Recent public policies have promoted an increased role for faith-based organizations in the delivery of publicly supported services. Yet, there is little information on how service delivery by faith-based and secular providers might differ. This study seeks a better understanding of role differences by analyzing the broad context of social service delivery patterns in Los Angeles County. We find important differences. Faith-based organizations are much more concentrated in their service offerings than their secular counterparts. However, they play an important role through their emphasis on transitional assistance, their multi-service orientation, and their reliance on interventions that utilize their unique strengths. Secular nonprofit and public providers, in contrast, offer a much more comprehensive set of services. The results suggest that faith-based organizations have a modest and focused role in social service delivery, but one that is complementary to the efforts of secular providers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonScott, JohnOrr, and SilvermanCarol (2000). Can We Make Welfare Reform Work? The California Religious Community Capacity Study.The California Council of Churches & University of Southern California Center for Religion and Civic Culture & the University of San Francisco Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management.
2.
BartkowskiJohn P., and RegisHelen A. (1999). Religious Organizations, Anti-Poverty Relief and Charitable Choice: A Feasibility Study of Faith-Based Welfare Reform in Mississippi.PricewaterhouseCoopers, Endowment for the Business of Government, November.
3.
Center for Public Justice (1997). A Guide to Charitable Choice: The Rules of Section 104 of the 1996 Federal Welfare Law Governing State Cooperation with Faith-Based Social-Service Providers.Washington, D.C.
4.
ChavesMark (1999). “Religious Congregations and Welfare Reform: Who Will Take Advantage of Charitable Choice?” American Sociological Review 64 (December): 836–846.
5.
ChavesMark (2002). “Religious Organizations: Data Resources and Research Opportunities.” The American Behavioral Scientist, 45:10: 1523–1549.
6.
ChavesMark and TsitsosWilliam (2001). “Congregations and Social Services: What They Do, How They do It, and With Whom”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly30: 660–683.
7.
CnaanRam (1999). “Our Hidden Safety Net: Social & Community Work by Urban American Religious Congregations.” Brookings Review17:2: 50–53.
8.
CnaanRam and BoddieStephanie (2001). “Philadelphia Census of Congregations and their Involvement in Social Service Delivery.” The Social Service Review75:4: 559–581.
9.
EtindiDiana (1999). “Charitable Choice and Its Implications for Faith-based Organizations”. The Welfare Reformer1:1. Welfare Policy Center, Hudson Institute.
10.
GrettenbergerSusan (2000). “Churches as a Community Resource and Source of Funding for Human Services.” Working Paper. The Aspen Institute Nonprofit Sector Research Fund.
11.
GrienerGretchen (2000). “Charitable Choice and Welfare Reform: Collaboration between State and Local Governments and Faith-Based Organizations.” Welfare Information Network Issue Notes4:12 (September).
12.
JeavonsThomas H. (2003). “The vitality and independence of religious organizations.” Society40:2: 27–36.
13.
KennedyShelia Suess and BielefeldWolfgang (2002). “Government Shekels without Government Shackles: The Administrative Challenges of Charitable Choice.” Public Administrative Review62 (January/February): 4–11.
14.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (1999). L.A. Health Profiles. Los Angeles, CA: Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
15.
Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (2000). The Health of Angelenos, 2000. Los Angeles, CA: Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.
16.
LugoLuis (1998). Equal Partners: The Welfare Responsibility of Governments & Churches. Washington, DC: The Center for Public Justice.
17.
PrintzTobi Jennifer (1998). “Faith-Based Service Providers in the Nation's Capital: Can They Do More?Charting Civil Society, 2 (April). The Urban Institute, Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.
18.
ShermanAmy L. (1995). “Cross Purposes: Will Conservative Welfare Reform Corrupt Religious Charities?” Policy Review (Fall): 58–63.
19.
ShermanAmy L. (2000). The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of New Collaborations between Government and Faith-Based Organizations in Nine States.Center for Public Justice92 (March).
20.
SiderRonald J. and UnruhHeidi Rolland (2004). “Typology of Religious Characteristics of Social Service and Educational Organizations and Programs.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly33:1: 109–134.
21.
SmithSteven Rathgeb and SosinMichael R. (2001). “The Varieties of Faith-Related Agencies.” Public Administration Review (November/December)61: 651–670.
22.
TrulearHarold Dean (2000). “Faith-Based Institutions and High-Risk Youth.” Field Report Series. Philadelphia, Pa.: Public/Private Ventures (Spring).
23.
TwomblyEric C. (2002). “Religious versus secular human service organizations: Implications for public policy.” Social Science Quarterly83:4: 947–961.
24.
WilsonJames Q. (1999). “Religion and Public Life: Moving Private Funds to Faith-Based Social Service Providers.” Brookings Review17:2: 36–41.
25.
YatesJessica (1998). Partnerships with the Faith Community in Welfare Reform. Washington, D.C.: Welfare Information Network Issue Notes2:3 (March).
