| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 their credit, Neuhaus and Berger readily admit that there is no panacea to social problems; they do not even suggest that the Welfare state should be totally abolished. They simply see mediating structures as "alternative mechanisms ... to provide welfare-state services" (Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 158). Neuhaus and Berger do not, as their critics do, frame the issue as mediating structures versus the state but rather mediating structures and the state versus social problems. Creating Social Capital How do mediating structures create social capital? Authors Richard Couto and Catherine Gunthrie (1999) identify three ingredients for mediating structures to create social capital. For starters, mediating structures, by nature, improve social interaction. Families, neighborhoods, churches and voluntary organizations often bring people together in "a community greater than the accident of space and time" (p. 209). These communities provide a forum where individuals can connect and plant seeds that will blossom into trust and enduring social networks. The struggle to maintain their traditions, values, and roots can bring citizens together to form mediating structures, Just like the Brumley Gap (Virginia) Concerned Citizens that 'developed new forms of support and trust during its five-yearlong, successful effort to block a hydroelectrical project that would have flooded its community" (Couto & Guthrie, 1999, P-72). The fight against the powers that fostered a certain trust and faith among the citizens that caused one citizen, Mike Wise, to say "If I need a piece of equipment, I know I can get it from a neighbor. If I need a helping hand to move something, here I know I can get it. If we had to move to the city, I'm afraid we'll lose these things" (Couto & Guthrie, p. °9). Mediating structures bring people together who otherwise may never have met, let alone built lasting social net-Works. The ability of mediating structures to sustain these social networks is the second important ingredient. They do this by keeping community members involved. Whether through Membership meetings, outreach programs or emphasizing Member relationships, mediating structures act as social entrepreneurs that bridge the primary and secondary members of a community (Couto & Guthrie, 1999, p. 219). These members must catch the vision of the community °r mediating structure. This third ingredient is essential to the vitality of a structure. Having a defined purpose to rally afound keeps people coming back, focuses their work, and °ften provides some sort of mechanism to measure success. Couto and Guthrie cited the example of the Safe-Space shel-ter. created to provide haven "for women and children threat-er*ed with physical harm" (Couto & Guthrie, 1999, p. 221). *n short mediating structures provide and sustain a forum Where people can gather together, form bonds, and take action against a common problem. This is an example of s°cial capital. Faith-Based Initiatives To more easily examine the possibilities of social capital and mediating structures, I chose to focus on one structure - the church. Religious institutions are "singularly important to the way people order their lives and values at the most local and concrete levels of existence. Thus they are crucial to understanding . . . other mediating structures of empowerment" (Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 185). The authors note that due to its vital nature, religion should be at the forefront of any social policy decisions. However, any attempt to include religion has been distorted by the fact that "The view that the public sphere is synonymous with the government or the formal polity of the society has been especially effective in excluding religion from considerations of public policy" Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 185). The passage of the Welfare Reform Act in 1996 saw a change in this exclusionary attitude. Portions of this act, often referred to as 'charitable choice,' eased restrictions and the processes by which faith-based organizations could apply for and receive social-service grants (Eastland, 2001). In 2001, President George W. Bush expanded the scope of charitable choice. In one of his first acts as President, he created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In the executive order creating the FBCI President Bush said "Faith-based and other community organizations are indispensable in meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed neighborhoods" (Exec. Order No. 13199, C.F.R. 8499, 2001). Attempts have been made to make a case for and against this faith-based initiative by examining solely whether or not such organizations are as effective as secular or government organizations in fulfilling their social mission. This is difficult to measure due to the "general dearth of attention to the 'faith factor' in academic research" (Sherman, 2003, p. 21). The difficulty is magnified when considering that the two types of organizations may focus on different clientele, as well as administer their programs in significantly different ways. Despite these difficulties considering both empirical and anecdotal evidence are essential in assessing assertions that faith-based organizations are effective in delivering social services. Empirical Examination In measuring the effectiveness of faith-based versus secular organizations social scientists have often examined the perceptions of social service recipients. One such study asked recipients to grade assistance received through service organizations '"in terms of its effectiveness in meeting your need'" (Wuthnow, 2004, p. 207). Four types of service organizations were considered: Public Welfare Department, Secular Nonprofit Organization, Faith-Based Organization, and Local Congregation. Participants in the survey graded their experience on a typical A, B, C, D, F scale. The congregation received the highest grades; 70% of the respondents gave the 51 |
