Despite their hypothesized potential to change lives and promote social policy goals, the track record of faith-based public policies is less than stellar. Using survey, administrative, and organizational case study data from a California faith-based initiative, we find that the commonly used implementation strategy—featuring a top-down, short-term approach that funds isolated local organizations—demonstrates little power to nurture enduring programs and partnerships at the community level. Our analysis of why this is so suggests the possible viability of an alternative implementation strategy that takes community social service networks as the unit of action and analysis. A next step for policy and research might be carefully monitored local demonstrations that foster government partnerships with a broad cross-section of community and faith-related organizations within a single locale, seeking to develop a coordinated continuum of community care by patiently building network capacity for the long haul.
Baum, J.A., & Oliver, C. ( 1992). Institutional embeddedness and the dynamics of organizational failure. American Sociological Review, 57, 540-559.
2.
Baum, J.A., & Powell, W.W. ( 1995). Cultivating an institutional ecology of organizations . American Sociological Review, 60, 529-538.
3.
Besel, K. ( 2001). The role of local governmental funding in nonprofit survival . Advances in Social Work, 2(1), 39-51.
4.
Boddie, S.C., & Cnaan, R.C. ( 2006). Faith-based social services: Measures, assessments, effectiveness . Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press .
5.
Campbell, D. ( 2002). Beyond charitable choice: The diverse service delivery approaches of local faith-related organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 207-230.
6.
Campbell, D., & Glunt, E. ( 2006). Assessing the effectiveness of faith-based programs: A local network perspective. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work, 25, 241-259.
7.
Campbell, D., & Lemp, C. ( 2007, October). The promise and limits of community and faith-related organizations as government workforce development partners. Final evaluation report on the California Community and Faith-Based Initiative, California Communities Program, Department of Human and Community Development, University of California, Davis.
8.
Chaves, M., & Tsitsos, W. ( 2001). Congregations and social services: What they do, how they do it, and with whom. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 660-683.
9.
Cisneros, H.G. ( 1996). Higher ground: Faith communities and community building . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
10.
Cnaan, R.A., Wineburg, R.J., & Boddie, S.C. ( 1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership . New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
DiIulio, J.J., Jr. ( 2007). Godly republic: A centrist blueprint for America’s faith-based future. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Edelman, M. ( 1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic Press.
13.
Esbeck, C.H. ( 1997). A constitutional case for governmental cooperation with faith-based social service providers. Emory Law Journal, 46(1), 1-42.
14.
Farris, A., Nathan, R., & Wright, D. ( 2004, December). The expanding administrative presidency: George W. Bush and the faith-based initiative. Paper presented at the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York, New York.
15.
Freeman, J., Carroll, G.R., & Hannan, M.T. ( 1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692-710.
16.
Galaskiewicz, J. ( 1985). Social organization of an urban grants economy: A study of business philanthropy and nonprofit organizations. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17.
Glenn, C.L. ( 2000). The ambiguous embrace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Graddy, E.A. ( 2006). How do they fit? Assessing the role of faith-based organizations in social service provision. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work, 25, 129-150.
19.
Hager, M.A., Galaskiewicz, J., & Larson, J.A. ( 2004). Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Management Review, 6, 159-188.
20.
Hannan, M.T., & Freeman, J. ( 1989). Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
Harrison, B., & Weiss, M. ( 1998). Workforce development networks: Community-based organizations and regional alliances. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
Kennedy, S.S., & Bielefeld, W. ( 2006). Charitable choice at work: Evaluating faith-based jobs programs in the states. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
23.
Kramer, F.D., Feingold, K., De Vita, C.J., & Wherry, L. ( 2005, July). Federal policy on the ground: Faith-based organizations delivering local services. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
24.
Kuo, D. ( 2006). Tempting faith: An inside story of political seduction . New York: Free Press.
25.
Legislative Analyst’s Office, State of California. ( 2002). Analysis of the 2002-03 budget bill- Employment Development Department, Assessing the faith-based Initiative. Sacramento, CA: Author.
26.
Lupu, I.C., & Tuttle, R.W. ( 2005). The faith-based initiative and the constitution. DePaul Law Review, 55(1).
27.
Monsma, S. ( 1996). When sacred and secular mix: Religious nonprofit organizations and public money. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
28.
Monsma, S., & Soper, C. ( 2006). Faith, hope and jobs: Welfare-to-work in Los Angeles . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29.
Montiel, L., & Wright, D. ( 2006). Getting a slice of the pie: Federal grants to faith-based social service organizations. Paper presented in February, 2009, at the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York, New York.
30.
Printz, T. ( 1998). Faith-based service providers in the nation’s capital: Can they do more?Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
31.
Renz, D.O., & Herman, R.D. ( 2004). More theses on nonprofit effectiveness. ARNOVA News, 33(4), 10-11.
32.
Shea, J. ( 2008). Inside the black box of devolution-A model for devolved governance through the community-integrated intermediary: The case of the compassion capital fund and the field of high risk youth services in Boston. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts , Boston.
33.
Sherman, A. ( 2002). Executive summary. Empowering compassion: The strategic role of intermediary organizations in building capacity among and enhancing the impact of community transformers. Indianapolis, IN : Hudson Institute.
34.
Sherman, A., & Green, J. ( 2002). Fruitful collaborations: A survey of government-funded faith-based programs in 15 states. Charlottesville, VA : Hudson Institute.
35.
Sider, R.J., & Unruh, H.R. ( 2004). Typology of religious characteristics of social service and educational organizations and programs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 109-134.
36.
Smith, S.R., & Sosin, M.R. ( 2001). The varieties of faith-related agencies. Public Administration Review, 61, 651-670.
White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. ( 2001). Unlevel playing field: Barriers to participation of faith-based and community organizations in federal social service programs. Washington, DC: The White House.
39.
Wineburg, R. ( 2001). A limited partnership: The politics of religion, welfare, and social service. New York: Columbia University Press.
40.
Wineburg, R. ( 2007). Faith-based inefficiency: The follies of Bush’s initiatives. Westport, CT: Praeger .
41.
Wuthnow, R. ( 2004). Saving America? Faith-based services and the future of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
