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.
Adams, J. S. (1976). The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1175-1199). Chicago: Rand McNally.
2.
Alexander, J. (1999). The impact of devolution on nonprofits: A multiphase study of social service organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(1), 57-70.
3.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Ammerman, N. T. (1997). Congregation and community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
5.
Bartkowski, J. P.,& Regis, H. A. (1999). Religious organizations, anti-poverty relief, and charitable choice: A feasibility study of faith-based welfare reform in Mississippi. Arlington, VA: Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
6.
Boston, R. (1998). The “charitable choice” charade. Church & State, 51(2), 7-12.
7.
Brown, D. M.,& McKeown, E. (1997). The poor belong to us: Catholic charities and American welfare. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Brudney, J. L. (1985). Coproduction: Issues in implementation. Administration & Society, 17, 243-257.
9.
Brudney, J. L. (1991). Volunteers in the delivery of public services: Hidden costs and benefits. American Review of Public Administration, 21, 327-344.
10.
California Council of Churches. (2000). Can we make welfare reform work? California religious community capacity study. San Francisco: Center for Religion and Civic Culture at USC, the Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management, and the James Irvine Foundation.
11.
Carlson-Thies, S. W. (1999). Charitable choice: Everything you need to know. Washington, DC: Center for Public Justice.
12.
Carlson-Thies, S. W., & Rogers, M. (1998, July/August). Charitable choice: Two views. Sojourners, 27, 28-30.
13.
Chaves, M. (1999). Religious congregations and welfare reform: Who will take advantage of “charitable choice”?American Sociological Review, 64, 836-846.
14.
Chaves, M., & Tsitsos, W. (2001). Congregations and social services: What they do, how they do it, and with whom. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 660-683.
15.
Cnaan, R. A., Wineburg, R. J.,& Boddie, S. C. (1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Coughlin, B. J. (1965). Church and state in social welfare. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Derthick, M. (1975). Uncontrollable spending for social services grants. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
DiIulio, J. J., Jr. (1997). The Lord's work: The church and the “civil society sector.”Brookings Review, 15(4), 27-35.
19.
Family Investment Trust. (n.d.). What we mean when we say.... A glossary for caring communities. St. Louis, MO: Author.
20.
Flowers, R. B. (1999). Boundaries: The joy of charitable choice?Liberty, 94(3), 14-22.
21.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bring society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell& P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis(pp. 232-263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
23.
Grønbjerg, K. A.,& Paarlberg, L. (2001). Community variations in the size and scope of the nonprofit sector: Theory and preliminary findings. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 684-706.
24.
Hjern, B., & Porter, D. O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies, 2(3), 211-227.
25.
Kennedy, S. S., & Bielefeld, W. (2003). Charitable choice: First results from three states. Indianapolis, IN: Center for Urban Policy and the Environment.
26.
Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
27.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. In J. M. Shafritz& A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration(3rd ed., pp. 476-484). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
28.
Mead, L. M. (Ed.). (1997). The new paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29.
Middleton Stone, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook(pp. 141-153). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Monsma, S. V. (1996). When sacred and secular mix: Religious nonprofit organizations and public money. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
31.
Moore, J., & Williams, G. (1999). Good-faith effort off to a slow start. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 11(12), 1-1, 27-29.
32.
Morgan Quitno Corp. (1997). State rankings: A statistical view of the 50 United States. Lawrence, KS: Author.
33.
Nowland-Foreman, G. (1998). Purchase-of-service contracting, voluntary organizations and civil society: Dissecting the goose that lays the golden eggs?American Behavioral Science, 42(1), 108-123.
34.
Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Washington, DC: Regnery.
35.
Organizing Religious Work Project. (2001). Doing good in American communities: Congregations and service organizations working together. Hartford, CT: Hartford Institute for Religion Research.
36.
Osborne, D.,& Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
37.
Osborne, S. P., & Flynn, N. (1997). Managing the innovative capacity of voluntary and nonprofit organizations in the provision of public services. Public Money & Management, 17(4), 31-39.
38.
Printz, T. J. (1998). Faith-based service providers in the nation's capital: Can they do more? Retrieved February 9, 1999, from http://www.urban.org/periodcl/cnp/cnp_2.htm
39.
Radin, B. A. (1996). Managing across boundaries. In D. F. Kettl& H. B. Milward (Eds.), The state of publicmanagement(pp. 145-167). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
Religion and Politics Survey. (2000). Public role of mainline Protestantism project. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Survey Research Center.
41.
Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication technology: The new media in society. New York: Free Press.
42.
Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation(pp. 40-68). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43.
Segal, J. A. (1999). A “holy mistaken zeal”: The legislative history and future of charitable choice. In D. Davis & B. Hankins (Eds.), Welfare reform and faith-based organizations(pp. 9-27). Waco, TX: J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies.
44.
Sherman, A. L. (1997). Get with the program: Mainline churches drag their feet on welfare reform. American Enterprise, 8(1), 65-68.
45.
Sherman, A. L. (2001). The charitable choice handbook for ministry leaders. Annapolis, MD: Center for Public Justice.
46.
Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
Starr, A. (2001, March 26). Aleap of faith that mayfall flat. Business Week, 3725, 104-104, 106-106.
48.
State of Missouri, Department of Social Services. (2003). Who's receiving welfare—TANF caretaker characteristics. Retrieved February 17, 2003, from http://www.dss.state.mo.us/wreform/stats/1202st.htm
49.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). County quick facts. Retrieved August 27, 2002, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29/
50.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). Charitable choice: Overview of research findings on implementation. Retrieved February 1, 2002, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02245.pdf
51.
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1998). Privatization: Questions state and local decisionmakers used when considering privatization options(GAO/GGD-98-87). Washington, DC: Author.
52.
The White House. (2001). Unlevel playing field: Barriers to participation by faith-based and community organizations in federal social service programs. Washington, DC: Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives.
53.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Winston, P. (2002). Welfare policymaking in the states: The devil in devolution. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
55.
Wolpert, J. (1993). Patterns of generosity in America: Who's holding the safety net?New York: Twentieth Century Fund Press.
