Building Bridges and Bonds: Generating Social Capital in Secular and Faith-Based Poverty-to-Work Programs

Building Bridges and Bonds: Generating Social Capital in Secular and Faith-Based Poverty-to-Work ProgramsAuthor(s): William H. LockhartSource: Sociology of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Spring, 2005), pp. 45-60Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4153115 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and Association for the Sociology of Religion, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.25 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:26:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4153115?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Sociology of Religion 2005, 66:1 45-60

Building Bridges and Bonds: Generating Social Capital in Secular and Faith-Based

Poverty-to-Work Programs

William H. Lockhart* McLennan Community College

Is there a difference between the social capital developed in faith-based and secular poverty-to- work programs? Comparative field research investigating five faith-based and secular poverty-to-work programs in southeastern America finds that values expressed by a secular non-profit organization and two faith-based programs correspond with more activities that develop social capital than the programs run by a for-profit organization and a reinvented government agency. In all the programs this social capital is both 'bridging,' by crossing barriers of race, gender, and class, and 'bonding' by tying participants and staff into at least a temporary supportive community. The programs see that this social capital is effective in supporting low-income persons through the transition to full-time employment. In addition, the faith-based programs seek to extend the social capital by developing long-term ties between clients and local religious congregations. This paper also specifies how social capital is developed in these programs.

The welfare reform legislated in 1996 institutionalized a growing transition in the orientation of poverty programs in America. No longer focused on certify- ing clients as eligible for government benefits, the new policies are oriented towards directing clients to leave the welfare rolls, hopefully through gaining employment that will provide a decent living standard (Blank 1997; Mead 1997, 1998). Since many such poverty programs were being outsourced to both for- profit and non-profit service providers (Holcomb & Martinson 2002), faith- based advocates incorporated into the 1996 legislation a 'Charitable Choice' provision that allowed faith-based organizations (FBOs) to receive government funds without having to give up several faith-related practices (Center for Public

* Direct correspondence about this manuscript to William Lockhart, McLennan Community College, 1400 College Drive, Waco, TX 76708. Email: [email protected]. I thank Carson Mencken, Christopher Bader, Susan Finck-Lockhart, the editor of Sociology of Religion, two anonymous review- ers, and participants at a paper session during the 2002 ASA meetings for comments on previous ver- sions of this paper. This research was supported by doctoral dissertation grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Louisville Institute. Additional support came from the Center for Children, Family and the Law and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture both at the University of Virginia. The analyses and opinions expressed are solely the author's.

45



46 SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION

Justice 1997). Shortly after his inauguration, President Bush quickly accelerated efforts encouraging the participation of FBOs in providing services for the poor (Bush 2001).

As debate over faith-based social services has intensified in recent years and scholarly research of these programs has begun, there are still several gaps in the research literature. Although congregations and FBOs have been found to generate social capital, little is known about the processes by which social capital is generated in these programs. To understand how these processes work, this paper compares two faith-based programs with three secular counterparts. Evidence is found that the culture and values of the faith-based and secular non-profit poverty-to-work programs has led these organizations to develop alternative activities that help generate more social capital than the comparative for-profit and reinvented government programs. This ethos also leads the faith-based programs to encourage extended social ties between their low-income clients and local religious congregations.

SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE

Social capital and the poor Putnam (2000) has advocated strongly for the need for more social capital in

American society, particularly for the poor. He describes social capital as the social ties that engender civil society, particularly if these ties are conjoined with trust and norms of reciprocity. These ties form a type of 'capital' enabling people to do things more effectively than if they were not connected to these relationships (see also DeFilippis 2001; Greeley 1997a, 1997b; Portes 1998; Sobel 2002).

Although not original with him, Putnam raises the distinction between 'bonding' and 'bridging' social capital. Bonding social capital describes the strength of relationships where people demonstrate concern and support for one another. Bridging social capital creates relationships over social divisions, such as those based on race or class, allowing people to gain assets beyond their usual social groups. Many ethnographies show the strength and prevalence of social ties among the inner city poor today, and their importance for survival (Anderson 1990; Katz 1995; MacLeod 1987; Stack 1974). However, scholars note that often these 'bonding' social ties of mutual obligation do not extend ver- tically out of low income communities to people who might be able to help them the most economically (DeFilippis 2001; Dominguez & Watkins 2003; Newman 1999; Portes 1998; Saegert, Thompson & Warren 2001; Wacquant & Wilson 1989; Wilson 1996), thus the need for 'bridging' social capital.

One key way to develop both bridging and bonding social capital on the individual level is by including the role of 'mentor,' played by a staff person or a volunteer (Bender 2000; Sherman 2001), who, often having a higher rank in the work world, helps the newcomers learn the ropes of the new setting (Jonker & Koopman 2000; Lin, Ensel & Vaughn 1981; Shea 1997). Mentors may also pro-



BUILDING BRIDGES AND BONDS 47

vide job leads, teach new behaviors and attitudes, and provide social support for coping with stress.

Faith-based programs creating social capital Sociologists have long argued that religions, by their very nature, are social

and that they strengthen social relationships (DuBois 1997; Durkheim 1915). Recent scholarship has provided evidence that social ties are developed through religious participation (Ammerman 1997a, 1997b; Cnaan, Boddie, Handy, Yancey & Schneider 2002; Greeley 1997a, 1997b), which often cross status barriers (Wuthnow 2002). Foley, McCarthy and Chaves (2001:220) provide evidence that even religious congregations located in very poor communities "remain socioeconomically heterogeneous, with all the advantages in terms of greater and more diverse social capital."

Advocates of faith-based social ministries emphasize holistic relationships that extend beyond the programs (Olasky 1992; Perkins 1995; Perkins & Kadlecek 1995; Sherman 1998; Sider 1999; Sider, Olson & Unruh 2002). Yet according to Chaves and Tsistos (2001:670), most congregational social services tend to "involve only short-term fleeting kinds of contact with the needy," rather than the "more intensive or long-term, face to face interactions with the needy" that "bring about character transformation" which the faith-based advocates champion. Yet even if Chaves and Tsistos' characterization of congregationally based social ministries is accurate, it may not be true of the multi-congregational faith-based parachurch ministries that extend beyond local congregations. According to Monsma and Mounts' (2002) research, only 28.8% of all the faith- based social service programs in four large cities were run by local congregations. Instead of the congregation, "the 'parachurch' and nonprofit sectors have increasingly become the organizational vehicles through which individual compassion is channeled and social services are delivered" (Ammerman 2002:153, see also Pipes & Ebaugh 2002; Wineburg 2001). Parachurch faith-based poverty programs may well create social ties, and religion may be a base for these ties.

A significant factor may be the 'ethos' or cultural values of the program. Although their research did not include secular programs, and thus cannot con- firm this explicit comparison, Bartkowski and Regis (2003) suspect that secular programs tend to be contractual, focusing on individual goals and achievement, whereas faith-based organizations tend to be covenantal, focusing on the mutual responsibilities in a community (see also Bromley 1997). In interpreting their more specific data from Los Angeles, Monsma and Soper equally speculate that faith-based and secular programs have different "self-understandings of how they can be most successful in working with clients," with secular programs focusing more on skill development whereas nonprofit and religious programs focus on personal and social needs (2003:25). They also suspect that faith-based programs were seen to have a more long-term commitment to their clients than do secular programs. In the same way Cnaan reports: "The congregational approach to serv-




ice differs from that of the professional care in that it is holistic: contact with those being served does not end when the problem disappears" (2002:291).

Bartkowski and Regis note a corresponding problem with the covenantal bonds found in religious groups - they can be exclusive. Their research in rural Mississippi found that these bonds can reinforce social barriers of race and class (2003; see also similar discussion in Emerson & Smith 2000). Putnam writes "bonding social capital, by creating strong in-group loyalty, may also create strong out-group antagonism" (2000:23). However in the next paragraph he notes that many groups may "simultaneously bond along some social dimensions and bridge across others." Jones and Lockhart (1999) compare the Promise Keepers' "Stand in the Gap" gathering at the Mall with Washington DC with the Million Man March. They note how the Promise Keepers bonded over a shared religious iden-

tity to bridge over barriers of race, ethnicity and class, whereas the Million Man March used shared racial identity to bridge over barriers of religion and class. Analysis of bridging and bonding must include not only behaviors that encourage bridging but also the shared identities stressed when people are being bonded.

Research Questions This survey of the literature has highlighted three major empirical gaps in the

literature: (1) a lack of empirical data on how social ties are developed in poverty- to-work programs, especially the bonding and bridging dimensions; (2) a lack of

comparative research on faith-based and secular programs; and (3) little data on how cultural values may influence the development of social capital in these programs. This paper begins to fill these gaps by providing empirical evidence of how bridging and bonding social capital is created in both faith-based and secular programs.

This leads to the following research questions: Is there a difference in how social capital is developed in faith-based and secular poverty-to-work programs? Are these differences related to differences in organizational cultural values about relationships, with faith-based and non-profit secular program stressing relationships and for-profit and government programs stressing tasks? Does the shared

identity for bonding differ between secular and faith-based programs?

DATA AND METHODS

From the summer of 1999 to spring 2001 I investigated three secular and two

explicitly religious, faith-integrated poverty-to-work programs. Each program selected for research was in existence for at least one year and included in its curriculum job-readiness classes that taught skills for job application, interviews, and retention. To control for community effects, I restricted my research to two medium-sized cities in the southeast: Raleigh, North Carolina and Richmond, Virginia.

The three secular programs depict the range of secular organizations: government agencies, for-profit, and non-profit. In Raleigh, the two secular programs had government contracts to work with non-custodial parents who were delin-




quent in child support payments. One of these was a reinvented government agency, which required 11 weeks of parenting sessions for its clients in addition to six weeks of job readiness training. The other secular program was run by a national for-profit organization that provided two weeks of intensive job readiness classes and no parenting classes. This program also provided similar services for TANF recipients nearing the end of their eligibility. In Richmond, the secular program worked with homeless persons. Through a federal grant the homeless attended classes and were paid to work for other programs at the organization's center for six months.

To bring into sharp contrast any differences that religion might make, I chose to investigate two 'faith-integrated' programs (Working Group 2002) that incorporated religious elements in their programming, such as prayer and Bible study. Both were run by nonprofit organizations with interracial boards and staff composed of Protestants from mainline, conservative and traditionally black churches. Their leaders expressed how valuable the religious faith of staff and volunteers was to the effectiveness of the programs, and how they would refuse government funds rather than give up the religious elements of their programs. Neither program was receiving government funds during my research time. Their programs were open to all who were interested, and they helped TANF recipients, homeless persons, and those struggling to meet child support requirements.

At each program I interviewed program directors, staff, volunteers and clients, preserving their confidentiality. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed with the use of QSR's N6 software. I also observed each program's activities, and at one faith-based program, I was a participant-observer in the role of volunteer. I also col- lected and analyzed promotional material, curricula, and other program materials.

For this paper I analyze the data seeking to determine what social ties these programs developed and what norms of relationship were taught and observed. I did not gain access to all the clients in these programs, nor did I have the opportunity to do follow up interviews with a random sample of clients, so I am unable to statistically analyze the effectiveness of these programs or the extent and per- sistence of relationships, yet I can describe the norms for these relationships as exhibited in classes and by mission statements, and how these relationships were built. 'Bridging' social capital was operationalized by noting the mixture of racial, ethnic, class or gender differences found in relationships. 'Bonding' social capital was operationalized by noting how much supportive relationships and mutual trust were stressed within relationships.

All of the programs were interracial in both their staffing and clientele. The directors of all the programs, except the government agency, were African- American. The staff and volunteers were primarily middle class, whereas the clients were lower class. Thus as relationships were built between staff members and clients, bridging social capital was developed across class lines. Interracial bridging capital was often developed as well between staff members, volunteers and clients.




RESULTS

The Influence of Cultural Values As shown in Table 1 below, an analysis of the mission statements and pro-

motional materials illustrates how all of the programs declare support for both the task of helping the poor gain economic self-sufficiency through employment and the desire to create high quality relationships. Although there is a tendency for the faith-integrated and nonprofit organizations to stress relationships and for the for-profit and governmental programs to stress tasks, both relationships and tasks were included in every program.

Except for the reinvented government program, all of the mission statements affirm the value of creating self-esteem in their clients and in demonstrating respect to them. The desire to build relationships and a sense of community (i.e. social capital) is most explicitly proclaimed in the non-profit and faith-integrat-

TABLE 1

Themes in the Mission Statements

Reinvented For Profit Nonprofit Raleigh Richmond Government program homeless faith- faith-

program program integrated integrated program program

Employment and X X X X C related assistance

Economic Self- C X X X C sufficiency

Higher C X X X C Self-esteem

Respect, C X X X X empowerment

Intentional C C X X X Relationships

Build Christian X X community

Relationship X C with Jesus Christ

X (and bolded) = explicit in mission statement C= in promotional materials or curriculum blank = not in the mission statement, promotional materials or curriculum




ed programs. For example, the secular non-profit organization includes this paragraph in its mission statement:

Our services are built on principles of respect, acceptance, self-help, democratic participation, and empowerment of our members. We believe that everyone has the capacity to be self-sufficient if nourished and supported. [Our] open door policy and nontraditional atmosphere invite the lonely and troubled into a safe place.

Thus this organization seeks to bridge over every social barrier that might make

people feel lonely and to bond over these empowering principles of mutual

respect that are designed to lead to self-sufficiency. Similarly the Raleigh faith-integrated program stresses relationships, bridging

over all social barriers, but this time bonding over religious values, as seen in its mission statement:

[We] bring together local area churches and businesses to train, equip and employ some of Raleigh's neediest citizens, bringing them from dependency to self-sufficiency as produc- tive citizens of the community and to true wellness through relationship with Jesus Christ.

More specifically among its five 'core values' are the following:

Relationships: Responding to God's call to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love neighbors as ourselves, we believe that through intentional relationships, we are able to experience a true reflection of the Kingdom of God.

All People Have Value: We believe that every person is fearfully and wonderfully made, created in God's own image and that God has a plan for everyone to prosper them and to give them hope and a future.

As to be expected, the faith-integrated programs are the only ones to refer in their literature about the need for Christian community or for a relationship with God.

In contrast to this more communitarian emphasis found in the faith-integrated and secular non-profit organizations, the for-profit mission statement expresses more task-oriented utilitarian values with an emphasis on economizing and efficiency in moving people out of poverty by saying:

[We] will have an international impact on reducing poverty and unemployment. Through our efforts, millions of people will have higher self-esteem, higher hopes for the future, and jobs that will enhance their self-sufficiency. Governments and businesses will save million of dollars though the efforts of our company.

The next step for analysis is to see if and how these values are lived out in the program activities.

Building Social Capital within the Programs Social bonds take time to develop. In all of these poverty-to-work programs

there were three social settings for social bonds to develop: informally during breaks




in classes; individually with a staff member or volunteer in formal counseling times; and corporately with the teacher and other students in structured class times.

During breaks between sessions of instruction at the faith-integrated programs, clients, staff members, mentors, other volunteers and sometimes even the clients' children all ate together at meals or heavy snacks brought by church volunteers. During these breaks in formal programming, informal conversations arose, enriching the multi-faceted social ties among participants, volunteers and staff members. At the secular programs I never observed any food being provided during break or program times. Instead the informal socializing of students occurred mostly outside as clients smoked or maybe had some self-provided snacks. Although the non-profit and government programs held awards dinners for students and sometimes their families, they missed the opportunity for the informal development of social capital along the way during breaks in class time.

Social ties were developed more formally between clients and case managers at each organization through individual consultation. For example, three staff persons provided key services for the clients of the secular non-profit program for the homeless: a job developer who found and matched employment possibilities, an education specialist who taught computer classes and supervised GED programs, and a life-skills educator who taught 'soft skills.' Since this was a six-month long program, over time clients developed relationships with each of these staff persons. The other four programs were shorter and instead assigned to each client a

particular staff person who would coordinate all the services and training for that client and evaluate and encourage the client's progress towards employment. The directors of the for-profit and the reinvented government programs called this 'intensive case management,' which provided extensive time for case managers to

help their clients with all of their problems. They saw this move to intensive case

management as a great step forward from the 1980s when case loads were very high and case managers had no time to positively impact the lives of their clients.

Accepting the often-expressed idea that positive relationships build positive self-esteem, which then encourages success in the business world, the staff of all the

programs attempted to build such relationships. The positive, supporting attitude was encouraged by careful screening and training of staff and volunteers and a real- ization that staff would be judged by their clients' success. Lower case loads also

helped the staff to provide the focused positive attention to their clients that was seen as necessary for their success. All the programs demonstrated a strong commitment to positive staff attitudes towards their low-income clients. Unlike the

stereotypes of uncaring welfare bureaucrats or judgmental religious leaders, the staff

and volunteers of the programs demonstrated a caring, respectful attitude towards

their clients in both my interviews and observations. In confidential interviews none of the clients reported anything negative about the staff or volunteers.

The case manager and client built bonds through an initial interview, lesson

times, follow-up phone calls, and personal services, such as transportation to job interviews. As part of the design of each program, clients were contacted at least




TABLE 2

Hours spend in classes for each program

Reinvented For Profit Nonprofit Raleigh Richmond Government program homeless faith- faith-

program program integrated integrated program program

Job 34 (22 in 20 100 48 35 readiness & parenting; life-skills 12 in job

skills)

Number of 6-11 2 25 12 14 weeks

Hours/week 2-4 10 4 4 2.5 during class (depending period on week,

averaging 3.1)

once a week by the case manager to see how they were doing and whether they needed any other assistance. All of the programs included follow-up contacts by the same staff person for six months after their clients gained employment.

In addition, the faith-integrated programs also assigned church volunteers to each client, as a mentor. These individuals had been trained in listening skills and how to encourage the clients towards practical steps for self-improvement. In addition to attending classes with the clients and doing the class homework, the volunteer mentors also were to contact the clients weekly, in addition to the staff member's weekly contact with the client, thus doubling program interaction. Other church volunteers provided supportive services, such as meals and childcare.

Although all the programs apparently spent a similar amount of time in one- on-one interactions with clients, the faith-integrated and secular non-profit programs spent more time than the for-profit and government programs in classes and in informal activities with their clients, demonstrating a higher concern about developing relationships with their clients. This corresponds with their values as reflected in their mission statements. As Table 2 presents, the programs varied greatly in how much time was allocated for job readiness and life-skills class time. At one extreme was the non-profit program for homeless persons which included six months of job readiness and life-skills classes, albeit for only an hour a day, four days a week. The other extreme was the for-profit program with its intense two weeks of half-day classes, which, however, only totaled 20 hours in lesson time. In between were the faith-based and the government pro-




grams that typically had classes for two hours one or two evenings a week. All of the classes had 15 or fewer students and involved much interaction between teachers and students.

Every program used a curriculum that taught about the importance of relationships. The curricula all stressed the norms of mutual respect of persons, of trust building through honesty and reliability, of taking responsibility for one's actions, including one's mistakes, and of being honest. They all presented teaching on listening skills and dealing with conflict. The Christian programs focused on love as being the norm for all relationships, whether in the workplace or out; whereas the for-profit program focused more on keeping a 'positive opinion of you' in the minds of other people at the workplace so that one might be retained and promoted.

In the secular soft skill programs, students practiced handshakes and profes- sionally greeting one another. They did role-plays on how to deal with conflict at the workplace. They practiced turning difficulties into positives, by framing them as learning experiences. The skits and class exercises encouraged the modeled forms of relationships and bonded the participants through laughter and rein- forced ideas. Yet in private some of the clients of the secular programs told me how they were not living up to all the positive attitudes and goals of the programs, but did not want to admit it to their case-managers.

By their design, the faith-integrated classes also reduced social distances and promoted multifaceted interactions between clients, staff-members and volunteers. Classes began with a 'circle-up' time where everyone often held hands

standing in a big circle, sang a simple worship chorus, shared prayer requests, and prayed. Staff members and volunteers were urged by program directors to present prayer requests, that is, issues in their lives or the lives of those they knew who needed God's help. Circle-up time helped to bond the clients, volunteers and staff together, as the following examples from the Richmond FBO program illus- trate. The second week in this program we circled-up and then the director led us in singing, "The Joy of the Lord is my Strength" accompanied by lots of clap- ping and group participation including the verse, "If you want joy you must hug for it," with everyone encouraged to hug those next to them. One client was particularly uncomfortable about the hugging and didn't hug back. Prayer concerns were presented by the volunteers, including one about a sick friend and another about stress at work; yet the clients stayed quiet. However by the fifth week, hugs were commonplace, including those initiated by the originally hesitant client. We circled up and sang, "0 Lord, 0 Lord how Majestic is your Name in all the Earth," followed by sharing and prayer. One client mentioned how her son had been arrested for being a part of a gang fight in the housing project. She had

prayed, and he came home. She had also finally gotten a Section Eight housing voucher so she could move out of the project. Volunteers offered to help her find a good place to live' using it. The originally hesitant client voluntarily shared

how she used to "feel evil all over her," but now she feels hope and love. "And




it's from being here," she stated, "I now pray every morning and evening and I now go to church on Sunday. I sing songs doing my housework." Although circle-up time did not build workplace skills, it did build social capital and religious cultural skills which built self-confidence and opened the door for further social ties within congregations (see also Lockhart 2001).

These same faith-integrated programs required both the mentors and the clients to do Bible studies each week prior to meeting times. These lessons included some 'practical' questions such as, "Are you serving others by your work? If so, how? If not, how can you begin?" With the Bible-not human teaching - seen as the ultimate authority-and with such no-nonsense questions, clients, staff, and volunteers were all equally depicted as needing to be submissive to God's authority and needing God's grace. Volunteers and staff members would often tell of the mistakes they had made and how with God's grace they learned from these mistakes and overcame difficulties. Such activities transformed the giver-receiver dynamic, so that clients were not only receiving support from the mentors and staff persons, but were also giving advice and praying for them. For example, one week I expressed concern about behavioral problems with one of my children. Not only did I receive advice from the clients, but the next week they were asking me how things were going; one even said she had prayed for me. Religion and common values were bridging over barriers of class and race.

Extending the Bonds Both of the faith-integrated programs focus on local congregations as part of

the solution to poverty. This is a sharp contrast to the secular programs and pro- vides an additional arena for the development of social capital. The faith-based organizations consequently have a slight edge over the secular organizations in diversity and extent of the bridging relationships developed with the clients, for the staff and volunteers in these programs came from broader class and employment situations than the professional staff members of the secular organizations. This diversity was further increased by the social diversity of the local congregations.

Both of the faith-integrated programs began as partnerships of urban and suburban congregations. The urban congregations were primarily African-American and were located in or near low-income neighborhoods, yet were composed of people of differing incomes and employment situations. They provided meeting places and on-going social support for the clients. The suburban congregations, with their normally wealthier and whiter populations, included more employers and professionals in their membership. They provided more material resources and job connections for the programs. They often provided volunteer teachers for key 'soft skill' lessons such as how to dress and act for job interviews. By design the directors and many of the Bible teachers of these programs were African- American pastors, teachers, or business managers who told me that they felt fully supported by the whites in the program. The whites told me that they gain as much if not more than they give in these programs.




One of these two programs also required each student to have a sponsoring congregation, which could be either urban or suburban. (The other program pre- ferred this, but was not quite as demanding.) If there was not an already existing relationship between the participant and a congregation, this organization sought to find a congregation (from its connections) willing to 'adopt' the participant, which included signing a covenant with the program promising to support the participant within the rules of the program. The congregation promised to provide a volunteer mentor for the student, to encourage the student, and to pray for him or her. The pastor or other assigned staff also promised to be available for the student if there was need. The congregation made no financial commitment to the student, but often supplied for material needs in coordination with the program staff. At the end of the classes, public graduation ceremonies were held in one of the supporting churches with opportunities for the program to honor its graduates, for the clients to make speeches about the meaning of the program to their lives, and to honor congregation members for their participation. A recep- tion would always follow, providing opportunity for more informal socializing where members of the congregations could build connections with the graduates and their families.

The faith-integrated program graduates I interviewed were all still involved in local congregations, although a few of them were no longer at the church which mentored them, for various reasons. They spoke of how congregational life provided emotional support and encouragement for them and their children. The warmth of the Richmond faith-integrated program and a sponsoring congregation melted the resistance of that originally hesitant client so that on graduation day, five months later, she proclaimed her desire to continue with the church and announced, "I'm looking for a Bible study to join." The congregation responded with applause. The bonds built by the program and church volunteers welcomed her into the church. With joy the program director and her mentor quickly hud- dled after the graduation ceremony to make sure she was invited to the new women's bible study the local church was beginning.

With its parenting sessions, the reinvented government agency was attempt- ing to create a parent support group, but had not yet created the on-going momen- tum. Field trips to an African-American heritage museum and Black pride events were designed to develop a sense of hope and courage in the participants, and to bond them on racial lines, yet at the time of my observations, these activities had not produced a group which could provide on-going support and volunteers for the

program, akin to the on-going power of a local religious congregation. On the other hand, the nonprofit organization serving the homeless

appeared to have developed an on-going community of the homeless, but economically they had few resources. In addition, the employed graduates and other volunteers often did not have on-going roles to play in the life of the community, thus limiting the potential for continual bridging of economic status in these

programs. Both of these examples point to the potential for secular alternatives




to faith communities in developing long-range supportive ties for low-income clients but had not as of yet been successful.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This paper has helped fill gaps in the literature on poverty programs, social capital, and religion. In particular I have specified how poverty-to-work programs create social capital in both secular and faith-based programs, and how the resources of religion can be used in this process. This paper has also operationalized newly defined 'bridging' and 'bonding' dimensions of social capital. The social capital generated by these programs, albeit temporary, was crucial for the success of these programs because it enabled clients to gain access to other resources - including job search information, material goods and services, and personal social support. The social ties also served as conduits through which human and cultural capitals were gained within the programs.

All of the programs I investigated did build 'bridging' social capital across barriers of race and class. However, as Monsma and Soper (2003) speculated, the faith-integrated and non-profit organizations demonstrated stronger support than the for-profit and government organizations in their mission statements and in their program practices for developing both bridging and bonding social capital. Both the faith-integrated and non-profit programs also demonstrated development of a holistic on-going community for support and resources. The secular non-profit organization focused on bonding built on values of mutual respect and empowerment. The faith-integrated programs focused on religion as a basis for bonding and, with their religious cultural and organizational resources, perhaps created deeper, broader, and more sustaining relationships.

Although these patterns of social capital generation found in my research in medium-sized cities in southeastern America are compatible with Monsma and Soper's Los Angeles data (2003), additional comparative research needs to be done in other locations. The extent and longevity of social ties with congregation members created by these faith-integrated programs should also be researched and compared to those created in the secular programs. Comparison also needs to be made of non-Protestant organizations and of faith-based organizations that do not integrate their faith into their programming. Although I saw no evidence in it in the programs I investigated, future research should also investigate if race, class and other distinctions that are sometimes perpetuated in similar programs, even as they are 'bridged' in the name of religion (Allahyari 2000; Bartkowski & Regis 2003; Emerson & Smith 2000).

Congregations and faith-based organizations do provide bonding social capital. Often being socioeconomically heterogeneous, they can be effective sites for programs seeking to develop both the bridging and bonding social capital of the poor. Tying congregations into faith-based coalitions or partnerships with secular organizations can further help the poor gain bridging social capital and other




resources that traverse denominational, racial, economic and geographic divisions. Scholars (Demerath, Hall, Schmitt & Williams 1998; Pipes & Ebaugh 2002) report that multi-congregational networks may be limited due to class composition, geographical location, religious barriers (some self-imposed), concerns about church-state relations, institutional stability and the internal struc- ture, orientation and politics of congregations which make up these networks. Although these networks may also shift as people come and go in our era of 'loose connections' (Wuthnow 1998), nevertheless it seems probable that both faith- based and secular networks and the poverty-to-work programs they develop will be able to help the poor transcend many of these social barriers more effectively than low-income persons without access to these networks.

REFERENCES

Allahyari, R.A. 2000. Visions of charity: Volunteer workers and moral community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ammerman, N.T. 1997a. Congregation and community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

-. 1997b. Organized religion in a voluntaristic society. Sociology of Religion 58(3):203-213. -. 2002. Connecting mainline Protestant churches with public life. In The quiet hand of God,

edited by R. Wuthnow and J.H. Evans, 129-158. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bartkowski, J.P., and H.A. Regis. 2003. Charitable choices: Religion, race and poverty in the post-

welfare era. New York: New York University Press. Bender, A.M. 2000. New York State's mentoring services: A key to success. Potsdam, NY:

Partnerships for Quality. Blank, R.M. 1997. It takes a nation. New York and Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation and

Princeton University Press. Bromley, D.G. 1997. Remembering the future: A sociological narrative of crisis episodes, col-

lective action, cultural workers, and countermovements. Sociology of Religion 58(2):105- 140.

Bush, G.W. 2001. Remarks by the President in submission of faith-based services proposal. Washington, DC.

Center for Public Justice, 1997. A guide to charitable choice. Washington, DC and Annandale, VA: The Center for Public Justice and the Center for Law and Religious Freedom.

Chaves, M., and W. Tsistos. 2001. Congregations and social services: What they do, how they do it, and with whom. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(4):660-683.

Cnaan, R.A., S.C. Boddie, F. Handy, G. Yancey, and R. Schneider. 2002. The invisible caring hand: American congregations and the provision of welfare. New York: New York University Press.

DeFilippis, J. 2001. The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate 12(4):781-806.

Demerath, N.J., III, P.D. Hall, T. Schmitt, and R.H. Williams (eds.). 1998. Sacred companies. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dominguez, S., and C. Watkins. 2003. Creating networks for survival and mobility: social capital among African-American and Latin-American low-income mothers. Social Problems 50(1):111-135.




DuBois, WE.B. 1997. The souls of Black folk. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins. Durkheim, E. 1915. The elementary forms of religious life. New York: The Free Press. Emerson, M.O., and C. Smith. 2000. Divided by faith: Evangelical religion and the problem of race

in America, first ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Foley, M.W., J.D. McCarthy, and M. Chaves. 2001. Social capital, religious institutions, and

poor communities. In Social capital and poor communities, edited by S. Saegert, J.P. Thompson and M.R. Warren, 215-245. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Greeley, A.M. 1997a. Coleman revisited: Religious structures as a source of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist 40(5):587-8.

-. 1997b. The other civic America, religion and social capital. The American Prospect 32 (May-June):68-73.

Holcomb, P.A., and K. Martinson. 2002. Putting policy into practice: Five years of welfare reform. In Welfare Reform: The Next Act, edited by A. Weil and K. Finegold, 1-15. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Jones, S.L., and W.H. Lockhart. 1999. Race and religion at the Million Man March and Promise Keeper's stand in the gap. In Standing on the promises: The Promise Keepers and the revival of manhood, edited by D.S. Claussen, 44-55, 176-177. Cleveland, OH: The Pilgrim Press.

Jonker, P.H., and D. Koopman. 2000. Volunteer mentors in social welfare: Who they are and what happens when they mentor. Social Work and Christianity 27(2):168-187.

Katz, M.B. 1995. Improving poor people. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Lin, N., WM. Ensel, and J.C. Vaughn. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: structural

factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review 46:393-405. Lockhart, W.H. 2001. Getting saved from poverty: Religion in poverty-to-work programs. Ph.D.

dissertation in Sociology. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. MacLeod, J. 1987. Ain't no makin' it. Boulder: Westview Press. Mead, L.M. (ed.). 1997. The new paternalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. -. 1998. Are welfare employment programs effective? In Social programs that work, edited by

J. Crane, 277-315. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Monsma, S.V., and C.M. Mounts. 2002. Working faith: How religious organizations provide wel-

fare-to-work services. Philadelphia: Center on Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania.

Monsma, S.V., and J.C. Soper. 2003. What works: Comparing the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs in Los Angeles. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, University of Pennsylvania.

Newman, K.S. 1999. No shame in my game. New York: Alfred A. Knopf and The Russell Sage Foundation.

Olasky, M. 1992. The tragedy of American compassion. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Perkins, J.M. (ed.). 1995. Restoring at-risk communities. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Perkins, J.M., and J. Kadlecek. 1995. Resurrecting hope. Ventura, California: Regal Books. Pipes, P.E., and H.R. Ebaugh. 2002. Faith-based coalitions, social services, and government

funding. Sociology of Religion 63(1):49-68. Portes, A. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modem sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology 24:1-24. Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Saegert, S., J.P. Thompson, and M.R. Warren (eds.). 2001. Social capital and poor communities.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Shea, G.E 1997. Mentoring, Revised ed. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications. Sherman, A.L. 1998. Establishing a church-based welfare-to-work mentoring ministry. New York:

The Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.




-. 2001. Collaborating for employment among the poor: The jobs partnership model. Indianapolis, IN: The Hudson Institute.

Sider, R.J. 1999. Just generosity. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Sider, R.J., P.N. Olson, and H.R. Unruh. 2002. Churches that make a difference: Reaching your

community with good news and good works. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Sobel, J. 2002. Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature XL:139-154. Stack, C.B. 1974. All our kin. New York: Harper & Row. Wacquant, L.J.D., and W.J. Wilson. 1989. The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner

city. Annals of the American Academy (AAPSS) 501 (January):8-25. Wilson, W.J. 1996. When work disappears. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wineburg, B. 2001. A limited partnership: The politics of religion, welfare, and social science. New

York: Columbia University Press. Working Group. 2002. Finding common ground: 29 recommendations. Washington, DC:

Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-based and Community Initiatives. Wuthnow, R. 1998. Loose connections: Joining together in America's fragmented communities.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. -. 2002. Religious involvement and status-bridging social capital. Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion 41 (4):669-684.



Documents

Building Bridges and Bonds: Generating Social Capital in Secular and Faith-Based Poverty-to-Work Programs