The Religious Sector ’ s Presence in Local Community Development

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 Abstract