Toppling Jefferson's Wall or Tiptoeing Around it?

Abstract

Through interviews with coordinators of faith-based mentoring programs, a statewide study examined publicly funded efforts to widen the involvement of religious groups in welfare service provision. Analysis focused on front-line implementers' ability to function as boundary spanners in a complex, unsettled environment. The study identified three salient factors affecting implementation in this new faith-friendly arena: the employment background of the programcoordinators, the rural or urban setting of the program, and the limitations of a constrained state welfare apparatus. The experiences of these so-called early adopters of charitable choice indicate the scope, strength, and surmountability of institutional barriers confronting implementers.

“Jesus Speaks Better”: Interactions Between State and Faith-Based Organizations in Service Implementation

“…State organizations can also interfere in FBOs by conducting surveys that criticize the way services are provided (Lugo et al, 2008(Lugo et al, , 2009VanSlyke et al, 2005). Finally, the government can influence the logistics and management of FBOs (Cnaan & Newman, 2010;Kinney, 2006;Sager, 2007) or even the scope and range of activities they carry out (Goode, 2006).…”

“…They argue that, on one hand, FBOs can be more effective in some kinds of services, especially by ensuring their continuity and introducing specific agendas into social policies (Adloff, 2006; Bishop, 2006; Coleman, 2001; Fossett, 2004; Mapes, 2004). However, other scholars have questioned the benefits of FBO involvement for welfare policies, as they may have limited capacity and may compromise principles of the welfare state, such as inclusion and universalism (Dunn, 2009; Kinney, 2006; Poole, 2003; Poole et al, 2002).…”

“…Although there is an increased understanding of these processes (see, for example, Fu et al, 2021;Suykens et al, 2020), there are still gaps in understanding how hybridization affects the organizations involved, especially when very different institutional values are at stake (Beaton et al, 2021). This is the case for FBOs, for example, where conflicting values may emerge with the state organizations with which they are supposed to cooperate (Göçmen, 2013;Kinney, 2006;Wilson, 2003). Moreover, this literature was mainly developed by analyzing the case of the United States, where FBOs have specific characteristics in their relationship with the state.…”

“…A central theme in the literature about hybrid organizations is understanding how cooperation occurs and how organizations develop skills to move between different institutional environments in the production of policies (Kinney, 2006). Although there is an increased understanding of these processes (see, for example, Fu et al, 2021; Suykens et al, 2020), there are still gaps in understanding how hybridization affects the organizations involved, especially when very different institutional values are at stake (Beaton et al, 2021).…”

“…This is the case for FBOs, for example, where conflicting values may emerge with the state organizations with which they are supposed to cooperate (Göçmen, 2013; Kinney, 2006; Wilson, 2003). Moreover, this literature was mainly developed by analyzing the case of the United States, where FBOs have specific characteristics in their relationship with the state.…”