Faith-Based Community Development in Detroit

Center for Urban Studies-June 2001 Working Paper Series, No. 4

Center for Urban Studies-June 2001 Working Paper Series, No. 4

Faith-Based Community Development in Detroit

Laura A. Reese, Professor of Urban Studies Wayne State University

INTRODUCTION

This working paper explores the nature and extent of faith-based community development activities in the city of Detroit. While there is little academic literature that empirically examines either the extent of such efforts or their effects, popular reports as well as current political rhetoric suggest that faith- based organizations are engaged in a variety of community development activities and that outcomes often surpass public or governmental efforts. Clearly, some religious organizations, particularly in inner cities, have ex- panded their activities in the community. Still, most of our understanding of faith-based community development efforts comes from the popular press and news media. While such “accounts offer important pieces of a story...the literature about them tends to be scattered, disjointed, and descriptive rather than conceptual or analytical” (Thomas and Blake, 1996: 137). No systematic scholarly evaluations of the efforts of faith-based institutions have been done, and cannot effectively be done until there is an empirical assessment of the extent and nature of faith-based community development and a better understanding achieved of who is doing it and how.

To address this gap, this paper focuses on several very basic questions:

• What is the extent of community development activities by religious organizations?

• What is the nature of these community development activities?

• What types of faith-based organizations appear to be engaging in community development?

• How are community development activities administered and financed?

• Who tends to be served by faith-based community development

programs? ○○○○○○○○○○ 5 LITERATURE REVIEW

It has been argued that faith-based organizations or “communities” have unique resources to bring to the task of community and/or economic development: they tend to be among the few significant and viable institutions still located in many inner-city neighborhoods; community service has been a primary focus of most of the world’s major religions; urban religious institutions have significant organizational and leadership resources which can be brought to bear; African-American churches in particular have served as political, cultural and educational resources; and faith-based efforts can address not only the financial problems of inner-city areas but more spiritual ones as well (Vidal, 1995; Cisneros, 1996; Calhoun-Brown, 1997). These unique resources may serve to “explain” why faith-based efforts appear to be succeeding where governmental and private sector initiatives have fallen short. However, the extent of success at this point remains more a matter of “faith,” anecdote or case-study (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990; Thomas and Blake, 1996). More pointedly, even the extent of such efforts may be exaggerated. Research on faith-based activities in Lansing, Michigan, indicates that only 28 percent of urban religious institutions support community development programs (Jackson et al., 1997).

In social services, the role of religious institutions has been well documented, including providing support for poor families, implementing substance abuse programs and working with government funders as providers of a variety of services from head start to welfare (Hodgkinson et al., 1988; Wineburg, 1992; Mares, 1994; Chang et al., 1994; Wineburg, 1994; Sherman, 1995; Carlson- Thies, 1996). While faith-based organizations initially focused community development efforts on housing, case studies indicate that some institutions now include job and entrepreneurial training, business incubators, consulting support, credit unions, and both individual and business loans among their development activities (Hodgkinson et al., 1988; Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990; La Barbera, 1992; Mares, 1994; Heim, 1995; Kriplin, 1995; Winston, 1995; Cisneros, 1996; Reese and Shields, 1999).

Faith-based entrepreneurial efforts in Boston, Detroit, New York, Oakland and Chicago have included cooperative restaurants, operation of restaurant franchises such as McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken, construction cooperatives, rehabilitation of former “crack” houses, recycling operations, auto shops, credit unions, print shops, job information centers and daycare centers (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990; Gordon and Frame, 1995; Sherman, 1995; Heim, 1995; Thomas and Blake, 1996). Research on churches in Detroit’s empowerment zone indicated that, while taking a variety of forms, faith-based community development activities can be classified into eight primary categories: business operation; job training; mixed social services and training; financial activities; housing; citizenship training/relocation; community

development corporations (CDCs); and cultural development. ○○○○○○○○○○ 6 Thus, while the scope of activity appears to be broad, business operations, housing and training/job services with other social services are the most common activities. And, many churches cooperate with neighborhood or other church-based efforts rather than engaging in programs alone and assuming the resource demands they require (Reese and Shields, 2000). Traits of Faith-Based Developers Faith-based community development may be limited to certain types of congregations under certain conditions; however, “much of the economic development is being undertaken by large, elite black churches which usually have well-educated, activist and economically astute pastors” (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990: 258). Extant research suggests a number of factors affecting the extent and nature of development activities: denomination, theology, pastor characteristics, size, financial status, and the extent of political activities (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990; Hall, 1992; LaBarbera, 1992; Chang et al., 1994; Reese and Shields, 2000).

Non-sectarian black churches may have the strongest impact on racial con- sciousness and subsequent political and social activism among congregants (Hunt and Hunt, 1977). Similarly, Allen and colleagues (1989) posit that this relationship should be stronger in black churches where liberation theology is stressed. It appears that members of mainline black Baptist and Methodist churches as well as “white” denominations with black congregations (Presby- terian, Lutheran, Methodist, United Church of Christ) have higher levels of racial identity. Those attending “holiness” denominations (Church of God, Church of God in Christ) appear to be less concerned with social/political activism and more concerned about personal salvation (Marx, 1976; Hunt and Hunt, 1977; Calhoun-Brown, 1997).

Clergy is also an important variable. An individual minister or pastor can be critical in determining the social, political and economic outreach efforts of a particular congregation (Reese and Shields, 2000). Individual religious leaders serve as the stimulus for external economic or social activities (Thomas and Blake, 1996). Indeed, pastoral willingness to discuss and promote activism critically affects congregant activities. In short, “the church elite must sanction and mobilize congregants into other kinds of political action” (Greenberg, 1996: 20). Pastors holding “this-world” theology are more likely to be active both politically and socially outside the church (Quinley, 1974; Marx, 1976; Guth and Kellstedt, 1997). This finding, in particular, aligns well with the more general concern that “the otherworldly orientation and concern with personal salvation that many black churches and parishioners portray depress black racial orientations and efforts to improve the black community collectively” (Calhoun-Brown, 1997: 2).

While “this-” versus “other-” world theologies have been found to affect social and political activity outside the church, more recent research suggests that such distinctions may be becoming less important. For example, many orthodox Protestant clergy who stress theological beliefs such as the Second

Coming of Christ and the end of the world have moved toward a more “civic ○○○○○○○○○○ 7 gospel” advocating the need for social reforms (Guth and Kellstedt, 1997: 4). Even while espousing a theology emphasizing an idealized afterlife, black churches in particular have also emphasized efforts to improve “this-world” conditions (Paris, 1985). Guth and Kellstedt (1997) suggest that theology generally has become less important in affecting the political activities of clergy than their views on particular “hot” social issues such as abortion, school prayer and other partisan issues. It is possible, then, that even denominational boundaries and effects are becoming somewhat muted (Layman, 1997; Calhoun-Brown, 1997). Indeed, previous work on faith-based community development and theology has indicated that denominational distinctions are not as important in affecting the extent of community activities on the part of an individual church or pastor as is a theological conception of an “urban mission.” And, this “urban theology” is expressed by clergy, in very similar forms, across very different denominations (Reese and Shields, 2000).

Congregation characteristics have also been identified as important to faith- based activities. Correlations exist between congregational and pastoral wealth and between congregation resources and size and organizational resources for political involvement (Guth, 1989). Greenberg (1996) notes that “resource poor” churches are less able to be socially and politically active. Thus, “the vast majority of creative and innovative programs are usually established by these larger black churches, partly because they have the resources and the staff required but also because they can attract more capable and talented clergy leadership” (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990: 143). More specifically related to community development, larger churches appear more likely to operate businesses and job training programs, and churches with predominantly African-American congregations appear more likely to

engage in financial activities such as credit unions (Reese and Shields, 2000). ○○○○○○○○○○ 8 METHODOLOGY

The data for this research were gathered via a phone survey of religious institutions in the city of Detroit conducted during the summer of 2000 by the Center for Urban Studies at Wayne State University. The population list was based on an existing database of all faith-based organizations in the city of Detroit developed for an applied GIS project by the center. The database drew on three sources: the 1995 Metropolitan Detroit Church Directory, compiled by the Christian Community Council of Metropolitan Detroit; the phone book; and a CD-ROM phone directory. The clergy or lay-person most familiar with community development activities was asked to respond to questions that focused on:

• Characteristics of the faith-based organization and congregation;

• Community development activities; and,

• Administrative and funding arrangements for those activities.

The population list included 1540 religious institutions, and initially, a random sample of 350 was attempted. However, more than 200 of the phone numbers had been disconnected. Because of these problems the random sample was abandoned, and 1528 different organizations in all were called, often repeat- edly (more than 600 organizations did not answer their phones on repeated calls). For the religious institutions where the phone was answered (220), 183 or 83 percent responded to the survey. This represents 15 percent of the population overall.

Several caveats are necessary at this point. First, response rates have been a continuing challenge to research on faith-based institutions and tend to range from 30 to 40 percent (Roozen et al., 1984; Guest, 1988; Jackson et al., 1997; Reese, 2000). Many of the institutions where phones were disconnected or not answered have likely moved, gone out of business entirely, or are so small that they do not staff an office on any regular basis. Thus, it is impossible to tell how many of the original list no longer exist. Past research has indicated greater stability and hence response rates for particular denominations and larger organizations (Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990; Jackson et al., 1997), and a larger discussion of the issues of faith-based response rate can be found in Reese (2000).

However, the denominational composition of the final sample is reasonably close to that of the population of religious institutions in Detroit. Overall representation of Episcopal, mainline Protestant, African Methodist Episcopal (AME), Apostolic, Pentecostal, Islamic and Jewish congregations is quite comparable to the population. Catholic and Lutheran churches are slightly over-represented, and Baptist churches are slightly under-represented. Only in the case of Church of God in Christ (COGIC) congregations is there a significantly lower presence in the sample than in the city at large.1 This alone

suggests that the response rate provides an accurate portrayal of the activities ○○○○○○○○○○ 9 of stable, and perhaps larger, congregations in the city. Any bias should operate to overestimate faith-based activities overall, and findings on

financing and administration of extant programs should be quite accurate. ○○○○○○○○○○ 10 Sample Profile

As noted above, the sample roughly reflects the larger population of religious institutions in Detroit. The largest number of congregations in both the sample and the population are Baptist, comprising 27 percent of the sample (see Table 1). Twenty-five percent of the sample is Catholic, 9 percent nondenominational Christian, 11 percent Lutheran and 7 percent mainline Protestant (Methodist and Presbyterian for a total of 18 percent mainline Protestant including Lutheran). Five percent of the sample was classified as “other” including two Disciples of Christ, two Buddhist, two Salvation Army, one each Hare Krishna, Church of Christ, United Brethren in Christ, Hungarian and Spiritual congregations. Five percent of the sample is Holiness or Pente- costal (with the majority Pentecostal); 4 percent are Episcopal, 3 percent COGIC, 2 percent each Apostolic and AME, and .01 percent Jewish. The most of these congregations are affiliated with a larger denomination (74%) and draw their members from the city at-large or from the immediate neighborhood of the religious building (on average 39 percent of the members come from locations within the city, and 38 percent come from the surrounding neighborhood). On average only 23 percent of the members of the congregations in the sample are drawn from the suburbs. Hence, the congregations in the sample primarily serve an urban population. The average size of a congregation is 493, although they range from 10 members to 10,000. Average weekly attendance at services is 287, ranging from 20 to 5,050. Most of the congregations in the sample are composed primarily of African Americans (62%); 30 percent of the congregations are mostly white; 3 percent are primarily Hispanic; and 5 percent are primarily “mixed” in racial characteristics.

The number of “pledging units”-i.e., how many individuals or families give a committed amount of money to the organization-ranges from zero to 6,000 (an average of 193). The annual amount pledged ranges from zero to $180,000, a mean of $10,213. Clearly this is a case where one very high pledge can skew the mean; the median annual giving level is $1,000. Most of the institutions have relatively small numbers of clergy and lay staff; the average number of the former per congregation is three, and the latter is seven. The number of clergy actually ranges from zero to 35 and lay staff from zero to 130 so there is significant variation in staff resources among the institutions in the sample. These resources are augmented by an average of 54 unpaid volunteers per congregation (ranging from zero to 1,200).

Little research has looked at relationships among the traits of religious organizations just noted. Thus, there are few available profiles on the nature of urban religious institutions even absent analysis of their programmatic activities. For example, whether or not an individual congregation is affiliated with a larger denomination is related to a number of other characteristics.2 Congregations not affiliated with a larger denomination tend to draw their members from the city at-large while those congregations with large percentages of suburbanites or that come from the proximate neighborhood tend to

be affiliated with larger denominations. These correlations are the likely result ○○○○○○○○○○ 11 of the Catholic parish system and the tendency of mainline Protestant congregations to include suburban members. Unaffiliated congregations have significantly more African-American members and have more clergy and volunteers. And, primarily African-American churches tend to draw membership from the city at-large.

Size of membership is also related, in an expected manner, to several other congregational traits. Thus, organizations with more members also tend to have greater attendance at services and have more pledging units, clergy, lay staff, and volunteers. There are no significant relationships between the amount of money pledged and clergy and staff, however. Funding of religious organizations can be complex, and overall budgets may have little to do with

own-source revenues (Reese, 2000). ○○○○○○○○○○ 12 FINDINGS

Community Development Activities and Administration Respondents were initially asked to identify and describe their organization’s development activities without prompts. If they were uncertain about the question they were given some examples of development activities broadly defined; housing, skill or job training, job search assistance, job banks, childcare, capital provision/loans, banking/credit union and business operation. A description of each activity was reported, and similar programs were coded into eleven categories. Overall, very little economic development activity appears to be undertaken by faith-based organizations in Detroit, certainly less than much of the rhetoric would suggest. Most commonly, respondents described shelter, clothing and hunger programs as their “economic development” activities. Twenty-seven percent of the congregations have some type of organized and regular charity activities, most often in the form of a food pantry or homeless shelter. An additional 4 percent provide direct assistance for the payment of utility bills or rent subsidies. Sixteen percent of the sample offers childcare including head start and before- and after-school care. Twelve percent conduct youth programs that go beyond religious education, including after-school tutoring, summer education programs, job readiness training and computer classes. The next most common activity is for an individual faith-based organization to cooperate either with other religious bodies, the denomination or community organizations in joint development projects (10%) such as safety and drug programs or housing provided through the CDC. Nine percent of the congregations in the sample operate schools beyond the pre-school level. The number of faith-based organizations providing more explicit economic development programming is smaller. Eight percent are engaged in housing provision; 7 percent provide healthcare services such as a clinic or a visiting doctor or nurse; 6 percent engage in adult education that focuses on computer training or house maintenance; 5 percent provide job skills training or job search assistance; 4 percent have started businesses, and 2 percent have credit unions. Overall, about 32 percent each are engaged either in some type of education or childcare and charity work, and less than half that number are engaged in economic development activities more narrowly defined.

As suggested by past research, clergy appear to be the driving force behind economic or community development efforts. In 62 percent of the cases, the head pastor or clergy-person initiated the activity. In 17 percent of the cases, a committee or body internal to the organization served as the impetus for the program. In 14 percent of the cases, it was an individual parishioner. In only 7 percent of the congregations was the program initiated at the behest of a higher denominational body. In most cases, then, these are local efforts. Even though economic development activities were initiated by clergy, they tend to be administered by the laity. Lay members and special boards or bodies are most likely to administer economic development programs (at 29

percent and 19 percent, respectively). In 16 percent of the organizations, the ○○○○○○○○○○ 13 clergy are in charge of program administration. Other methods of administration include external staff (15%), lay staff who are not members of the congregation (11%), a joint body with another organization (3%), and “other” (8%). Finally, decisions about economic development program administration are most frequently made by a vote of the administrative body (75%).

One common concern about faith-based programs is that they may end up serving only the local congregation. Other, more limited, research has indicated that this is not the case (Reese and Shields, 1999), and this is borne out here. Programs are most likely to serve residents of the immediate neighborhood (54%) and residents of the city at-large (32%). Only 7 percent of the programs serve “mostly” members of the congregation, and only 5 percent serve members exclusively. This pattern was consistent across all of the programs offered by a congregation in the case of multiple development activities.

Financially, most of the money used to support economic and community development programs comes from the general budget of the organization. Forty-nine percent of programs are financed primarily by the general budget. Beyond this, 23 percent are primarily supported by special offerings, 14 percent by a governmental grant, 11 percent by a foundation grant and only 7 percent by the larger denomination. Funding for programs tends to emanate from the local congregation.3 Following the source of funding, the finances of economic development activities are most likely to be administered through the mechanism of the general budget (39%). Only 29 percent of the activities are administered financially through a separate nonprofit entity or a body with some other type of tax-free status (21%). Thus, while some concern about church and state conflicts have been alleviated by the assumption that the creation of nonprofit organizations will serve to separate public funds from private ends, the tendency to mix development funding with the general budget raises some cause for concern.

While faith-based economic development activities may contribute to the development of the surrounding community and city, they do not tend to enhance the budgets of the sponsoring congregation. In 86 percent of the cases the development activities produce no revenue for the congregation. In the few cases where revenues do occur, they are most likely put back into the general fund budget (41%) rather than being reinvested in the development activity itself (32%). In 5 percent of the cases revenues are invested or used for other special projects. The small amount of revenue realized from development programming and the tendency for them to be financed through the general budget of the organization likely accounts for the fact that only 8 percent of the congregations have paid economic development staff. The Correlates of Faith-Based Economic Development The Nature of Development Activities: There are a number of congregational traits that are significantly correlated with the types of economic development

programs conducted and their financing and administration. Faith-based ○○○○○○○○○○ 14 institutions with larger memberships appear more likely to engage in business development and are higher overall on an index composed of all community development activities. However, attendance appears more important than membership in a congregation’s impact on economic development programs. Thus, institutions with greater attendance at services are more likely to operate businesses, engage in housing development, offer job training and placement services and conduct youth programs. It could be that for such efforts, having a large number of active participants in the organization, whether members or not, is a critical resource. Having a greater number of pledging units is related to provision of adult education, childcare and healthcare services. Actual dollar value of pledges is not related to community development activity. Thus, it appears that active volunteer participation is critical to the more explicitly economic development activities while a larger pledging base is related to education and health efforts. Along the same lines, a large clerical staff is related to more activity in the investment and finance arena as well as more youth programs. Having more lay volunteers is positively correlated with the development of businesses. Finally, congregations affiliated with a larger denomination are more likely to engage in both adult and youth education, as well as operating schools.

The relationship between denomination and economic development activity is more complex. In many cases, there were so few institutions in some of the categories that it makes statistical analysis frail. When mean activity levels are examined by denomination, it is clear that there is very little systematic variation-few institutions of any denomination are supporting economic development programs. As far as the most explicitly development-related activities, Episcopal and “other” denominations are the most likely to be active. The “other” denomination in the case is Hare Krishna. Pentecostal and Episcopal congregations are most likely to offer job training and search assistance. There is no difference between any of the denominations on the frequency of credit unions or other financial services. Episcopal, Baptist and “other” (Buddhist) congregations are most likely to engage in housing development. AME, Catholic and mainline Protestant churches are most likely to cooperate with other organizations in community development activities. Episcopal, Lutheran, mainline Protestant and AME congregations offer the most childcare services. Pentecostals, Episcopal and “other” (Disciples of Christ) congregations are most likely to provide various healthcare services. “Other” (Salvation Army), COGIC, Episcopal and Catholic churches are most likely to engage in charitable activity. Schools are most often operated by Lutheran, COGIC and Catholic churches. Pentecostal and COGIC congregations are much more likely to engage in youth education than other denominations. COGIC, Episcopal and nondenominational congregations are most likely to be engaged in adult education. Finally, Episcopal, and “other” (Salvation Army and Disciples of Christ) churches are most likely to make direct monetary

donations toward community needs. ○○○○○○○○○○ 15 Looking over this summary, it is clear that Episcopal congregations tend to be most active across the board closely followed by those in the “other” category. This is largely the result of the two Salvation Army congregations in that category, and they account for most of the activity. Pentecostal congregations also appear quite active across the board, a finding somewhat at odds with arguments that their other-world theology removes them from activities in this world. While there are no significant relationships between the race of the congregation and economic development activities, it does appear that traditionally black denominations such as COGIC tend to focus on childcare, charity and education.

Crosstabulations between community development activities and sect support these conclusions.4 Episcopal congregations are most likely to engage in a variety of economic development policies. Episcopal churches are also most likely to have charity activities, followed by Salvation Army congregations. Several denominations have an equal and higher tendency to provide education services broadly defined; Episcopal, Pentecostal and Lutheran. None of these relationships are statistically significant, however. The correlation between Episcopal and Salvation Army congregations and charity activities is close at .07.

Administration and Financing: Whether or not a congregation is affiliated with a larger denomination appears to affect several aspects of the administration of economic development programs. For example, affiliated organizations are significantly more likely to form nonprofit bodies to administer their programs. The services provided by affiliated congregations are also more likely to be offered to residents of the city generally, as opposed to being restricted to congregants. Community development activities are also more likely to serve a broader constituency if the sponsoring organization has more lay staff.

Where the membership of the congregation is located also affects development activities. If the membership is primarily drawn from the immediate neighborhood of the institution they are more likely to create a nonprofit body to administer the development activity. Institutions with members drawn from the city at-large are less likely to do so. This relationship holds even when controlling for denomination so it is not likely the by-product of a parish system. Faith-based organizations that draw their members from the larger city are also more likely to leave decision-making regarding development activities to their clergy. In congregations where many members drive in from the suburbs, volunteer or member committees are more likely to make administrative decisions. This relationship, too, is independent of denomination. Administratively, if an economic development activity was initiated by a member of the clergy, it is more likely to continue to be administered by the clergy. Charity activities in particular are likely to be run by clergy.

A number of factors appear related to how economic development activities are financed. If activities were initiated by individuals in the congregation as

opposed to clergy, they are more likely to be funded by foundation and ○○○○○○○○○○ 16 governmental grants. Organizations with more pledging units, members, attendees and volunteers are more likely to fund development activities through governmental grants. And, the tendency to use governmental funds is related to increased activity in business development, housing, credit unions and youth programming. Foundation and governmental funding also appear to be alternatives for, rather than enhancements of, the general budget. Increas- ing use of such outside funds significantly reduces the amount spent from the organizational budget. Further, activities supported primarily by foundation grants are more likely to be administered by a lay committee as opposed to the clergy. Financing from the larger denomination appears to be related to greater provision of childcare services and a tendency to have dedicated economic development staff. Finally, it appears that business activities and health services are most likely to produce revenue for the congregation. Charity activities appear to be the greatest drain on congregational resources.

A Culture of Activity: Not surprisingly, many of the various community development activities are significantly correlated with each other. In other words, if a congregation is active in one area of community development, they are active in several. For example, adult education and youth programming are related. Congregations that operate schools are also more likely to offer childcare and health services. Faith-based organizations that operate businesses also tend to have credit unions and job training and search services. Housing activities are also positively correlated with credit unions and job activities. Charity activities are related to job services. Finally, congregations

with childcare are also more likely to have started businesses. ○○○○○○○○○○ 17 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

It useful at this point to revisit the questions posed at the beginning of this analysis:

• What is the extent of community development activities by religious organizations?

• What is the nature of these community development activities?

• What types of faith-based organizations appear to be engaging in community development?

• How are community development activities administered and financed?

• Who tends to be served by faith-based community development programs?

First, it is very clear that only a minority of congregations in the sample are engaged in any type of economic development activities even when defined to include educational and organized charity work. Overall, only 28 organizations are engaged in economic development specifically (15%); 58 are providing education services (32%); and 58 have organized charitable activities (32%). Thus, education and charity activities are more than twice as common as economic development programs. While case studies and media reports have illustrated individual noteworthy or particularly “successful” programs, they are the exception rather than the norm.

As has been suggested by recent literature, denomination does not appear to have a major role in determining whether a congregation will get involved in economic or community development activities. While Episcopal churches in Detroit appear to be most active, this relationship is not significant. Because most activities are initiated from within the local congregation-either by the clergy or laity-and because most activities are financed and administered at the local level, it appears clear that the nature of the local congregation itself is more important than larger denominational identification. Congregation or clergy theology was not explored in this survey and, thus it remains possible, as suggested by Reese and Shields (2000), that an “urban theology” or particular view of the appropriate role of the religious body in the world may stimulate community development activity.

The absence of a pattern of relationship between denomination and community development activities raises some potentially interesting political issues. The current debate regarding public funding of religious social programs includes concerns about providing grants to “non-traditional” or “radical” religions. On the one hand, it seems that public funding of faith-based urban community development activities will favor no particular sect, adding to the

political palatability of funding. On the other, it is also clear that “non- ○○○○○○○○○○ 18 mainstream” denominations will be recipients of the funding. In Detroit, this would clearly include Hare Krishna and Buddhist congregations along with Episcopal and COGIC.

Most economic or community development activities were initiated by a member of the clergy of the local organization but tend to be administered by a committee within the congregation. Funding largely comes from the general fund budget of the religious organization, and surprisingly few congregations have created nonprofit bodies for economic development activities. While few economic development programs actually generate money, when they do, those funds also tend to go back into the general budget. It is also interesting to note the types of businesses congregations have begun. For the most part, the businesses in the sample are those that are intended to generate revenue for the congregation or to provide information about the denomination. Examples include bookstores, thrift shops or restaurants located at the site of the congregation. Popular portrayals of faith-based businesses have tended to emphasize enterprises that were developed to provide skill training and jobs for congregants or neighborhood residents. While these are occurring in Detroit, they too are the minority.

Financing and administering faith-based development activities raises several concerns from a public policy perspective. The creation of separate, nonprofit bodies to administer economic development activities is a means of separating religious functions and organizations from governmental funding. If congregations tend not to create nonprofit bodies, fund activities out of the general budget and put revenues back into the general budget, then it becomes very difficult to maintain any type of sacred/secular separation. Under these circumstances, funding becomes more difficult to track for accounting and tax purposes. It should be noted that there are some significant correlations between denomination and the financial administration of economic development activities. Pentecostal and “other” congregations are the most likely to fund development programs from the general budget while Catholic and Episcopal congregations are most likely to set up nonprofit entities. Nonde- nominational congregations are equally likely to use general and nonprofit financing arrangements. This suggests that mainline denominations may have more experience at least in developing financial arrangements that meet governmental regulations and expectations. There are no significant differ- ences among denominations in the sources of economic development funding, however, only in the administration of those funds. Pentecostal congregations are most like to use both general revenues and governmental grants, for example, while AME congregations are most likely to use foundation grants. Again, these relationships are not statistically significant. However, when combined with the issue of nonprofit status, it is interesting to note that the denomination most likely to use governmental grants for development activities is also among the least likely to set up nonprofit status for administra-

tion. ○○○○○○○○○○ 19 From a theoretical perspective, it is interesting to note the importance of variables within the local congregations as determinants of community development activities. Denominational theology, leadership and funding do not appear to be particularly important in the development and administration of community development programs. Such efforts tend to emanate from the local congregation and are administered and financed there. Thus, future research should focus on congregational traits to identify patterns in the types of local factors that stimulate and facilitate economic development activities.

It is also interesting to note what does not appear to be related to the nature and organization of community development programs, specifically, the racial characteristics of the congregation and the size of average pledges. Race of congregants appears to have little relationship with either the nature or extent of community development activities other than the observation that COGIC congregations tend to be highly involved in adult and youth education. While race is significantly related to the denomination of the congregation (Baptist, COGIC, Pentecostal, nondenominational, and AME congregations are mostly African American), the fact that denomination appears to have little relevance to economic development activities may account for this.

Finally, it appears that faith-based development programs serve individuals citywide as opposed to being restricted to members of the local congregation. Again, this has been a policy concern. While the survey did not attempt to measure the extent of religious content that might accompany training programs or other community development efforts, it seems clear that being a religious program per se does not restrict the nature of the individuals served. Again, there is no relationship between denomination and who is served by community development activities, so the distribution of governmental funding across sects would have little effect on the broadening or narrowing of service recipients.

Clearly more research on faith-based community and economic development is warranted. Broader and larger samples in different cities may reveal more such activity than appears present currently in Detroit, or longitudinal studies may indicate growth in this area. The apparent lack of importance of denomination but the possible impact of an “urban theology” is interesting and deserves further study. The church/state relationship issues raised by public funding of faith-based activities is a critical and politically timely issue for further analysis. Finally, the dearth of evaluations of faith-based efforts must be addressed. Only through a number of rigorous evaluations can the effects of public funding be explored, and only in comparison to public or governmental

economic development efforts can the added element of “faith” be addressed. ○○○○○○○○○○ 20 NOTES

1) The denominational categories were developed broadly because self- identified denominations were included for less than half of the population list, and it is difficult to make fine distinctions based on the name of religious institution alone. Further, the city has a large number of unaffiliated or nondenominational churches, often including some variation of “Baptist” in the title, complicating denominational distinctions. For a more complete discussion of some of the issues related to denominational identification and measurement see Reese (2000). Given this caveat, the population is roughly composed of the following: 48 percent Baptist; 16 percent COGIC; 11 percent Catholic; 6 percent Apos- tolic or Pentecostal (with the majority Apostolic); 5 percent each Lutheran, mainline Protestant (Methodist, Presbyterian) and AME/CME (with the majority being AME); 3 percent Jewish; and 2 percent each Islamic and Episcopal. The large number of nondenominational churches were not included in these population figures. The composition of the sample is as follows: 32 percent Baptist; 29 percent Catholic; 13 percent Lutheran; 8 percent mainline Protestant; 6 percent Apostolic/Pentecostal/ Holiness; 7 percent Episcopal; 3 percent COGIC; 2 percent AME; .1 percent Jewish; 0 percent Islamic. Again, these percentages do not include nondenominational or “other” denominations such as Salvation Army, Disciples of Christ and Buddhist.

2) All correlations are significant at the .05 level.

3) If the sample or the city itself contained more Jewish congregations, the small amount of denomination funding may not continue to be the case since local congregations are more likely to engage in service activities of all kinds through regional or state bodies.

4) Performing crosstabulations on the twelve different types of community development activities and denominations resulted in many empty cells. To address this problem activities were combined into the following categories: economic development focus (businesses, housing, credit unions, job assistance, joint development activities); educational focus (childcare, schools, adult education, youth programming); and charity focus (food, shelter, clothing, health provision, donation of money). Further, the numbers of activities within each category were collapsed into a nominal variable indicating whether or not an organization did any possible activities in the category. This resulted in data for most of the cells, and chi square was used to test the relationships between the

variables. ○○○○○○○○○○ 21 TABLE 1 Characteristics of the Sample

Religious Denomination % Resources Mean Range Baptist ...... 27 Members ...... 493 ...... 10-10,000 Catholic ...... 25 Pledging Units ...... 193 ...... 0-6,000 Lutheran ...... 11 Attendance ...... 287 ...... 20-5,050 Nondenominational Christian ...... 9 Pledge ...... $10,213 ...... $0-180,000 Mainline Protestant...... 7 Clergy ...... 3 ...... 0-35 Other ...... 5 Lay Staff ...... 7 ...... 0-130 Holiness/Pentecostal ...... 5 Volunteers ...... 54 ...... 0-1200 Episcopal ...... 4 COGIC ...... 3 Apostolic...... 2 AME ...... 2 Jewish ...... 01

Location of Membership Mean % Neighborhood ...... 38 City Generally...... 39 Suburbs ...... 23

Affiliated with a larger denomination% Yes ...... 74 No ...... 26

Race of Congregation % Mostly African American ...... 62 Mostly White...... 30 Mostly Hispanic ...... 3

Mostly Mixed...... 5 ○○○○○○○○○○ 22 TABLE 2 Community Development Activities and Administration

Community Development Activities % Source of Funding % Charity...... 27 General Budget...... 49 Childcare ...... 16 Special Offerings ...... 23 Youth Programs ...... 12 Governmental Grant ...... 14 Cooperative Activities ...... 10 Foundation Grant ...... 11 Schools ...... 9 Larger Denomination ...... 7 Housing ...... 8 Healthcare ...... 7 Administration of Funding % Adult Education ...... 6 General Budget...... 39 Job Services ...... 5 Separate Nonprofit Entity...... 29 Businesses...... 4 Other Tax Free Status ...... 21 Direct Monetary Assistance...... 4 Credit Unions ...... 2 Generate Revenue % Yes ...... 14 Who Initiated Activity % No ...... 86 Clergy ...... 62 Internal Committee ...... 17 Use of Revenue % Individual Parishioner ...... 14 General Fund Budget ...... 41 Higher Denominational Body ...... 7 Reinvested into the Activity ...... 32 Invested ...... 5 Who Administers Activities % Special Projects ...... 5 Clergy ...... 16 Other ...... 18 Lay Members ...... 29 Special Boards ...... 19 External Staff ...... 15 Lay Staff ...... 11 Joint Body with Another Organization ..... 3

Who is Served by Activities % Members of the Congregation ...... 5 Mostly Members of the Congregation ...... 7 Residents of the Immediate Neighborhood54

Residents of the City ...... 32 ○○○○○○○○○○ 23 REFERENCES

Allen, R., Dawson, M. and Brown, R. (1989). “A Schema-based Approach to Modeling an African-American Racial Belief System.” The American Political Science Review (83): 421-441.

Calhoun-Brown, A. (1997). “While Marching to Zion: Otherworldliness and Racial Empowerment in the Black Community.” Paper presented at the annual meeting, American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Carlson-Thies, S.W. (1996). “Churches in Partnership with Public Welfare Programs.” Paper presented at the annual meeting, American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.

Chang, P.M.Y., Williams, D.R., Griffith, E.E.H. and Young, J. (1994). “Church- Agency Relationships in the Black Community.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (Summer): 107-118.

Cisneros, H.G. (1996). Higher Ground: Faith Communities and Community Building. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Gordon, W. and Frame, R. (1995). Real Hope in Chicago: The Incredible Story of How the Gospel is Transforming a Chicago Neighborhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Greenberg, A. (1996). “Women in Church: The Institutional Determinants of Women’s Political Participation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting, Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Guest, A.M. (1988). “Community Context and Metropolitan Church Growth.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 24 (March): 435-459.

Guth, J.L. (1989). “Southern Baptists and the New Right.” In Religion in American Politics, ed. C.W. Dunn. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quar- terly Press.

Guth, J.L. and Kellstedt, L.A. (1977). “The Mobilization of a Religious Elite: Political Activism Among Southern Baptist Clergy in 1996.” Paper presented at the annual meeting, American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.

Hall, L.M. (1992). “A Commission to Change: The United Methodist Church in Detroit, Michigan, 1950-1980.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 21 (Spring): 39-49.

Heim, S.M. (1995). “God’s Long Shot in the Inner City: A Vision of Church- based Economic Development,” Christian Century (July 5-12): 680-682.

Hodgkinson, V.A., Weitzman, M. and Kirsch, A. (1988). From Belief to Commit- ment: The Activities and Finances of Religious Congregations in the

United States. Washington D.C.: Independent Sector. ○○○○○○○○○○ 24 Hunt, L.L. and Hunt, J.G. (1977). “Black Religion as Both Opiate and Inspira- tion of Civil Rights Militance: Putting Marx’s Data to the Test.” Social Forces 56: 1-14.

Jackson, M.C., Schweitzer, J.H., Cato, M.T. and Blake, R.N. (1997). Faith-Based Institutions’ Community and Economic Development Programs Serving Black Communities in Michigan. East Lansing, MI: Urban Affairs Program, Michigan State University.

Kriplin, N. (1995). “Building Community Beyond ‘Bricks and Sticks’” Religious Institutions as Partners in Community Based Development, Progressions: A Lilly Foundation Occasional Report. Indianapolis: Lilly Endowment.

La Barbera, P.A. (1992). “Enterprise in Religious-Based Organizations.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 21 (Spring): 51-67.

Layman, G.C. (1997). “Religion and Political Behavior in the United States. The Impact of Beliefs, Affiliations, and Commitment from 1980-1994.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61: 288-316.

Lincoln, C.E. and Mamiya, L.H. (1990). The Black Church in the African American Experience. Durham: Duke University Press.

Mares, A.S. (1994). “Housing and the Church.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (Summer): 139-157.

Marx, G.T. (1967). “Religion: Opiate or Inspiration of Civil Rights Militance Among Negroes.” American Sociological Review 32: 64-72.

Paris, P. (1985). The Social Teaching of Black Churches. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Quinley, H.E. (1974). The Prophetic Clergy: Social Activism Among Protestant Ministers. New York: Wiley.

Reese, L.A. (2000) “Should the Government Regulate Profits?: The Challenges of Researching Faith-based Service Provision.” Economic Development Quarterly 14: 376-383.

Reese, L.A. and Shields, G. (1999). “Economic Development Activities of Urban Religious Institutions.” International Journal of Economic Development 2: 165-199.

Reese, L.A. and Shields, G. (2000). “Faith-Based Economic Development: Characteristics of Active Churches.” Policy Studies Review 17: 84-103.

Roozen, D.A., McKinney, W.M. and Carroll, J.W. (1984). Varieties of Religious Presence. New York: Pilgrim Press.

Sherman, A.L. (1995). “Cross Purposes: Will Conservative Welfare Reform Corrupt Religious Charities?” Online posting. Heritage Policy Review 74

(Fall). Internet. ○○○○○○○○○○ 25 Thomas, J.M. and Blake, R.N. (1996). “Faith-based Community Development and African-American Neighborhoods.” In Revitalizing Urban Neighbor- hoods, edited by W.D. Keating, N. Krumholz, and P. Star, pp. 131-143. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Vidal, A.C. (1995). “Reintegrating Disadvantaged Communities into the Fabric of Urban Life: The Role of Community Development.” Housing Policy Debate 6: 169-230.

Wineburg, R.J. (1992). “Local Human Services Provision by Religious Congre- gations: A Community Analysis.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (Summer): 107-118.

Wineburg, R.J. (1994). “A Longitudinal Case Study of Religious Congregations in Local Human Services.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 23 (Summer): 159-169.

Winston, D. (1995). “Black Church Expands Communitarian Tradition,” Reli- gious Institutions as Partners in Community Based Development, Progres- sions: A Lilly Foundation Occasional Report. Indianapolis: Lilly Endow-

ment. ○○○○○○○○○○ 26 APPENDIX

Faith-Based Organizations in Sample

Organization Faith Salvation Army-Brightmoor Corps ...... Salvationist New Mt. Carmel Tabernacle COGIC ...... COGIC Grandale Corps ...... St. Leo ...... Roman Catholic Trinity ...... Episcopal Redemption ...... Lutheran Church of Christ-Elmwood Park...... The Body of Christ Holy Tabernacle Baptist Church ...... Baptist Open Door Gospel Chapel ...... Baptist St. Dominic ...... Catholic City of Hope Church ...... Pentecostal Gesu ...... Roman Catholic St. Gemma ...... Roman Catholic Our Lady Queen of Apostles ...... Roman Catholic St. Nicholas (Ruthenian) ...... Byzantine Catholic Adult Rehabilitation Center ...... Pentecostal Corinthian Missionary ...... Baptist St. Cunegunda ...... Roman Catholic Redford ...... Presbyterian Second Chapel Hill Missionary Baptist ...... Baptist Messiah Episcopal Church ...... Episcopal Our Lady Queen of Heaven ...... Roman Catholic Christ Covenant Church ...... Nondenominational Mt. Sinai Missionary ...... Baptist St. Cecilia ...... Catholic Cross of Glory ...... Lutheran Greater Centennial ...... Baptist Greater Mt. Carmel Missionary ...... Baptist St. Hedwig ...... Roman Catholic St. Stephen ...... AME Greater Mt. Zion ...... Baptist Holy Cross ...... Polish National Catholic Church Peace ...... Baptist St. Juliana ...... Catholic St. Peter ...... Episcopal Restoration Christian Fellowship ...... Nondenominational Mt. Vernon ...... Baptist Fort Street ...... Presbyterian St. Mary ...... Roman Catholic Mt. Valley Missionary...... Baptist Evergreen ...... Lutheran United Christian ...... Disciples of Christ Warrendale United Brethren Church ...... United Brethren in Christ Jesus Prayer Center ...... Pentecostal Straight Street ...... Missionary Baptist Precious Blood ...... Roman Catholic Presentation-Our Lady of Victory ...... Roman Catholic Dexter Avenue ...... Baptist St. Francis De Sales ...... Roman Catholic Bethany ...... Disciples Of Christ St. Cyprian ...... Episcopal Golden Gate Missionary Baptist Church...... Missionary Baptist

Grace ...... Episcopal ○○○○○○○○○○ 27 Organization Faith Immaculate Conception Byzantine Catholic ...... Ukrainian Catholic Peace ...... Lutheran New Bethel ...... Baptist St. Ladislaus ...... Roman Catholic St. Columba ...... Episcopal PCL Christian Center ...... Pentecostal True Faith Baptist Church ...... Baptist Bethel A M E Church...... Methodist New Mt. Olive ...... Lutheran Go Tell It Ministry ...... Baptist Detroit Zen Center ...... Zen Sect Of Buddhism First Community ...... Baptist Nativity of Our Lord ...... Roman Catholic St. Charles Borromeo ...... Roman Catholic Second ...... Baptist Liberty Temple ...... Baptist Hartford Memorial ...... Baptist Detroit ...... Nondenominational Immanuel ...... Evangelical Lutheran International Society for Krishna ...... Caugdiya Vaishnavas Henderson Memorial ...... United Methodist First Unitarian Universalist ...... Unitarian Universalist Plymouth Congregational ...... Protestant St. John ...... Episcopal Cyrene Temple ...... Baptist Kingdom Hope Baptist Church ...... Baptist Chaldean Sacred Heart Church ...... Catholic Great Commission Baptist Church ...... Baptist St. Benedict ...... Roman Catholic St. John the Baptist (Romanian) ...... Byzantine Catholics St. Rita ...... Roman Catholic Wings of Truth Gospel Church ...... Nondenominational Body of Christ Full Gospel ...... Nondenominational Christ Temple Baptist Church ...... Baptist Christian Community Baptist Church ...... Baptist Detroit Baptist Temple ...... Baptist Obedient Missionary Baptist Church ...... Baptist Scott Memorial ...... United Methodist St. John ...... Lutheran West Side ...... Nondenominational Fairview ...... Southern Baptist Faith Christian Outreach Center...... Nondenominational Good Shepherd ...... Lutheran Grace ...... Presbyterian Mt. Calvary ...... Lutheran Missouri Synod Clinton St. Greater Bethlehem Temple ...... Apostolic Grace Temple Church of God in Christ ...... COGIC New Greater First Baptist ...... Baptist Christ Church ...... Episcopal Faith Temple Baptist Church ...... Baptist Morning Star ...... Baptist Our Lady of Sorrows ...... Roman Catholic Pittman Memorial ...... COGIC Warren Avenue ...... Baptist Williams Chapel Missionary ...... Baptist Greater St. James Fire ...... Holiness

Mayflower Missionary ...... Baptist ○○○○○○○○○○ 28 Organization Faith Pleasant Green Church of God in Christ ...... Spiritual Whole Truth ...... Pentecostal All Saints ...... Roman Catholic El Caluaria Church ...... Pentecostal Holy Cross (Hungarian) ...... Hungarian American Military Avenue ...... Presbyterian Shiloh...... Baptist St. Gabriel ...... Roman Catholic St. John Cantius ...... Catholic Burton Street United Apostolic Church ...... Apostolic First Spanish Baptist-Southern Baptist ...... Baptist St. Francis of Assisi ...... Roman Catholic St. John the Baptist (Ukrainian) ...... Catholic St. Matthew ...... Lutheran St. Stephen ...... Roman Catholic St. Hyacinth ...... Roman Catholic St. Florian Roman Catholic ...... Roman Catholic Transfiguration ...... Roman Catholic Jesus Tabernacle of Deliverance ...... Nondenominational Iroquois Avenue-Christ ...... Lutheran Jefferson Avenue ...... Presbyterian Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church ...... Baptist Revelation & Truth Missionary Baptist ...... Missionary Baptist Saunders Memorial ...... AME St. Augustine-St. Monica ...... Roman Catholic St. John ...... Baptist Pearly Gate Missionary Baptist Church ...... Baptist St. John ...... Presbyterian St. Anthony (Lithuanian) ...... Lithuanian Catholic New Mt. Hermon ...... Baptist Our Lady of Mount Carmel ...... Catholic St. Andrew and Benedict ...... Roman Catholic Triumph ...... Baptist Waterfall Missionary ...... Baptist Christ the King ...... Roman Catholic Harvest Christian Church ...... Nondenominational Jones Memorial Church of God and Christ ...... COGIC Rosebrough Chapel ...... Methodist Episcopal Wisconsin Avenue ...... Nondenominational Wyoming Avenue ...... Church of Christ Grace Refuge Chapel ...... Nondenominational Rosedale Park ...... Baptist St. Paul ...... Lutheran West Outer Drive United Methodist ...... United Methodist Bethany ...... Lutheran Calvin East ...... Presbyterian Mt. Olive ...... Lutheran St. Philomena ...... Catholic Resurrection ...... Lutheran Missouri Synod Annunciation Cathedral ...... Greek Orthodox Downtown Synagogue ...... Jewish Church of God of Detroit ...... Nondenominational Greater Progressive Missionary ...... Baptist Holy Cross ...... Lutheran Metropolitan ...... Nondenominational New Greater Cedar Grove Missionary ...... Baptist

Our Lady Gate of Heaven...... Roman Catholic ○○○○○○○○○○ 29 Organization Faith Ford Memorial ...... United Methodist Holy Savior ...... Lutheran St. Vartan Roman Catholic ...... Armenian Catholic St. Vartan (Armenian) ...... Armenian Catholic Undenominational Church of God ...... Nondenominational Christian Gospel Center...... Pentecostal Glory and Praise Tabernacle COGIC ...... Pentecostal Gracious Savior ...... Evangelical Lutheran Greater Grace Temple...... Apostolic Greenfield Peace ...... Lutheran United Temple ...... Church of God in Christ Grace Community ...... Nondenominational Salem Memorial ...... Evangelical Lutheran Hopewell ...... Baptist Prince of Peace Missionary ...... Baptist Second Baptist Church ...... Baptist

* This research was made possible by a grant from the Center for Urban Studies during the 1999-2000 academic year through the support of the Office of the Vice President for Research, Wayne State University.

Faith-Based Community Development in Detroit-page 33 ○○○○○○○○○○ 30 ○○○○○○○○○○ 31