliberately flat, as a reflection of Quaker emphasis on non-hierarchy. Hiring and firing policies, as well as employee training and development, reflect Quaker values, as discussed more below. The Quaker practice of consensus-based decision-making is institutionalized in the Board of Directors’ by-laws, and in senior staff norms. Quaker values also shape the philosophy of the health care delivery at Lakeside, as well as the community norms and expectations among residents.
Please see the discussion under sub-question 4 below, where I provide examples of the ways Quaker values have been taken up in formal policies and informal norms, as well as how they are transmitted over time.
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Existing market forces within the continuing care facilities sector largely impacts Lakeside. When Lakeside was founded, it was the first continuing care facility in the area. Over time, this market has become increasingly crowded, and therefore increasingly competitive. Lakeside’s revenue stream is entirely from residents’ fees; therefore, to stay afloat, Lakeside must attract new residents. This impacts operational decisions that are made to attract new residents, including the upgrading or construction of new facilities, changing of meal plans, and provision of additional amenities that are seen as “standard” elsewhere in the market. Some of these decisions, however, are seen by residents or employees as conflicting with a core Quaker value of “simplicity”.
This came through most clearly in dynamics around the current construction project. For all its Quaker emphasis on simplicity and community and non-hierarchy, Lakeside is now building a new set of large homes, which, residents point out to me, have their own living rooms, basements, and garages, and as such are seen as decidedly fancier and wealthier than the current living accommodations. Some residents express concern that this will change the dynamics around hierarchy, wealth, and simplicity, while Lakeside staff contends that they are merely responding to the demands of the market in order to stay afloat, and providing what new residents seek.
Overall, Lakeside sees much of their competitive advantage as being their community culture, the ways that Quaker values are embodied. Therefore in order to remain attractive to current and new residents, staff and residents continue to emphasize and maintain the lived practices of their core values.
Sub-questions:
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
Lakeside was built on land adjacent to and donated by a Friends Meeting. Members of the Meeting deliberated for nearly two decades before deciding to use the land to build Lakeside. It remains affiliated with Religious Society of Friends. The Board is 75% Quaker as mandated in its bylaws. The founding Meetinghouse, while located next door, is not officially involved in any of the operations or oversight of Lakeside, except through those individuals who are on the board—but those individuals are Board Members in their own capacity, not as representatives of the Meeting House. The residents are currently approximately 30% Quaker, though that is not mandated anywhere. Lakeside is an equal opportunity employer, and few staff are Quaker. At present, the CEO who has been there for 19 years is Quaker, though that is not required. The content and mission of the organization reflect core Quaker values.
There is a Sunday morning (“First Day”) meeting held weekly as well as a mid-week service. There is openness to non-Quakers attending these meetings. Many Quakers, on the other hand, attend their local Meeting instead. No other religious services are held with such frequency on campus.
The Quaker community provides the social capital through which Lakeside finds new Board members. As well, residents tap into their own social capital networks to attract new residents—the vast majority of new residents knew someone at Lakeside already—though only a portion of those are Quaker.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
The current CEO is Quaker. Residents and staff all noted that his leadership and communication style are critical to the culture of the organization, and provide important modeling for the tone of the community. He suggests that while he is motivated by his Quaker beliefs, he is also following a leadership style that works for him but which could change without impacting the organization. That is, if he is replaced by someone who is not Quaker, and who, for example, does not keep an “open door” policy, that will not necessarily dilute the community-based culture of the organization. The current head of nursing is also Quaker. She reports that her Quaker values impact how she interacts with, trains, and evaluates staff, as well as how she interacts with residents. Overall, the senior staff are all very conversant in the core Quaker values, whether or not they are practicing Quakers, and weave these into official and unofficial policies in a variety of ways, as discussed below, particularly around: on what criteria employees are hired; how employee performance issues are handled; how job advancement is created in a lateral organization; and how values are modeled. Those employees who are not Quaker indicated that most Quaker values are very consistent with their own religious values, and therefore they felt no tension.
More detail on these issues is included below under sub-question 4, where I discuss how the values have been formalized in the organization such that they will continue into the future,
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
There are three particularly strong links between Lakeside and the Religious Society of Friends. First, this is within the Board, in the active recruitment of Board members from neighboring Quaker Meetings. Second, this is through the assistance funds that help Friends move to Lakeside. Third, this is through the mission of Lakeside, which came out of the local Meeting in the initial development of Lakeside. There is little overlap in the rest of staffing.
Lakeside staff does participate in professionalization networks that are Quaker, which link Lakeside with other Quaker continuing care facilities. This certainly strengthens social capital, by providing a network of people in similar occupations who are also guided by similar values.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
Lakeside has extensive formal and informal processes to create and maintain their unique culture. This includes formal processes, such as staff trainings and recruitment policies, as well as informal norms of conduct. In addition they have formalized aspects of their by-laws—such as composition of the Board and decision-making processes—that ensure Quaker values are front and center. Overall, they ensure that residents, employees and board members learn and maintain the core values of the organizational culture, as follows:
Recruiting residents:
Enculturating new residents:
Maintaining culture among residents
Maintaining culture among employees
Institutionalization of leadership style among CEO the Board.
The physical environment conveys Quaker values.
· The facility attempts to convey warmth, simplicity, and inclusion though its architecture and decoration.
· Equality and inclusion are modeled through the mixing of homes of different sizes (so that there is not a “gold coast”).
· The assisted living and skilled care facilities are in the center of campus, so that those residents are seen as included, not “shunted off”.
How decisions are made and conflict is handled.
· The example of the way this conflict over growth is playing out at Lakeside suggests to me that the Quaker values are predominant, and will be maintained, for a number of reasons. The decision around growth was made in a careful, consensus-based way at the Board level, which even the most opposed residents recognize (that is, they respect the process even as they disagree with the outcome). The reasons for the decision have been communicated clearly, in Town Meetings and memos and discussions, and residents appear to be aware and respect those decisions, even as many are nervous about the implications. As well, the fact that residents are wary of culture shifts due to the influx of new residents suggests they will not be caught off guard if this occurs, but that they can choose proactively to address issues as they come up. Employees and residents also noted that there were concerns around earlier construction projects several years ago, but now they are seen as welcome additions to the community. They anticipate this same trend will likely occur.
Challenges to maintaining culture in the future:
There is a balance between the impact of individuals on the Quakerness of Lakeside, versus the degree to which it is institutionalized. Some of the actual individuals in the community make a significant contribution to the Quaker quality of Lakeside. The last of the “pioneering residents” (original residents when Lakeside opened) have passed away, but there are still people who were part of the Meeting when the land was donated. So as decades pass and those people pass, there will no longer be individuals with lived memory of the “origin myth” of Lakeside in the same way. Similarly, people talked about the importance of specific individuals, particularly the CEO, in shaping the culture of the organization. At the level of staff, that is a significant issue as well in terms of turnover. If in a period of five years Lakeside were to simultaneously lose 80% of its senior staff, then that would open up the chance for a lot of change. It appears that changes in significant personnel are staggered, happening slowly and not all simultaneously among the senior staff team, so there appears to be enough overlap for people to model behaviors and maintain consistency.
At the same time, there are clearly structures in place that institutionalize these aspects of Quaker philosophy. The CEO and Board have paid careful attention to secession planning and by-laws. Basically, it appears that because there are a wide range of formal and informal ways that the Quaker culture is maintained, at the level of management philosophy, expectations, and community norms, shifting particular individuals will not necessarily unravel the established culture. At the same time, maintaining the current cultural norms will require that these new individuals learn and reproduce those same patterns among themselves and the next generation. While I do not think the Quakerness will disappear at the CEO’s retirement, I believe it requires active attention throughout the community for it to remain in place.
5. What is the impact on
the faith community of their organization’s work? On its
understandings of the issues the organizations address? On its
understandings of those the organizations serve? On its understandings of their
faith? On its sense of identity?
Additional research within the Quaker community outside of Lakeside will be necessary to answer this question.
6. What is the relationship between the organization, the faith community, and those served who are not part of the same religion? Does the work of the organization lead new people to the faith community? Under what terms? How does the organization ensure that the beliefs and rights of program participants from different faith traditions or those who adhere to no religion are respected?
Quakerism does not emphasize proselytizing or conversion. No one mentioned concerns about trying to be converted, and in fact residents emphasized that they did not feel pressured to practice a faith. This is codified in a section in the Lakeside Resident Guidebook that reads: “Solicitations of opinion which bring any kind of political or religious pressure to bear upon residents of Lakeside are contrary to the spirit of this place.” The values of tolerance and diversity and respect for the individual seem to ensure an open and accepting climate is in place. The non-Quaker staff and residents seem quite comfortable with the atmosphere at Lakeside. They suggest that the core values embodied in the mission and culture of the community are consistent with their own values, both religious and secular. Many employees and residents suggest being increasingly attracted to the Quaker values and beliefs as they learn more about them during their time at Lakeside, though none described having “converted.”
7. Under what conditions do faith-based organizations move beyond the ethos and control of the denomination, and what connection, if any, does the religious body have with an organization when this occurs?
The Board and CEO make operational decisions in the best interest of Lakeside as an organization and community. Given their need to be attentive to market forces, some could interpret their decisions as moving beyond the scope of particular Quaker values. Since Lakeside is not under the direct oversight of a particular Quaker Meeting, though, it is up to the discretion of the individual Board Members and the leadership to make their own decisions. More research would be needed to address this question in more detail.
8. Do different faith traditions work toward distinctive goals (personal transformation or social change, for example)?
Further research is needed to address this question.
11. Joy Ministries
Primary Research Questions
a. How do the dynamics between organization and founding community impact on the beliefs, behaviors, and resources of both organization and community? Do relationships between organization and community foster social capital, cultural capital and civic engagement in the founding community?
Denomination (UMC)
The district supervisor (DS) and district play an important if removed role in the success of the program: The DS appoints and re-appoints pastors to the congregation and approves requests for money from the next tier of the denomination. Having a good relationship with one’s DS makes it possible for the DS to support a congregation’s requests and pass along supportive information about in-kind support and other sources of funding that arise. The Eastern Pennsylvania Conference and Annual Conference have local funds to support programs for youth and young adults. The Cluster has received $5,000 from the Annual Conference for a Congregational Transformation grant and $5,000 for an Urban Ministry Grant.
Other connections between the denomination and Joy Ministries are minor. When drawing up its policy manual, Joy Ministries used a policy manual developed by the denomination on which to model and modify their own policies. The denomination was investigated as an umbrella source of health insurance but this has not yet occurred. A more significant source of support was the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference’s provision of new boilers for three Cluster congregations during the winter of 2004. One other type of support will be mentioned later. The Cluster used a consultant for the youth program who was also an important figure in the district. This consultant was paid less than her market price as a result of her connection to the program through the district.
In response to Research Question 3, I will look at the role of the congregation members in the program. In response to Research Question 7, I look at how the Cluster program was networked to other community partners.
b. What is the relationship between non-profit organizations and the people that use their services? How does this differ between faith based and secular organizations? How do these relationships differ when the people served come either from the same community as the organization or from a different background?
The lead Pastor’s influence on spearheading and implementing the program, as well as the “character” of the program is notable: Jones’ philosophy of ministry and of social outreach includes “prophetic social action” over against what she termed “reactionary or needs-based ministry.” Thus, the programs she leads are committed to individual and community development and engage the faith community in addressing structures in the community and city, not merely “relief” type ministries.
Most Joy Ministries staff are members of the eight black United Methodist churches and thus share very similar religious and cultural heritage. A handful of the key staff were not members of an Joy Ministries congregation (less than one-quarter). In the past several years, a few of the staff who were not members of a Cluster church have actually joined the church UMC. Given that so many staff of the youth program were members of a congregation, and understood they worked for a faith-based endeavor, or were members of the same congregations, I make the observation that “church” relationships permeated the way that staff related to one another and performed their jobs. Staff also felt that their jobs were as much or more of a “ministry” than just a job.
Despite the fact that many of the staff and volunteers are motivated for religious reasons to work with the program, the program is also clear that they are providing a contracted service that is not “religious” in nature. During an organizational meeting in late July of 2003, the Project Director made it clear that the Cluster is “doing a job”. The program blended its identity as both a ministry as well as a contracted service which had to meet contract specifications such as clearly defined job responsibilities.
The program was committed to creating an atmosphere of trust and safety. Without exception, youth who were interviewed said they felt they could trust the staff. The social values of trust and respect were created in part through the caring attitudes and commitment of staff: Staff’s prayers, frequently given hugs, bus fare, lunch money, umbrella’s, and calls and visits to students’ homes spoke volumes that the youth program was motivated by genuine compassion as well as educational goals. In a Joy Ministries Cluster meeting in January, 2004, staff member opened the meeting with a short devotional on the importance of never losing compassion as they serve, no matter how frustrating the task or how unlovable a person may be at that moment. Along with high occurrences of individualized attention for students, staff and Peer Counselors modeled healthy conflict resolution options and encouraged the use of these options among students and Teen Lounge youth.
In interviews with youth, some recalled seeing or hearing the staff pray, but not all. There was a period during the fall of 2003 when staff were encouraged to pray together in the building before the start of the “school” day. For unknown reasons, this practice lasted just a few weeks and was not re-started during the year that I observed the program. On the other hand, several staff remarked to me that they pray for all the students. Several staff (including teachers) mentioned that they not only prayed for individual students, but prayed for such qualities as wisdom, insight, and patience in carrying out their jobs.
The Pastor feels that the faith of key staff has affected organizational behavior. She feels that if the staff were not so serious about their faith that the project would not still be happening at the Cluster level. In particular, Jones felt that the staff’s level of faith helps them to get along and to resolve conflict over management issues. Jones also felt that staff’s belief in students comes from their strong personal faith. Similarly, Jones feels that staff rely on their faith to provide them with insight and patience on how to deal with different youth and with situations that arise during day to day running of the program. Jones recalled when she overrode another staff person’s decision about how to handle a situation with a youth, and the though the other staff person disagreed with Donna’s decision, the person merely said in a meeting, “I’ll pray about it.” Jones attributed this response to a mature level of faith and the common faith that the staff has that God will guide all of them in such decisions.
On the other hand, a value that arises from the staff’s faith tradition is that of valuing “people over paperwork.” That is, it may be that the “faith-based” culture of the program inadvertently contributed to a work place ethic that was less formal. However, late or not fully completely record-keeping and timeliness has been an issue that the Cluster addressed. Slack expectations about work habits and such work ethics as being on time, being in the office unless an official vacation has been scheduled, and doing paperwork in a thorough and timely manner seemed to be related to the program’s focus on providing such friendly and personalized service. While the Pastor feels that they as a staff value the personalized and caring emphasis of staff, they have had to take measures to encourage the staff to take work expectations more seriously. One of the tactics the Cluster used was to hire an outside consultant to emphasize work expectations. This consultant happened to fulfill another esteemed position in the denomination, as conference lay leader. The conference lay leader is an office which provides balance to the bishop, and who represents the lay people of the conference to the Bishop. As such, the consultant was taken seriously and was able to reinforce expectations that other Cluster leaders were not. The Cluster project has also been assigned a monitor from the Department of Human Services and that has helped to put more clear expectations for paperwork in place.
c. What is the impact of founding community culture and social capital systems on non-profit mission, organizational structure, staffing, and program design?
As mentioned, most of the staff in the program (over two-thirds total) were also members of a cluster congregation. Other unpaid staff included the pastors of three churches. The program communicated its successes and needs to the congregations in the cluster via a newsletter and through the pastors and members during regular morning worship and cluster wide religious events.
Another important aspect of social and cultural capital were the proportions of church members who lived within one mile of the church properties. In the eight churches that made up Joy Ministries, 75 to 99 percent of their members resided within a one mile radius. Often, these were the same neighborhoods where youth in the program lived. Such ties add to a youth’s sense of continuity, caring, and accountability in their neighborhood. This is an important aspect for conceptualizing the available social capital (both bridging and closed) that the Cluster congregations brought to the program. The volunteers and staff who provided services were familiar both with the barriers and context that neighborhood youth faced, as well as the community services and resources at hand. Cluster pastors and staff have been public school teachers, police officers, employees of welfare agencies, office managers, and corporate sales representatives.
I present here a few examples of direct, “non-programmatic” contact between congregation members and youth or youth’s families who became associated because of the youth program program:
While direct contact between congregation members and youth in the program was limited, I believe congregation members were supportive of the program and began to consider the youth as part of their extended community via the churches. If the congregations and the programs were not located in the same neighborhoods where youth and their families resided, it is unlikely that these types of interactions would have occurred. Both the location and the reputation of Joy Ministries program seem to lend it a level of trust as well as accessibility, within the communities which surround the congregation buildings.
Despite the level of volunteer support, several staff of Joy Ministries program indicated the need for further volunteer support. A telling remark made by pastor Jones at a staff meeting was the need for volunteer “care teams” from congregation: [Jones] said, ‘We’re learning, “precious, sometimes disturbing” things about these youth,’ and “we don’t have enough arms to wrap around them.” She also said, “We can’t underestimate the impact we’re having.”
d. What is the impact of the larger socio-economic and policy system, as well as the service sector of that organization (social services, health and senior services, community development) on non-profit organizations form, function and resources?
Despite the fact that Joy Ministries is seeking a 501-c-3 for this program, the action as purely project-driven and not as expressing any intent to carry on Joy Ministries project indefinitely. There are no formal plans to provide a charter school or any more “institutionalized” form of the current program. Because of this limited very practical nature of the Cluster project, no energy or discussion has occurred around maintaining certain values or perspectives.
As of fall 2004, the Cluster had formed a board of directors and written their bylaws. At a Cluster meeting in January, 2004, seven of the eight pastors from the Cluster were present for the first time. The retiring United Methodist District Supervisor had been invited and talked about the seriousness of forming a board, and of following through, and of raising the standard for accounting and policy setting. This conversation and the actions of the Cluster indicate their seriousness about maintaining and developing the program.
Sub Questions
1. What is the relationship between the religious denomination and the non-profit organizations founded by that organization? (Governance, financial, control, volunteer participation, staffing, program content, mission). What role does social and cultural capital play in those relationships?
The fact that the staff share their religious and cultural heritage clearly influences the way the program is run (administration) and thus flavors the program (services). As noted, the majority of the staff are members of Cluster congregations – primarily because staff positions have been filled by word of mouth via current staff or congregation members rather than open searches. This unintentional hiring process ensures that most of the staff operate from similar theological backgrounds.
On the other hand, how the staff express their faith has become more implicit over time. That is, the use of religious language or the explicitness of the religious nature of the program has changed. The program handbook and orientation process make it very clear to youth that there are no mandatory religious components to the program. The handbook also stated that the program is faith-based, but the staff are consistent in defining “faith-based” as a program which respects all faiths not merely a Christo-centric program. This will be discussed further under Question 6. However, one part time instructor talked about the change in how explicit staff were to be in talking about matters of faith. The program, in his opinion, had become more sensitive about when and how it was appropriate for staff to share their faith with clients.
Another example shows the concern of Joy Ministries staff to both hold on to their faith and religious beliefs, while remaining respectful of the religious rights of their clientele and not make anyone feel “pressured” to behave any differently just because the program is faith-based. The program welcomes youth who come from varied life experiences and may have engaged in behaviors that the adult churched staff would find “immoral.” The staff discussed how to react with compassion and without judgment while at the same time to share good values and positive life choices with students. Clearly, staff’s values are influenced by their shared beliefs in being created with purpose, treating the body as a temple, not engaging in extra-marital sex, etc. But during a staff training, staff were reminded to always react with compassion and by listening rather judging youth for their behaviors. It was clear that the staff were to react first as professionals, to refer students to appropriate people and courses of action and only informally as Christians, such as by offering to pray with a student.
Many African American youth are connected via family members to a local congregation but they themselves may attend infrequently. The lead Pastor suggested that if a family member dies, even though that person did not attend a congregation, through an immediate or extended relative or neighbor, the deceased’s family may be connected to a local congregation by association or by proxy. Staff and Cluster members gained a new appreciation of how important it is for worship to be relevant to younger people if they are to attract and sustain relationships with youth. Congregation members’ perceptions of youth changed in another way: after the program had been in place for over a year, some congregation members attended a “workshop” about the Cluster’s program and they reflected that their perceptions of youth had changed for the better. A few members said they used to be more afraid of teens or stereotyped all teens as “punks” but after meeting youth in the program, they realized that these adult-looking teens were just like their own grandchildren/nieces/nephews and needed positive attention from adults.
2. How does the personal religious faith of key staff reflect that of the sponsoring community and influence organizational behavior?
As noted, the lead congregation’s original program used to refer to itself as has moved as a “christ-centered” program (from their student handbook) and now presents itself more as a faith-centered program which is inclusive of and respectful of all faiths, even while not rejecting its Christian affiliation. The program did not have mandatory religious elements, and though many students did not perceive the program as explicitly religious, there was evidence of transactions which fit the definition of “spiritual capital” (See Appendix at end).
Interactions of prayer or discussion of scripture or moral issues occurred during class time or during program time but never as part of the formal curriculum. Of the 20 youth who were interviewed, only four youth described the program as explicitly “religious.” Comments about the program’s religiousness were most often related to the fact that staff were perceived as “Christians” or as religious. Youth who used the Teen Lounges were more likely to say that their personal religious beliefs or behavior were impacted than were youth who primarily used the education program.
Students were invited to religious programs that were offered by congregations (not by the program). A number of program youth attended a youth retreat that was clearly spiritual in intent, including a sermon/message about God’s love, worship songs, and prayer. Interviews with youth revealed ways in which some youth’s spirituality was impacted by coming to the Teen Lounges or by connecting to a congregation including: getting a new view of Christians; being in the church building and around the staff and thinking about God more often; attending a congregation. The reflections of these youth suggest that the context and community which were voluntarily available to them through Joy Ministries program influenced their personal religious experience and beliefs. These examples suggest that Joy Ministries program displayed “spiritual capital” during service provision.
Whether program staff intentionally “lead new people to the faith community” is more difficult to answer. Certainly, this section and previous ones indicate that staff and volunteers are aware that they are providing a service that was explicitly “faith-based” and yet they are sensitive to the religious freedoms of their clients and do not wish to be coercive in the way the service is provided. (In my opinion,) one of the most remarkable findings of this case study was the delicate balance which was maintained between the lawful and appropriate use of public funding, respect for the religious freedoms of participants, and voluntary access to spiritual capital within the program. Interviews with youth and observation confirmed that youth did not feel coerced or pressured in any way to attend or interact with religious elements or activities in the program (see Appendix A). Several youth mentioned that all faith traditions were alluded to in a respectful manner. Youth were not overly conscious of religious items displayed in the buildings, nor did any youth indicate that their behaviors or attitudes were adversely affected by attending a program in a church building.
At that same time, youth who chose to access “spiritual” help or guidance could and did so, in the form of prayer; conversations or counsel with staff, Peer Counselors, or pastors about religious questions; or by attending a worship service, Bible study, or retreat sponsored by the Cluster or a congregation.
3. How do congregations and their members relate to faith-based organizations that function under their name, and vice versa? Does social and cultural capital influence interactions between congregations and organizations?
The Cluster was well connected within its denomination and in the wider Philadelphia community. The Cluster congregations have partnered with community organizations like Master Peace, North Philadelphia Youth Opportunity Centers, Freedom Theater, and the Neighborhood Action Bureau. Members of the congregations had professional and informal affiliations with public and private agencies that served youth and their families, such as: Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY), Metropolitan Christian Council of Philadelphia (MMCP), The African American Interdenominational Ministries (AAIM), Methodist Services for Children and Families, the Eastern Methodist Conference, and private foundations. These institutions supported Joy Ministries program in various ways: PCCY provided grants to renovate and furnish two Teen Lounges and MCCP served as Joy Ministries program fiduciary.
The Joy Ministries collaborated in some way, with numerous local or city organizations. (This is conceptualized slightly differently than the Cluster’s access to marginalized populations via congregation members and location.) In addition to their connection to the regional Methodist denomination, the Cluster partnered with a local group home for teenaged boys and received referrals from the Philadelphia Department of Human Services. The program’s web of connectedness continued to grow from 2001 to 2004 in order to provide quality services to youth. The Joy Ministries program used its embeddedness in the local community to foster relationships with other agencies and programs which were interested in promoting youth development.
The Joy Ministries’ arrangement with their fiduciary is of interest. Through an existing professional relationship, the Cluster reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Christian Council of Philadelphia (MCCP) set up a unique non-profit 501(c)(3) or go through the denomination. The presence of a mission-sensitive but independent fiduciary ensured impartiality among the Cluster congregations and made the cluster more attractive to outside funders who preferred working with an established intermediary that had a financial management track record. The Joy Ministries’s partnership with fiduciary MCCP, afforded Joy Ministries an independent and trustworthy source of financial accounting, and MCCP took a smaller than normal percentage as a service fee. On occasion, MCCP floated cash to the program while it waited for its government funds to come in and offered resources, such as new books or certain types of equipment.
The program has a good relationship with the Director of Community-Based Prevention Services, who was pleased with the program’s attendance rate and success. The program staff consciously cultivated wider relationships in the community through The Neighborhood Action Bureau (NAB) meetings for local businesses and SHARE Prosperity meetings. Neighbors were concerned about the youth from the program smoking and hanging out, outside the building. Jones and another church member explained what the program was, and said that the youth were from North Philadelphia and gained support from neighbors.
4. How do faith communities assure that the faith-based organizations have a future as faith-based institutions? That their founding values and perspectives are maintained?
The United Methodists emphasize being “connectional:” congregations are encouraged to collaborate. At same time, they are dependent on a good relationship with district to retain the pastors in the Cluster over time, or conversely, to influence the district supervisor to move pastors who do not support the Cluster endeavors. Methodists also have a “both-and” heritage of not only providing the message of individual salvation and personal faith in a Savior, but also of ushering in the “new creation.” The lead pastor quoted the passage, “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.” She used this quote to point out that the new creation is not just within individuals but the church is to foster this in the community and world as well.
Another distinctive here, as noted, is the heritage of the Black church and of Black United Methodists in addition to the UMC influence. Donna’s observation was that White Methodists are often involved in advocacy for community initiatives but are less likely to create local grassroots programs. The Pastor remembered White Methodists’ support of Peacenik; the good schools Philadelphia initiative, involvement in boycotts and lobbies, and sending money to other urban initiatives. Black Methodists, The Pastor believes, have long seen the model that for the Black community to survive and thrive, the church is a central actor. In particular, The Black Church has a historic involvement when it comes to providing alternative education pre-civil rights when access to education was denied to Blacks. This Cluster’s programmatic outreach to truant and other youth in their communities was consistent with findings that Black churches value and support education and a concern for youth development (Johnson, 1999; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Williams, Griffith, Young, Collins, & Dodson, 1999).
It may be that one of the strengths of this demonstration was the mutual denominational identity of the eight congregations in the collaboration. Black churches are more likely than non Black churches to provide services which are resource-intensive, long-term as opposed to relief services, and which include mentoring and recreational programs for youth (Cnaan & Boddie, 2001). As the research confirmed, providing the youth program program and Teen Lounges required intensive, extensive, and sustained effort on the part of staff, church members and leaders, Peer Counselors, and volunteers. While individual NPC congregations continued to provide relief programs such as community dinners and clothing closets, much more of their resources were invested in programs which promoted youth development. In addition to the Teen Lounges, one or more Cluster congregations provided or supported after school tutoring, Rites of Passage programs for youth, choirs or step groups, and a local Scouts troop. One of the congregations has adopted a local elementary school.
Finally, Black church programs have tended to engage more disadvantaged segments of the surrounding community. The demographics of north Philadelphia suggest that many African American youth in these communities were more likely to be exposed to poverty, underemployment, overburdened school systems, truancy, physical violence and crime, drug use or trafficking, and lack of exposure to conventional role models. The urge to reach out to community youth, which was envisioned first by three young men at the church UMC, and then embraced and implemented by Joy Ministries, displayed the remarkable insight, practical wisdom, compassion, and commitment that Joy Ministries had for the “least of these” in their communities.
Table of Religious Interactions
The following table indicates the type and number of religious interactions that were reported by respondents. The cells in the table indicate the number of “yes” occurrences which were given out of all responses. Percents of the “yes” occurrences are indicated in the parentheses. Religious activities were non-youth program events that a participant could voluntarily attend or carry out privately, and included: morning devotion in class, private devotion, worship with a congregation, Bible Study, Teen Lounge, and youth group meetings.
Table 3. Summary of Religious Interactions by Position Type
|
Position Type |
Personal Conversation |
Prayer |
Religious Talk |
Religious Activity |
|
Youth |
26/51 (51%) |
14/49 (29%) |
23/50 (46%) |
13/50 (26%) |
|
Teacher/Social Worker |
13/15 (87%) |
8/15 (53%) |
13/15 (87%) |
10/15 (67%) |
|
Peer Counselor |
28/58 (48%) |
35/57 (61%) |
33/57 (58%) |
40/57 (70%) |
|
Administrative Staff |
6/10 (60%) |
4/9 (44%) |
4/9 (44%) |
3/10 (30%) |
|
TOTAL |
73/134 (54%) |
61/130 (47%) |
73/131 (56%) |
66/132 (50%) |
Overall, about half of the collected observation checklists reported the four types of interactions as having occurred in the past seven days (bottom total line of table). Line 1 indicates that youth (51 observations) reported far less occurrences of prayer (29%) and less frequent attendance at non-program religious activities (26%) than other participants who filled out the observation checklist.
Teachers and Social Workers (15 observations on Line 2) reported the highest frequency of occurrence in both “Personal conversations” (87%) and “Religious Talk” (87%). Peer Counselors (58 observations on Line 3) reported the most frequent occurrence of “Prayer” (61%) and “Religious Activity” (70%). Administrative Staff (10 observations) reported a high frequency of “Personal Conversation” (60%), and lower frequency of “Religious Activities” (30%).
Table 2 suggests that teachers and social workers reported conversing with youth about very personal issues, and about religious issues more often than other staff or Peer Counselors. Given that social workers met individually with students for case management, they naturally would have opportunities to have conversations with youth participants. Peer Counselors reported more incidences of praying, but it must be noted, that interactions were not limited to only youth participants, but included prayer with other staff, family members, and youth not in the youth program. Nonetheless, the implication is that Peer Counselors engaged more frequently in prayer than other staff or youth, and this in itself is an interesting finding.
Two very general observations that the data supports are: 1) that peer counselors reported more frequent interactions than the other participants, and 2) that youth program youth reported the least frequent number of “religious interactions” including prayer, religious talk, and attending a religious activity. This data seems to support the qualitative data that youth program youth were not pressured or coerced to learn about or talk about religious topics or attend non-programmatic voluntary religious activities. As will be seen in a later discussion, interviewed youth often did not perceive the program as “religious.”
Appendix B: Interested Participants, Project and Advisory Committee Structure
Alan Benjamin is Research Associate with the Population Research Institute and the Department of Anthropology and Affiliate Professor of Jewish Studies at The Pennsylvania State University. Benjamin received his Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1997) and recently published Jews of the Dutch Caribbean: Exploring ethnic identity on Curaçao (2002, Routledge).
Reverend Jeffrey L. Brown is the Pastor of Union Baptist Church, Cambridge, MA. He has held the position since 1988. Brown is a co-founder of the Boston’s Ten Point Coalition, a nationally known group of clergy and lay leaders that in the 90s played a key part in the drastic reduction of homicides in the inner city. Brown also started Ten Point International, consulting with cities around the world and eventually developing a training conference for the World Council of Church’s Peace to the City Campaign. Brown is also the creator of the Positive Edge street outreach program in Cambridge, the project historian for the Cambridge Black History Trail, and on the founding coalition of the city’s Benjamin Banneker Charter School. Reverend Brown is a Master of Divinity graduate of the Andover Newton Theological School, and holds an appointment as Denominational Counselor and lecturer of Baptist History and Polity at the Harvard Divinity School. With three children, the Browns live in Dorchester, MA
Wolfgang Bielefeld is Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Adjunct Professor at the Center on Philanthropy, and Adjunct Professor of Sociology at Indiana University - Purdue University, Indianapolis. He coauthored, with Joseph Galaskiewicz, Nonprofit Organizations in an Age of Uncertainty: A Study of Organizational Change (Aldine de Gruyter, 1998). His is co-editor of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Gretchen Castle: Director of Leadership Development and Training for Friends Services for the Aging, Gretchen works with both boards and staff for the 28 member organizations. Castle served as Director of the Friends Board Training and Support Project and did non-profit organization consulting and training for nineteen years. She also serves as Clerk of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
Eric Clay, M.Div. (Union Theological Seminary), Ph.D.(City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, 2002) is a practitioner and scholar, who works as a mentor to leaders involved in personal and organizational change and a consultant to congregations and communities in crisis or transition through Shared Journeys, Inc. which he co-founded. His dissertation examines leading practitioners of holistic community and economic development in the United States: That All People May Flourish: The Practice of Faith and Local Economic Development Planning. He received the Hitchcock Prize in Church History for work on politics of congregational life in 1986.
Ram Cnaan is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work. Dr. Cnaan has published numerous articles in scientific journals on a variety of social work issues. He is the author of: The Newer Deal: Social Work and Religion in Partnership (Columbia University Press, 1999) and: The Invisible Caring Hand: American Congregations and the Provision of Welfare (New York University Press, 2002).
Katie Day is Professor of Church & Society, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. She is a sociologist with research interests in urban issues, race, religion. She is currently finishing a 4 year study funded by Lilly: "Church Rebuilding Research Project." Prelude to Struggle (University Press, 2001) and Difficult Conversations (Alban, 2001).
Linda Plitt Donaldson is an Assistant Professor at the Catholic University of America National Catholic School of Social Service. Prior to teaching at NCSSS, Dr. Donaldson worked for ten years in a community-based homeless services agency in Washington, D.C, providing direct service, directing programs in advocacy, social justice, family services, and developing affordable housing.
Michael Foley (Ph.D. California-Davis, 1986) is Associate Professor of Politics, Catholic University of America. He is the author of many articles on agrarian politics and the "new peasant movement" in Mexico, civil society and the peace process in El Salavador, and "social capital". He is currently co-director of the Religion and the New Immigrants project, a Pew sponsored Gateway Cities project examining the role of faith communities for new immigrants. Recent publications include articles on civil society and social capital in the Journal of Democracy and in the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, and Social Capital, Religious Institutions and Poor Communities with John D. McCarthy and Mark Chaves.. With Bob Edwards, he co-edited two special issues of American Behavioral Scientist and a book Beyond DeToquville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective
(University Press of New England Press, 2001) on social capital, civil society and contemporary democracy. His research has been supported by the Social Science Research Council, the United States Institute of Peace, the Pew Charitable Trust, the Aspen Institute, the Lily Endowment, and other institutions.
of the Religious Society of Friends.
David N. Gamse, a gerontologist with undergraduate degrees in psychology and sociology, is the Executive Director of the Jewish Council for the Aging (JCA) and, concurrently, the Chief Executive Officer of the National Center for Productive Aging, a JCA affiliate. Prior to joining JCA’s staff in 1990, he was a senior manager at AARP, responsible in different positions for the development of new AARP educational and service programs and for AARP programs related to the aging work force. He is a frequent speaker on aging and nonprofit association management and is a member of the Executive Council of Jewish Agencies in the Greater Washington, D.C. region.
Peter Dobkin Hall is Hauser Lecturer on Nonprofit Organizations at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and Visiting Research Fellow at the Yale Divinity School. Hall's published work includes, Inventing the Nonprofit Sector: Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit Organizations (1992). He co-edited Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations (1998) and the chapter on voluntary, nonprofit, and religious entities and activities for the forthcoming Millennial Edition of Historical Statistics of the United States.
Simon J. Craddock Lee, MPH is a doctoral candidate in the UC San Francisco/Berkeley Joint Program in Medical Anthropology. Prior to graduate school, he managed the programs of a national association of foundation and corporate-giving program executives working in HIV/AIDS philanthropy. A Yale graduate, he received his masters in public health policy and administration (ethics) from the University of California, Berkeley. His dissertation fieldwork in the ethics and social values of Catholic healthcare was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Social Science Research Council, with analysis and writing made possible through a health services research dissertation grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Related work on the transformation of hospital chaplaincy and the evolution of spiritual care services is reported in a forthcoming issue (2003) of Health Care Analysis.
William H. Lockhart is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Baylor University. His Ph.D. in Sociology was earned at the University of Virginia in 2001. His dissertation, entitled Getting Saved From Poverty: Religion in Poverty-to-work Programs, was supported by dissertation research grants from HUD, the Louisville Institute, and two smaller research centers. Prior to his studies at the University of Virginia, Bill directed a mainline Presbyterian urban ministry in Wheeling, West Virginia for ten years, working with community organizations, low-income families, homeless persons, and at-risk children and youth.
John G. Messer is a scholar -practitioner who has studied and published research on faith-based organizations as well as designing, implementing and evaluating such organizations which address poverty, domestic violence, homelessness, substance abuse and AIDS, for several decades.
Carl Milofsky is Professor of Sociology at Bucknell University, a former editor of the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and a founding member of Yale's Program on Nonprofit Organizations with a specialty in community organizations.
Maurine Pyle: Serving as Field Secretary of Illinois Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends and as a member of the Traveling Ministries Program for Friends General Conference (Quakers). She has served as presiding clerk for Illinois Yearly Meeting. Her areas of professional specialization are: leadership development, change management, adult education/training, conflict resolution and community development.
Edward Queen, Ph.D., J.D. is Provost of Indianapolis College--International Division and Senior Researcher, Charitable Choice Implementation Project.
Jo Anne Schneider is an urban anthropologist focusing on the role of government, non-profits, churches and communities in social welfare policy, opportunity structures for marginalized populations, and inter-group relations. She is currently a Research Associate at the National Catholic School of Social Services, Catholic University of America and an American Association for the Advancement of Science Science and Technology Policy fellow at NIH. Recent publications include lead editor, American Anthropologist special issue forum on welfare reform (2001), The Kenosha Social Capital Study (2001), and her forthcoming book Social Capital and Welfare Reform: Government, Non-profits, Churches and Community in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (Columbia University Press).
Jill Witmer Sinha, M.Div.Phd., recently completed her PhD in the Social Welfare program at the University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Welfare. She is currently in a post-doctoral position at Princeton. Jill conducted ethnographic case studies of two congregations in North Philadelphia for the Communities, Congregations, and Leadership Development Project during 1999-2000. Her publications include: Cookman United Methodist Church and Transitional Journey: A Case Study in Charitable Choice (2000), and “Churches and public funds: risks or rewards?” Prism, 6(3), 11-13 (2001) with co-author Heidi Rolland Unruh.
Jon Van Til is professor of urban studies at Rutgers University in Camden. An active scholar and writer in the field of voluntary action, his most recent book is Growing Civil Society (Indiana University Press, 2000).
Joyce Keyes Williams is the Senior Research Associate for the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, part of the Urban and Metropolitan Studies Division at the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Her research investigates issues around nonprofit management and public policy in general, and in particular the interorganizational collaboration between faith-based organizations and state and local government agencies in human service delivery. She is currently a doctoral candidate at the Rockefeller College of Public Affairs in the Public Administration and Policy department at the State University of New York at Albany.
Rhys H. Williams is Professor and Department Head of Sociology at the University of Cincinnati. He is co-author of A Bridging of Faiths: Religion and Politics in an American City (Princeton 1992) and co-editor of Sacred Companies: Organizational Aspects of Religion and Religious Aspects of Organizations (Oxford, 1998). He is editor of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
Warren Witte serves as Executive Director of Friends Services for the Aging
(FSA), an association of 25 Quaker-governed senior service organizations. Prior to coming to FSA, he served in a variety of program and management roles in the American Friends Service Committee for 30 years, including, from 1984 - 1992, the role of Associate Executive Director for Information and Interpretation in the organization's national office in Philadelphia.
Richard Wood has studied and written on community organizing for twelve years, most recently in Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America (2000, University of Chicago Press). His current research focuses on the impact of political engagement on congregations, in collaboration with the Ford Foundation and Interfaith Funders. He is an associate professor of sociology at the University of New Mexico.
James Zabora is Dean of the National Catholic School of Social Service and Associate Professor of Social Work, Catholic University of America. Dr. Zabora is editor of the Journal of Psychosocial Oncology and author of numerous papers and book chapters on cancer prevention, psychosocial screening, quality of life and problem-solving education.
Interested Organizations
Friends Society for the Aging
Dissemination Partners
Alban Institute
Center for
Public Justice
Project Staff /Committee Structure as of November 2005
The Faith and Organizations Project staff structure consists of an advisory committee, a overall PI team, and site coordinators for various locations. While staff positions are evolving, some individuals have committed to particular roles. Additional people will define appropriate activities at a later date.
Advisory Committee
Ram Cnaan (co-chair)
Gretchen Castle (co-chair)
Reverend Jeffrey L. Brown
Michael Foley
David Gamse
Peter Dobkin Hall
Maurine Pyle
Rhys Williams
James Zabora
Core PI Team (provides continuity to overall project. Social service, Health/Senior Services and Community Organizations PI s provide guidance to local researchers focusing on those topics)
Overall PI: Jo Anne Schneider
Survey PI: Wolfgang Bielefeld
Social Service Agencies PI: Jo Anne Schneider
Health/Senior Services:
Community Organizating: Richard Wood
Site Coordinators: (most sites will be determined through a combined negotiation among interested researchers and a selective RFP process. We have decided to definitely have one site in Philadelphia to date)
Philadelphia Site Coordinator: Katie Day
Appendix C: Pilot Study Researchers
Washington DC:
Jubilee Housing of Maryland (Mennonite, housing Joyce Hermoso
for developmentally disabled adults)
Catholic Ministries, GED program and Heather Larkin,
St Mary’s Housing Program (Catholic, Matthew Wickens
General social services)
The Christian Children’s Inner-City Program
Urban Ministry (Asian, evangelical youth program for Joyce Hermoso
African Americans)
Jewish Aging Service, Cohen Adult Day Center Jordan Yanoshick,
(Jewish, adult day care) Gwynneth Anderson
Chinese Immigrant Services (Chinese Methodist, Chris Neubauer
Immigrant adjustment, youth, crime victims services)
The Lutheran Rehabilitation and Shelter Center Godlif Sianipar
(Mainline Protestant, Housing for the homeless)
Muslim Charities (Muslim, resettlement, referral and domestic Godlif Sianipar
violence agency)
Philadelphia:
Lakeside (Quaker retirement community) Kristin Doughty
JOAI (Jewish, immigrant resettlement agency) Rabia Kamal
Lutheran Charities (Mainline Protestant, Jane Marson
general family social service agency)
Christian Adult Community Day Program Christy Schultze
(African American, congregation-based
elder day care program)
Joy Ministries (African American, Jill Sinha
congregation-based youth education
program)
[1] Refer to Appendix A (Figures 1 and 2)
[2] The difference is that accredited representatives may represent immigrants in court (do not need to pass a bar exam, because it is specifically an immigrant court), versus resettlement workers who work at JOAI but are not able to represent clients in court.
[3] I find the way that I have constructed these categories as interesting and definitely not unproblematic.
[4] Refer to Appendix A (Figure 3) and Appendix B
[5] interview, Barbara Morgan, 11/03/04
[6] interview, Barbara Morgan; 11/03/04
[7] ibid.
[8] see mission statement, attached.
[9] notes, 10/13/04
[10] ibid.
[11] Interview, Mother Morris 12/15/04
[12] Interview, Margaret Worthy, 10/22/04
[13] Transcript, Christmas dinner, 12/18/04
[14] ibid.