The Religious Sector’s Presence in
Local Community Development
Nisha D. Botchwey
Drastic changes in the American welfare system and cutbacks in many programs have spurred
calls for increased public reliance on congregations and religious-based organizations.
Ram Cnaan and S. C. Boddie (2001, 559)
Although federal legislative policies greatly impact service delivery in local communities because they dictate which organizations will be allowed to participate in federally
funded service provision, there has been little, if any, comparative, quantitative analysis
of religious and secular organizations within the same geographic context (Vidal 2001).
For example, the 1996 Charitable Choice laws, the founding of the White House Office
of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001, and other federal laws display an
almost tacit understanding that federal policy must support the work of local religious
and secular nonprofit organizations engaging in community development. However,
they draw almost exclusively from anecdotal evidence that faith-based organizations
(FBOs) are as much or more effective than secular nonprofits or public agencies
(Cnaan and Boddie 2001; Monsma 2004). Additionally, planning professionals and professionals from other fields base their engagement of these groups on similar subjective
evidence without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of religious organizations in community development. The missing quantitative analysis of religious and secular organizations within the same geographic context is provided in this article.
The article identifies the operational and location similarities and differences
between secular community-based organizations (CBOs), religious congregations, and
FBOs. It does so to provide additional methods for improved service delivery in lowincome urban communities, given decreasing public and private resources and increasing need. The article discusses how the three types of organizations operate in terms of
their service delivery, contributions to neighborhood development and revitalization,
and how their location relates to their functions. It defines these congregations and
small FBOs as “silent partners,” given their unacknowledged and unfunded contributions to local community development. The silent partners create a network of support
to the community in areas unfilled by secular institutions and the public sector. The
group of silent partners embodies an “institutional capital” that enables individuals to
benefit from aggregate resources.
The article is divided into four parts. First is background on the silent work of congregations and FBOs in community development, discussing what planners know about
these groups and their service offerings. Next, the lack of discussion in the literature of
Journal of Planning Education and Research XX:xx-xx
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X07299948
© Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning
Abstract
This article identifies the extent, service
offerings, and location similarities or differences among secular community-based
organizations, religious congregations, and
faith-based organizations that engage in service delivery in low-income urban communities. The literature shows that religious
organizations provide significant social services to communities, but little is known
about how they compare to their secular
counterparts within the same geographic
context. Employing qualitative and quantitative approaches together with GIS applications for spatial analysis to survey data
from religious and secular organizations in
North Philadelphia, this article measures
the influence of the religious sector in local
community development. The article concludes that religious institutions, specifically
congregations and faith-based organizations, have a significant community presence in their offerings, presence, and
location and provide a substantial level of
service to individuals in that they operate as
“silent partners” within communities, providing important—although often unseen
“institutional capital” to local development
in urban America.
Keywords: community development; faith-based
organization; service provision; high-poverty
neighborhoods; poverty
Nisha D. Botchwey is an assistant professor
in the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning at the University of
Virginia. Her research focuses on community development through local religious
and secular institutions, neighborhood
planning, and public health and the built
environment.
1
2
the uniqueness of religious and secular organizations and their
service provision leads to three research questions focused on
how CBOs, congregations, and FBOs differ regarding their
engagement, service offerings, and location patterns. Third, the
article describes the research design, including an overview of
the study area, and methodology for both data collection and
analysis. In the fourth part of the article, the author responds to
the research questions and concludes with a discourse on the
implications for planning.
䉴Silent Work of Congregations and FBOs
in Community Development
The work of congregations and small FBOs in local community development has been relatively silent in the planning
arena. Scholars from a variety of fields have published a growing body of research on congregations and FBOs in publications such as Shelter Force and COMM-ORG, the online
conference on community organizing (Asher 2004; Scheie and
Kari 2004; Wilson and Banks 2004; Weill and Winkelman 2003;
Baker 2001; Warren 2001b; Warren and Wood 2001; Walker
2001; Owens 2000). However, little scholarship exists in planning literature that documents congregations’ and FBOs’ participation and operation. Planners are aware of the secular
CBOs and community development corporations (CDCs) that
do similar work and receive the majority of the recognition and
funding (Suarez 1999; Medoff and Sklar 1994; Bissinger 1997;
Day 1998; Nye and Glickman 2000; Beckwith and Lopez 1997).
Federal support of these mainstream groups has fluctuated significantly with funding for social services falling precipitously
during the Reagan era to an extreme low beginning in the
1980s (Alexander 1999). As a result, nonprofit organizations
changed their operation style to include businesslike governance in combination with their foundational grassroots support and patronage (Nye and Glickman 2000). Management
change by CBOs to mirror for-profit organizations started in
the early 1990s as a reaction to changes in federal funding policy, heightened performance measurement requirements, and
the challenge from growing participation of for-profit groups
in traditional nonprofit-sector activities (Kaboolian 1996).1 An
example of such a group is the Dudley Street Neighborhood
Initiative (DSNI; Medoff and Sklar 1994). This group began in
the 1980s as a resident-led association working to rebuild their
community located two miles from Boston. Today, DSNI has
achieved many of its goals and is both a powerful and wellfunded force in neighborhood development.
Many groups did not fare as well during the public funding and eventual organizational management changes in the
early 1990s. Cnaan (1999) and Spain (2001) concur that the
failure of government prompted the involvement of congregations in social service provision and community development, such as black church-affiliated CDCs (Owens 1999).
Botchwey
Based on their involvement in services that address unmet
needs, congregations currently provide a hidden safety net to
meet the unmet needs resulting from the devolution of social
welfare services from the federal government down to states
and local entities (Cnaan, Wineburg, and Boddie 1999).
Their work is evident today, for unlike other local agencies,
the church and other FBOs have not abandoned the inner city;
rather they remain committed to their neighborhood, providing hope and stability to its residents, and maintaining a strong
physical presence as neighbors to boarded-up stores, singleparent households, and declining schools (Cnaan, Wineburg,
and Boddie 1999). Their overall mission of charity emphasizes
civic participation and community building, key to sustainable
community development (Kretzmann and McKnight 1997).
Congregations and FBOs have firsthand knowledge of the
needs and strengths embodied therein resulting from the
shared experience of place and connection with local residents
(Corburn 2003). Services include food assistance, affordable
housing, academic support, job training, and guidance in both
personal and health matters. In addition to social service delivery, FBOs participate in physical and economic development
programs traditionally conducted by secular CDCs; some programs include housing production, welfare-to-work programs,
credit unions, and youth development opportunities (Cnaan
and Milofsky 1997; Cisneros 1996; Day 1998).
Location theorists have not yet factored the location decisions of religious organizations remaining in urban communities into their analyses. These scholars focus on balancing
public and private facilities within broader governmental,
social, and economic systems (Teitz 1968; DeVerteuil 2003; Hall
and Joseph 1988; Takahashi and Dear 1997; Takahashi and
Smutny 2001; Dear and Wolch 1987). Public facilities were
defined in 1968 as “those components of the city whose primary function is to facilitate the provision of goods and services declared to be wholly or partly within the domain of
government” (Teitz 1968, 38). Today, the services traditionally
provided by government are offered through private religious
and secular community organizations (Brudney 1987). This
devolution of service to the local level added a heterogeneous
set of organizations, including congregations and FBOs that
provide an even greater variety of services. These groups are
not currently considered in location theory analysis.
䉴Silent Partners in a Web of Institutional Capital
Through their consistent service to the poor, congregations
and small FBOs behave like silent partners working in similar
geographies and on complementary projects alongside the
more visible and funded secular institutions. In comparison to
secular nonprofits, congregations and small FBOs remain overlooked, receiving little to no publicity or recognition or financial support from public and many private institutions
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
(Botchwey 2003). This is evident both in the limited discussion
of their involvement in the literature and experientially in the
development of the organization list for Cnaan’s research.
Cnaan (1999) conducted a census on the congregations in
Philadelphia, identifying their contribution to social service
provision regarding the actual program offerings, recipients,
and finances. In so doing, his list of churches grew from 1,700
to over 2,100 congregations, as more groups that were not on
a membership list, in the phone book, or in some large study
were identified. This continual amendment to his master list of
congregations and the limited literature highlight the local
religious and secular organizations’ unseen role in local community development and thus their identity as silent partners.
Since the 1980s, congregations and FBOs emerged as
important partners in neighborhood revitalization. These
organizations are present in many communities, are aware of
local needs, and are working to provide solutions (Cnaan
1999; McRoberts 2003; Rusk 1999; Sullivan 1998). While
these silent partners provide services unmet by the government or other providers, they do so of their own choosing
and on their own dime (Botchwey 2003). Some of these silent
partners, primarily the FBOs, developed into very vocal, powerful institutions that are well connected to political and
financial resources; it is more difficult for congregations to
make this transition because of the public’s general desire to
maintain a separation between church and state. Such FBOs
no longer in the silent partner category include the Texas
Industrial Areas Foundation (Warren 2001a), the Pacific
Institute for Community Organization (Wood 2002), various
welfare-to-work organizations (Monsma 2004), and Habitat
for Humanity (Boddie 2001).
Silent partners are not tied into the formal network, but create a web of resources for residents through what Wood (2003)
terms “bridging institutions” (83). Wood (2003) and Wutnow
(2003) argue that this set of connections is a form of social capital, functioning through religious institutions. Putnam (2000)
defines social capital as the “connections among individualsocial networks and the norms and trustworthiness that arise
from them” (19). This institutional form of capital is categorized as bridging social capital because it links individuals and
communities to resources not readily available through other
avenues. Communities possess bridging capital through institutions when they create what Teaford (1993) describes as networks of neighborhood-based services. Here, congregations
and FBOs promote social networks and interactions with individuals who inspire trust and enable communities to access
resources that will lead to an improved quality of life.
Combined, these religious organizations comprise an informal
network of service providers, the bridging social capital, which
complements the work of the formal sector.2 This is evident in
the African American community, where the congregations are
trusted messengers for disseminating health information and
3
implementing health intervention programs (Martin et al.
2004).
Increased devolution of services or the privatization of government dictates a greater reliance on local networks, the
impact of which Milward (1996) refers to as the hollow state
and Wolch (1990) as the shadow state. The hollow state is a
metaphor for the separation between the government and the
services it pays nonprofits to provide. Similarly, the shadow
state is a metaphor to describe the apprentice-type relationship
between government and its silhouette, the nonprofit organizations that receive public funding to serve their clients. These
terms both refer to direct funding and oversight relationships
with government to care for individuals and families in need.
The term silent partner further highlights local groups’ limited
or nonexistent access to public resources. Additionally, institutional capital provides insight to the way organizations create
bridging social capital through relationships and informal
ties—resources otherwise unavailable to residents in need.
䉴Research Questions
Scholars and politicians cite an increasing number of the
individual institutions that create a network of institutional
capital. These examples are often reports of local organizations engaged in successful community transformations; the
majority of these reports are in the form of individual case
studies or analyses of individual types of programs (such as welfare to work)3 on a dispersed geographic scale such as a city,
region, or the nation. To date, our understanding of
antipoverty strategies comes from a body of literature regarding the structural and behavioral theories that rely on personal
anecdotal narratives, metropolitanwide evaluations, and U.S.
census studies.4 While this type of scholarship is valuable, it fails
to offer an assessment of the presence of various types of organizations within the same neighborhood, the role and prevalence of the religious sector in community development in
poor neighborhoods, or an overview of the activities that various types of organizations offer and their different client ratios.
This article begins to address this gap through a textured
analysis of religious and secular organizations, drawn from a
community survey of North Philadelphia (see appendix). It
considers their multiplicity of offerings and general operation
within a common geographic context. Specifically, the article
answers the following three questions:
1. To what extent are CBOs, religious congregations, and
FBOs engaged in social service delivery and related
community development activities within poor inner-city
communities?
2. How are these three types the same and different in terms
of their service offerings?
3. How does their location relate to their services?
4
Botchwey
Figure 2. Demographics comparison—study area versus the city of
Philadelphia.
Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
Figure 1. Lower North Philadelphia study area.
䉴Research Design
Study Area
The Lower North Philadelphia study area was selected
because of its seven contiguous census tracts that report the
highest household poverty rates for the city and a significant
concentration of CBOs, congregations, and FBOs. These local
organizations have been integrally involved in both social and
physical community building initiatives since 1919 (Botchwey
2003). Their work addresses much of the abandonment,
neglect, and disinvestment that swept over their neighborhoods,
as has occurred in other major cities, such as New York, Atlanta,
Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Miami, and Washington,
D.C. (U.S. Department of the Interior 2000). Philadelphia is
therefore an appropriate place to examine local religious and
secular institutions because the economic, social, and political
issues are so closely reflective of other densely populated urban
geographies. The lessons from this study can be applied in similar contexts.
The Lower North Philadelphia study area equals 1.13 square
miles or approximately 400 city blocks and is a high-poverty
urban community situated two miles north of Center City
and City Hall with a population of 20,832 (see Figure 1).5
The existing land use is predominantly residential, with commercial development along major streets. Since the 1970s,
population loss in this area has been extreme—a 60 percent
decline, compared to 30 percent in Upper North Philadelphia
and approximately 25 percent in the city.6 The racial composition in this area, predominantly black since the 1950s, is now
95 percent African American. This is because of migration patterns as well as racial discrimination that excluded this population from housing found in other parts of the city (Philadelphia
City Planning Commission 1987). According to 2000 census
data, an average of 40 percent (a range of 29 to 60 percent
across census tracts) of its households are below the poverty line
compared with 44 percent in 1990, vacancy and abandonment
rates are high and show a slight increase from 1990 to 2000 (28
percent in 1990 and 29 percent in 2000), and homeownership
rates are low and show a decrease from 1990 to 2000 (31 percent in 1990 and 30 percent in 2000); see Figure 2 and Table 1.7
Organization Types Defined
In discussing the local-level nonprofit sector, Lester Salamon
(1995) notes that “the only way to get a reliable profile of even
the national nonprofit sector [religious and secular] is to focus
on the local level and examine a reasonable cross section of local
areas” (59). This study follows Salamon’s recommendation to
study a local-level population of institutions. The three types of
organizations are defined below.
CBOs. CBOs are nonreligious or secular nonprofit organizations, including CDCs, comprehensive community initiatives,
community-based institutions, nonprofit property developers,
adult education programs, job training and placement centers,
neighborhood health care clinics, family and youth development and recreation centers, child care centers, senior citizen
centers, homeless shelters, domestic violence prevention programs, assisted living programs, and private schools.
Congregations. Congregations include churches, synagogues,
mosques, ashrams, and other organized faith groups.8 According
to Cnaan, Wineburg, and Boddie’s (1999) study, such an organization must meet the following seven criteria: (1) a cohesive
group of people with a shared identity; (2) a group that meets
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
5
Table 1.
1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data on lower North Philadelphia study area.
Population Characteristics
Total population
1990
Study Area
27,346
2000
% Change
Philadelphia (City)
20,832
–24
1,517,550
Population Characteristics
1990
%
2000
%
2000
Black population
Under 18 years old
Over 65 years old
Households below poverty
Persons per square mile
25,878
8,141
4,199
4,091
24,200
95
30
15
44
19,518
6,255
3,073
3,020
18,435
95
30
15
40
43.2%
28.6%
14.1%
18.4%
11,241
Housing Characteristics
1990
%
2000
%
2000
Vacant
Owner occupied
Median year built
3,706
4,030
1941
28
31
3,104
3,203
1941
29
30
11%
52%
Source: U.S. Census 1990 and 2000.
regularly on an ongoing basis; (3) a group that comes together
primarily for worship and has accepted in common certain teachings, rituals, and practices; (4) a group that meets and worships
at a designated place; (5) a group that gathers for worship outside the regular purposes and location of a living or work space;
(6) a group with an identified religious deity; and (7) a group
with an official name and formal structure that conveys its purpose and identity.
Many religious congregations are involved in community
development and poverty alleviation activities. These houses
of worship offer extensive services for both their members
and nonmembers; however, their primary motivations are
worship and spiritual growth followed by neighborhood ministry. Congregations are the only type of organization that
have a multipurpose mission in which neighborhood revitalization and community development are secondary purposes.
FBOs. There is no consensus in the literature distinguishing
the features of FBOs.9 Even the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 that initiated Charitable
Choice legislation and related policies does not provide a clear
definition of the terms religious or FBO.10,11 For the purpose of
this research, FBOs are institutions that originate from or are
related to religious congregations or religious individuals, yet
through the acquisition of a separate 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, incorporation as a nonprofit or an alternative form, have
established some degree of independence from their parent
body. These organizations must self-identify as FBOs and serve
their communities. They range from religiously affiliated organizations that do not involve any inherently religious components in their methods of programming and operation to those
that do so in all aspects of their service provision. They are religious CBOs and are significant partners in the community development system.
䉴Method
Based on these definitions, the author created a comprehensive list of CBOs, congregations, and FBOs located in the Lower
North Philadelphia study area. No such list existed prior to the
study conducted in 2002; one was created through a combination of methods outlined below. The initial list was identified by
merging records from (1) Penn’s Program for the Study of
Organized Religion and Social Work (PSORSW) database on the
social services provided by more than 2,100 Philadelphia
Congregations (Cnaan 1999), (2) a report on Philadelphia nonprofits from the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy of the
Urban Institute, and (3) membership lists from the Philadelphia
Association of Community Development Corporations. This initial catalog of groups included a total of eighty-five organizations:
nine CBOs, seventy-five religious congregations, and one FBO.
The primary listing of organizations was refined following
a series of iterative steps, including neighborhood canvassing,
mailings, phone calls, and referrals. This process was undertaken to identify defunct or nonoperational organizations
and to uncover any organizations that were not represented
in the initial list. Overall, forty-one organizations were added
to the final inventory and fifty-six were removed; this is a significant revision of the original tally, with the greatest
changes in the number of congregations and FBOs. Results
are summarized in Table 2.12 The intense effort put forward
to accurately catalog the final seventy neighborhood-based
groups highlights the limited attention practitioners and academics give to these local entities and their important work.
Of the three types of organizations, congregations and small
FBOs are absent from many people’s minds; however, they
are present in urban communities, as their numbers and the
following discussion indicate.
6
Botchwey
Table 2.
Organization list tally.
Organization
Type
Initial
Canvassing
(added/removed)
Mailings
(added/removed)
Calls
(added/removed)
Referrals
(added/removed)
Final
9
75
1
85
—
8/2
15/0
7/0
113
+28
0/0
0/32
0/2
79
−34
0/0
0/18
0/2
59
−20
5/0
3/0
3/0
70
+11
20
43
7
70
—
CBO
Congregation
FBO
Total
Net change
CBO = community-based organization; FBO = faith-based organization.
Table 3.
Service type category breakdown.
Service Type Categories
Housing
Economic development
Social services
Education (adults)
Health services
Community organizing
Youth development
Senior citizen services
Specific Programs
Construction, rehabilitation, management
Commercial ventures, industrial development, entrepreneurial training or small business incubation,
banking/credit union
Job counseling, training and placement, day care provision, financial counseling or investment clubs,
homeless and poor people services, counseling/programs for families, drug and alcohol abuse
Computer literacy, literacy, GED, functional English translation, tutoring
Health fairs/screenings, blood drives/organ donation, health education, medical or dental clinic, drug and
alcohol prevention, health insurance programs, maternity programs, nutrition programs
Meeting space provision, holiday celebrations or fairs, community security, organizing around issues,
interfaith/interdenominational collaboration, mobilization, voter registration, recreational programs,
neighborhood cleanup/improvement
Day care (preschool), charter or private school, programs for gang members, youth offenders or runaways,
mentoring, after-school and weekend programs, skill development, job training, tutoring/literacy,
summer programs
Transportation, day care, visitation, meals, exercise, health care, other assistance
Of the seventy surveys distributed to the confirmed list of
organizations, 40 percent were completed by U.S. mail, Internet
submission, or through face-to-face interviews over a five-month
period. Compensation was not provided to participants. The
response rate varied by organization type with eleven of twenty
CBOs (55 percent) responding as well as twelve of forty-three
congregations (28 percent) and five of seven FBOs (71 percent).
This represents an above-average response for all categories
based on reports by other studies engaged in similar work
(Printz 1998; Behr and DiPietro 2002; Hodgkinson and
Weitzman 1984).13
䉴Findings
Outlining differences and similarities beyond the agreedon definitions requires an understanding of their engagement in social service provision, the services they provide,
and where they are located. This is accomplished with a
detailed response to the three research questions based on
the Philadelphia case study.
Research Question 1: To what extent are CBOs, religious congregations, and FBOs engaged in social service delivery
and related community development activities within
poor urban communities?
The three organizations report participation in specific
programs within the following set of eight service categories:
housing, economic development, social services, education
(adults), health services, community organizing, youth development, and senior citizen services. Each category is composed of a different number of programs ranging from three
in housing to nine in community organizing and youth development. Table 3 presents details on these categories.
Two measurements are used to quantify service type. The
first is a simple calculation of the percentage of organizations
that provide services. The second is the service range index
(SRI) of the three organization types—CBOs, congregations,
and FBOs. The SRI is defined as the relative quantity of programs provided by an organization type and is used for comparison purposes; it is used to measure the average breadth
of service for CBOs, congregations, and FBOs. For example,
if all CBOs provide one type of health service program
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
Figure 3. Service type: Overall by organization type.
(health fairs/screenings, for example), then the percentage
of CBOs involved in health services is high (100 percent) and
the SRI, representing the variety of services, is low. However,
if only one CBO provides health services but provides all
eight types of programs, then the percentage of CBOs
involved is low and SRI is relatively higher.
Overall, a slightly greater percentage of congregations (49
percent) provide services, as compared to FBOs (45 percent)
and CBOs (36 percent; shown on the left axis). Similarly,
FBOs (.20) exhibit a higher SRI compared to congregations
(.16) and CBOs (.16; shown on the right axis); see Figure 3.
This means that, although the percentage of FBOs offering
services is lower than that of congregations and CBOs, the
variety of services they provide is relatively greater. Using twofactor ANOVAs, results show that there is a statistically significant difference between CBOs, congregations, and FBOs in
the overall percentage of organizations providing services
(p < .05) but not in the SRI. This means that on average, a
greater percentage of congregations and FBOs provide services than the secular nonprofits; however, each organization
type provides an equal variety of services. Noteworthy variations exist in the individual service type category descriptions.
These are discussed in the response to research question 2
found below.
Research Question 2: How are the three types of organizations
the same and different in terms of their service offerings?
Congregations do not participate in housing, but are active
contributors in the social services, health services, and youth
development offerings with CBOs and FBOs. CBOs report the
highest level (36 percent) of participation in housing followed
by FBOs (20 percent) with no congregations participating.
Additionally, FBOs report a higher SRI (.20) compared to
CBOs (.18). This means that although the percentage of FBOs
offering housing services is lower than that of CBOs, the FBOs
provide a slightly greater variety. On average, CBOs report the
lowest level (45 percent) of participation in social services compared to FBOs (60 percent) and congregations (58 percent);
however, the three organization types provide a comparable
7
variety of activities with SRI
scores of .23 for CBOs, .23 for
FBOs, and .24 for congregations. Analysis of health services offerings presents very
different participation rates
and SRI scores for the three
organization types. On average, the greatest percentage
of organizations providing
health services comes from
FBOs (80 percent) followed
by congregations (59 percent)
and CBOs (27 percent). Correspondingly, a high SRI is observed
for FBOs (.30), then congregations (.19), and finally CBOs
(.08). This means that a larger percentage of FBOs offer a
greater breadth of health services than congregations and
CBOs, respectively. Finally, large differences also exist in youth
development with congregations (83 percent) reporting the
highest percentage of participating institutions followed by
FBOs (60 percent) and CBOs (45 percent). However, a higher
SRI is observed for FBOs (.33), followed by CBOs (.22), and
then congregations (.19). This means that although the percentage of congregations offering youth development is
higher than that of FBOs and CBOs, the variety of such programs through congregations is limited. Compared to CBOs, a
greater percentage of FBOs participate in youth development
and offer the greatest variety of services.
On average, outside of housing, a higher percentage of
congregations and FBOs provide services. The variety of services offered by these groups fluctuates across service areas;
however, the congregations and FBOs fill needs unmet by
CBOs and the public sector.
Research Question 3: How does the location pattern of CBOs,
religious congregations, and FBOs relate to the services
they provide?
Despite its high degree of unemployment, history of social
unrest and riots, and resulting disinvestment, the study area
maintains a rich civic infrastructure and body of institutional
capital. Of the total number of organizations in the study area,
twenty are CBOs, forty-three are congregations, and seven are
FBOs. CBOs represent 29 percent of all the organizations, as
compared to congregations with 61 percent and FBOs with 10
percent. This means that 71 percent of the local organizations
in this area have a formal religious affiliation.
These congregations and FBOs are distributed throughout
the study area. Figure 5 shows the overall density of all three
types of organizations per quarter mile. The dots represent
organizations with some groups sharing the same address.
Standard deviation ellipses (SDEs) define the dispersion of 66
percent and 95 percent of organization locations by type and
8
Botchwey
Figure 4. Service types.
Figure 5. Density map of all organizations.
the direction around each group’s mean center. The density
breakdown by organization type coupled with standard deviation ellipses reveals significant differences in location. SDEs
show CBOs clustered in the eastern portion of the study area
with over two-thirds of these institutions found within ten blocks
of Broad Street, the eastern boundary of the study area (see
Figure 6). Unlike CBOs, congregations and FBOs are evenly distributed throughout the study area, housed in a variety of buildings from elaborate edifices to plain storefronts; FBOs are fewer
in number and with greater presence in the southern half of the
neighborhood, as evidenced by the SDEs (see Figures 7 and 8).
Findings show that secular organizations select areas close to
major thoroughfares, principally Broad Street, the major eastwest divider running north to south for the extent of the city. In
Figure 6. Density of community-based organizations (CBOs).
contrast, congregations and FBOs are dispersed throughout the
inner regions of the area interwoven with residential neighborhoods. Major roads with several forms of available public transportation also have the highest degree of accessibility for
people residing miles away from the study area. Multiple bus
routes and the Broad Street/Orange Line subway travel at
greater frequencies, connecting this area where CBOs locate
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
9
Figure 7. Density of congregations.
Figure 8. Density of faith-based organizations (FBOs).
to people residing throughout the city. Within the study area,
residents rely on two main bus routes that run east to west,
connecting to and from Broad Street and thus the CBOs
(Johnson 2006). Note, the average wait for one of these two bus
routes is twenty minutes versus seven minutes for a bus or train
at multiple points along Broad Street. This enhanced access for
populations outside the study area allows CBOs to more easily
serve a wider demographic beyond those residing west of Broad
Street. Additionally, data collected on population served show
that the congregations and FBOs focus their outreach and service offerings within the residential neighborhood surrounding
their buildings, while CBOs intentionally extend their offerings
to individuals throughout the city.
development programs, and these organizations are located in
the heart of the residential neighborhood.
The implications of continued reliance on the contributions of FBOs and congregations with the increasing devolution of services and little restructuring of the welfare state are
significant. First, the religious sector may become a primary
service provider for harder to reach populations but are currently underequipped to meet their long-term needs. FBOs
and congregations locate in proximity to this population and
provide immediate short-term relief, but there is little evidence
that the services provided can help individuals and families
permanently escape poverty. Rusk (1999) notes that an analysis of CDCs’ involvement in community development over a
ten- or twenty-year period shows overall patterns of increasing
poverty and decreasing buying power in the areas they serve.
Future work in this area needs to address how the religious sector factors into this analysis and to what extent congregations
and FBOs assuage the severity of increased poverty. It also
needs to evaluate the total mix of services offered by CBOs,
congregations, and FBOs, and potential gaps or significant
concentration of services that may exist.
Second, planners should be aware of the silent partners
that extend beyond the shadow state. Knowing the organizations that are located in a specific community, their service
contributions, and roles enables planners to integrate the
congregations and FBOs into a framework that builds on
available resources and offers a sustainable asset-based
䉴Conclusions and Implications for Planners
Congregations and FBOs are silent partners serving urban
America, often unseen in their contributions to community
development but critical, given their extent of service, service
offerings, and location in communities. The research shows
that three-quarters of the institutions in this urban community
are congregations and FBOs. On average, 45 to 49 percent of
religious sector organizations participate in service offerings
with similar varieties of offerings when compared to CBOs.
FBOs and congregations offer a variety of services, most significantly in the form of social services, health services, and youth
10
approach to social and physical service provision. The challenge is in assessing the prevalence of CBOs, congregations,
and FBOs. Following the methods used in this study will allow
planners to validate lists of organizations in target communities and to better familiarize themselves with their service
areas. The approach outlined above requires a great deal of
neighborhood canvassing by foot, mail, and phone contacts
and referrals. While laborious, this approach is advantageous
because of the relationships one is able to establish through
the process that can further later community development
efforts.
Third, these relationships between religious sector and
shadow state participants may lead to increased organizational
capacity, engagement with clients, and trust, thereby improving
the level of social capital within the community. Access to such a
catalog of local organizations helps in developing community
networking sessions for all interested groups. The organizations
in the North Philadelphia study area participate in such a group.
Beech Interplex, Inc., a community development nonprofit,
formed in 1990 through a public-private partnership with the
William Penn Foundation to improve a 26-square-block area of
North Philadelphia. They saw a need for increased communication across the area and thus created the Consortium of Cecil
B. Moore Organizations also in 1990. The consortium consists of
over fifty-seven agencies that meet three times a year to provide
progress reports of revitalization activities and to coordinate
interorganizational improvement functions. Floyd Alston, the
company’s first president, believes that such regular meetings
are indispensable since they allow institution leaders to develop
“one-on-one relationships that are necessary in this kind of community development work” (Alston 2002). The networking and
relationship building that occurs through these meetings develops an institutional capital that can address the structural components in our society that influence poverty such as joblessness,
poor education, affordable housing, economic development,
and limited access to quality health care. Further analysis is
needed in this area to assess the impact of these types of groups
and the criteria that lead to their success.
Planning research and practice will benefit from this study
through its lessons concerning inner-city revitalization and the
involvement of both religious and secular community organizations in poverty alleviation. This research tests policy makers’
belief that local institutions and citizens’ associations are important contributors to community development, since they
directly serve those in need. It provides support for further
analysis and policy changes by emphasizing the engagement,
service offerings, and location preferences of the local religious
and secular institutions in Lower North Philadelphia. The findings have the potential to strengthen the foundation for existing urban poverty and neighborhood development policies by
providing empirical data regarding characteristics of local organizations in high-poverty neighborhoods.
Botchwey
䉴Appendix
Survey Questions
1. Organization Name
2. Title of Person Completing Survey
3. Phone: __________; Fax: __________;
Email/URL: __________
4. Is your organization affiliated with any religion, religious
institution, or religious congregation?
5. If yes, what religion?
6. Which category best describes your organization? (Religious
congregation, religious community organization or community
development corporation affiliated with a congregation, religious community organization or community development corporation not affiliated with a congregation, neighborhood-based
community organization or community development corporation, Philadelphia-based community organization or community development corporation, national nonprofit organization,
umbrella organization)
7. Does your organization have a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit designation?
8. What area of Lower North Philadelphia do you serve?
9. What year did you begin serving this community?
10. Whom do you serve in this community? (Children, youth,
elderly, families, people with no or low incomes/poor,
people with disabilities, people with addictions, refugees/
immigrants, prisoners and/or their families)
11. On average, how many people from this community do you
serve each month?
12. Does your organization produce an annual report, newsletter, or other materials that are available to the public?
13. Why do you provide these services?
14. What types of services do you provide to your service area?
(Housing [construction, rehabilitation, management]; economic
development [commercial ventures, industrial development,
banking/credit union, entrepreneurial training, small business
incubation]; social services [job counseling, training, and placement; day care provision; counseling/programs for families,
homeless, and poor people services; financial counseling or
investment clubs; drug and alcohol abuse prevention and
recovery]; education (adults) [computer literacy, literacy, GED,
tutoring, functional English/translation services]; health services
[health fairs/screenings, blood drives/organ donation, health
education, clinic, drug and alcohol prevention, health insurance programs, maternity programs, nutrition programs]; community organizing [meeting space provision, voter registration,
community security, organizing around issues, mobilization,
interfaith/interdenominational collaboration, neighborhood
cleanup/improvement, holiday celebrations or fairs, recreational programs]; youth development [daycare, charter, or private school; after-school and weekend programs; summer
programs; job training; mentoring; tutoring/literacy; skill
development; programs for gang members, youth offenders, or
runaways]; senior citizen services [transportation, meals, visitation,
day care, exercise, health care])
15. What is your annual operating budget?
16. What percentage of your annual budget is spent on the following? Administration/personnel (salaries, benefits, etc.);
programs (current expenses); building/facilities or operations; and maintenance, supplies, and materials
Author’s Note: Funding from the Center for Research on Religion and Urban
Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania supported the work that provided the basis for this article. This article was previously presented at the meet-
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
ing of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning in Portland. The
author is grateful to Daphne Spain, Georgette Poindexter, and David Phillips
for their thoughtful comments on early drafts. The author is solely responsible
for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this article. Any errors remain the author’s responsibility.
䉴Notes
1. The expanded government-NPO partnerships and business practices focus provided a backdrop for the ten-fold increase
from 1970 to 1990 in the number of community development
corporations (CDCs) across the country (www.ncced.org).
2. Cnaan and Boddie (2001) calculated the replacement value
of services or programs provided by congregations in Philadelphia.
The monthly replacement value of one congregation is estimated at
$9,821.06 or $117,852.72 annually. Multiplying this out for the
North Philadelphia study area congregations and FBOs generates a
replacement value of $8,249,690.40. This represents a major contribution by the informal network of “institutional capital.”
3. See Monsma (2004).
4. Rusk (1999) and Wilson (1996) refer to the work of CDC
as “in place” responses to poverty and need rather than
approaches to address structural inequalities.
5. Lower North Philadelphia is one of twelve Planning
Analysis Sections (PAS) designated by the Philadelphia Planning
Commission that assembles areawide data. The study neighborhood is located in the west central section of this PAS.
6. From 1950 to 2000, Philadelphia lost over 400,000 residents,
leaving it with a population of 1.52 million in 2000. In A Prayer for the
City, Bissinger (1997) notes that the 1990 population of 1.58 million
was the smallest number of city inhabitants since 1910. Settlement
trends lead one to believe that in general, people moved to the suburbs. The 2000 census data (U.S. Census 2000) do in fact show city
population loss with suburban gain, leaving a doughnut-shaped area
of abandonment and poverty surrounding the central city.
7. The 2000 census data (U.S. Census 2000) show that vacancy
rates in Philadelphia increased from 10.6 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2000. The 1990 census data (U.S. Census 1990) on the
Philadelphia Primary Metropolitan Area report vacancy rates of 8.3
percent. This includes Philadelphia County and the New Jersey
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Mayor Street recently initiated
the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative program, which has
as a focus abandoned housing removal. It is not clear what impact
this program has had on vacancy rates. Homeownership rates in
Philadelphia decreased from 55.4 percent in 1990 to 52.2 percent
in 2000, compared to 56.8 percent in 1990 for metropolitan areas.
8. Cnaan, Wineburg, and Boddie’s (1999) study of Philadelphia
congregations published in The Newer Deal is one of the most complete works concerning these religious institutions engaged in spiritual and social ministry. His demonstrated understanding and
experience with these organizations validates the application of his
definition for congregations to this study.
9. A synthesis of the literature shows that a distinction between
FBOs and non-FBOs cannot be based on the organization’s name,
activities, partnerships, leaders, members, or funding sources
because of the complexity of its operation. Any of these characteristics individually or jointly may create a faulty definition.
10. Faith-based or religious community serving organizations are
defined differently throughout legislation. For example, according
to the Community Economic Development Expertise Enhancement Act of
2002, H.R. 3974, FBOs are a type of community-based development
organization that complies with the following requirements: (1) has
as its primary mission to serve or provide investment capital for
11
low-income communities and low-income persons and (2) maintains accountability to residents of low-income communities through
their representation on any governing board of the organization or
on any advisory board to the organization. Under the CARE Act of
2002, S. 1924, faith groups are listed as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
11. Before Charitable Choice was first enacted, policy makers
categorized FBOs as either “religiously affiliated” or “pervasively
sectarian” based on a 1973 case, Hunt v. McNair. The “religiously
affiliated” groups in this case had ties to religion but were “set up
to perform secular social services,” while the “pervasively sectarian”
were institutions “in which religion is so pervasive that a substantial
portion of its functions are subsumed in a religious mission” (Hunt
v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743 [1973]). The distinction between
these two categories resulted in discriminatory treatment by government and other sources of support, and has been mostly abandoned by the U.S. Supreme Court (Unlevel Playing Field 2001);
Lupu and Tuttle 2003; Monsma 2002, chap. 1, 13).
12. The first refining step was a thorough neighborhood canvassing. These daily windshield and walking surveys block by block
throughout the study area took one month. Survey discoveries were
confirmed by personal interactions with residents or organization
leaders. This added an additional twenty-eight new organizations to
the list and eliminated two defunct or relocated groups. The next
step was mailing introductory letters from key leaders in the city and
North Philadelphia community to the community-based organizations (CBOs), congregations, and FBOs on the revised list. Letters
returned because of incorrect addresses or other reasons were
removed from the master list following a site visit to confirm nonexistence. This step eliminated thirty-four groups. An additional
twenty groups were removed from this inventory after follow-up
phone calls identified disconnected or wrong phone numbers.
Finally, one of the questions on the survey asks for a list of groups
with which institutions partner or do similar work. Any establishment listed by respondents that was not already contacted received
a survey and follow-up phone calls. Eleven valid referrals were
added to the subsequently complete record.
13. The survey instrument was piloted to a random sample of
organizations in West Philadelphia. This area was selected because it
has similar characteristics as those found in North Philadelphia,
including a large university presence (the University of Pennsylvania
versus Temple University), similar poverty characteristics, and a high
concentration of congregations and FBOs. At the conclusion of the
pilot study, the survey was revised and readministered in the North
Philadelphia study area.
䉴References
Alexander, J. 1999. The impact of devolution on nonprofits: A
multiphase study of social services organizations. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership 10 (1): 57-70.
Alston, F. 2002. Interview with the author on September 19,
Philadelphia. (Transcription in possession of author).
Asher, R. M. 2004. The price of social development: Precursors to
a strategic vision for faith-based community organizing.
http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2004/benasher.htm
(accessed on June 10, 2005).
Baker, C. 2001. (Un)charitable choices?: Religious organizations
consider Charitable Choice, http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/
115/Baker.html (accessed on May 23, 2002).
Beckwith, D., with C. Lopez. 1997. Community organizing people
power from the grassroots, http://www.comm-org.utoledo.edu/
papers97/beckwith.htm (accessed on December 18, 1999).
12
Behr, Gregg S., and Melanie DiPietro. 2002. Social services in faithbased organizations: Pittsburgh congregations and the services they provide. Report to the Forbes Funds. Pittsburgh, PA: Forbes Funds.
www.forbesfunds.org (accessed on March 10, 2003).
Bissinger, H. G. 1997. A prayer for the city. New York: Random House.
Boddie, S. C. 2001. Habitat for humanity: Building private homes,
building public religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
40 (4): 781-2.
Botchwey, N. D. 2003. Taxonomy of religious and secular nonprofit
organizations: Knowledge development and policy recommendations for neighborhood revitalization. PhD diss. University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Brudney, J. L. 1987. Coproduction and privatization: Exploring the
relationship and its implications. Journal of Voluntary Action
Research 16 (July/Sept): 11-21.
CARE Act of 2002, S 1924, 107th Congress, 2nd sess. (February 8,
2002).
Cisneros, H. G. 1996. Higher ground: Faith communities and community building. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Cnaan, R. A. 1999. Social and community work by urban American
religious congregations. Brookings Review 17 (2): 50-53.
Cnaan, R. A., and S. C. Boddie. 2001. Philadelphia census of congregations and their involvement in social service delivery.
Social Service Review (December): 559-80.
Cnaan, R. A., and C. Milofsky. 1997. Small religious nonprofits: A
neglected topic. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26
(Supplement): 3-13.
Cnaan, R. A., R. J. Wineburg, and S. C. Boddie. 1999. The newer
deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Corburn, J. 2003. Bridging local knowledge into environmental
decision making. Journal of Planning Education and Research
22:420-33.
Day, D. C. 1998. Church-based community organizing:
Philadelphia perspectives. Paper presented on COMM-ORG:
Online conference on community organizing and development. http://comm-org-utoledo.edu/papers.htm (accessed
on December 18, 1999).
Dear, M. J., and J. Wolch. 1987. Landscapes of despair: From deinstitutionalization to homelessness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
DeVerteuil, G. 2003. Welfare reform, institutional practices, and
service-delivery settings. Urban Geography 24 (6): 529-50.
Community Economic Development Expertise Enhancement Act of 2002,
HR 3974, 107th Congress, 2nd sess. (March 14, 2002).
Hall, G. B., and A. E. Joseph. 1988. Group home location and
host neighborhood attributes: An ecological analysis. The
Professional Geographer 40 (3): 297-306.
Hodgkinson, V. A., and M. S. Weitzman. 1984. Dimensions of the independent sector: A statistical profile. Washington, DC: Independent
Sector.
Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743 (1973).
Johnson, B. 2006. Personal communication with Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority representative.
November 5.
Kaboolian, L. 1996. How do public managers manage? Bureaucratic
constraints, organizational culture, and the potential for reform.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15 (3): 490-2.
Kretzmann, J. P., and J. L. McKnight. 1997. Building communities
from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing assets.
Chicago: ACTA.
Lupu, I. C., and Robert W. Tuttle. 2003. The state of the law 2003:
Developments in the law concerning government partnerships with religious organizations. Roundtable on religion and social welfare
Botchwey
policy, December. www.religionandsocialpolicy.org (accessed on
January 4, 2004).
Martin, M. L., A. Matthew, N. Stanley, N. Botchwey, and M. Carney.
2004. Commentary: Using culturally competent strategies to
improve traffic safety in the black community. Annals of Emergency
Medicine 44:414-8.
McRoberts, O. M. 2003. Streets of glory: Church and community in a black
urban neighborhood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Medoff, P., and H. Sklar. 1994. Streets of hope: The fall and rise of an
urban neighborhood. Boston: South End.
Milward, H. B. 1996. Introduction to the symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control, and performance in interorganizational settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 6 (92): 193-95.
Monsma, S. V., ed. 2002. Church-state relations in crisis: Destiny neutrality. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.
———. 2004. Putting faith in partnerships: Welfare-to-work in four
cities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Nye, N., and N. J. Glickman. 2000. Working together: Building
capacity for community development. Housing Policy Debate 11
(1): 163-98.
Owens, M. L. 1999. The political potential of black church-based
community development organizations. Paper presented at
annual meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action, Arlington, VA. November.
———. 2000. Political action and black church-associated community development corporations. http://comm-org.wisc.edu/
papers2000/owensfront.htm (accessed on April 20, 2001).
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, HR 3734, 104th Congress, 2nd sess. (January 3, 1996).
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. 1987. North Philadelphia
plan: A guide to revitalization. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia
City Planning Commission.
Printz, T. J. 1998. Faith-based service providers in the nation’s
capital: Can they do more? The Urban Institute No. 2 (April).
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon &Schuster.
Rusk, D. 1999. Inside game/outside game: Winning strategies for saving
urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Salamon, L. 1995. Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit
relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Scheie, D., and N. Kari. 2004. What’s faith got to do with it? Early
insights on faith-based civic engagement from the organized
religion evaluation initiative. http://comm-org.wisc.edu/
papers2004/scheie.htm (accessed on December 22, 2004).
Spain, D. 2001. How women saved the city. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Suarez, R. 1999. The old neighborhood: What we lost in the great suburban migration, 1966-1999. New York: Free Press.
Sullivan, L. H. 1998. Moving mountains: The principles and purposes
of Leon Sullivan. Valley Forge, PA: Judson.
Takahashi, L. M., and M. J. Dear. 1997. The changing dynamics
of community opposition to human service facilities. Journal of
the American Planning Association 63 (1): 79-95.
Takahashi, L. M., and G. Smutny. 2001. Collaboration among small
community-based organizations: Strategies and challenges in turbulent environments. Journal of Planning Education and Research
21:141-53.
Teaford, J. C. 1993. The twentieth-century American city, 2nd ed.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Teitz, M. B. 1968. Toward a theory of public facility location.
Papers of the Regional Science Association 21:35-51.
Unlevel playing field: Barriers to participation by faith-based and
community organizations in federal social service programs.
The Religious Sector in Local Community Development 䉳
2001. White House news release. http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2001/08/unlevelfield.html (accessed on August
30, 2001).
U.S. Census 1990. http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen1990.html
(accessed on August 8, 2002).
U.S. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/rophi/www/ (accessed
on August 8, 2002).
U.S. Department of the Interior, Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER), No. PA-1731, “Girard College, Founders Hall,”
2000. Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C.
Vidal, A. 2001. Faith-based organizations in community development.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Community
Development Office of Policy Development and Research.
Walker, D. 2001. Not by faith alone. http://www.nhi.org/online/
issues/115/Walker.html (accessed on August 30, 2001).
Warren, M. R. 2001a. Dry bones rattling: Community building to revitalize American democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
———. 2001b. Building democracy: Faith-based community organizing today. http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/115/Warren
.html (accessed on March 16, 2002).
Warren, M. R., and R. L. Wood. 2001. Faith-based community
organizing the state of the field: A report of the findings of a
national survey conducted by Interfaith Funders, Jericho, NY.
13
http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2001/faith/ (accessed on
March 16, 2002).
Weill, J. C., and L. Winkelman. 2003. Faith-based community organizing: A unique social justice approach to revitalizing synagogue
life. http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2003/weill.htm (accessed
on December 22, 2004).
Wilson, J., and B. Banks. 2004. Chicagoland youth and adult training
center: Building strong relationships between faith-based organizations, government and corporations to transform lowincome communities. http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers2004/
wilson.htm (accessed on December 22, 2004).
Wilson, W. J. 1996. When work disappears: The world of the new urban
poor. Random House: New York.
Wolch, J. 1990. The shadow state: Government and the voluntary sector
in transition. New York: Foundation Center.
Wood, R. L. 2002. Faith in action: Religion, race and democratic organizing in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 2003. Does religion matter? Projecting democratic power
into the public arena. In Religion as social capital: Producing the
common good, edited by C. Smidt, 69-86. Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press.
Wutnow, R. 2003. Can religion revitalize civil society? An institutional perspective. In Religion as social capital: Producing the
common good, edited by C. Smidt, 191-210. Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press.