OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 lead to the impersonality that so many complain about plaguing the institutions of the welfare state. By explicitly stating their belief in relationship and community, building faith-based organizations engender a forum of trust, which is one of four characteristics that welfare recipients revealed to Amy Sherman as important to the success of faith-based organizations. She reported that "clients engaged more thoroughly with the helpers they found at the faith-based organization, because they trusted those helpers more than they did staff at government agencies" (2003, p. 22). The other characteristics included: accessibility, or the fact that help was available "24-7-365"; individuality - faith-based organizations did not treat them like a number - and flexibility; "they felt that their individual problems had been examined and that a personalized action plan had been constructed." Each of these four characteristics stems from having a vision, rather than a list of tasks, to perform. Sherman (2003), pointed out that "All these may be statements that make social science researchers a bit uncomfortable, but these are the very things reported by many successful clients themselves. Clearly, for many participants in religiously affiliated initiatives, the program worked because it brought them into a faith that decisively changed their lifestyle for the better" (p.22). What motivates and inspires the volunteers and clients clearly goes a long way in producing results, even though they may ^ot be easily measurable by scientific means. Key to any discussion about social capital is to distinguish between bridging and bonding social capital. As previously n°ted, critics often levy the accusation that faith-based organ-nations may be excellent at bonding but are very poor at "ridging. Studies indicate otherwise. Wuthnow, Hackett, ar*d Hsu (2004), conducted a survey of 2,000 residents of low-lr*come neighborhoods and the service organizations these ^sidents contacted seeking help. They concluded that *aith-based organizations attract a diverse constituency of People with serious needs and that they play a positive role in ^dressing those needs" (p. 14). Faith-based organizations, uke other service organizations are able to attract and serve People from all walks of life and build social bridges. Lockhart (2005), noted that by their design "faith-integrated classes also reduced social distances and promoted mul-ttfaceted interactions between clients, staff-members, and v°lunteers" (p. 54)- He then described observing 'circle-up' lIrie, held at the beginning of each class. During this time Participants hold hands, sing, and pray. Lockhart noted that at first everyone was hesitant, but as time went on, "hugs were c°rnmonplace" (Lockhart, p.54). Clients, staff, and volunteers represented several classes and races. 'Circle-up' time broke down these barriers and bridged the gaps. Lockhart also pscribed one particularly hesitant participant who eventual-JV opened up and expressed "how she used to 'feel evil all over her>' but now she feels hope and love" (Lockhart, p. 54). Cics would decry the religious nature of this activity and its seeming lack of relevance in helping these people find jobs. However, the activity did "build social capital and religious cultural skills which built self confidence and opened the door for further social ties . . ." (Lockhart, p. 55). So, one may ask, what does this all mean? How does creating social capital qualify mediating structures as a viable partner to the welfare state? Simply put, the social capital created and perpetuated by faith-based organizations empowers people. The values and social skills that are stressed in faith-based organizations give people a certain self-confidence that can't be found in job-skill training; it is the "whole person" treatment that sets them apart. Sherman (2003) observed that faith based organizations are "holistic - they seek to find ways to meet clients' wide-ranging needs, including those that might not initially seem to be relevant to the particular program at hand" (p. 23). Sherman gives the example of a woman who may be in a job-training program who is helped by the faith-based organization to kick out an abusive boyfriend who is leeching on what little funds she does bring in (Sherman, p. 23). With him around, it would be difficult for this woman to escape poverty. What is more, perhaps the boyfriend would like to get job training but is ineligible for some government programs. Sherman pointed out that faith-based organizations do not usually have stringent eligibility requirements (Sherman, p. 23). The faith-based organization could then in turn help this boyfriend get training and a job, lessening his burden on the woman. All this occurred because she gained not only work-skills, but was socially empowered through a process that was facilitated by the faith-based organization. Mediating Structures as Public Policy If anecdotal as well as empirical evidence suggests faith-based organizations and other mediating structures are effective in building social capital and empowering people then why haven't they been more widely implemented as public policy? Money is certainly a major factor. Faith and community based organizations simply lack the massive amounts of funding available to government and other secular programs. Second, secular programs can compete for grants that are not open to faith based programs because of their religious nature. Opponents claim that government funding for religious programs is a violation of the First Amendment.1 A third factor is that even some religious people and organizations are opposed to receiving federal funding, fearing that any plan to distribute such funds would "[force] the nation's good Samaritans to secularize themselves in exchange for federal money" (Loconte, 2001). 'The author realizes that concerns about potential violations of the First Amendment as it relates to church versus state relations are at the heart of any discussion concerning the role of religious institutions in public policy. An in-depth discussion of the church v. state issue is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, this paper offers an example of potential cooperation between religions and the govern- 53 |