 

“Walt-7M»,
.3.
.. 5... ”an“.
Dina.» :ﬁ. ; v. .5..-
... w. .39): .
ﬁtnuupxk. M ER
3!
. 1:1 .
3:.1: A33 4 7
awash. Awnwuhnwﬂnmn.‘
, ".53.“...32 ,1.
LT?! ,4

 

 

 

A :1:
InuCFI...)
.11 ‘
13g

2&1. 9.34.1: .

is? .{ﬁne
R1 . by. J3”... .n
on? $5.953...

1.... ‘

.b L 1:1..th-

vi, .: Ins-nuvﬂry.
I In}:

 

1.3}.
1-)}: I}
. 9...)?!

n. 31%...38»
. ii

Vitl vlJuUeih‘ y!

\'

 

 

MICHI IGAN STATE

113111111

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UIHIWHUUHIHHHHIIHIW

“» 2 01500 506388

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP, TEAMWORK AND PARTICIPATION
OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN COMMUNITY COALITIONS
THAT SUPPORT CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

presented by

Mart in Allen Covey

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Egmily and Child
Ecology

 

é; Major professor

Date Iﬁ/lll/gb

MSU i: an Afﬁrmariw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

Hw—v— v—

 

 

' 'ﬁ 'w— v—v_"‘"’ “ V"v—V"-vrv“—V-4‘v“‘v—w~v v V '— v ‘f '—

ar '.‘—"r w

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thin checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
: :1 12‘» ... — i
i

-___IC]
Pﬁ-ﬁ
14-14
-1—1:
-1___1_1

771 1

MSU IeAn Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity lnetﬂwon
mm1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP, TEAMWORK AND PARTICIPATION OF
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN COMMUNITY COALITIONS THAT SUPPORT
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
By

Martin Allen Covey

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1996

ABSTRACT
UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP, TEAMWORK AND PARTICIPATION OF
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 1N COMMUNrrY COALITIONS THAT SUPPORT
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
By

Martin Allen Covey

Community coalitions link assets and promote development by consciously
establishing a safety net for families. Identifying and encouraging a variety of
community partners to become involved in coalitions promotes strong mesosystems
that influence human development in positive ways. Since religious institutions are
found in nearly all communities, they can be important participants in community
coalitions. However, little empirical research exists concerning religious institutions
and their involvement with other community organizations.

The Community Action and Leadership Survey was a 75 item, self-
administered survey instrument utilized to collect data from 111 religious institutions.
Data collected included: (a) the kinds of services or programs they provide to their
community that support children, youth, and families, and with whom they work to
provide those services; (b) demographic information about the institution; (c) the
respondent's perceptions on how the leaders of his/her institution work together as a
team; and (d) information about the respondent. Chi-square tests, analysis of variance
and discriminant function analysis were employed to analyze the data.

Although participation in a coalition was not related to the size, geographic

location, or denominational affiliation of the institution, the majority of religious

institutions were found to participate in a community coalition of some kind. Their
participation was not related to either the size of the leadership team or whether that
team was composed of volunteers or paid staff. The ability of a leadership team to
work well together as a team did not discriminate religious institution participation in
community coalitions.

The rate of participation of religious institutions in community coalitions
discovered in this research should be encouraging to community and religious leaders.
Religious institutions were found to be a rich resource of experiences and abilities,
Often in the form of volunteers, that made a tremendous contribution to the work of
community coalitions. The effective utilization of these resources is, however,
contingent Upon a willingness to reassess the notion that religious institutions cannot

or should not cooperate with others to meet the needs of communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the important individuals and organizations that
made the completion of this document and this degree possible. My deepest thanks
and appreciation to Dr. Joanne Keith for her vision of possibilities and her belief in my
potential. It was through her leadership and advice that my entire program had its
unique focus and immediate applications for my life. She truly modeled the
collaborative spirit that changed me and my vision for the future.

I gratefully acknowledge Dr. Norma Bobbitt, Dr. June Youatt, and Dr. Dennis
Keefe, my other committee members, for their encouragement, help and support.
Their insightful recommendations made my graduate program the most stretching and
exciting experience of my life. Their concern went beyond supporting me as a student
but was extended to my family as well.

I wish to thank the Institute for Children, Youth and Families for sponsoring
me as a graduate assistant. The staff at the Institute offered help when needed and
encouragement when I was "freaking out." I especially want to thank my colleagues at
the Institute, Danny Perkins and Theresa Ferrari. Our mutual commiseration gave as
needed perspective and kept me on the road of graduate studies.

I thank Judy Pfaff, who helped to make sense of the mass of data and kept me

iv

V

from getting overwhelmed, and Mary Lou McPherson, who helped to bring the text
and graphics together in the final document.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge my wife, Kim, and my children, Esther and
Benjamin, for their love, support and prayers throughout the process of graduate
studies. I could not have made it through without them. The importance of strong
families and the benefit these relationships bring to an individual's well-being is

continually made real to me because of their positive inﬂuence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. xii
Chapter 1
Introduction .................................................... 1
Theoretical Framework ...................................... 3
Problem and Rationale ....................................... 6
Research Questions ......................................... 7
Research question one ................................. 9
Research question two ................................. 9
Research question three ................................ 9
Chapter 2
Review of Literature ............................................ 10
The State of Children, Youth and Families ...................... 10
Fragmentation of Services and Government Overinvolvement
in Support of Children, Youth and Families ..................... 13
Community Coalitions: An Ecological Approach for Supporting
Children, Youth and Families ................................ 15
Community Coalitions and Human Ecological Theory ............. 19
Religious Institutions: Valuable Contributors to Communities ....... 24
Teamwork Important to Successful Coalitions ................... 32
Clear, elevating goal .................................. 38
Results driven structure ............................... 38
Competent team members ............................. 38
Unified commitment ................................. 39
Collaborative climate ................................. 39
Standards of excellence ............................... 40
External support and recognition ........................ 4O
Principled leadership ................................. 41
Summary ................................................ 41

vi

vii

Chapter 3
Methodology .................................................. 45
Assumptions .............................................. 45
Deﬁnitions ............................................... 46
Sampling Frame ........................................... 49
Instrument ................................................ 50
Research Questions and Analysis .............................. 52
Chapter 4
Results ....................................................... 55
Description of Responding Religious Institutions ................. 55
Coalition Involvement and Religious Institutions ................. 57
Coalition involvement and religious institution size ......... 58
Coalition involvement and religious institution location ...... 59
Coalition involvement and ethnicity ..................... 60
Coalition involvement and denominational afﬁliation ........ 61
Types of collaborative efforts ........................... 62
Representatives from religious institutions to coalitions ...... 64
Contributions of religious institutions to coalitions .......... 65
Leadership Teams and Religious Institutions .................... 66
Leadership teams and religious institution size ............. 67
Leadership teams and religious institution location .......... 68
Type of leadership team and team Size .................... 68
Coalition involvement and leadership team size ............ 69
Coalition involvement and leadership team type ............ 70
Dimensions of Teamwork on Leadership Teams in
Religious Institutions ....................................... 71
Dimensions of teamwork and religious institution Size ....... 72
Dimensions of teamwork and religious institution location . . . . 75
Dimensions of teamwork and leadership team type .......... 78
Dimensions of teamwork and leadership team size .......... 80
Dimensions of teamwork and coalition involvement ......... 83
Discriminant Analysis of Religious Institution Variables
and Coalition Participation ................................... 83
Summary ................................................ 88
Chapter 5
Discussion and Implications ...................................... 91
Summary of Findings ....................................... 91
Participation of Religious Institutions in Community Coalitions ..... 92
Coalition involvement and religious institution Size ......... 94
Coalition involvement and religious institution location ...... 96
Coalition involvement and denominational afﬁliation ........ 98

Coalition involvement and leadership team size ........... 100

viii

Coalition involvement and leadership team type ........... 101

Dimensions of teamwork and religious institutions ......... 105

Predicting coalition involvement of religious institutions . . . . 106

Implications for Future Research ............................. 107

Research and the teamwork instrument .................. 107

Coalition research and ecological theory ................. 109

Implications for Programs and Policy ......................... 115

Implications for programs ............................ 115

Implications for policy ............................... 122

Summary ............................................... 124
Appendices
Appendix A

Cover Letter ............................................. 128
Appendix B

Community Action and Leadership Survey ..................... 129
Appendix C

Reminder Letter .......................................... 143
Appendix D

Codebook for Community Action and Leadership Survey ......... 144

List of References ............................................. 158

LIST OF TABLES

Table l.

Coalition Involvement by Size of Religious Institution ................. 59
Table 2.

Coalition Involvement by Location of Religious Institution .............. 59
Table 3.

Coalition Involvement by Denominational Afﬁliation .................. 62
Table 4.

Representatives From Religious Institutions by Coalition Involvement ..... 65
Table 5.

Type of Leadership Team by Religious Institution Size ................. 67
Table 6.

Type of Leadership Team by Religious Institution Location ............. 68
Table 7.

Type of Leadership Team by Size of Leadership Team ................. 69
Table 8.

Coalition Involvement by Leadership Team Size ...................... 70
Table 9.

Coalition Involvement by Leadership Team Type ..................... 71
Table 10.

Comparison of Dimensions of Teamwork,

Means and Standard Deviations .................................... 73

ix

Table 11.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Religious Institution,
Means and Standard Deviations .................................... 74

Table 12.
Analysis of Variance,
Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Religious Institution .............. 75

Table 13.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Location of Religious Institution,
Means and Stande Deviations .................................... 76

Table 14.
Analysis of Variance,
Dimensions of Teamwork and Location of Religious Institution .......... 77

Table 15.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Type of Leadership Team,
Means and Standard Deviations .................................... 79

Table 16.
Analysis of Variance,
Dimensions of Teamwork and Type of Leadership Team ................ 80

Table 17.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Leadership Team of Religious
Institutions, Means and Standard Deviations .......................... 81

Table 18.
Analysis of Variance,
Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Leadership Team ................ 82

Table 19.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Coalition Involvement,
Means Scores and Standard Deviations .............................. 84

Table 20.
Analysis of Variance,
Dimensions of Teamwork and Coalition Involvement .................. 85

Table 21.
Correlation Matrix for Dimensions of Teamwork ...................... 86

 

xi

Table 22.
Discriminant Analysis,
Religious Institution Variables and Coalition Participation .............. 88

Table 23.
Discriminant Analysis,
Classiﬁcation Results ............................................ 90

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.
A representation of Bronfenbrenner’s human ecological model ........... 23
Figure 2.
Size of religious institutions ...................................... 56
Figure 3.
Location of religious institutions ................................... 56
Figure 4.
Coalition involvement of religious institutions ........................ 58
Figure 5.
Types of coalitions in which religious institutions participate ............ 63

xii

 

Chapter 1
Introduction

Social, economic, and demographic changes in recent decades have inﬂuenced
children, youth, and families in dramatic ways. Most families in America have strong,
healthy relationships between husbands and wives, and between parents and children.
These families have good homes to live in, enough food to eat, opportunities for a good
education and participation in the community, all of which aid in healthy development
of children and families. However, many families do not share similar good fortune.
For individuals in these families life can be a threatening combination of hunger, ill-
health, uncertainty, frustration, and fear. Poverty, violence, early sexual activity, abuse
of alcohol and illicit drugs, physical and sexual abuse, egocentric values, and less time
available to spend with family are factors that have put these children, youth, and
families at risk (Dryfoos, 1994; Fuchs & Reklis, 1992; Keith & Perkins, 1995). The
National Commission on Children ( 1991) describes the situation in our nation as
follows:

America's enormous strengths and distressing weaknesses are nowhere more

evident than in the lives of its children and families. Although many children

grow up healthy and happy in strong, stable families, far too many do not. They

are children whose parents are too Stressed and harried to provide caring

attention and guidance. They are children who grow up without the material

support and personal involvement of their mothers and fathers. They are

children who are poor, whose families cannot adequately feed and clothe them

and provide safe, secure homes. They are victims of abuse and neglect at the

hands of adults they love and trust, as well as those they do not even know. . . .

They are children who lack hope for what their lives can become, who believe

they have little to lose by dropping out of school, having a baby as an unmarried
teenager, committing violent crimes, or by taking their own lives. (p. vii)

 

 

2

These social, economic, and demographic changes continue to affect families by
fragmenting community life. The naturally occurring networks of support between
individuals, families, and other social systems have become weak or non-existent. The
social supports and opportunities for participation and involvement in the community
that are necessary for healthy development can no longer be assumed to be present and
available for children and families (Coleman, 1987; Comer, 1984).

In recent decades, communities in American society have met increasingly
complex problems through a reliance upon monies and services provided by State and
federal governments. This approach to meeting community needs predominated until
economic and socio-political conditions began to reduce government support.
Communities are now facing a host of needs with less help from government sources
and without a net of community support (Benard, 1991; Kretzmann & McKnight,
1993).

Daka-Mulwanda, Thomburg, Filbert, and Klein (1995) reviewed 58 national-
level reports recommending ways to improve the lives of children and families. Thirty-
four of the 58 reports recommended collaborations as an effective means of
accomplishing this goal. Together, these reports made a total of 70 different
recommendations encouraging collaboration. Groups of individuals working together to
solve problems is not a new concept. Indeed, these cooperative ventures have existed,
in varying degrees of vitality and importance, for as long as people have lived together.
Collaborations are "efforts that unite and empower individuals and organizations to

accomplish collectively what they could not accomplish independently" (Kagan &

3

Rivera, 1991, p. 3) and are increasingly encouraged as a means by which services are
provided for supporting children, youth, and families effectively and efﬁciently
(Benard, 1991; Keith et al., 1993). Whether linking levels of government together or
encouraging community individuals and organizations to combine resources, coalitions
are increasingly recognized as an important method of supporting and providing
services on behalf of children, youth, and families in communities across the country.
Theoretical Framework

Research directly linked to theory allows a thorough understanding of families
and results in informed, appropriate, and empirically based recommendations for
outreach. Linking the study of community collaborations with human ecological theory
exempliﬁes the notion of the reciprocal relationship of theory, research, and outreach.

Grounding research of community coalitions that support children, youth, and
families with a theoretical framework is important because of the emphasis that
collaborations have received in recent years. Many people have good ideas regarding
community coalitions but much of the outreach and research have not been approached
from a clear theoretical viewpoint (Hughes, 1994; Lavee & Dollahite, 1991).

Human ecological theory supports the critical approach to science which holds
that the aim of knowledge is to enlighten, educate, and emancipate (Bubolz & Sontag,
1993). This approach to social science espouses the use of knowledge gained through
research to drive outreach. Human ecological theory seems particularly well suited to

the study of collaborations and provides a framework from which to study them.

4

Human ecological theory embraces three assumptions about the nature of
human-environment relations that makes it appropriate for the Study of collaborations.
First, social and physical environments are interdependent and inﬂuence human
behavior, development, and quality of life. Second, social and physical environments
are sources of available resources. Third, humans can and should choose, design, or
modify resources and environments to improve life and well-being (Bubolz & Sontag,
1993).

These three assumptions are foundational to the notion of community
collaborations as well. Community collaborations are an operationalization of the
interdependent relationships that exist within communities. The collaborative
movement recognizes that the environment surrounding families, that is, the
community, contains resources that promote healthy development for individuals and
families. Collaborations are products of choices that individuals and organizations
make in a conscious attempt to pool resources to ensure that the healthy development of
children, youth, and families is a reality within their community. Human ecological
theory, therefore, provides a useful framework from which to study and promote
community collaborations.

The human ecological theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) is a particularly
appropriate framework for research of community collaborations because of the primary
place he accords to the interactions between systems (Glossop, 1989). His model
consists of multiple, interrelated, interdependent levels of human experience that

interact with and inﬂuence human behavior and development. The levels can be

 

 

 

5

pictured as a series of concentric circles, with the individual at the center of the model.
The microsystem refers to the immediate setting where an individual experiences and
creates day-to-day reality (such as the family, school, church, day-care center, or
workplace). The exosystem is the level in which the individual does not participate
directly, but which inﬂuences development because it affects some part of the
microsystem; for example, a parent‘s workplace, the school administration, or local law
enforcement policies). The macrosystem is the level most removed from an individual,
yet these external forces inﬂuence behavior and development. The macrosystem is the
culture or sub-culture in which the other systems operate. This macrosystem includes
such elements as the media, government, economic conditions, cultural beliefs, and
values. The chronosystem is the dimension that recognizes that individual development
and environmental interaction occur over time.

Whenever two systems overlap or interrelate, a connection is formed that is
called the mesosystem. The Stronger, more positive, and more diverse the links between
settings, the more powerful and beneﬁcial the resulting mesosystem will be as a
developmental inﬂuence (Garbarino, 1982). Community coalitions are ecological in
that they emphasize interconnections between various community resources for the
positive development of children, youth and families. Coalitions link assets and
promote development by consciously establishing a safety net for families. The
resulting mesosystems formed by these collaborations have potential for becoming
powerful and beneﬁcial inﬂuences in the development of children, youth and families.

Coalitions within communities are examples of communities of humans choosing to

 

 

 

6

utilize their particular unique environments to provide needed resources for healthy
development. Individuals and groups within communities evaluate what they have to
provide, and offer to combine their resources with those of others with the goal of
accomplishing together what they could not accomplish on their own. Human
ecological theory serves as an appropriate framework to develop speciﬁc theories of
community collaborations, conduct and evaluate research on community collaborations,
and from which to develop informed, appropriate, and empirically based outreach.
Problem and Rationale

Identifying and encouraging a variety of community partners to become
involved in coalitions will promote Strong mesosystems that inﬂuence human
development in a positive way. Keith et a1. (1993) conducted research based on an
ecological model that studied community coalitions that supported children, youth, and
families. Members of coalitions were identiﬁed from 11 different sectors of their
communities: schools, community service organizations, government agencies, health,
law, business, parents/families, youth services, universities, and other coalitions.
Religious institutions were also found to be active participants in many of these
collaborations.

Because religious institutions are found in nearly all communities, they can be
important participants in community coalitions that support children, youth, and
families. Therefore, further research is required to identify those variables that
inﬂuence participation of religious institutions in community coalitions that support

children, youth, and families.

 

 

 

Research Questions

A coalition has been broadly deﬁned as an effort that unites and empowers
individuals and organizations to accomplish collectively what they could not
accomplish independently (Kagan & Rivera, 1991). The additive contributions of
individuals and organizations can become greater than the contributions of each group
individually. Elements such as effective leadership, unity, and communication
contribute to the synergy of effective collaborations (Keith et al., 1993).

Elements that contribute to effective teamwork on teams are common to
successful community coalitions that support children, youth, and families. Principled
leadership, a collaborative climate, clear goals, and a uniﬁed commitment have been
distinguished as principles that contribute to effective teams (Blake, Mouton, & Allen,
1987; Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991).

Similarly, successful coalitions require effective leadership (Keith et al., 1993,
Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991; Perkins, 1994). Leaders of coalitions have the
difﬁcult task of balancing the instrumental aspects of the coalition, that is,
accomplishing its goal and objectives, with the expressive aspects of collaborative
work. These expressive aspects include recognizing and meeting the needs of coalition
members, communicating the vision and goals of the coalition, resolving conﬂict, and
developing leadership aspects in other members. In a sense, theirs is the task of
bringing coalition members from being just a group of individuals with a common
interest to a functioning team intent on accomplishing a Shared vision on behalf of

children, youth, and families.

 

8

The ability of diverse individuals and groups working together to accomplish a
shared vision is the focus of the collaborative movement. Larson and LaFasto (1989)
deﬁned eight dimensions that characterized the effectiveness of people working together
on teams: (a) clear, elevating goals, (b) results driven structure, (0) competent team
members, ((1) uniﬁed commitment, (e) collaborative climate, (1) standards of excellence,
(g) external support and recognition, and (h) principled leadership. High levels of these
eight dimensions were found to distinguish between effective and ineffective teams
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991). Similarly, in a study of community
coalitions in Michigan, Keith et a1. (1993) found that quality leadership, unity, and
effective communication were important common elements of successful
collaborations. If high levels of the eight dimensions of teamwork are present in the
leadership teams of religious institutions, it could be hypothesized that these institutions
would be more likely to participate in community coalitions.

This research cannot establish causal links between teamwork and coalition
participation, that is, that high levels of teamwork in religious institutions will
automatically lead to coalition involvement. However, this exploratory research will
investigate the potential for such a relationship. The outcome may be that a high level
of teamwork on the leadership teams of religious institutions is a necessary but not
sufﬁcient inﬂuence on their participation in community coalitions. The location, size,
and ethnicity of the religious institution, plus the leadership team Size, and type of

leadership team will be considered as additional inﬂuences.

 

9

The broad objective of this research is to explore the participation of religious
institutions in community coalitions that support children, youth, and families. Little

empirical research exists concerning religious institutions and their involvement with

 

other community organizations. Therefore, research questions that are exploratory were
addressed in the research rather than questions that test speciﬁc hypotheses.

Research question one. If religious institutions differ as to their participation in
community coalitions, are these differences related to characteristics of the institutions
(size of the institution, location of the institution, and the ethnic composition of the
congregation) and characteristics of the leadership team of the institution (Size of the
leadership team, type of leadership team, and dimensions of teamwork of the leadership
team)?

Research guestion two. Do dimensions of teamwork of the leadership teams
differ by team type or team size and by size or location of the institution?

Research guestion three. What combination of the above factors best
discriminates religious institution participation in community coalitions that support

children, youth and families?

Chapter 2
Review of Literature
The State of Children, Youth, and Families
Families that experience multiple problems present the most disturbing aspect
of family change that has occurred over the past several decades. Families with
multiple problems are often poverty stricken and under stress which renders them less
capable of providing not only the material support needed by their children, but also
essential emotional support and attention.

Fuchs and Reklis (1992) conclude that children today are worse off than children
in their parents' generation. Currently children are the poorest Americans. Twenty-one
percent of children between the ages of 10 and 14 live in a family that has an income
below the federal poverty level (Dryfoos, 1990). Children in single-parent homes,
usually headed by their mother, are more likely to be in poverty. These families are
susceptible to multiple problems as one parent attempts to accomplish the family tasks
of two. The costs of housing, transportation, education, and health care have
substantially reduced the disposable income of middle-income families. State, local,
federal, and Social Security taxes used up 25 percent of median family income in 1990
as compared to 14 percent in 1960. Consequently, many middle-income families must
rely upon more than one paycheck to meet the needs of their families. These economic
changes most keenly affect single-earner families, especially households headed by

single mothers. These changes also have the effect of reducing the time that families

10

11

are able to spend together in order to maintain strong, close relationships (National
Commission on Children, 1991).

Violence has become a major concern for many children and families. The
leading causes of death among teenagers are accidents, suicide and homicide, cancer,
heart conditions, and other chronic ailments (Dryfoos, 1990). Suicide rates among teens
have tripled and homicide rates have increased at all ages but have increased more
rapidly for adolescents than for adults (Fuchs & Reklis, 1992). Five percent of
adolescents had used a weapon to get something from someone two or more times
within a twelve-month period (Keith & Perkins, 1995).

Health risks to children and adolescents are increased by early sexual activity,
abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs, and physical and sexual abuse. In a Michigan study,
36 percent of youths in seventh, ninth, and eleventh grades reported having had sexual
intercourse two or more times (Keith & Perkins, 1995). It has been estimated that 2.5
million adolescents contract a sexually transmitted disease annually. Two hundred
eighty three cases of AIDS were diagnosed among teens in August of 1988. The
number of cases in this age group has doubled every year Since (Dryfoos, 1990).

Many children born to adolescent mothers begin life with more deﬁcits and
fewer assets. They are more likely to have physical problems at birth and suffer from
inadequate prenatal care. Furthermore, their teenage mothers are more likely to drop
out of school and never return to complete graduation requirements. Consequently,
these families are less likely to have the social and economic supports necessary to stay

out of poverty (Schorr, 1988).

 

12

The health of children and adolescents is further jeopardized by the use of
alcohol, tobacco, and drugs. In a study of seventh, ninth, and eleventh graders in
Michigan, Keith and Perkins (1995) reported that 12 percent of eleventh graders
participated in frequent alcohol use (use of alcohol Six or more times in the last 30
days), and 27 percent had participated in binge drinking (ﬁve or more drinks in a row,
once or more in the last 2 weeks). Seventeen percent used cigarettes daily. Nineteen
percent of these eleventh graders reported using illicit drugs six or more times in the last
year.

Health risks among children are not always a result of personal choices. Family
environment makes a signiﬁcant impact on health outcomes and participation in at-risk
behaviors in adolescents. Forty-one percent of serious health impairments among
adolescents occur from physical and/or sexual abuse. One half of all rape victims are
under the age of 18 (Dryfoos, 1990). An adolescent is more likely to participate in at-
risk behaviors if they experience physical/sexual abuse or parental addiction (Keith &
Perkins, 1995).

It is important to restate that many children and families are not at risk from
poverty, violence, and health concerns—what Dryfoos (1994) refers to as the "new
morbidities" (p. 2). Nevertheless, all families feel the effects of these inﬂuences
because they are part of an interdependent world.

Even those children who are shielded from the personal effects of poverty,

illness, and extreme misfortune confront circumstances and conditions that

jeopardize their health and well-being. They too attend troubled schools and

frequent dangerous streets. The adults in their lives are often equally hurried and
distracted. They receive the same cultural messages equating personal success

13

with materialism, greed, and power, while trivializing commitment to marriage,
family, and community. (National Commission on Children, 1991, p. 3)

Fragmentation of Services and Government Overinvolvement in Support of Children,
Youth and Families

The Industrial Revolution brought vast changes in the socioeconomic climates of
Western cultures, especially that of the United States. Three major aspects of the
Industrial Revolution have been cited by scholars of family history as having great
inﬂuence on family life (Coontz, 1992; Demos, 1986; Hunt & Hunt, 1987; Lasch, 1983).
First, the rise of market capitalism inﬂuenced which families had the opportunity to
make money. Second, consumerism, that is, the desire and ability to attain to a higher
standard of living, changed families' motivation for earning money. Third, production
work, in which family members produced income laboring at occupations outside the
home or family business, changed the process through which a family earned money.

Families changed from traditional patterns of existence into modern families that
emphasized courtship and marriage based on love and psychosocial fulﬁllment, not on
survival. The mother-child bond came to have primary importance in the family, and
home was viewed as a place to escape from the cruel realities of making a living in the
outside world (Lasch, 1983). Extended family and extensive community support were
relied upon less for family survival and child-rearing. Demos (1986) described this
trend clearly when he stated:

The family-far from joining and complementing other social networks, as in the

earlier period-seemed to stand increasingly apart. Indeed its position vis-a—vis

society at large had been very nearly reversed, so as to become a kind of
adversary relation. (p. 31)

l4
Ironically, as families became surrounded with more people by moving from rural areas
into more densely populated cities, they became more isolated from one another as old
community supports were disrupted.

Families continue to change in response to changes in the socio-economic
climate. Most notable among these more recent changes has been the movement of
women's work from inside the household to outside. Coleman (1987) has observed that
this removal of ﬁrst fathers, then mothers, from the home has contributed to a change in
the "locus of dependency" in our society.

The family has become, as corporate actors have swallowed up an increasingly

large fraction of ﬁrst men's, then women's activities and attention, a kind of

backwater in society, cutoff from the mainstream. But, although this world of
corporate actors has come to be critical for adults, removing ﬁrst fathers and then
mothers from the household during the day, children remain outside it—as do the

old, the sick, and all those whom we call 'dependent.’ (p. 33)

According to Coleman (1987), the family had been the principal welfare
institution of society. This is no longer the case. Furthermore, this change in the locus
of dependency, spurred by the increasing inﬂuence of corporate actors in the lives of
families, has not moved to those corporate actors but to the state.

Relinquishing the support of children, youth, and families to the state has been
viewed by some as inefﬁcient at best and as a counterproductive impediment to the
welfare of individuals and families at worst. Delivering care to masses of individuals
via government agencies is often inefﬁcient and expensive (Coleman, 1987; Gardner,
1990; McKnight, 1995). Fragmentation occurs as a complex maze of rules and

requirements develops. Services overlap, agencies become compartmentalized, and

eligibility requirements for beneﬁts differ between agencies, leaving those individuals

15

and families least able to make sense of the maze with critical needs unmet or being left
out altogether (Gardner, 1990; Guthrie & Guthrie, 1991).

Perhaps the greatest cost to individuals, families, and communities comes, not in
a monetary sense, but in what McKnight (1995) refers to as the "loss of knowledge."
The process of individuals and groups recognizing community needs, designing
strategies for meeting those needs, and combining resources to meet those needs in ways
unique to that community is empowering. Discrediting a community's ability to solve
its challenges on its own because professionals and government agencies "know better"
(McKnight, 1995, p. 10) denies empowerment to that community. It is a debilitating
loss when community care is relinquished to professional or government agencies.
Government fragmentation of services and over involvement results in inefﬁcient and
Sporadic support of children, youth, and families.
Community Coalitions: An Ecological Approach for Supporting Children. Youth and
Families

Groups of individuals working together to solve problems is not a new concept.
Indeed, these cooperative ventures have existed, in varying degrees of vitality and
importance, for as long as people have lived together. However, in recent decades,
communities in American society have met increasingly complex problems through a
reliance upon money and services provided by state and federal governments. This
approach to community needs was adequate for a time until economic, social, and
technological conditions began to reduce government support and to fragment naturally-

occurring networks that supported families. Communities are now facing

l6

unemployment, poverty, hunger, lack of affordable housing, teen violence, inadequate
day care, an inadequately trained workforce, and a host of other needs that put families
at risk with less help from government sources and without a net of community support
(Benard, 1991; Gardner, 1990; Kretzman & McKnight, 1993). Collaborations are
"efforts that unite and empower individuals and organizations to accomplish collectively
what they could not accomplish independently" (Kagan & Rivera, 1991, p. 3) and are
increasingly encouraged as a means by which services are provided for supporting
children, youth, and families effectively and efﬁciently (Benard, 1991; Keith et al.,
1993; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; McKnight, 1995). Daka-Muwanda et a1. (1995)
reviewed 58 national level reports recommending ways to improve the lives of children
and families. Thirty-four of the 58 reports recommended collaborations as an effective
means of accomplishing this. These 34 reports made 70 different recommendations
regarding collaboration.

Based on their review Daka-Mulwanda et a1. (1995) recommended two types of
collaborations. Vertical collaboration is the coordination and integration of delivery
systems of federal and state governments with the goal of easier access to these systems
by communities. The authors cite an example of a vertical collaboration found in
Chicago, Illinois where middle-grade Students participated in programs designed to
prevent dropping out of school and teen pregnancy. The state departments of public
health, public aid, and children and family services provided the funding for the
statewide programs which paid school personnel and parent aides to conduct the

program in local schools.

1?

Horizontal collaboration is community-based integration of services for children
and their families. Partners in horizontal collaborations could be health and mental
health agencies and professionals, social service professionals, educators, parents,
students, government agencies, business persons, volunteer organizations, and religious
institutions (Daka-Mulwanda et al., 1995). The Family Care Center in Lexington,
Kentucky is a horizontal collaboration that provides services to adults and children at a
single site. Services include child care, health care, job training, and adult education.
Start-up funding was obtained through the sale of city bonds and continued through
county government and the University of Kentucky, who also provided faculty,
residents, and graduate students.

There are two dimensions that are present and operate within both vertical and
horizontal collaborations: (a) instrumental functions, and (b) expressive functions. The
instrumental dimension of collaboration includes such issues as funding, hierarchy,
authority, meeting places and times, who is involved, establishing goals, a Shared
language, and lines of communication that are necessary for the success of the
collaboration (Daka-Mulwanda etal., 1995; De Bevoise, 1986; Keith etal., 1993;
Loughran, 1982; Schindler-Rainman, 1981).

Collaborative relationships have been recognized as forming a hierarchy of
levels: (a) networking, (b) coordination, (c) cooperation, and (d) collaboration
(Loughran, 1982). These levels range from less complex to more complex, with
instrumental issues often being the determining factor. Networking facilitates

communication between individuals. Coordination is described as groups Simply

18

working together. Cooperation is more complex than coordination and involves the
sharing of information between two or more organizations and involves some joint
planning. Collaboration brings organizations into a more complex, structured
relationship with mutually agreed upon goals and lines of communication (Daka-
Mulwanda et al., 1995; Loughran, 1982). Loughran (1982) differentiates the
relationship between partner organizations in terms of changes in the linkages between
partner agencies, conspicuousness to those outside the coalition, personal contact, and
agency autonomy. The interagency relationship becomes increasingly complex as it
moves from networking, to coordination, to cooperation, to the most complex level of
collaboration. At each level of greater complexity, the linkages between agencies
become stronger; the agency conspicuousness becomes higher, that is, it becomes more
visibly connected with the collaboration; the likelihood of personal contact increases;
and the degree of agency autonomy decreases.

The expressive dimension of collaboration includes such issues as building
relationships, trust, mutual respect, persistence, ﬂexibility, enthusiasm, unity,
openmindedness, and personal commitment, all of which are essential for successful
collaboration (Benard, 1989; De Bevoise, 1986; Keith et al., 1993). De Bevoise (1986)
comments that "not everyone is born to be a collaborator" (p. 11). The ability to listen to
another's opinions, to trust, and to display enthusiasm, ﬂexibility, and respect are
attributes that empower coalition members to hang tough during the difﬁcult times in
order to see the collaboration succeed. Not everyone has enough of these expressive

qualities in sufﬁcient measure to tolerate a collaborative environment. Leadership that is

19

able to communicate the vision of the collaboration, promote cooperation, and walk the
ﬁne line between accomplishing collaboration objectives and respecting individual
partners is another ongoing challenge in the collaborative process (Keith, et al., 1993;
Loughran, 1982).

Easy to say, however, does not always translate into easy to do. Addressing the
challenges in both the areas of instrumental and expressive issues requires constant
vigilance. Funding is a challenge to successful collaboration. Not having enough
money, where to get funding, and how to spend it are issues that negatively inﬂuence
collaborative efforts. Resistance to involvement from critical community sectors and a
lack of involvement of parents and youth are all personnel issues that may develop in the
course of establishing a collaborative effort. Turf issues, such as where the coalition
meets, who provides leadership and in what capacity, and conﬂicting personalities of
collaborators are challenges that must be constantly monitored for successful
collaboration (Daka-Mulwanda et al., 1995; De Bevoise, 1986; Keith et al., 1993).
Community Coalitions and Hum_z_m Ecological Theory

The relationship between research, theory, and application is a central concern to
the study of families and the environments in which they develop (Doherty, Boss,
LaRossa, Schumm, & Steinmetz, 1993; Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). Thoroughly
developed theory will facilitate relevant research (Lavee & Dollahite 1991). Theories
"help identify problems for research and direct the formulation of research designs and
methodologies. Theoretical knowledge also provides a basis for practice toward the

solution or management of problems" (Bubolz, 1991, p. 1). Research which is directly

20

linked to theory will allow a thorough understanding of families and result in informed,
appropriate, and empirically based recommendations for outreach.

Community coalitions have been called an ecological approach to meeting
community needs and solving community problems (Keith et al., 1993; Perkins, Ferrari,
Covey, & Keith, 1994; Vaughn, 1994). Both vertical and horizontal collaborations are
ecological. Horizontal collaborations emphasize interconnections between various
community resources for the support of families. Vertical collaborations seek to link
assets and promote development by consciously establishing a safety net for families in
the broader contexts of local, state, and federal government. Collaborations, whether
between and among community partners, or the several levels of government, are
activities that "provide functions for the maintainenance or adaptation of units in the
environment" (Klein & White, 1996, p. 220). They become part of the mutual
dependencies that comprise an ecosystem and are what Hawley calls "linkages among
recurring activities" (as cited in Klein & White, 1996, p. 220).

Human ecological theory is particularly well suited to the study of collaborations
and provides a framework from which to promote collaboration as a means of outreach
in communities. This theory looks beyond the individual to the surrounding
environments when considering questions of and explanations for human behavior and
development. Human ecological theory embraces three assumptions about the nature of
human-environment relations. First, social and physical environments are
interdependent and inﬂuence human behavior, development, and quality of life. Second,

environment is a source of available resources. Third, humans can and should choose,

21

design, or modify resources and environments to improve life and well-being (Bubolz &
Sontag, 1993).

These three assumptions are foundational to community collaborations as well.
Community collaborations are an Operationalization of interdependent relationships
within communities and the positive inﬂuence they can be on individuals and families.
They exemplify the notion that the environment surrounding families, that is, the
community, contains the resources for healthy development for individuals and families.
Lastly, collaborations are products of choices that individuals and organizations make in
a conscious attempt to pool resources and promote healthy development for individuals
and families within the community (Vaughn, 1994). Human ecological theory,
therefore, provides a useful framework from which to study and promote community
collaborations.

Human ecology theory values the perspective that the quality of life of humans
and the quality of the environment are interdependent. The balance between the
demands of the ecosystem for cooperation and integration and the demands for
individual autonomy are a focal point in the value structure of human ecological theory
(Bubloz & Sontag, 1993). Community collaborations exemplify the dynamics of diverse
community partners choosing to pool resources and respect each other's individuality for
the purpose of supporting children, youth, and families.

The human ecological theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986) is uniquely suited
to the study of community collaborations because of the primary place he accords to the

interactions between systems (Glossop, 1989). His model consists of multiple,

22

interrelated, interdependent levels of human experience that interact with and inﬂuence
individual behavior and development. The levels can be pictured as a series of
concentric circles, with the individual at the center of the model (see Figure 1). The
microsystem refers to the immediate setting where an individual experiences and creates
day-to-day reality. Thus, environments such as the family, the school, a day care center,
the workplace, and the neighborhood are microsystems. The exosystem is the level in
which the individual does not participate directly, but which inﬂuences development
because it affects some part of the microsystem; for example, a parent's work place, the
school administration, a local or state health care policy, local law enforcement, and the
larger community. The macrosystem is the level most removed from an individual, yet
these external forces inﬂuence family life. The macrosystem is the culture or sub-
culture in which the other systems operate. This system includes such elements as the
media, government, economic conditions, cultural beliefs, and values.

Whenever two microsystems overlap or interrelate a connection is formed that
Bronfenbrenner (1979) calls the mesosystem. For example, the overlap of the family and
school settings creates a mesosystem. An example of a mesosystem would be a parent-
teacher conference at the local school. The stronger, more positive, and more diverse the
links between settings, the more powerful and beneﬁcial the resulting mesosystem will
be as a developmental inﬂuence (Garbarino, 1982). This phenomenon is shown in
Figure 1 as a series of interconnected triangles. Taken a step further, a microsystem in
which a developing individual participates may interconnect with other levels of the

environment. The characteristics of the child within the family (a microsystem), and the

23

community (an exosystem) may operate both individually and in tandem to account for
how a particular situation affects a given child, family, or community. Therefore, the
mesosystem, as connections between different levels of the environment (beyond
microsystems), is Shown in Figure l as a large "slice" of the total environment (Perkins

etaL,1994)

(Exosystem)

(Macrosystem)

 

 

Time
History (Chronosystem) Life Span

A ,—
‘

 

 

Figure 1. A representation of Bronfenbrenner's human ecological model

Another dimension, which Bronfenbrenner (1986) refers to as the chronosystem,
recognizes that individual development and environmental interaction occur over time.
The examination of speciﬁc life transitions as well as the cumulative effects of these
changes throughout an individual's life becomes an important part of understanding
development. The left-pointing arrow in the model (Figure 1) represents the cumulative

element of historical processes. This signiﬁes that present experience is being mediated

24

by history (Demos, 1986). The right-pointing arrow represents speciﬁc life transitions
that are yet to occur in the life span. The chronosystem also illustrates that present
experience is mediated by history, and that the future is anticipated based upon past
experiences. This interaction of past, present, and future is shown in the model (Figure
1) by the interlocking ellipses.

The emphasis of human ecological theory on interaction makes it an appropriate
choice for studying the foundational goals of the collaborative movement. Both
horizontal and vertical collaborations can serve as operationalizations of strong, positive,
and diverse links between settings. The resulting mesosystems formed by these
collaborations have the potential to become powerful and beneﬁcial inﬂuences on the
development of children, youth, and families (Garbarino, 1982). These are examples of
communities of humans choosing to utilize their particular, unique environments to
provide needed resources. Optimum use of resources is accomplished by individuals
and groups within communities evaluating what they have to provide, and offering to
combine their resources with those of others who share the goal of accomplishing
together what they could not accomplish on their own. Human ecological theory serves
as an appropriate framework to develop speciﬁc theories of community collaborations,
conduct and evaluate research on community collaborations, and from which to develop
informed, appropriate, and empirically based outreach using community collaborations.
Religious Institutions: Valuable Contributors to Communities

As government assistance in ﬁnancial and human resources continues to decline,

it becomes imperative that communities assess and mobilize all of their available

25

resources. Individuals, associations, and institutions are major building blocks that
contain much of the asset base for communities. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993)
emphasize the "giftedness" (p. 6) of every individual within a community. Every
individual in a community has a unique gift of talent, time, resources, or productive
skills that can become a part of the support fabric within a community.

Most communities have a signiﬁcant number of "associations" (Kreztmann &
McKnight, 1993, p.7) that gather for religious, cultural, athletic, recreational, and other
purposes. These associations should be recognized and enlisted as essential elements of
community building. Local businesses, schools, libraries, colleges, hospitals, police and
ﬁre stations, and social service agencies are more formal institutions that are a source of
community assets. Uniting together, individuals, associations, and institutions provide a
rich diversity of assets that can be woven into a fabric that is essential to the support of
children, youth, and families. The participation of many community sectors in
collaborative efforts is imperative to their success (Keith et al., 1994; Mark, 1993).

Religious institutions have a historical tradition of vital contributions to meeting
community needs (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Coleson, 1992;
Dudley, 1991). Bellah and his associates (1985) specify religious commitment as one of
the traditional relationships in America that provided "social solidarity" (p. ll4)——the
knitting together of individuals to provide mutual support. The strength of religious
institutions in America has been the public aspect of religious experience; that is, the
important contribution they make by contributions ". . . out of their separate resources to

public virtue and the common weal" (Marty, 1981, p. 16).

26

Today, religious institutions continue to be an important avenue for individuals
seeking opportunities for involvement in their community in support of children, youth,
and families. The participation of religious institutions in collaborations that support
children, youth, and families is a vital component in bringing the combined power of
individuals to bear on pressing community needs (Dudley, 1991; Keith et al., 1993;
Keith, Covey, & Perkins, 1996).

Although there is a historical precedent for religious institution activity in
communities, there is little empirical research that documents such activity. Many
writings emphasize participation of religious institutions in community activities and
coalitions. These writings include discussions of the beneﬁts derived by religious
institutions from participation in community coalitions (James, 1992; Pierce, 1989); why
religious institutions may fear participation in community activities (Carasco, Reed &
Wendorf, 1991; Dill, 1991; James, 1992); examples of religious institutions that are
involved in community activities (Dill, 1991); suggestions for religious institutions
when contemplating participation in community coalitions (Dill, 1991; Roehlkepartain,
1992; Tshimika, 1990); roles that can be ﬁlled by religious institutions in community
activities (Bachelder, 1992; Weaver, 1991); and encouragement for religious institutions
to become involved in community coalitions (Benson & Roehlkepartain, 1994; Colson,
1992; Lang, 1995; Ortiz, 1992; Thomas, 1994).

One of the few research studies that investigated community participation by
religious institutions is a national study conducted by Independent Sector (1993) on the

activities and ﬁnances of religious congregations to provide information about "an

27

important set of institutions and their impact on the quality of life in their communities"
(p. xi). Major activity areas in which the religious institutions (N = 727) participated
included religious ministry/education, human services/welfare, health,
intemational/foreign, public/societal beneﬁt, education, arts and culture, and the
environment. The level of participation in the various major activity areas varied by size
of the congregation. Overall, the distribution of participation in all the major activity
areas was 20.2 percent for small congregations, 51.8 percent for medium-Sized
congregations, and 28.0 percent for large congregations. While the distribution of
activities remained at about 50 percent for medium-Sized congregations, regardless of
the type of major activity, small congregations performed a smaller proportion of
activities in the areas of human services/welfare (19.7 percent), health (18.6 percent),
and public/societal beneﬁt (17.3 percent), and large congregations performed a larger
proportion of their total activities in these areas.

Participation in programs of human services and welfare, health, and
public/societal beneﬁt was evenly distributed among congregations in different
geographic locations. Congregation participation in the major activity areas was 17.1
percent of congregations in large cities, 22.6 percent of those in small cities, 29.0 percent
of those in towns, 17.1 of those in the suburbs, and 14.0 percent of those in rural/open
country areas.

It was clear that these religious institutions used a combination of program
initiatives ranging from their own programs to collaboration or afﬁliation with other

organizations. A substantial percentage of congregations reported that programs in

28
certain areas were available solely through participation in, with the support of, or in
afﬁliation with other programs in the community or the denomination. In fact, 44
percent of the congregations reported that programs of public and societal beneﬁt in
which they participated were accomplished through collaborative efforts.

The distribution of congregations by size that participated in, supported, or were
afﬁliated with programs in other organizations or denominations varied by less than 10
percentage points in the major activity areas of human services/welfare (66.8 percent for
small congregations to 75.9 percent for large) and public/societal beneﬁt (43.1 percent
for small to 53.1 percent for large). The distribution was greater in the area of health
programs (40.2 percent for small to 67.1 percent for large). A Similar distribution by
location was not made.

In the conclusion of the study, Independent Sector ( 1993) Stated that:

. . . more study is needed about congregations and their impact upon creating and

maintaining a sense of community. . . it is critical that we learn more about the

kinds of institutions that nourish spiritual growth and renewal, that foster
community participation, and that inspire individual generosity and voluntary

service. (p. 110)

Research by Kanagy ( 1992) evaluates the extent to which community,
theological, and church structural variables of Christian religious institutions were
associated with community outreach activities. Kanagy (1992) operationalizes the
outcome variables of (a) bargaining—a church's social involvement, (b) cooptation and
evangelism, and (c) ecumenism—coalition building. The environmental characteristics

of a church, such as community population size, per capita income, percentage of elderly

in the community, and ethnic mix of the community, were a subset of predictor

29
variables. Structural variables of age of church members, educational level of the
members, and congregation size were also used as predictor variables. Kanagy (1992)
does not account for location of the institutions aside from stating that they were located
around various cities of the Midwest and Southeast.

A bivariate analysis of the data showed that the environmental variable of
community income was signiﬁcantly and negatively related to a church's social
involvement (r = 304, p < .01) and to a church's ecumenism (r = -.280, p < .05). The
community's ethnic mix was positively and Signiﬁcantly related to a church's social
involvement (r =.422, p <.0001) and to a church's ecumenism (coalition building, r =
.319, p <.01). Structural variables of age of church members, education level of
members, and congregation Size were not signiﬁcantly related to a church's social
involvement, or to its coalition building activities.

Kanagy (1992) summarized by stating that the local community has the greatest
impact upon the social involvement of churches, and that church structural
characteristics have comparatively little impact upon any of the outreach activities. It
appears that "in communities with lower per capita incomes, greater pressure is placed
upon the local church for its resources" (p. 44), and as the proportion of ethnic groups in
a local population increased, the priority given to social programs also increased.

Both bargaining (measured here as social involvement) and coalition-building

(ecumenism) appeared to be impacted by the surrounding environment, while

cooptation (evangelism) is strongly related to organizational ideology. . . . This

suggests that the environment may in fact motivate an organization to bargain

and create coalitions, but does not provide as much impetus for cooptation. . . .

Churches need to be made aware of how the local community inﬂuences the
choice and extent of their social involvement activities. (p. 46)

30

Chaves and Higgins (1992) conducted research regarding the notion that the
black congregation's position of community centrality has, in recent years, diminished as
a result of the abundance of "secular" services and agencies which have assumed the role
of provider in our culture. The authors state "that black congregations continue to do
more than provide narrowly religious services to their communities, even if it is true that
these congregations no longer dominate the socialization of many African-American
individuals" (p. 427). Speciﬁcally, their prediction is "that black congregations will be
involved more than white congregations in certain kinds of secular activities: (a) activity
devoted to addressing the disprivileged segments of the immediately surrounding
community, and (b) civil rights activity" (p. 428).

The study (Chaves & Higgins, 1992) conducted was a secondary analysis of a
national sample of religious congregations collected in 1988. The researchers created a
measure of the extent of congregational involvement in community activities which
included such things as non-religious education, human services, social action,
international relations, cultural programs, and health care. Black congregations scored
slightly higher than white congregations with an average mean score of 9.62 compared
to 9.49.

Chaves and Higgins (1992) constructed a second scale composed of four items
that measured the types of activities that they suspected would be signiﬁcantly different
between black and white congregations, namely, (a) activities directed at providing
social services to disprivileged segments of the immediately surrounding communities,

and (b) participation in civil rights activities. This scale ranged from 0 to 4; its overall

31

mean was 1.6 with a Cronbach's alpha of .70. Black congregations had a signiﬁcantly

higher mean on this scale than did white congregations (2.30 vs. 1.57; p <.01). Chaves

and Higgins (1992) took this as support for their qualiﬁed hypothesis that black
congregations are more actively involved than white congregations, but only in certain
types of secular activity.

Through the use of dummy variables, the researchers were able to introduce
control variables into a linear regression model. The most parsimonious model was then
pursued with the objective of discovering any variables that would produce a negative
effect on the race variable. Seven linear regression models were established and run
using race, size of congregation, revenue, location in a large city, region, founding date
of the congregation, race by founding date, and a conservatism scale as control variables.

The researchers made the following conclusions:

1. Black congregations did not engage in secular activities at higher rates than did
white congregations.

2. There was compelling evidence that black congregations were more likely to be
involved than white congregations in certain kinds of non-religious activities.
Speciﬁcally, these were civil rights activities and those activities that were
directed at underprivileged segments of their local communities.

3. The race effect was not explainable by the organizational or environmental
variables available in the data set. Speciﬁcally, the difference was not
attributable to a black congregation's (a) size, (b) more urban location, or (c)

more southern location.

32

4. Older black congregations were more actively involved in their communities
than newer black congregations. This may be partially explained by the
liberal/conservatism scale, but is not clear exactly what it means except that
perhaps the informants from congregations more involved in these activities tend
to describe those congregations as more "liberal," and that black congregations
were more likely than white congregations to be seen as more "liberal."

A Chaves and Higgins (1992) did ﬁnd an interesting and unanticipated interaction
between the race of the congregation and its founding date. The assumption was that a
black congregation founded after 1960 (the civil rights era) would be more active in
community activities. They found that the founding date of white congregations
accounted for little change in the community activity of that congregation. In black
congregations, on the other hand, if a congregation was founded before 1960 they tended
to be more involved in community activities than those black congregations that were
formed after 1960.

The researchers conclude that the extra-religious functions of black churches
were more entrenched and less likely to be obviated than had been thought. The
evidence of the research also supports the idea that black congregations in fact
participated more actively than do white congregations in certain secular affairs of their
communities.

Teamwprk Important to Successful Coalitions
Leadership that espouses a collaborative, team-oriented approach to problem

solving fosters a healthy environment for the support of children, youth, and families.

33

Collaborative leadership of this nature is based on four assumptions:

1.

Continuing growth and development are necessary, not only for the
development of healthy, mature individuals but also for the development
of healthy groups and organizations, and ultimately for a healthy society.

Involvement in problem solving and decision making is necessary for
meaningful learning. Without such involvement there is a low
probability of such learning taking place.

Also fundamental to the process of human growth and development is a
job, task, or activity which is interesting, challenging, and exciting.

The use of authority of "ofﬁce" or "position" as the power base for
solving problems and making decisions, and for inﬂuencing others, is
inimicable to the healthy growth and development of individuals, groups,
and organizations. Competence or expertise, and its sharing in a
problem-solving context, is the power base that has a greater potential for
facilitating such healthy growth. (Finch, 1977, p. 293)

Optimal growth and development for children, youth, and families and optimal

growth for organizations, and ultimately society itself, is the goal of collaborative

leadership and a team approach to problem solving. Community coalitions that support

children, youth, and families share this goal. Indeed, they rely upon collaborative

leadership and teamwork to become successful and remain effective.

Although qualities and styles of leadership may vary, certain traits of leadership
were found to be predominant or common among effective coalitions.
Successful leaders have strong determination, possess the ability to seek
resources, are optimistic, and know how to recruit the right people. (Keith et al.,
1993,p.39)

According to Dudley and Johnson (1989), the necessary elements of mobilizing a

religious institution for community ministry and service include three ingredients that

center around leadership and team building. First, there is a need for "triangular"

leadership in the congregation. Triangular leadership uses three different individuals to

34

provide the necessary leadership in three areas vital to the success of the community
project and the life of the institution. These three leaders are (a) someone to organize the
planning of the outreach, (b) someone to inspire the congregation to make a commitment
to the outreach, and (c) someone to help the congregation sense how the outreach
expresses its identity as a religious institution, in both a historical and contemporary
context.

The committee chairperson, a layperson, oversees the planning of the ministry.
The committee chairperson is always a layperson for several reasons. First, it provides
congregational ownership. Ownership by the congregants ensures the continuity of the
outreach activity in the event of a pastoral or leadership change. Second, it provides a
different perspective on the neighborhood and its needs. The religious leader provides
"objective" perspectives on neighborhood needs, but congregational ownership reﬂects
the perspectives of individuals who have lived, worked, and formed relationships in the
area over a number of years—perhaps a lifetime. Lastly, congregational ownership
provides a fertile environment for learning and growth through the exercise of
leadership.

The role of the pastor or religious leader, according to Dudley and Johnson
(1989), is the role of inspirer. In this role he or she is freed from the administrative
aspects of the community outreach, which is vital to paving the way for church
involvement in community work (Carasco et al., 1991). Freed from the task of more

administration, the pastor or religious leader is able to devote energy to interpreting the

prograi

COR-11111

congre
express
ctlmog
others ;
MMOH;

c0ngrc.

OLIUCQC
Outrage
(1989)
religim
and C01

1’13in

 

 

 

35

program in the congregation and encouraging the members to support the work in the
community.

The historian/reporter serves the role of "the reﬂective observer of the
congregation's identity, both past and present, and helps identify how the new ministry
expresses that identity" (Carasco et al., 1991, p. 32). This role is reminiscent of the
ethnographer in that this individual observes what is being done, and discovers how
others are feeling about it. "Observing mood, climate, and group dynamics, the
historian/reporter can help committee members to be sensitive to one another and to the
congregation" (p. 32).

The second essential element of mobilizing a religious institution for community
outreach and service is the integration of other community organizations into the
outreach, thus making it a coalition of broad community partners. Dudley and Johnson
( 1989) identiﬁed the other community organizations that entered into the outreach with
religious institutions as other religious institutions, nonproﬁt agencies, businesses, local
and county governmental units, schools, colleges, libraries, banks, and interested
individuals.

Although considered a positive and desirable outcome of mobilizing a
congregation for outreach, the integration of other community partners did have an
impact on congregations by initiating a transition from "insular vision to community
consciousness" (Carasco et al., 1991, p. 33). This "shift of consciousness" (p. 33) was
the third essential element in mobilizing a religious institution for community outreach

and service. The transition was often a traumatic time for the congregations because it

36

challenged long-held beliefs and attitudes, but the offsetting beneﬁts included paving the
path for combined efforts of community involvement and cooperation in the future.
These initial successes are vital to the strength and vitality of community coalitions
(Keith etal., 1993).

Beyond paving the way for future collaboration with other community
organizations, the shift of consciousness identiﬁed by Dudley and Johnson (1989)
inﬂuences members of religious institutions as they begin to see beyond individual
problems and ﬁnd patterns of need shared by many persons in their community.
Members begin to realize how social systems affect entire groups of people. They may
realize that some of these systems are failing to help the people that they are intended to
help. "When [religious institutions] identify those dysfunctional systems, working to
change them can become a way of helping needy people in broader and more lasting
ways" (Dudley & Johnson, 1993, p. 33).

The triangulation of leadership described by Dudley and Johnson (1989)
exempliﬁes the team concept that is vital to the success of community coalitions that
support children, youth, and families. In fact, the authors described leadership that
formed community coalitions as a series or aggregate of teams. The ﬁrst of these teams
included the core leadership team of the chairperson, the inspirer. and the
historian/reporter. This team, in turn, enlisted other community organizations and
individuals to form a larger team whose goal was to help needy individuals within their

community.

viewed

Neslur

com;

37

The notion of using teams of individuals working together to solve problems is
viewed as an efﬁcient and effective method for solving problems. (Appley & Winder,
1977; Bamer, 1994; Finch, 1977; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Larson & LaFasto, 1989;
Neslund, 1991). A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are
committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and an approach for which they
hold themselves mutually accountable (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). This deﬁnition of a
team comes from the ﬁeld of business organization, but it contains three essential
elements that are congruous with the elements of collaboration: (a) complementary
Skills, (b) commitment to a common purpose, and (c) mutual accountability (Katzenbach
& Smith, 1993).

Furthermore, Bruner (as cited in Daka-Mulwanda et al., 1995) offers three
elements that are a part of collaboration: (a) jointly developing and agreeing to a set of
common goals and direction, (b) sharing responsibility for obtaining those goals, and (c)
working together to achieve those goals using the expertise of each collaborator.
Effective teams and effective collaboration can be seen as closely related approaches to
effective problem-solving.

Larson and LaFasto (1989) observed that "the essence of teams is teamwork. If a
team is a group of people pursuing a speciﬁc performance objective, the achievement of
which requires coordinated action, then teamwork must be a signiﬁcant factor in
determining a team's success" (p. 84). Their research identiﬁed eight dimensions of
teamwork that were characteristic of effectively functioning teams. The eight

dimensions are: (a) a clear, elevating goal, (b) a results-driven structure, (c) competent

163111 1

exccH

achlcx

[81111113.

11111111.

M. ,
11156111

lemun

.l~J

38

team members, (d) uniﬁed commitment, (e) a collaborative climate, (f) standards of

excellence, (g) external support and recognition, and (h) principled leadership.

Clear, elgvating goal. Effective teams had a clear understanding of the goal to be
achieved and a belief that it embodied a worthwhile or important result. Ineffective
teams, according to the authors, had a goal that had become unfocused or politicized, or
individual goals had taken priority over the team goal. The team had lost a sense of
urgency or signiﬁcance about reaching its objective.

Results-driven structure. A results-driven structure is characterized by four
features:

1. Clear roles and accountability - each team member's relationship to the team is
deﬁned in terms of the role that member is to play and the results that role is to
produce for the team.

2. An effective communication system - information is easily accessible and is
credible, members are able to address issues that are not on the formal agenda,
and there is a method for documenting issues raised and decisions made.

3. Methods for monitoring the performance of individual team members.

4. An emphasis on fact-based judgements - decisions made are based on clear,
credible facts.

Cpmggtent team members. Competent team members posess the technical and
personal competencies required to accomplish the team's goal. Technical competencies
refer to the substantive knowledge, skills and abilities related to the objective. Personal

competencies are qualities, skills, and abilities necessary for team members to identify,

bet
enjt

char

39
address, and resolve issues. These are the skills that allow individuals to function as a
team.

Larson and LaFasto (1989) identiﬁed three common features of competent team
members: (a) essential Skills and abilities, (b) a strong desire to contribute, and (c) the
capability to collaborate effectively. It is interesting to note the close Similarities
between these features of competent team members and the trust, personal commitment,
enjoyable involvement, and willingness to volunteer that are identiﬁed as traits and
characteristics common to members of successful coalitions (Keith et al., 1993).

Uniﬁed commitment. Larson and LaFasto (1989) noted that the teamwork
dimension of uniﬁed commitment was the dimension most often missing on ineffective
teams, yet it is difﬁcult to deﬁne just what it is.

It is a sense of loyalty and dedication to the team. It is an unrestrained sense of

excitement and enthusiasm about the team. It is a willingness to do anything that

has to be done to help the team succeed. It is an intense identiﬁcation with a

group of people. It is a loss of self. (p. 73)

Uniﬁed commitment includes two components. There is a commitment or
dedication to the endeavor itself and there is unity—an intense identiﬁcation with the
team. Similarly, Keith et a1. (1993) identiﬁed a sense of connectedness of the coalition
members to the area or people being served. This commitment to and unity with other
coalition members as being competent and capable of addressing the issue of concern as
an element common to successful coalitions was, in Keith's study, termed "locality" (p.
42).

_C_pll_abp_ra___tiveclimat£._ A collaborative climate on teams was characterized by

open communication between members, high levels of trust and conﬁdence in one

3110

0116

p101
an:
inﬂm
UUSl

conl

Press
Slanc
P611:
SeCO:
acC01

40

another, a sense of interdependence, encouragement, and support (Keith et al., 1993;
Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991). Effective team members develOped trust in
one another in a climate marked by honesty, openness, consistency, and respect.
According to Larson & LaFasto (1989), trust is essential to teamwork as it
promotes efﬁcient communication and coordination among team members. Trust
improved the quality of collaborative outcomes as team members were willing to share
information with one another, especially when the information was negative. Issues of
trust and effective communication were also found as elements common to successful
community coalitions on behalf of children, youth, and families (Keith et al., 1993).
Standards of excellence. Standards of excellence are broadly deﬁned as the
pressure to perform. Three variables appear integral to establishing and sustaining
standards of excellence. First, individual commitment, motivation, self—esteem, and
performance are factors that must be considered necessary to establish a set of standards.
Second, individual team members must require one another to perform their tasks
according to the established Standards of excellence. Third, the team must constantly
apply pressure on itself to evaluate and improve upon its performance standards.
External supmrt and recognition. Larson and LaFasto (1989) acknowledged
external support and recognition as the dimension that was most difﬁcult to deﬁne and
measure. This factor "seems to be more an effect of team success than a cause of it. It is
noted more for its absence in poorly functioning teams than for its presence in effective
ones" (p. 109). External recognition and support is considered to be present when the

team is given the resources it needs to get the job done. The team is supported by those

41

individuals and groups outside the team who are capable of contributing to its success.
The team is sufﬁciently recognized for its accomplishments and the reward and
incentive structure is clear and viewed as appropriate by the team members.

Principled leadership. Principled leadership was characterized by an adherence
to a dependable set of values. The leadership on effective teams had a clear idea of how
they would act toward accomplishments and how they should conduct themselves in the
process of reaching the team's goals. Such principled leadership included: (a) not
compromising the team's objective with political issues, (b) exhibiting a personal
commitment to the goal, (c) not diluting the team's efforts with too many priorities, (d)
being fair and impartial toward all team members, (e) a willingness to confront and
resolve issues associated with inadequate performance, and (1) an opennes to new ideas
and information. Principled leadership also encouraged team members to act on their
own in order to achieve the team's goal with an adherence to high performance. This
was accomplished when: (a) team members felt they were trusted with meaningful levels
of responsibility, (b) team members were provided the necessary autonomy to achieve
results, and (c) they were presented challenging opportunities that stretched the abilities
of individual team members.

Summag

Families that experience multiple problems such as poverty, violence, and health
concerns present the most disturbing aspect of family change that has occurred over the
past several decades. Although not all families are at risk, all families feel the effects of

these inﬂuences because they are part of an interdependent world.

imi‘éta:
gait-lie; f,
many as:
{3111111135 5

Impoﬂam

‘L

42

Resources and that support children, youth, and families have been delivered, in
recent years, by various government agencies. Fragmentation of these government
services occurs as services overlap, agencies become compartmentalized, and eligibility
requirements for beneﬁts differ between agencies. Families and individuals least able to
make sense of the maze rules and regulations are often left with critical needs unmet or
they are left out altogether.

Communities are now encouraged to face such troublesome issues as
unemployment, poverty, hunger, housing shortages, and violence with less assistance
from government sources. Individuals and groups within communities are uniting
together and ﬁnding empowerment to accomplish together what they could not
accomplish independently. Conununity coalitions are ecological approaches to
community problem solving in that they unite many groups and individuals to work
together to form positive, diverse links. The more positive and diverse these links
within the community, the greater the beneﬁt the resulting mesosystem will be as a
developmental inﬂuence on children, youth, and families in the community (Garbarino,
1982).

The participation of many community sectors in collaborative efforts is
imperative to their success. Most communities have a signiﬁcant number of groups that
gather for a variety of purposes. Uniting together, these community groups provide
many assets that can be focused on the needs of and in support of children, youth, and
families in their communities. Religious institutions have been and continue to be

important avenues for individuals seeking opportunities for involvement in their

common
vital c011
on the p:
preceder
coalition

1110

5 :ns,

""3

(I)

ﬂﬁ‘nm

COUHQU
COMES:
”‘16 goal
1113: 313;;
ladll‘iju
a [55m is
requires

”SS‘CCQ

team‘VVOr

10161110,1 S}

1 -. .
6211131.;

43
community. The participation of religious institutions in community collaborations is a
vital component in bringing the combined powers and resources of a community to bear
on the pressing needs of children, youth, and families. Although there is historical
precedent and a practical need for religious institution involvement in community
coalitions, there iS little empirical research that documents such activity (Chaves &

Higgins, 1992; Independent Sector, 1993;1(anagy, 1992).

Scheie et al. (1994) observe:

Both healthy communities and vigorous religious institutions are rich with
connections and relationships. They have a vision of unity as well as a sense for
how to make good use of the differences they contain. They have a knack for
partnership, for teamwork. (p. 4)

Continuing growth and development are necessary for healthy individuals, healthy
communities, and ultimately, a healthy society. This Optimal growth and development is
the goal of a collaborative team approach to problem solving. Community coalitions
that support children, youth, and families Share this goal. Indeed, they rely upon
individuals and groups working cooperatively as teams to be successful and effective. If
a team is a group of people pursuing a speciﬁc objective, the achievement of which
requires coordinated action, then teamwork must be a signiﬁcant factor in determining
its success (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).

It was the purpose of this research to explore and document the amount of
teamwork present on leadership teams of religious institutions and examine its
relationship on participation in community coalitions. Dimensions of teamwork,

leadership team size, type of leadership team, and the location and Size of the religious

institution were examined together as inﬂuences on the participation of religious

institut

iamilie

44

institutions' participation in community coalitions that support children, youth, and

families.

Chapter 3
Methodology

The broad objective of this research is to explore the participation of religious
institutions in community coalitions that support children, youth, and families. This
research will aid in developing a "sense of understanding" (Bubolz, 1991, p. 2) about
community relationships that are complex, diverse, changing, and predominantly
unexplored. It will expand the knowledge base concerning the work of religious
institutions in community coalitions.

Assumptions
Several assumptions underlie research in this domain.

Assumption #1. Community coalitions are an ecological approach to difﬁcult

community problems (Keith et al., 1993; Perkins et al., 1994).

Assumption #2. Religious institutions are an important part of ecological theory
research (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993).

Assumption #3. It is important for religious institutions to be involved in
community coalitions (Keith, Covey, & Perkins, 1996).

Research related to the participation of religious institutions in community
coalitions is limited and inadequate, and therefore an opportunity exists for exploratory
research (Independent Sector, 1993). If descriptive data such as size of the religious
institution, location, and ethnicity are insufﬁcient to explain differences in the
participation of religious institutions in community coalitions, other factors speciﬁc to

each individual institution may be inﬂuential. These factors may include a history of

45

U115
C01
C01

Th.

fol.
cor

(Si;

46

unsuccessful experiences in previous collaborative efforts, a lack of experience in
community collaboration efforts, fear of the unknown, fear of rejection by other
community partners, or a lack of leadership that models and encourages collaboration.
This research will explore one of these dimensions. It will explore the possible
inﬂuences of the leadership team of religious institutions and their participation in
community coalitions that support children, youth and families by answering the
following research questions: If religious institutions differ as to their participation in
community coalitions, are these differences related to characteristics of the institutions
(size of the institution, location of the institution, and the ethnic composition of the
congregation) and characteristics of the leadership team of the institution (Size of the
leadership team, type of leadership team, and dimensions of teamwork of the leadership
team)? Do dimensions of teamwork of the leadership teams differ by team type or team
size and by size or location of the institution? Finally, what combination of the above
factors best discriminates religious institution participation in community coalitions that
support children, youth and families?
Dgﬁnitions

The following deﬁnitions are primary concepts encompassed in the research
questions for this study:

Community goalitions. A coalition is broadly deﬁned as an effort that unites and
empowers individuals and organizations to accomplish collectively what they could not
accomplish independently (Kagan & Rivera, 1991). A community coalition is deﬁned

for this study as a group of three or more concerned organizations within a community

CA.

47

uniting, meeting, and combining resources to meet the needs of children, youth and
families. Community coalitions would not include district, denominational, or national
religious organizations.

Coalition participation. The dependent variable in this research is participation
or non-participation of a religious institution in a community coalition on behalf of
children, youth and families. Based on their participation, religious institutions were
classiﬁed into one of three groups : (a) those that participated in community coalitions
including a broad range of community partners (e. g., businesses, hospitals, government
agencies, schools, and other volunteer organizations), (b) those that participated in
community coalitions that included other religious institutions only, and (c) those that
did not participate in any coalitions.

Religious institutions. Religious institutions are deﬁned as any local, formally
organized group which gathers primarily for common worship. This may be a church,
synagogue, Friends' meeting, mosque, covenanted group, or religious order (Scheie et
al., 1991).

Imadem 9f religious institutions. Leaders of religious institutions are paid clergy,
paid assistants/associates, volunteers, or other persons afﬁliated with the religious
institution and who identiﬁed themselves as persons taking leadership.

Leadership team. A leadership team is a group of two or more individuals who
are interdependent in their efforts to accomplish the Shared objectives of the religious
institution (Neslund, 1991). These leadership teams may be comprised of either paid

clergy and staff, volunteers from the religious institution, or both.

leadersh
deternin
utichis
Thales:

leadersi

lr“"

Snkdltoi

[Owns It;

 

48

Teamwork. Teamwork is the level of effectiveness and efﬁciency at which the
leadership team in a religious institution works together. For this study teamwork was
determined by the leadership portion of the Community Action and Leadership Survey
which is based on a revision of the Team Excellence Survey (Larson & LaFasto, 1989).
The level of teamwork of a leadership team is measured by their total score on the
leadership portion of the Community Action and Leadership Survey.

Size of leadership tea_m. This variable was determined by the number of
individuals reported to serve on the institution's leadership team. Team sizes included
small teams that had up to ﬁve members, medium-sized teams with 6 to 16 members,
and large teams with 17 or more members.

Type of leadership team. The leadership team of each institution was categorized
by the type of individuals that were considered by the respondent to give primary
leadership to the religious institution. This dichotomous variable categorized each
leadership team as being composed of either "paid staff" or "volunteers."

Size of religious institution. The size of religious institutions was determined by
the number of attenders in a local congregation, including members and non-members.
Small religious institutions numbered less than 100 attenders. Medium-sized institutions
numbered between 101 and 300 attenders. Large institutions had attenders that
numbered 301 and above.

Location. Religious institutions that were located in open country areas or in
small towns with populations less than 2,500 were considered "rural." Institutions in

towns with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 were considered "small town."

 

49

Institutions located in settings where the population was Over 50,000 were considered
"urban."
Sampling frame

A sampling frame of religious institutions was derived from the "Churches" and
"Religious Institutions" sections of the telephone directory for a medium-Sized,
midwestern city. The rationale for using the telephone directory was that the religious
institutions that listed their names, addresses, and telephone numbers would most likely
be formal organizations and the sampling frame could be easily replicated (Independent
Sector, 1993). Para-church organizations, district, regional, or denominational ofﬁces
were not included in the sampling frame. The population consisted of 465 religious
institutions located in the area.

A packet, which included a letter of introduction (Appendix A), a copy of the
Community Action and Leadership Survey (Appendix B), a response card, and a return
envelope, was sent to each of the 465 religious institutions in the sampling frame.
Eighty surveys were completed and returned for an initial response rate of 17.25 percent.
Those that had not responded to the survey after four weeks received a reminder letter
(Appendix C). Follow-Up telephone calls were made to non-respondents who were
randomly chosen from the total list of non-respondents. One hundred eleven surveys
were completed and returned, increasing the response rate to 24 percent.

To determine sampling bias, telephone interviews were conducted with 20 non-
participants. The interviews did not show signiﬁcant differences in demographic

variables or philosophical differences between the participants and non-participants.

50

The following reasons were given for non-participation: pastoral/organizational changes
(40 percent), too busy (35 percent), philosophical differences (20 percent) and no reason
given (5 percent).
Instrument

The "Community Action and Leadership Survey" (CALS) is a 75-item, self-
administered questionnaire designed to elicit information from religious institutions in
four areas: (a) the kinds of services or programs they provide to their community that
support children, youth, and families, and with whom they work to provide those
services; (b) demographic information about the institution; (c) the respondent's
perceptions on how the leaders of his/her institution work together as a team; and (d)
information about the respondent.

Items 1 through 18 were designed to gather data concerning religious institutions
Which provided services on behalf of children, youth and families. Each item, 1 through
18, was a type of group or activity in which a religious institution may participate in
order to provide a service (see Appendix 2). The respondent was instructed to circle the
number " 1" for an item if their institution was involved in one or more community
Coalitions comprised of a combination of organizations (e.g., businesses, government
ags‘mcies, schools, hospitals) that provided a service or program to children, youth, or
fatnilies. If the respondent circled the number "1" on any item, 1 through 18, the
institution was categorized as participating in a community coalition with broad

community partners.

51

Similarly, the respondents were to circle the number "2" if their institution
cooperated with at least one other religious institution to provide a service or program.
If the respondent had circled "2" for any item, 1 through 18, and had not circled any of
the 18 items as a "I ", the institution was categorized as participating in community
coalitions whose other partners were religious institutions only.

If the respondent had circled either the number "3" or the number "4", and not
circled "I " or "2 " for any item 1 through 18, their religious institution was categorized
as not participating in any coalitions.

Items 19 through 26 were designed to gather data concerning the individual that
represented the religious institution in the community coalition. Items 27 through 33
gathered demographic information about the institution.

Item 34 of the CALS survey asked the respondent to identify the group of
individuals within a religious institution that gave the primary leadership to the
institution: (a) paid staff, (b) elected volunteers from the institution, (c) the entire
institution serves as the primary leadership team, or ((1) some other group was speciﬁed
as providing primary leadership to the religious institution.

Items 36 through 71 were adapted by the researcher from the Likert-scaled Team
Excellence Survey (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991). Larson and LaFasto's
instrument was developed for and administered to members of teams in businesses. The
wording of the questions was modiﬁed, where appropriate, to include the phrase
"leadership team." The rationale for the modiﬁcations was: (a) to reﬂect the change of

the population of interest, that is, from teams in business to teams in religious

 

 

52

institutions, (b) to remain consistent with the deﬁnition of leadership team used in this
research, and (c) to remind the respondent of the group of individuals that should be
used as the base line for answering questions 36 through 71.

The respondent was asked to read each item and indicate if the item was: (a) true
of their religious institution, (b) more true than false, (c) more false than true, or ((1)
false. Answers to these items provided each institution with an overall teamwork score
for their leadership team and a score for each of the eight dimensions of team excellence.

The dimension of "clear, elevating goal" was measured by items 39, 42, 55, and
71 on the CALS survey. "Results-driven structure" was measured by items 36, 37, 46,
49, and 62. "Competent team members" was measured by items 40, 54, 66, and 70. The
teamwork dimension of "uniﬁed commitment" was measured by CALS items 57, 60,
and 67. The dimension of "collaborative climate" was measured on the CALS survey by
items 48, 51, 52, and 68. "Standards of excellence" was measured by items 50, 56, and
59. The dimension of "external support and recognition" was measured by items 44, 45,
and 63. "Principled leadership" was the teamwork dimension measured by items 38, 41,
43, 47, 53, 58, 61, 64, 65, and 69 of the CALS survey.

Research Questions and Analysis

If religious institutions differ as to their participation in community coalitions,
are these differences related to characteristics of the institutions (Size of the institution,
location of the institution, and the ethnic composition of the congregation) and
characteristics of the leadership team of the institution (size of the leadership team, type

of leadership team, and dimensions of teamwork of the leadership team)? Do

 

 

53

dimensions of teamwork of the leadership teams differ by team type or team Size and by
size or location of the institution? Finally, what combination of the above factors best
discriminates religious institution participation in community coalitions that support
children, youth and families?

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1994) was utilized in the
analysis of the data. Chi-square tests were utilized to test differences between religious
institutions participation in community coalitions based on differences in the variables of
institution size, institution location, size of leadership team of institution, and type of
leadership team of the institution (Reynolds, 1984).

One-way analysis of variance is utilized to decide whether the observed
differences between two or more groups represents a chance occurrence or is a systemic
effect (Shavelson, 1988). In the present research AN OVA tests compared the mean
scores of religious institutions on the teamwork portion of the CALS survey (items 36
through 71) on the variables of type of leadership team in the religious institution (paid
staff or volunteer), size of the leadership team (small, medium, or large) Size of the
institution, and location of the institution. Discriminant analysis was utilized to
discern differences in religious institution participation in community coalitions based
on a combination of variables of religious institutions. The data used for this study meet
certain assumptions required for the use of discriminant analysis. First, each group iS a
sample that is derived from a multivariately normal population of 111 religious

institutions that responded to the CALS survey. Second, the population covariance

54

matrices for the groups are considered equal with a signiﬁcance of .776 (Klecka, 1980;

SPSS, 1994).

Furthermore, the use of a single statistical test prevents inﬂation of the alpha,
thereby reducing the risk of making a Type I error, that is, rejecting a true null
hypothesis (Shavelson, 1988). The variables of interest encompass both continuous and
discrete scaling schema that can be accommodated using discriminant analysis.

The scores of each religious institution on the eight dimensions of teamwork, as
measured by selected items 36 through 71 of the CALS survey, constitute 8 of the
thirteen discriminating variables. These scores are interval scaled and are independent
of each other. Size and location of the religious institution, and size of the leadership
team are also interval scaled discriminating variables. Type of leadership team and
education level of the leader of the religious institution are the dichotomous
discriminating variables.

The classiﬁcation variable for the discriminant analysis was participation or non-
participation of a religious institution in a community coalition on behalf of children,
youth and families. The three groups are:

Group 1. Those that participated in community coalitions including a broad range
of community partners (e. g., businesses, hospitals, government agencies,
schools and other volunteer organizations).

Group 2. Those that participated in community coalitions that included other
religious institutions only.

Group 3. Those that did not participate in any coalitions.

Chapter 4
Results

The results of the data analysis will be reported in this chapter under four
headings. The ﬁrst section will describe the religious institutions that responded to the
Community Action and Leadership Survey on the variables of institution size, institution
location, and ethnic composition of the religious institutions. The second section will
report the coalition activity of the institutions and how their coalition activity varied by
institution size and institution location. The third section will describe the responding
institutions according to variables of the type and size of the leadership team that gives
primary leadership to the institution. This section will also describe their coalition
activity according to team type and team size. The fourth section will describe how
leadership teams in religious institutions differed on the eight dimensions of teamwork
using the variables of size and location of the religious institutions, the type and size of
the leadership teams, and the coalition involvement of the institutions.
Description of Responding Religious Institutions

Of the 111 religious institutions that responded to the Community Action and
Leadership Survey, 36.9 percent were small institutions whose members numbered less
than 100, 44.1 percent were medium-sized congregations whose attenders numbered
between 101 and 300, and 18.9 percent were large institutions that had over 301

attenders (see Figure 2).

55

56

l 8.9% 44.1%
(rt-21) (n-49)

Large

(over 300)

Medium
- (101-300)

Srnal

(0-1 00)

 

36.9% T0101
(n-At) 1N=l 1 ‘1

Figure 2. Size of religious institutions

Religious institutions that were located in rural, open country areas or in small
towns with populations of less than 2,500 comprised 29.1 percent of the responding
institutions. Institutions in towns with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 made up
29.1 percent of the respondents. Urban institutions located in cities with populations

over 50,000 were 41.8 percent of the responding institutions (see Figure 3).

29.1 % 41 .8%
(n=32) (n=46)

\“y / I Rural

  

Total C] um"

212332;. (N = 110)

'Onecosemtgmercentogesemdlmmetomm

Figure 3. Location of religious institutions

57

Ninety-ﬁve percent of the reporting institutions indicated that the majority of
their attenders were white, 5 percent reported the majority of their attenders were black
or from other ethnic groups. The variable of ethnicity was dropped from further analysis
due to insufﬁcient cell sizes.

Coalition Involvement and Religious Institutions

Religious institutions responding to the survey were grouped into three
categories according to their participation in coalitions that support children, youth and
families: (a) those that participated in community coalitions including a broad range of
community partners (e.g., businesses, hospitals, government agencies, schools, and other
volunteer organizations), (b) those that participated in community coalitions that
included other religious institutions only, and (c) those that did not participate in any
coalitions.

Over half (57.7 percent) of the responding institutions indicated that they
cooperated with other community partners in providing at least one service or program
in support of children, youth and families. Religious institutions that participated with
other religious institutions in providing one or more services or programs comprised
22.5 percent of the total, and 19.8 percent of the responding institutions provided
services or programs on their own (see Figure 4). Therefore, 80.2 percent reported
participating in a collaborative effort of some nature that supports children, youth and
families in their communities. Based upon this particular sample, the majority of

religious institutions do participate in community coalitions.

58

19.8% 22.5%

D — I
s; 5
$3 $3

 

Programs
onihelr
own
57.7% (N = 111)
(n=64)

Figure 4. Coalition involvement of religious institutions

Coalition involvement and religious institution size. Overall, large religious
institutions were most likely to participate in coalitions, and small institutions were least
likely to participate in coalition activities. Furthermore, the majority of institutions,
regardless of size, were involved in a coalition of some kind (see Table l). A total of
73.1 percent of small institutions that participated reported involvement in coalitions of
some kind, compared with 81.6 percent of medium-Sized institutions and 90.5 percent of
large institutions.

Large institutions were also most likely to be involved in coalitions that had
broad community partners (61.9 percent), compared to 55.1 percent for medium-sized
institutions, and 58.5 percent for small institutions. Small religious institutions were
most likely to provide programs on their own (26.8 percent), compared to 18.4 percent

for medium-sized institutions and 9.5 percent for large religious institutions.

59

Table 1.
Coalition Involvement by Size of Religious Institution

 

Size of religious institution

 

 

Coalition Small Medium Large
involvement N = 41 N = 49 N = 21
In coalitions with

broad community 58.5% 55.1% 61.9%
partners

In coalitions with

other religious 14.6% 26.5% 28.6%
institutions only

Provide programs 26.8% 18.4% 9.5%
on their own

Total 100% 100% 100%

 

x2(4.111)= 4.14, p =.39
Note: Small institutions (0 - 100 attenders)

Medium institutions (101-300 attenders)

Large institutions (over 300 attenders)

Coalition involvement and religious institution location. A majority of religious
institutions participated in community coalitions regardless of their location. Rural
institutions had the highest percentage (28.1 percent) of congregations that provided
only programs on their own compared to institutions in small towns ( 15.6 percent) and
urban institutions (17.4 percent) (see Table 2). Religious institutions in small towns had
the highest percentage (31.3 percent) that participated in coalitions with other religious

institutions only when compared to rural institutions (15.6 percent) and urban

institutions (21.7 percent). Urban institutions had the highest percentage (60.9 percent)

60

of institutions participating in coalitions with broad community partners, compared to
53.1 percent of institutions in towns and 56.3 percent of rural institutions.

Table 2.
Coalition Involvement by Location of Religious Institution

 

Location of religious institution

 

 

Coalition Rural Town Urban
involvement N = 32 N = 32 N = 46
In coalitions with

broad community 56.3% 53.1% 60.9%
partners

In coalitions with

other religious 15.6% 31.3% 21.7%
institutions only

Provide programs 28.1% 15.6% 17.4%
on their own

Total 100% 100% 100%

 

x2 (4, 110) = 3.48, p :39
Note: Rural (population under 2,500)

Town (population 2,500 to 50,000)

Urban (population 50,000 to 250,000)

Coalition involvementand ethnicity. N inety-ﬁve percent of the institutions that
participated in community coalitions with other community partners estimated that the
majority of their attenders were white and therefore reﬂected the sample distribution.
The percentage of institutions whose majority of attenders were black was small (5

percent). All of the religious institutions that reported a majority of attenders as black

were in coalitions of some kind. Seventy-ﬁve percent of these institutions participated

61

in coalitions with broad community partners and 25 percent participated in coalitions
with other religious institutions only.

Coalition involvement and denominational afﬁliation. The majority of religious
institutions in each of the denominational afﬁliation groups reported participation in
collaborations (see Table 3). The overall participation rates ranged between 61.5 percent
and 88.2 percent. When compared to the other afﬁliation groups, the institutions that
designated themselves as Lutheran were more likely to participate in coalitions with
broad community partners (64.7 percent). Institutions in the Baptist afﬁliation group
were the least likely to participate in coalitions with broad community partners (45.0
percent) but were most likely to participate in coalitions that had other religious
institutions as partners (30.0 percent). Religious institutions in the non-denominational
afﬁliation group were the least likely to participate in coalitions (61.5 percent), but were
the most likely to be providing programs on their own (38.5 percent).

It is important to note the range of participation within the afﬁliation groups.
Each afﬁliation group had institutions that participated in coalitions with both broad
community partners and coalitions restricted to other religious institutions, as well as
those that provided, on their own, programs to support children, youth and families.
Thus, participation in a community coalition by a religious institution appeared to be a

choice made by each congregation regardless of afﬁliation.

 

Table 3.

62

Cpalition Involvement by Denominational Afﬁliation

 

Denominational Afﬁliation

 

Coalition Baptist Lutheran Methodist Non- Misc.
involvement denominational

n=20 n=l7 n=22 n=l3 n=21
In coalitions with
broad community 45.0% 64.7% 59.1% 53.8% 52.4%
partners
In coalitions with
other religious 30.0% 23.5% 18.2% 7.7% 23.8%
institutions only
Sub-total 75.0% 88.2% 77.3% 61.5% 76.2%
Provide programs 25.0% 1 1.8% 22.7% 38.5% 23.8%
on their own
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

 

Note: Unable to perform chi-square test due to insufﬁcient number of cases in some cells.

Types of collaborative efforts. Each respondent to the Community Action and
Leadership Survey was asked to choose, from a list of 18 categories of coalitions
(adapted from Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993), those in which they were involved.
Figure 5 displays the involvement of religious institutions in the 18 categories of
coalitions. The most prominent coalitions that religious institutions participated in were:
charitable groups, such as Red Cross, United Way and the Cancer Society; social cause
groups that advocated for peace, equal rights and social justice; sports leagues; civic
events groups that planned civic affairs such as holiday celebrations and art fairs; mutual
support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, La Leche League and childbirth classes;

community support groups such as Friends of the Library and nursing home visitation;

63

Charitable groups 34%

 

Social cause groups

 

Civiceverrisgroups

 

School groups
Mutual support groups
Youth groups

Elderly groups

 

Neighborhood associations

Sports leagues

 

 

Comm. economic dev. groups

 

Women's groups

 

 

Communiiy support groups

 

Men's groups

Artistic groups

Outdoor groups

Health and ﬁtness groups

Ethnic associations
(N = 89)

 

I Broad community partners coalitions
E] Religious Instliuilons coalitions

Figure 5. Types of coalitions in which religious institutions participate

64

community economic development groups that provide job training, housing and
ﬁnancial services; and women's and youth groups that provide cultural, political, social,
educational or vocational services to women and youth.

Institutions that participated in coalitions with broad community partners were
most involved in charitable groups (34 percent), social cause groups (23 percent), civic
events groups (21 percent), school groups (19 percent), mutual support groups (18
percent) and youth groups (16 percent). Religious institutions that were involved in
coalitions only with other religious institutions were most involved in social cause groups
(25 percent), sports leagues (24 percent), community support groups (19 percent),
charitable groups (18 percent) and women's groups (14 percent).

Representatives from religious institutions to coalitions. Regardless of the nature
of the coalition in which they participated, religious institutions relied heavily on
volunteers to support their participation in coalitions. Overall, 59.5 percent of their
representatives in coalitions were volunteers; paid clergy were 29.8 percent. The
remaining 10.7 percent of the representatives were paid staff from the institutions who
were not clergy. Table 4 compares the representatives of institutions in coalitions that
had broad community partners with the representatives to those coalitions with other
religious institutions only.

It is clear that religious institutions rely heavily on volunteers to carry out the
work of collaboration. The majority of representatives of religious institutions to
community coalitions with broad community partners were volunteers (57.1 percent). An

even greater percentage (66.7 percent) of representatives to coalitions with other religious

65

institutions only were volunteers from the institutions. Paid staff other than clergy were
also more likely to represent the institution in coalitions with other religious institutions
only ( 14.3 percent) compared to 9.5 percent in coalitions with broad community partners.
Paid clergy were more likely to represent their religious institution in a community
coalition with broad community partners (33.3 percent) than in coalitions with other
religious institutions only (19.0 percent).

Table 4.
Representatives From Religious Institutions by Coalition Involvement

 

Coalition Involvement

 

Type of Broad community Religious institution
Representative coalitions coalitions
N = 63 N = 21
Volunteer 57.1 % 66.7%
Paid clergy 33.3% 19.0%
Paid staff 9.5% 14.3%
Total 99.9% 100.0%

 

Note. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding. Unable to perform chi-square test
due to insufﬁcient number of cases in some cells.

Contributions of religious institutions to coalitions. Volunteers and paid clergy

and staff from religious institutions were only a portion of what religious institutions
contributed to community coalitions. Buildings; ofﬁce supplies, food and refreshments;
equipment such as computers, copiers, and sports equipment; transportation; and
personnel such as custodians, attendants, and babysitters were among the other resources
provided to coalitions by religious institutions. These contributions were very similar,

whether the coalition had broad community partners or other religious institution partners

66

only. The majority of religious institutions in coalitions with broad community partners
(56.9 percent) contributed building space to the coalition, compared to 52.4 percent of
religious institutions in coalitions with other religious institutions only. Religious
institutions in coalitions with broad community partners (31.4 percent) were more likely
to contribute ofﬁce supplies to the coalition as compared to institutions that participated
in coalitions with other religious institutions only (29.4 percent). Religious institutions
involved in coalitions with broad community partners were also more likely to provide
equipment such as computers, copiers and sports equipment (49.1 percent) and
transportation (26.9 percent) when compared to religious institutions involved in
coalitions with other religious institutions only (41.2 percent and 22.2 percent).

Religious institutions participating in coalitions with other religious institutions
only were more likely to provide food and refreshments (50.0 percent) to the coalition,
compared to 47.4 percent of institutions that participated in coalitions with broad
community partners. They were also more likely to provide personnel such as custodians,
attendants and babysitters (59.1 percent), compared to 47.4 percent of institutions in
coalitions with broad community partners. When asked in an open—ended question to
specify additional contributions that their institutions made to the coalition, 31.8 percent
of the respondents in broad community partner coalitions and 66.7 percent of respondents
in religious institution coalitions included ﬁnancial support as a resource that was

provided.

Leadership Teams and Religious Institutions

Respondents to the CALS survey were asked to identify the group of individuals that

67

provided primary leadership to their institution and how many individuals served on this
leadership team. Sixty percent of the leadership teams had members who were volunteers
from the institution and 40 percent of the leadership teams were comprised of paid Staff.
Leadership teams and religious institution Size. In small religious institutions,
76.3 percent of the leadership teams were comprised of volunteers from the institution
and 23.7 percent were comprised of paid staff. In medium-Sized institutions 54.2 percent
of leadership teams were comprised of volunteers and 45.8 percent were comprised of
paid staff. Leadership teams comprised of paid staff represented the highest proportion
(57.9 percent) of leadership teams in large religious institutions. In these large
institutions 42.1 percent of the leadership teams were comprised of volunteers (see
Table 5).

Table 5.
Type of Leadership Team by Religious Institution Size

 

Size of religious institution

 

 

Type of leadership Small Medium Large
team N=48 N=48 N=19
Volunteers

76.3% 54.2% 42.1%
Paid clergy/staff

23.7% 45.8% 57.9%
Total 100% 100% 100%

 

x2 (2, 105) = 7.43, p =.024

Note: Small institutions (0 - 100 attenders)
Medium institutions (101-300 attenders)
Large institutions (over 300 attenders)

68

Leadership teams and religious institution location. Sixty percent of religious

institutions in rural areas had leadership teams comprised of volunteers, and 40.0 percent
comprised of paid Staff. Religious institutions in towns had a majority (58.1 percent) of
leadership teams comprised of volunteers, and 41.9 percent were teams comprised of paid
staff. The majority (62.8 percent) of leadership teams in urban religious institutions were
teams of volunteers, and 37.2 percent were teams comprised of paid staff (see Table 6).
Again, regardless of the location or size of the religious institution, volunteers were an
integral part of the work in religious institutions.

Table 6.
Tym of Leadership Team by Religious Institution Location

 

Location of religious institution

 

 

Type of leadership Rural Town Urban
team N=30 N=3l N=43
Volunteers

60.0% 58.1% 62.8%
Paid clergy/staff

40.0% 41.9% 37.2%
Total 100% 100% 100%

 

x2 (2, 104) = .174, p =.917

Note: Rural (population under 2,500)
Town (population 2,500 to 50,000)
Urban (population 50,000 to 250,000)

Type of leadership team and team size. Leadership teams that were small, with
one to ﬁve members, comprised 36.9 percent of the leadership teams. Medium-sized

teams that had 6 to 16 members comprised 45.0 percent of the leadership teams.

69

Leadership teams that had over 16 members were considered large teams and were 18.0
percent of the total leadership teams.

Table 7 indicates that the majority of small leadership teams were comprised of
paid staff (82.9 percent). The majority of medium-sized teams were teams of volunteers
(83 percent), and all (100 percent) of the large leadership teams were comprised of
volunteers.

Table 7.
Type of Leadership Team by Size of Leadership Team

 

Size of leadership team

 

 

Type of Leadership Small Medium Large
Team n=4l n=47 n=17
Volunteers 17.1% 83.0% 100.0%
Paid clergy/staff 82.9% 17.0% ----
Total 100% 100% 100%

 

Note: Unable to perform chi-square test due to insufﬁcient number of cases in some cells.

Small (1-5 members)

Medium (6-16 members)

Large (over 17 members)

Coalition involvement and leadership team size. Religious institutions that had
medium-Sized leadership teams (6 to 16 members) had the highest percentage (68
percent) of participation in community coalitions with broad community partners (see
Table 8). Institutions that had large leadership teams (over 17 members) had the highest
percentage (35 percent) of participation in coalitions with other religious institutions

only. Institutions that had small teams (1 to 5 members) had the highest percentage of

non-participation in coalitions.

70

Table 8.
_C_9_alition Involvement by Leadership Team Size

 

Size of leadership team

 

Coalition Small Medium Large
involvement n = 41 n = 47 n = 17

In coalitions with

broad community 51.2% 68% 45%
partners

In coalitions with

other religious 24.4% 16% 35%
institutions only

Provide programs 24.4% 16% 20%
on their own

Total 100% 100% 100%

 

x2 (4, 111) = 4.99, p =.290
Note: Small (1-5 members)

Medium (6-16 members)

Large (over 17 members)

Coalition involvement and leadership team type. Religious institutions whose
leadership teams were comprised of volunteers had a Slightly higher rate (58.7 percent) of
participation in coalitions with broad community partners compared to institutions whose
leadership team was comprised of paid staff (54.8 percent) (see Table 9). Institutions
whose leadership team was comprised of paid staff, however, had a higher rate of
participation (26.2 percent) in coalitions with other religious institutions only as

compared to institutions whose leadership team was volunteer (19 percent). Chi-square

tests Showed no signiﬁcant differences between groups.

71

Table 9.
Coalition Involvement by Leadership Team Typp

 

 

 

Leadership team type

Coalition involvement Volunteer Paid staff

N = 63 N = 42
In coalitions with broad 58.7% 54.8%
community partners
In coalitions with other 19% 26.2%
religious institutions only
Provide programs on their 22.2% 19%
own
Total 100% 100%

 

It2 (4. 105) = .778, p =.678

Dimensions of Teamwork on Leadership Teams in Religious Institutions

Items 36 through 71 of the Community Action and Leadership Survey were items
adapted from the Team Excellence instrument develOped by Larson and LaFasto (1989).
The Team Excellence instrument has been utilized in research distinguishing between
effective and ineffective teams in businesses (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991).
As an instrument, it is actually eight subscales packaged together. Each subscale is
designed to measure one dimension of teamwork.

Reliability analysis was run on each of the eight dimensions of teamwork. The
results are as follows (Cronbach's alphas reported for each dimension): clear, elevating
goals (or = .73), results driven structure (a =.78), competent team members (or = .76),
uniﬁed commitment (or = .79), collaborative climate (or = .74), standard of excellence (a

= .78), support and recognition (01 = .62), and principled leadership (01 = .88). The overall

72

Cronbach's alpha of the Team Excellence instrument was .96. The high overall alpha of
the eight dimensions of teamwork indicated that the instrument was sufﬁciently reliable.

Mean scores, standard deviations, and one-way analysis of variance for each of
the eight dimensions of teamwork were completed for the institutional variables of size of
religious institution, location of the institution, the type of leadership team in the
institution, and the Size of the leadership team. Overall, the mean scores of religious
institutions on each of the eight dimensions of teamwork were high. Neslund (1991)
utilized the Team Excellence instrument in his research with individuals who worked on
teams in businesses and industry. When the mean scores of these religious institutions
were compared with the mean scores of teams in business and industry (Neslund, 1991),
the scores of religious institutions were consistently higher and the standard deviations
lower on each of the eight dimensions of teamwork, with the greatest differences on the
dimensions of "support and recognition" and "competent team members" (see Table 10).
These data indicate that the respondents from these religious institutions perceive their
leadership teams as functioning with overall high levels of teamwork.

Dimensions of teamwork and religious institution size. Small religious
institutions had lower mean scores on all eight dimensions of teamwork as compared to
medium-Sized and large institutions (see Table 11). The greatest difference was between
small institutions and large institutions on the dimension of "standard of excellence."

A one-way analysis of variance test of scores on the eight dimensions of
teamwork indicated no signiﬁcant differences between small, medium-sized, or large

religious institutions on any of the dimensions (see Table 12).

73

Table 10.
Comparison of Dimensions of Teamwork. Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Data Mean Standard n
teamwork Deviation
Clear, elevating goal CALS 3.45 0.400 110
Neslund 2.32 1.034 984
Results driven CALS 3.22 0.420 110
“mam Neslund 2.01 1.145 934
Competent team CALS 3.36 0.470 110
membe's Neslund 2.12 1.164 984
Uniﬁed CALS 3.10 0.610 109
”mmi‘men' Neslund 1.97 1.209 984
Collaborative climate CALS 3.42 0.480 110
Neslund 2.13 1.170 984
Standard of CALS 3.16 0.610 110
excellence Neslund 2.17 1.217 984
Support and CALS 3.13 0.480 110
“mm“ Neslund 1.61 1.360 984
Principled leadership CALS 3.26 0.460 110
Neslund 2.04 1.554 984

 

74

Table 11.

Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Religious Institution, Means and Standard
Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Size Mean Standard
Teamwork Deviation
Clear, elevating goal Small 3.35 0.444 40
Medium 3.51 0.363 49
Large 3.48 0.375 21
Results driven Small 3.10 0.445 40
“mam Medium 3.31 0.376 49
Large 3.24 0.427 2 l
Competent team Small 3.25 0.546 40
members Medium 3.39 0.405 49
Large 3.50 0.391 21
Uniﬁed Small 2.97 0.695 40
°°mmitmem Medium 3.18 0.558 49
Large 3.18 0.527 21
Collaborative climate Small 3.34 0.619 40
Medium 3.47 0.388 49
Large 3.48 0.325 21
Standard of Small 2.98 0.698 40
“Gene“cc Medium 3.27 0.527 49
Large 3.25 0.526 21
Support and Small 3.00 0.520 40
’ewgnmm Medium 3.20 0.431 49
Large 3.21 0.477 21
Principled leadership Small 3.13 0.5 18 40
Medium 3.34 0.423 49
Large 3.32 0.353 21

 

75

Table 12.
Analysis pf Variance, Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Religious Institution

 

 

Size of Religious Institution

 

 

Dimension of F Probability F Ratio Mean Standard
teamwork Deviation
Clear, 0.139 2.01 3.45 0.40
elevating goal

Results-driven 0.067 2.76 3.22 0.42
structure

Competent 0.097 2.39 3.36 0.47
team members

Uniﬁed 0.211 1.58 3.10 0.61
commitment

Collaborative 0.381 .97 3.42 0.48
climate

Standard of 0.056 2.97 3.16 0.61
exceHence

Support and 0.123 2.13 3.13 0.48
recognition

Principled 0.070 2.73 3.26 0.46
leadership

 

*p <.05, df= 2, n-l=107

Dimensions of teamwork and religious institution location. Religious institutions
located in towns with populations between 2,500 and 50,000 consistently had the highest
scores on all eight teamwork scales (see Table 13). Religious institutions located in rural
areas had the lowest scores on all teamwork dimensions with the greatest difference
between rural and town institutions on the dimensions of "clear, elevating goal," "uniﬁed

commitment," and "standard of excellence."

Table 13.

76

Dimensions of Teamwork and Location of Religious Institution, Means and Standard

Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Location Mean Standard n
teamwork Deviation
Clear, elevating goal Rural 3.31 0.477 32
Town 3.57 0.344 32
Urban 3.45 0.357 45
Results driven Rural 3.20 0.469 32
“mm“ Town 3.25 0.400 32
Urban 3.21 0.401 45
Competent team Rural 3.23 0.573 32
members Town 3.43 0.382 32
Urban 3.39 0.418 45
Uniﬁed Rural 2.88 0.655 32
”mm“ Town 3.23 0.506 32
Urban 3.15 0.608 44
Collaborative climate Rural 3.31 0.592 32
Town 3.56 0.334 32
Urban 3.40 0.460 45
Standard of Rural 2.93 0.717 32
““11““ Town 3.29 0.520 32
Urban 3.22 0.542 45
Support and Rural 3.05 0.575 32
“mm“ Town 3.19 0.490 32
Urban 3.13 0.381 45
Principled leadership Rural 3.15 0.5 12 32
Town 3.38 0.355 32
Urban 3.24 0.461 32

 

77

Religious institutions located in towns had signiﬁcantly higher scores on the
teamwork scales of "clear, elevated goal" (F = .032, p < .05), "uniﬁed commitment"
(F = .041, p < .05), and "standards of excellence" (F = .036, p < .05) than either rural or
urban institutions (see Table 14).

Table 14.
Analysis of Variance. Dimensions of Teamwork and Location of Religious Institution

 

Location of Religious Institution

 

 

Dimension of F Probability F Ratio Mean Standard
Teamwork Deviation
Clear, 0032* 3.55 3.44 0.40
elevating goal

Results-driven 0.860 .15 3.22 0.42
structure

Competent 0.164 1.82 3.36 0.46
team members

Uniﬁed 0.041 * 3.27 3.09 0.61
commitment

Collaborative 0.1 17 2.19 3.42 0.48
climate

Standard of 0.036* 3.44 3.15 0.61
exceﬂence

Support and 0.522 .66 3.12 0.47
recognition

Principled 0.129 2.09 3.25 0.45
leadership

 

*p < .05, df= 2, n-1=106

78

Dimensions of temnwork and leadership team typa. Leadership teams of each
religious institution were classiﬁed according to the type of team that provided primary
leadership to the institution. If the leadership team was comprised of primarily
volunteers from the institution it was considered a volunteer leadership team. If the team
members were primarily paid staff members of the institution it was classiﬁed as a paid
staff leadership team. Both types of leadership had high scores on all eight dimensions of
teamwork (see Table 15). Paid staff leadership teams had higher scores than did
volunteer leadership teams on seven of the dimensions of teamwork. The differences
were statistically signiﬁcant on the teamwork scales of "uniﬁed commitment" (F = .021,
p < .05), and "standard of excellence" (F = .026, p < .05) than institutions whose
leadership team was composed of volunteers (see Table 16). Volunteer leadership teams

had higher scores on the dimension of "support and recognition."

79

Table 15.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Type of Leadership Team, Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Type of Mean Standard n
teamwork leadership team Deviation
Clear, elevating goal Volunteer 3.46 0.370 63
Paid staff 3.49 0.412 41
Results-driven Volunteer 3.20 0.416 63
“mm” Paid staff 3.27 0.413 41
Competent team Volunteer 3.32 0.443 63
members Paid staff 3.45 0.468 41
Uniﬁed Volunteer 3.02 0.625 63
“mm"mem Paid staff 3.30 0.543 40
Collaborative climate Volunteer 3.42 0.512 63
Paid staff 3.48 0.377 41
Standard of Volunteer 3.07 0.579 63
excellence Paid staff 3.34 0.603 41
Support and Volunteer 3.15 0.460 63
’emgnm‘m Paid staff 3.1 1 0.487 41
Principled leadership Volunteer 3.21 0.457 63
Paid staff 3.38 0.435 41

 

80

Table 16.
Analysis of Variance, Dimensions of Taamwork and Typa of Leadership Team

 

 

 

 

Type of leadership team
Dimension of F Probability F Ratio Mean Standard
Teamwork Deviation
Clear, 0.739 0.1 l 3.47 0.39
elevating goal
Results-driven 0.407 0.69 3.23 0.41
structure
Competent 0.157 2.04 3.37 0.46
team members
Uniﬁed 0.021 * 5.48 3.13 0.61
commitment
Collaborative 0.514 0.43 3.44 0.46
climate
Standard of 0026* 5.13 3.18 0.60
exceHence
Support and 0.696 0.15 3.14 0.47
recognition
Principled 0.059 3.63 3.27 0.45
leadership

 

*p < .05, df= l, n-1=102

Dimensions of teamwork and leadership team size. Small leadership teams of two
to ﬁve members had the highest scores on seven of the eight dimensions of teamwork
(see Table 17). The exception was on the dimension of "support and recognition" in
which large leadership teams (over 17 members) had the highest scores. These
differences were statistically Signiﬁcant on the teamwork scales of "uniﬁed commitment"
(F = .002, p < .05) and "standards of excellence" (F = .025, p < .05) than institutions

whose leadership teams were medium-sized (6 to 16 members) or large (see Table 18).

81

Table 17.
Dimensions of Teamworigand Size of Leadership Team of Religious Institutions, Means
and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Size of Mean Standard n
teamwork leadership team Deviation
Clear, elevating goal Small 3.51 0.420 40
Medium 3.40 0.384 50
Large 3.42 0.422 20
Results-driven Small 3.28 0.421 40
“mm“ Medium 3.16 0.427 50
Large 3.26 0.392 20
Competent team Small 3.44 0.466 40
members Medium 3.32 0.471 50
Large 3.31 0.451 20
Uniﬁed Small 3.38 0.536 39
”mmmem Medium 2.95 0.604 50
Large 2.96 0.602 20
Collaborative climate Small 3.53 0.378 40
Medium 3.37 0.542 50
nge 3.35 0.462 20
Standard of Small 3.33 0.645 40
excellence Medium 2.99 0.569 50
Large 3.22 0.522 20
Support and Small 3.14 0.459 40
'e°°g"i"°“ Medium 3.06 0.479 50
Large 3.29 0.501 20
Principled leadership Small 3.39 0.459 40
Medium 3.18 0.448 50
Large 3. 18 0.429 20

 

82

Table 18.
Analysis of Variance, Dimensions of Teamwork and Size of Leadership Team

 

 

Size of leadership team

 

 

Dimension of F Probability F Ratio Mean Standard
Teamwork Deviation
Clear, .392 0.94 3.45 0.40
elevating goal

Results-driven .41 l 0.89 3.22 0.42
structure

Competent .434 0.84 3.36 0.47
team members

Uniﬁed .002** 6.76 3.10 0.61
commitment

Collaborative .21 l 1.58 3.42 0.48
climate

Standard of 025* 3.81 3.16 0.61
exceHence

Support and .187 1.71 3.13 0.48
recognition

Principled .061 2.79 3.26 0.46
leadership

 

*p < .05, df= 2, n-1=107

The majority of small leadership teams (82.9 percent) were comprised of paid
staff and 100 percent of large teams were comprised of volunteers. While such teamwork
dimensions as "uniﬁed commitment" and "standards of excellence" may be easier to
develop and maintain an small teams of paid Staff, the dimension of "support and
recognition" may be higher on large teams as a result of having a broader cross section of
individuals from within the congregation providing leadership to the institution, thus

promoting the sense of support and recognition from the institution.

83

Dimensions of teamwork and coalition involvement. Religious institutions whose
coalition participation was limited only to coalitions with other religious institutions had
consistently higher scores on all eight dimension of teamwork scales than those
institutions who participated in broad community partner coalitions (see Table 19). The
greatest differences between these groups were on the dimensions of "results driven
structure," "uniﬁed commitment," and "standard of excellence." One-way analysis of
variance tests showed these differences not to be statistically signiﬁcant (see Table 20).
Discriminant Analysis of Religious Institution Variables and CoalLition Participation

What combination of factors—that is, the eight dimensions of teamwork,
leadership team size, type of leadership team, location of the institution, and size of the
institution—best discriminates participation in community coalitions that support
children, youth and families? The eight dimensions of teamwork were highly correlated
with one another (see Table 21). To avoid multicolinearity in the interpretation of the
results, the scores for each institution on the eight dimensions of teamwork were
combined into an overall teamwork score. Using this overall teamwork score in the
discriminant analysis afforded a more parsimonious model and avoided misinterpretation

of the results due to multicolinearity.

84

Table 19.
Dimensions of Teamwork and Coalition Involvemlent. Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dimension of Coalition Mean Standard Deviation n
teamwork involvement *
Clear, elevating goal 1 3.39 0.384 64
2 3.51 0.427 25
3 3.52 0.410 21
Results-driven 1 3.15 0.418 64
“mam 2 3.35 0.370 25
3 3.29 0.448 21
Competent team 1 3.34 0.495 64
members 2 3.40 0.346 25
3 3.39 0.510 21
Uniﬁed l 3.03 0.618 64
°°mmitmcm 2 3.26 0.557 25
3 3.15 0.635 20
Collaborative climate 1 3.40 0.475 64
2 3.44 0.390 25
3 3.46 0.583 21
Standard of excellence 1 3.08 0.609 64
2 3.28 0.541 25
3 3.24 0.660 21
Support and l 3.07 0.512 64
'°°°g"m°" 2 3.17 0.340 25
3 3.29 0.500 24
Principled leadership 1 3.21 0.461 64
2 3.37 0.383 25
3 3.29 0.510 21

 

"‘ Note: 1 = Involved in broad community partner coalitions, 2 = Involved in religious institution
coalitions, 3 = No coalition involvement.

85

Table 20.
Analysis of VaLiance. Dimensions of Teamworlﬂnd Coalition Involvement

 

Coalition involvement

 

 

Dimension of F Probability F Ratio Mean Standard
Teamwork Deviation
Clear, 0.274 1.3 l 3.45 0.40
elevating goal

Results-driven 0.103 2.32 3.22 0.42
structure

Competent 0.797 0.23 3.36 0.47
team mem.

Uniﬁed 0.249 1.41 3.10 0.61
commitment

Collaborative 0.883 0. 12 3.42 0.48
climate

Standard of 0.311 1.18 3.16 0.61
exceHence

Support and 0.179 1.75 3.13 0.48
recognition

Principled 0.279 1.29 3.26 0.46
leadership

 

*p < .05, df= 2, n-l=107

Table 21.

86

Correlation Matrix for Dimensions of Teamwork

 

Variable

Var 1

Var2

Var3

Var4

Var5

Var6

Vm? Vm8

 

Variable 1
Clear,
elevating goals

Variable 2
Results-driven
structure

Variable 3
Competent
team members

Variable 4
Uniﬁed
commitment

Variable 5
Collaborative
Climate

Variable 6
Standards
ofexceHence

Variable 7
Support &
recognition

Variable 8
Principled
leadership

0.5721

0.5916

0.6103

0.6190

0.7380

0.5048

0.6795

0.6524

0.5796

0.7027

0.6346

0.5991

0.7226

0.6938

0.7477

0.6432

0.5118

0.7979

0.6766

0.7295

0.4929

0.8072

0.6376

0.4901

0.7877

0.5061

0.8188 0.5630

 

87

The objective for utilizing discriminant function analysis was to identify those
characteristics of religious institutions which signiﬁcantly distinguished their
participation in particular types community coalitions that support children, youth, and
families. The discriminant analysis indicated that none of the variables—total teamwork
score, size of leadership team, type of leadership team, size of religious institution, or
location of the institution—would discriminate participation of religious institutions in
community coalitions that support children, youth and families. The null hypothesis at
this stage of the analysis states that there is no difference in the means of all discriminant
functions in all groups. Wilks' lambda is the proportion of the total variance in the
discriminant scores not explained by differences among groups. Small values of lambda
are associated with functions that have much variability between groups and little
variability within groups. A lambda of 1.00 would occur when the mean of the
discriminant scores is the same in all groups and there is no between-groups variability
(Norusis, 1988). In this research an overall Wilks' lambda of .906 and a signiﬁcance of
.47 indicates little variability between coalition groups, thus, the null hypothesis should
be retained. Wilks' lambda for each of the discriminating variables also indicates the
means for each of the groups is nearly equal and the null hypothesis should be retained

(see Table 22).

88

Table 22.
Discriminant Analysis, Religious Institution Variables and Coalition Participation

 

 

Discriminant analysis

 

 

 

Wilks' Lambda F Signiﬁcance

Total teamwork score 0.962 1.996 0.14
Size of leadership 0.999 0.053 0.95
team
Type of leadership 0.989 0.545 0.58
team .
Size of religious 0.969 1.558 0.22
institution
Location of religious 0.982 0.902 0.41
institution

p < .001

Consequently, it can be concluded that the size of a religious institution, its
location, the type of leadership team that provides its primary leadership, the size of the
leadership team, and the level of teamwork in the leadership team are not useful variables
in differentiating whether a religious institution participates in community coalitions that
support children, youth, and families.

Summa_ry

Analyses of the data indicated that most religious institutions participated in a
coalition of some kind that supports children, youth, and families. This participation was
not signiﬁcantly related to the size of the religious institution, its location, the type of
leadership team that provided primary leadership (paid staff or volunteer), or the size of

the leadership team.

89

Respondents to the CALS survey reported high levels of teamwork on the
leadership teams of their religious institutions, whether those teams were comprised of
volunteers or paid staff. However, signiﬁcant differences were found on three of the
eight dimensions of teamwork. Leadership teams of religious institutions in towns scored
signiﬁcantly higher than those institutions located rural areas on the teamwork
dimensions of "clear elevating goal," "uniﬁed commitment," and "standard of
excellence." Leadership teams composed of paid staff scored signiﬁcantly higher than
leadership teams composed of volunteers on the teamwork dimensions of "uniﬁed
commitment" and "standard of excellence." Consequently, small leadership teams, the
majority of which were teams of paid staff, scored signiﬁcantly higher on the same two
teamwork dimensions.

An application of discriminant function analysis is the prediction of a subject's
participation in a group based upon a given set of variables. In this research, discriminant
analysis was utilized in an attempt to predict the participation of a religious institution in
one of three coalition groups based upon demographic and leadership team
characteristics. Discriminant function analysis was able to correctly classify a religious
institution's participation in Group 1 (participation in a coalition with broad community
partners) 91.5 percent of the time (see Table 23). It correctly predicted a religious
institution's participation in Group 2 (participation in a coalition with other religious
institutions) 8.7 percent of the time, and in Group 3 (provided programs on their own

with no coalition participation) 4.8 percent on the time.

90

Table 23.
Discriminant Analysis, Classiﬁcation Results

 

 

 

Number of cases Predicted group membership
Actual group of Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
coalition involvement
Group 1: 59 54 2 3
Coalitions with broad 91.5% 3.4% 5.1%
community partners
Group 2: 23 21 2 0
Coalitions with other 91.3% 8.7% .0%
religious institutions
Group 3: 21 19 l 1
Provide programs on their 90.5% 4.8% 4.8%
own

 

Note: Percent of grouped cases correctly classiﬁed: 55.34%

Overall, discriminant analysis was able to correctly predict the coalition participation of
religious institutions 55.34 percent of the time. Therefore, it was concluded that these
variables, size and location of a religious institution, the size and type of its leadership
team, and the level of teamwork on the leadership team, were not adequate in

differentiating coalition involvement.

Chapter 5
Discussion and Implications
Summary of Findings

Religious institutions have a historical tradition of making vital contributions in
meeting community needs (Bellah et al., 1985; Colson, 1992; Dudley, 1991). Bellah and
his associates ( 1985) specify religious commitment as one of the traditional relationships
in America that provide "social solidarity" (p. 114)-—the knitting together of individuals
to provide mutual support. Religious institutions involved in the current research
continue this tradition of meeting community needs via participation in coalition
activities in support of children, youth, and families.

Religious institutions do participate in collaborations. Religious institutions of all
sizes and denominational afﬁliations, whether they are located in rural areas, small towns,
or in urban settings, participated in coalitions of some kind. We know what kind of
coalitions they panicipate in and what they provide to coalitions. We know that their
leadership teams vary in size and we know whether they are volunteer teams or composed
of paid staff. Finally, we know that variations in the demographic variables of the
religious institutions and in their leadership teams' characteristics are not sufﬁcient to
discriminate their coalition participation. This chapter includes a discussion of the
implications of these variations for communities and their collaborations, for religious

institutions, for future research, and for implications for programs and policy.

91

92

Participation of Religious Institutions in Community Coalitions

This research supports the notion that religious institutions continue to be an
important sector involved in communities in the support of children, youth, and families.
The participation of religious institution in coalitions that support children, youth, and
families is a vital component in bringing the combined power of individuals to bear on
pressing community needs.

Most religious institutions were participants in community coalitions that support
children, youth, and families. Over half (57.7 percent) of the religious institutions
participated in community coalitions whose partners represented a broad range of
community organizations, for example, local businesses, hospitals, government agencies,
schools, and other volunteer organizations. Another 22.5 percent indicated that they
participated in coalitions whose members are other area religious institutions. Overall,
80.2 percent of the religious institutions in this sample participated in community
coalitions of some nature. Some literature concerning religious institutions and
community involvement would lead to the assumption that religious institutions in
general are remiss in helping meet the needs of communities (Benson & Roehlkepartain,
1994; Lupton, 1995; Ortiz, 1992; Thomas, 1994). The current research, however,
indicates that many religious institutions are endeavoring to maximize their resources
through participation in community coalitions that support children, youth and families.

The high rate of participation of religious institutions in community coalitions

should be encouraging to community leaders. The resources of many religious

93

institutions in these communities were mobilized through a variety of collaborative
efforts, most often in charitable and social cause coalitions. The institutions provided
personnel to help carry on the work of coalitions, often taking leadership roles. Building
space, ofﬁce supplies, food, equipment, transportation, and ﬁnancial support were other
resources that were contributed to the work of community coalitions by religious
institutions. Several suggestions can be proffered to leaders of community coalitions in
order to encourage further participation of religious institutions. Coalition leaders should
seek opportunities to get acquainted with the many religious institutions and their leaders
that are in their community. A strategy should be developed for inviting religious
institutions to participate, one that will incorporate them into the collaborative process.
Once a relationship is established and the religious institution becomes involved, care
should taken to treat that institution as an equal co-partner in the shared vision to support
children, youth and families.

These ﬁndings should also serve as encouragement to religious institutions to
become involved in coalitions based on their concern for and desire to assist children,
youth, and families in their communities and not on the real or perceived uninvolvement
of other religious institutions. Leaders of religious institutions must inspire a vision for
the needs of children, youth and families in their community (Kent County Council for
the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995). Communicating the vision for
support of children, youth and families should recognize that once involved in the
community, the religious institution will be both a positive contributor to and recipient of

subsequent neighborhood renewal. Leaders of religious institutions should expand

94

networks for improved well-being through coalitions involving children, youth and
families. Finally, religious leaders should provide regular information to their
congregants on community volunteer opportunities that support children, youth and
families (Kent County Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

Religious institutions that do not participate in the collaborative process with
other community partners should seriously consider the missed Opportunities of non-
participation. Those who do not participate in coalitions miss opportunities to forge
positive, diverse links between community partners that are essential to positive human
development (Garbarino, 1982). Furthermore, non-participation in coalitions enhances
the risk of duplication of efforts and the overlapping use of limited resources. The
participation of religious institutions in community coalitions in support of children,
youth, and families is essential to the improvement of the quality of life in their
communities. The beneﬁts gained by community partners, religious institutions, and
families make the collaboration process a mutually beneﬁcial endeavor.

Coalition involvement and religious institution size. Participation of religious
institutions was not signiﬁcantly related to the size of the religious institution, although
small religious institutions were the least likely to be involved in community coalitions.
The resources of small religious institutions may be overlooked in the process of
recruiting coalition partners. The limited resources of small religious institutions should
be seen as a primary reason for coalition participation. A coalition or collaboration is
deﬁned as an effort "that unites and empowers individuals and organizations to

accomplish collectively what they could not accomplish independently" (Kagan &

95

Rivera, 1991, p. 3). The limited resources of a small religious institutions alone may not
make much impact on a community need. However, it is the combined resources of
many different community organizations that can make a substantial difference. Indeed,
this is a foundational principle of the collaborative process.

In order to encourage the participation of small religious institutions, community
leaders and coalition leaders must actively cultivate opportunities for small religious
institutions to become involved in the collaborative process. It is important to build
bridges with leaders of small institutions, especially by afﬁrming to them the importance
of the contributions they can make and by asking the leaders how they would be willing
or able to aid a collaborative effort. Coalition leaders should develop a list of items,
volunteers, or work-in-kind services needed by the coalition that can be presented to
leaders of small religious institutions. They should emphasize the value of the non-
material contributions they can make, such as the experiences, ideas, and insights of their
people.

From the perspective of the small religious institution, the challenge lies in
ﬁnding a coalition that needs what they can contribute and that shares enough common
values to make a collaborative relationship possible. To accomplish this, leaders of small
religious institutions should review the resources of the institution and consider how they
might contribute to the work of coalitions in their communities. They can network with
coalition leaders or other coalition partners to discover what is needed. The coalition
may need what a particular small religious institution is uniquely capable of providing in

both material and non-material resources. Leaders of both coalitions and religious

96

institutions must realize that the resources of religious institutions, however small or
large, may make some contribution to the work of the collective groups that form the
coalition.

Coalition involvement and religious institution location. Participation of
religious institutions in community coalitions was not signiﬁcantly related to the
geographic location of the institution. The majority of institutions, whether in rural areas,
towns, or in the city, participated in community coalitions in support of children, youth,
and families. Urban institutions (60.9 percent), however, were more likely to participate
in coalitions with broad community partners, while the participation rate of institutions in
rural areas was 56.3 percent and in institutions in towns it was 53.1 percent (see Table 2).
Religious institutions in towns had the largest percentage (31.3 percent) of institutions
that participated in coalitions with other religious institutions compared to religious
institutions in urban areas (21.7 percent) and institutions in rural areas (15.6 percent).
Rural religious institutions were the most likely to provide programs in support of
children, youth, and families on their own (28.1 percent).

While not statistically signiﬁcant, these differences in coalition participation and
institution location are meaningful. Location seems to affect the type of community
coalition in which a religious institution participates. Close proximity and greater
diversity of community partners in urban areas may create a greater likelihood that
religious institutions will participate in community coalitions with broad community
partners. Longer travel distances, geographical dispersion, and a smaller variety of

community partners in rural areas may make participation in coalitions more difﬁcult.

97

Some religious institutions in rural areas, therefore, may opt to support children, youth
and families in their community through programs they provide on their own. Again, it
should be emphasized that a shared vision among community partners, combined with
their various resources in a collaborative effort, can make a substantial difference in the
development of children, youth and families, —-even in rural areas. Greater distances
between coalition partners in rural areas may make the collaborative process more
difﬁcult but not impossible.

Collaborators in rural communities need to make extra effort in the recruitment of
religious institutions. Once involved, coalition leaders should keep them informed about
coalition activities. Utilization of available technologies such as conference calls,
electronic mail, the intemet, answering machines, and fax machines can reduce travel
time and expenses while keeping all partners informed and connected to the work of the
coalition.

Religious institutions in rural communities may need to take more time and effort
to establish a shared vision for the support of children, youth and families. Leaders of
religious institutions must then identify community partners who are willing to
collaborate in meeting these needs. They may need to become the motivating force in
identifying community needs and establishing coalitions to meet those needs. Again, it
must be emphasized that a shared vision among community partners, combining their
various resources in a collaborative effort, can make a substantial difference in the lives
of children, youth and families. Greater distances between coalition partners in rural

areas may make collaboration more difﬁcult but not impossible. The potential for

98

isolation of community partners in rural areas should serve as a primary motivation for
the pursuit of collaboration.

Coalition involvement and denominational afﬁliation. A majority of religious
institutions from all denominational afﬁliation groups, representing a variety of
theological dispositions, participated in community coalitions of some kind. Yet, there
were some institutions from each afﬁliation group that chose not to participate in the
collaborative process. It appeared that coalition participation was determined by each
institution individually. Coalition leaders should not assume, on the basis of
denominational afﬁliation alone, that a particular religious institution would not become
involved in their coalition. Each religious institution should be given the opportunity to
consider an offer to collaborate. Collaborators could aid these institutions in making the
decision to collaborate by making certain that the vision and purpose of the coalition are
clearly stated, the length of the time commitment is understood, and a clear list of the
needs of the coalition that the religious institution may be able to provide is offered.

Coalition leaders should be particularly aware of the potential differences that
may arise between religious institutions and other coalition partners because of
theological beliefs and values. The coalition work of religious institutions is considered a
demonstration of their faith and theology. Situations may arise when the coalition, in the
interest of meeting a particular goal, feels strongly that a certain course of action should
be pursued and some of the religious institution partners may disagree because of their
strongly held theological beliefs. This presents the coalition with several challenging

questions that bear consideration. If some of the religious partners disagree with this

99

particular course of action, can they continue to be participants in the coalition? Can
coalitions be ﬂexible enough to allow partners to dissent on some issues? Can the
coalition be strong enough to endure dissent on the part of some partners and yet
accomplish its goal?

A framework for coalition activity that provides a ﬂexibly strong structure would
give coalition partners permission to disagree. It would assure all collaborative partners
that disagreement need not jeopardize their further participation in the coalition. It would
emphasize the crucial point that everyone support the shared vision of the support of
children, youth and families, of which any one issue is just a part. This framework would
also reafﬁrm the value of all partners to the collaborative effort. Everyone's contribution
to the process of informed debate is seen as important for making any sound decision. It
would also honor the values of all partners, but particularly those of religious institutions.
If possible, it would allow partners to remain a part of the coalition even if they do not
support a particular effort. For instance, care would be taken not to name the dissenting
or non-contributing partners on publicity and promotions of activities with which they
disagree or to which they have not provided resources.

The involvement of religious institutions from a variety of afﬁliation groups will
almost certainly mean differences in theological beliefs. This does not mean that
theological agreement must be reached before the coalition achieves its goal, nor even
during the time it is striving to do so. It does mean that representatives from various
religious institutions feel strongly enough about meeting the needs of children, youth and

families in their communities to put differences aside to achieve a shared vision. A lack

100
of unity of issues peripheral to the goal of the coalition can undermine the unity of the
entire collaborative effort and become a self-fulﬁlling prophecy of pessimism about
coalitions that discourages participation in the future.

Representatives of religious institutions in community collaborative work must
develop an ability to keep the purpose of the coalition as their primary focus during their
interaction. Religious leaders and representatives from religious institutions must learn
how to agree to disagree on theological matters with other coalition partners for the sake
of the healthy development and support of the children, youth and families in their
communities.

When a religious institution ﬁnds itself in disagreement with a speciﬁc activity of
a coalition but supportive of the coalition's overall objectives, it is vital to the institution,
the coalition, and the community that it remain involved, if at all possible. The faith and
beliefs of religious institutions are an important part of the process of informed debate.
These beliefs provide balance to the discussion and a perspective that other coalition
partners should value. Coalition decisions reached on the basis of trust, openness, and
informed debate provide a strong foundation for action. Even in areas of disagreement,
the input of religious institutions is an important contribution in the quest to address the
pressing needs of children, youth and families (Benson & Roehlkepartain, 1994)

girlition involvement and leadership team size. The leadership teams of the
religious institutions in this sample were divided into three categories. Teams with one to
ﬁve members were small (36.9 percent); teams that had 6 to 16 members were medium-

sized (45.0 percent); and leadership teams that had over 16 members were considered

101

large teams (18.0 percent). Participation of religious institutions in community coalitions
was not signiﬁcantly related to the size of the primary leadership team in the religious
institution.

The majority of religious institutions, regardless of the size of their leadership
team, participated in community coalitions of some type. Religious institutions with
medium-sized leadership teams were most likely to be involved in coalitions with broad
community partners (68 percent) and least likely to be involved in coalitions with other
religious institutions. Institutions that had large leadership teams were most likely to be
involved in coalitions with other religious institutions (35 percent). Religious institutions
with small leadership teams were most likely to provide programs on their own. Leaders
of coalitions with broad community partners should consider the leadership potential of
individuals serving on large leadership teams in religious institutions. These individuals
may have experience or knowledge of the community that is valuable to the coalition and
its goals plus the experience of working in groups to achieve a common goal. Efforts
should be made to tap this potential reservoir of leadership and community experience.

Qtﬂlition involvemenL and leadership team tym. Sixty percent of the leadership
teams in this sample were composed of volunteers and 40.0 percent were composed of
paid staff. Participation of religious institutions in community coalitions was not
signiﬁcantly related to the type of leadership team in the institution. Religious
institutions whose leadership teams were composed primarily of volunteers were most
likely to be involved in coalitions with broad community partners (58.7 percent). The

majority of religious institutions whose leadership team was paid staff also participated in

102

coalitions with broad community partners (54.8 percent). These religious institutions
with leadership teams of paid staff were also most likely to be involved in coalitions with
other religious institutions only. Efforts should be made by community coalition leaders
to recruit paid staff of religious institutions for service in their coalitions with broad
community partners. The specialized training that many seminary graduates receive in
group dynamics, teaching, and administration could make them valuable members of a
community coalition. Religious institutions beneﬁt as well from staff participation in
coalitions with broad community partners. New contacts are made with individuals and
groups from other volunteer organizations, government agencies, schools, business, and
other community representatives that serve to broaden the inﬂuence of the religious
institution in the community.

The slightly higher rate of participation of religious institutions whose leaders are
volunteers in coalitions with broad community partners may be a function of these
volunteers utilizing previously established networks from work, business contacts,
acquaintances, and friends as an impetus or motivation to have their religious institution
become involved in coalitions with broad community partners. This type of community
involvement would naturally result from the many community contacts that are already
established as part of the lives of these team members. Conversely, the slightly higher
rate of participation of religious institutions whose leadership team is paid staff in
coalitions with other religious institutions only may be a function of the networks

established by these paid staff members as part of their work. These contacts and

103

networks may result from a sharing of common interests with other paid church staff as a
natural outcome of their jobs.

Religious institutions rely heavily on volunteers, both in terms of coalition
activity and serving on their leadership teams. As resources decline at both the state and
national levels, the use of volunteers will become paramount to community collaborative
efforts as well. Religious institutions have relied on volunteers for centuries to
accomplish their work around the world. They provide an important community resource
in the form of people who are accustomed to volunteerism. These individual
contributions, however, go beyond the accomplishment of speciﬁc community coalition
goals. Volunteers from religious institutions promote a shared community vision and
determination to meet community needs. They provide role models of prosocial behavior
for others, especially adolescents. Therefore, development of volunteer leadership should
become an important contribution of coalitions to the community (James, 1992; Pierce,
1989; Scheie et al., 1991).

Volunteers from religious institutions do, however, pose special challenges for
coalition leaders. Volunteers from religious institutions must often consult with a
governing board or leadership team before committing their resources. In turn, a slow
response to requests may be interpreted by other coalition partners as a lack of
commitment. Awareness of the differences in organizational pace will nurture a
supportive environment between coalition partners as they marshal their resources to

reach a shared vision. Challenges that face coalition leaders when working with large

104
numbers of volunteers include the volunteers' independence from the coalition, the
potential for high turnover of personnel and the need to train competent successors.

Despite the challenges, coalition leaders should recognize the symbiotic
relationship, inherent in the collaborative process, between their coalition and religious
institutions. Provision of volunteer training and opportunities for volunteer development
will promote goal achievement for the coalition and which can, in turn, be shared with the
religious institution that the volunteers represent. Recognition of the slower
organizational pace of religious institutions can offset much frustration and avoid
unproductive disagreements.

Leaders of religious institutions should recognize the valuable resource that their
institutions have to offer their communities in the individuals that serve as volunteers
both within and outside their organization. Therefore, they should encourage individuals
from their institutions to volunteer to community coalitions that support children, youth
and families, even when a structure for formal institutional participation is not available.

Responding to the challenge of the nineties will mean mobilizing large numbers

of volunteers to meet the needs of the homeless, hungry, ill and hurting . . . . It

would mean reorienting our whole view of [religious institutions], redirecting our

energies so we are reaching outward, not inward (Colson, 1992, p. 88).

Beyond being a resource for personnel available for the work of coalitions,
religious institutions provide an environment that promotes leadership development.
Religious institutions promote leadership development throughout the life span of the
individual. Children often ﬁrst learn to speak in front of people during programs and

celebrations of holidays and religious Observances. Adolescents learn the fundamentals

of conducting meetings and public speaking while being leaders in the youth group.

105

Adults construct reports, lead meetings, direct the work of volunteers, and learn how to
set and achieve goals in the context of performing ofﬁces and duties within religious
institutions. The present research contributes a link in the literature between leadership
development and religious institutions. Offering individuals opportunity and
encouragement to participate in institution councils, take leadership roles, do work within
the institution and immerse themselves in the congregation has broad applications in
community settings especially in terms of corrununity coalitions (Benson &
Roehlkepartain, 1994; Johnson & Mullins, 1990).

Dimensions of teamwork and religious institutions. Eight dimensions of
teamwork that characterized the effectiveness of people working together on teams are
identiﬁed as: (a) clear, elevating goals, (b) results-driven structure, (c) competent team
members, ((1) uniﬁed commitment, (e) collaborative climate, (0 standards of excellence,
(g) external support and recognition, and (h) principled leadership. High levels of these
eight dimensions were found to distinguish between effective and ineffective teams
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Neslund, 1991). Do these dimensions of teamwork of the
leadership teams differ by team type or team size and by size or location of the
institution?

Results of the data analysis indicate that mean scores on the eight dimensions of
teamwork did not differ signiﬁcantly among small, medium-sized, or large religious
institutions. Several dimensions of teamwork, however, differed signiﬁcantly according
to the location of the religious institution. Religious institutions in towns had

signiﬁcantly higher mean scores on the teamwork dimensions of "clear, elevating goals,"

106

"uniﬁed commitment," and "standard of excellence" than did religious institutions in rural
areas.

The teamwork dimensions of "uniﬁed commitment" and "standard of excellence"
differed signiﬁcantly between types of leadership teams. Leadership teams composed of
paid staff members had signiﬁcantly higher mean scores on these two dimensions than
did leadership teams composed of volunteers. Similarly, small leadership teams had
signiﬁcantly higher mean scores on the same two dimensions of teamwork as compared
to medium-sized and large leadership teams. It would appear that small leadership teams
composed of paid staff members are all highly committed to their work in the religious
institutions in which they serve. Job descriptions that clearly state expectations and
duties of paid staff, combined with regular performance reviews, could account for the
higher mean scores on "uniﬁed commitment" and "standards of excellence" when
compared to leadership teams whose members are volunteers.

There were no signiﬁcant differences between scores on any of the eight
dimensions of teamwork and the religious institutions' participation in community
coalitions.

Predicting coalition involvement of religious institutions. What combination of
factors—size or location of the institution, size and type of the leadership team, and
teamwork best discriminates religious institution participation in community coalitions
that support children, youth and families? A summary of the discriminant function
analysis indicates that the variables of size of religious institutions (small, medium-sized,

large), location of religious institutions (rural, town, urban), the size of their leadership

107

team (small, medium-sized, large), type of leadership team (paid staff, volunteer), or the
amount of teamwork of the leadership team could not discriminate, separately or in
combination, among the coalition groups. Using the above variables, discriminant
analysis could correctly predict a religious institutions' coalition participation only 55 .34
percent of the time.
Implication for Future Research

Research and the teamwork instrument. The teamwork portion of the Community
Action and Leadership survey used in this research was adapted from the Team
Excellence survey (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). This teamwork instrument was effective
when used to measure the internal dynamics of leadership teams as evidenced in the work

of Larson and LaFasto (1989) and Neslund (1991). For the present research it revealed

small but signiﬁcant differences on the dimensions of "clear, elevated goals, uniﬁed

conunitment," and "standard of excellence" among leadership teams of religious
institutions according to location, type of leadership team, and size of leadership team.
This instrument, however, was not effective when used to predict the coalition
activities of religious institutions based on the level of teamwork on their leadership
teams. The Team Excellence instrument was adapted for this research, having originally
been developed and implemented to assess the dimensions of teamwork on teams in the
business sector. Using the instrument on teams of volunteers in this and other research
involving community collaborations may have pointed out presuppositional differences
between teams composed of members that were remunerated for their participation, such

as those in business, and those teams composed of volunteers (L. Borden, personal

108

communication, October 14, 1996; Mark, 1993). The emphasis of cooperation and
harmony derived from shared or similar values systems could account for the consistently
high scores on the teamwork dimensions. A diversity of values likely to be found on the
leadership teams in business and industry could account for the comparatively lower
scores and higher deviations found in Neslund's (1991) research. Teams from the
business sector may not share core values of cooperation, support, excellence, and
collaboration. Indeed, some of the values measured by the Team Excellence instrument
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989) are not encouraged or rewarded in many business
environments.

This instrument lacked sufﬁcient precision to differentiate among teams when a
high homogeneity of values was present. Individuals in religious institutions may differ
on some issues, but they share a set of core values that emphasizes cooperation, doing
one's best, helping others, and working together to achieve a common goal. This would
account for the consistently higher scores of religious institutions on all dimensions of
teamwork.

The instrument used for this research gathered data utilized an individual '3
response as an indicator of a group '3 participation in a community activity. Although the
approach makes intuitive sense, it may serve to confuse the level or unit of analysis.
Bubolz and Sontag (1993) comment on this particular challenge of research in the
ecological perspective when they state that "ecological analysis can . . . take place at
community, societal, or global levels. For any particular study or application, the

ecosystem level that is the unit of analysis must be speciﬁed" (p. 431). A lack of

109

consistency in identifying the unit of analysis may have exacerbated the weak
performance of the instrument in the discriminant analysis.

The present research corroborates Borden's (1996) observation that, although
conceptually strong and supported by the literature, the eight separate dimensions of
teamwork were not independent. In future research it may be possible to use selected
items from each of the eight dimensions of teamwork for a shorter version of the
teamwork instrument. Another approach could be the use of the items in the dimensions
of "clear, elevated goals," "uniﬁed commitment," and "standard of excellence" in the
construction of a much shorter instrument. These three dimensions of teamwork
contained the greatest variability in responses from the religious institutions in this
sample. Using a shortened version of the instrument that provides greater variability of
responses, and is limited to the study of relationships and activities within leadership
teams of religious institutions, may contribute meaningful information regarding the
internal dynamics of religious institutions. A shorter version of the instrument, however,
should be understood as a measure of teamwork in general and not a measure of eight
separate dimensions. In either case, the use of a shorter instrument may increase the
response rate.

Coalition research and ecological theog. The ecological perspective
acknowledges that pe0p1e live their lives in a multiplicity of settings. Activities of one
area inﬂuence and are inﬂuenced by activities in other areas. Families exist and thrive in
individual homes, neighborhoods, communities, and sub-cultures. Families live and

adapt in the midst of all these levels as information comes into them and activities ﬂow

110

out of them at these levels. It makes intuitive sense to use the ecological framework
when conducting research about community coalitions. This strength of intuition by
experience, however, creates a challenge for research from the ecological perspective.
Diligence must be exercised in designing research from the ecological perspective in
order to go beyond being a "sensitizing metaphor" (Klein & White, 1996, p. 239) and
hold up to the rigors of scientiﬁc inquiry.

This research has provided evidence that religious institutions are active
contributors to their communities through participation in community coalitions that
support children, youth, and families. Although the research did not reveal any
characteristics of religious institutions that would predict their participation in coalitions,
it contributes to the body of knowledge concerning community coalitions by discovering
what is not predictive of their participation. Documentation of the coalition participation
of religious institutions integrates this important segment of communities within a
framework that speciﬁcally looks "at ways in which intrafamilial processes are inﬂuenced
by extra-familial conditions and environments" (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993, p. 424).
Interpreting the activities of religious institutions from the ecological perspective
contributes to the recognition of the important contributions of all community partners in
the support of their children, youth, and families. Research grounded in the human
ecological framework places religious institutions in a theoretical context that can serve
as a common point of reference for all community partners. The human ecological
framework provides a uniﬁed language by which all community partners are able to

understand one another and the value and importance of everyone's contribution for the

111

achievement of a common goal—the healthy development of all children, youth, and
families (Bronfenbrenner, 1985).

Future research of community coalitions may require that researchers use
ethnographic methods to understand more about how these complex organizations
operate before quantitative methods can be applied in a meaningful way (Strauss, 1987).
Research, either qualitative or quantitative, directly linked to theory, will allow a
thorough understanding of families and result in informed, appropriate, and empirically
based recommendations for outreach (Lavee & Dollahite, 1991). Linking the study of
religious institutions and community collaborations with human ecological theory
exempliﬁes the notion of the reciprocal relationship of theory, research, and outreach.

The paucity of research on community coalitions in general and research
regarding religious institutions and their participation in community coalitions
speciﬁcally, makes it imperative that studies continue in the future. The present research
has contributed to this body of knowledge in that it has explored the extent to which
religious institutions in this sample participated in community coalitions and how they
differed on various demographic and group characteristic variables. Although none of the .
variables examined in this research were found to be signiﬁcantly related to coalition
participation, future research could focus on other pertinent variables, such as the history
of community coalitions in a particular community and/or the participation of individual
religious institutions in those coalitions. Data collection using archival materials, such as
the minutes of meetings of community coalitions and the minutes of the governing body

of religious institutions, could contain information regarding the successful or

112

unsuccessful attempts at collaboration from the perspectives of both the coalition and the
religious institution. Interviews with persons in leadership of the coalition and the
religious institutions during the time of their collaborating could provide insight into why
the collaboration, or its attempt, was successful or unsuccessful. Interviews with persons
that were beneﬁciaries of the coalition could provide information as to the successful
attainment of the coalitions goals of supporting children, youth, and families, and of the
role of religious institutions in the attainment of the goal. Using qualitative methods of
data analysis such as grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987) has
potential to produce both ﬁndings and theory regarding the participation of religious
institutions in community coalitions that support children, youth, and families.

In the future, researchers utilizing a human ecological framework will face
decisions as to the effect their contributions will have in the development of human
ecological theory. Some human ecological theories support a post-positivist, critical
approach to science which holds that the aim of knowledge is to enlighten, educate, and
emancipate (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). This approach to research embraces the use of
knowledge gained through research to drive outreach. Other ecological theories are more
positivist in their approach in that the desired outcome of research is prediction of
outcomes based on strictly objective and value free observations (Hawley, 1986; Klein &
White, 1996). Researchers utilizing a human ecological framework in the future will
need to determine if their research contributes to the scientiﬁc rigor of ecological theory

or contribute to the emphasis of such values as stewardship, cooperation,

113

interdependence, and integration that are basic to most human ecological theories (Bubolz
& Sontag, 1993).

The future research of community collaborations using human ecological theory
should be anticipated with optimism. A theoretical framework that emphasizes
interaction, a concept inherent in the collaborative movement, appears to be timely for
our culture going into the 2lst century. Doherty et al. (1993) identify emerging trends in
the family ﬁeld in the early 19905. Four of these trends account, at least in part, for
optimism about and integration of human ecological theory and community
collaborations. First, a trend toward more theoretical diversity sets the stage for the
acceptance of human ecological theory. Its complexity and comprehensive consideration
of environmental inﬂuences on human development are more readily accepted. Second, a
movement toward more contextual approaches to studies of families would certainly have
to consider collaborative efforts of communities as they combine resources to promote
the health and development of children, youth, and families. Third, an increase in
concern with ethics and values certainly calls for a theory that reﬂects a similar sensitivity
to ethics and values. Human ecological theory provides such a framework. Community
collaborations are concerned with the value placed each individual and family in a
community and their ability to get support or achieve healthy levels of development.
Community collaborations exemplify the ethical use a community's resources for the
good of all its residence. Human ecological theory and community collaborations

support one another in their concern for ethics and values.

114

Finally, there is a breakdown of the dichotomy between the private and public
spheres of family life and between family social science and family interventions. "The
family ﬁeld is attempting to revisit its inherited split between the psychosocial interior of
the family and the family's relations with the community and larger society" (Doherty et
al., 1993, p. 17). This breakdown between private and public spheres can be seen
dramatically in the interest shown and study received by the community collaborative
movement. Human ecological theory serves as a natural framework that accommodates
both the public and private spheres that come together in community collaborations. In
summary, if our culture moves away from a strong emphasis on individualism toward
valuing and developing mutuality, responsibility, reciprocity, and a concern for the
natural environment among its members, it seems as though human ecological theory
would be strongly considerated as a useful tool in studying community collaborations,
and motivating and evaluating outreach on behalf of children, youth and families.
Research and outreach that integrates human ecological theory and community
collaborations appears to be a methodology whose time has come. Research and outreach
that acknowledges values that are inherent in communities, emphasizes the
interdependence of individuals and groups within communities, and supports the notion
of the whole community being greater than the sum of its parts will go far to better the
lives of all children, youth, and families. As was stated earlier, most families in America
have strong, healthy relationships between husbands and wives, between parents and
children, between families and their community, but not all families share such good

fortune. Universities contribute ecologically and theoretically sound research to foster

115

outreach in communities. This research and outreach can and must integrate and rely
upon the contributions of all community partners, including religious institutions so that
all families have good homes to live in, enough food to eat, opportunities for a good
education, and opportunities to participate in their communities, all of which aid in
healthy development of children and families.
Implications for Progranmmd Policy

Implications for programs. Major program implications of the present research
focus around educational programs for community leaders, coalition leaders, and
religious institutions at the local, district, and national levels. Programs targeting
community and coalition leaders should emphasize the important contributions that
religious institutions make to community coalitions. Emphasis should be given to the
fact that religious institutions of all sizes located in rural areas, in towns, and in urban
areas participate in coalitions. It must be made clear that participation of religious
institutions in community collaborative efforts is a decision that is made by each
individual congregation. Each religious institution in a community should be given an
invitation and opportunity to join in the collaborative process regardless of their
denominational afﬁliation. These programs should also emphasize the important
contributions that religious institutions can make to community coalitions in terms of
material resources, but especially in terms of the rich resource of people that attend them.
These individuals represent a wealth of experiences and abilities that can beneﬁt the work

of a coalition.

116

Educational programs provided by religious institutions at local, district, or
national levels should emphasize opportunities that their attenders have for contributing
to the support of children, youth and families in their communities through participation
in collaborative efforts. It should be emphasized that they, as attenders of religious
institutions, already ascribe to many of the values—a desire to help others, the imperative
to relieve suffering, and a perspective of cooperation in bringing support to those who
have needs—that are foundational to coalitions. The reciprocal beneﬁts for communities
and religious institutions can be a primary emphasis of any education process. Personal
experiences and abilities will beneﬁt the work of the coalition, but the religious
institution will also beneﬁt from new knowledge and training received in the process of
coalition participation.

Education of representatives of religious institutions to community coalitions
must include addressing the difﬁcult but essential task of learning how to agree to
disagree with other coalition partners for the purpose of achieving the coalition goal.
Helping them develop the ability to keep the purpose of the coalitions as their primary
focus for interaction should be emphasized. Differences with other coalition partners
involving theological matters must be deferred for the sake of achieving the shared vision
of the coalition. This notion is exempliﬁed by Bellah et al. (1985),

Each religious community [can] continue to speak in its own voice and will in

some ways be incompatible with other, whether Christian or non-Christian.

Strongly held differences do not undermine the debate about our common future

as long as it is pursued through civil discourse and we seek to persuade, rather
than coerce, our fellow citizens. (p. 246)

117

The faith and beliefs of religious institutions provide a vital balance in the process of
making informed decisions. Education of religious institution representatives should
emphasize the value their representation has to the whole collaborative effort and should
encourage them to stay involved.

This research serves as a beginning in the integration of religious institutions with
human ecological theory. The rationale for this integration rests on three assumptions: (a)
religious institutions historically have had and continue to have interactions with other
community organizations (Pierce, 1989), (b) religious institutions often serve as a point
of interaction between individuals and their several environments (Killen, 1991), and (c)
each individual religious institution has a history and a life course that makes it unique,
even among those of the same denominational background.

The conscious integration of human ecological theory and religious institutions
serves to unify pieces of ecological theory that are currently extant in literature that
discusses the inﬂuence of faith and/or religious institutions on families and society.
Balswick and Balswick (1991) observe that "the family does not exist in a vacuum. It is
vitally connected, for better or for worse, with community and society. The family,
community, and society are interrelated support structures" (p. 301). Balswick and
Moreland (1990) expand on the interrelatedness of family, community, and society in a
discussion of a Christian response to social problems of crime, discrimination, family

instability, use of illegal drugs, environmental quality, poverty, and world peace.

118

Pancoast and Richmond Garland (1990) propose the development of a model of
family ministry based on a reconceptualization of family they call the "ecological family"
(p. 235). The ecological family is

a family system deﬁned by shared commitment, obligation, and love develOped

through ongoing, face-to-face contact with a limited number of signiﬁcant others,

a family system that goes beyond the sociological deﬁnition of the nuclear family

and blood kinship (p. 235).

The development and reﬁning of an ecological model for religious institutions would be a
step toward the "position of advocacy with the myriad of social institutions of our culture,
advocacy in behalf of families" (p. 238). Although Pancoast and Richmond Garland
(1990) speak of a model that serves as a foundation for religious institutions' ministry to
families and communities, they stop short of elucidating and deﬁning the elements, key
terms, and basic assumptions upon which the model would be built.

Religious institutions are inﬂuential to individuals and families at all levels of the
environment as described by Bronfenbrenner ( 1979, 1986). In Christian theology a local
congregation is often referred to as a body or organism. This orientation places the
religious institution itself and its constituent families/individuals as the developing
organism in the microsystem. The microsystem inﬂuence of religious institutions is
exempliﬁed when individuals and families are visited by pastors, priests, rabbis, and
others representing a religious institution during a hospital stay, or a personal/family
crisis.

The inﬂuence of religious institutions in the chronosystem continues throughout

the life span of families and individuals. It encompasses the unique ability of religious

institutions to apply meaningful traditions and beliefs to contemporary culture and

119

changing circumstances (Bellah et al., 1985). Examples of this include rituals of
religious signiﬁcance important to family life such as ﬁrst communions, conﬁrmations,
baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

The chronosystem is experienced in the life of the religious institution itself in
two respects. First, it recognizes that each institution has a unique history and life course.
Second, this system of the human ecological model recognizes the value and meaning of
traditions unique to a particular institution and the inﬂuence that its history has had and
continues to have on the community that surrounds it.

The exosystem inﬂuence of religious institutions is realized as they comprehend
and accept their place alongside other community sectors that comprise the fabric of their
particular community. This system is comprised of religious institutions, schools,
businesses, courts, civic clubs, and other volunteer organizations, to name a few (Keith et
al., 1993). The religious institution may or may not be directly involved with these other
community sectors, but changes in or actions of these other sectors may strongly
inﬂuence the religious institution.

As religious institutions participate in activities at the community level and exert
their inﬂuence on policies at local, state, and federal levels, they contribute to the re-
weaving of our "unraveled social fabric" (Bronfenbrenner, 1985, p. 56)—a macrosystem
inﬂuence. Furthermore, religious institutions provide an enduring sense of values and
morality in a community and ultimately in our society. Bellah et al. (1985) described the
inﬂuence of religious institutions in the community in a summary of the importance of

worship:

120

Worship reiterates the obligations that the community has undertaken, including .

. . the insistence on justice and righteousness, and on love of God and neighbor,

as well as . . . [making] it possible for the community to hope for the future.

Though worship has its special times and places, . . . it functions as a model or

pattern for the whole of life . . . it establishes patterns of character and virtue that

should operate in economic and political life as well as in the context of worship.

(p. 227)

Religious institution's inﬂuence in the macrosystem is their serving as a moral compass to
the community which will have its effect in the culture at large.

The mesosystem in the human ecological model is seen as the capacity of
religious institutions to form and provide linkages, and inﬂuence change within and
among the other environments in which it participates. For example, religious
institutions provide the opportunity, resources, encouragement, example, and time for
adults to be involved in the lives of children. These Opportunities exemplify the
development of strong, diverse mesosystems that enhance the healthy develOpment of
individuals and families in a community (Bronfenbrenner, 1985).

Richmond Garland and Conrad (1990) articulate the mesosystem function of
religious institutions as they discuss the local congregation as a "mediating structure" (p.
73) that stands between individuals' private lives and large social institutions, serving as a
buffer that protects individuals from having to deal with large social institutions alone.
Appropriately, they observe that this mediation role of local religious institutions works
in the Opposite direction as well by providing a means by which large social institutions
have contact with individuals and families.

The human ecological model accommodates and illustrates the dynamic and

interactive nature of the functions and contributions of religious institutions in our

121

culture. It serves as a useful framework with which leaders of religious institutions can
organize and evaluate their work within their institutions and within their communities.
Using the human ecological model as a guide, leaders of religious institutions can assess
the ﬁt between congregation assets and community needs. A question to be asked by
institution leaders would be, "What do we see as a need in our community and what
strengths or assets do we possess as a congregation to meet this need?"

With the ecological model in mind, leaders in religious institutions will have a
framework that facilitates the identiﬁcation of community individuals and sectors that
have a shared value base and potential for positive collaborative involvement to meet
community needs. Here the questions to be asked would be, "Who else in our
community sees/identiﬁes this as a community need?" and "Does the potential exist for a
positive collaborative relationship between another sector and our institution to meet this
need?" An ecological model would thus facilitate the planning process of religious
institutions to effectively utilize their resources.

The human ecological model could be utilized in several teaching environments
related to religious institutions. Formal educational environments such as colleges,
universities, and seminaries that train individuals in the principles and practices of
pastoral ministry should be considered as primary settings to establish a foundation for
the ecological framework. These formal environments train future religious leaders, but
many leaders presently serving communities in religious institutions would beneﬁt from
the knowledge of the ecological model as well. Continuing education seminars, in-

service workshops, and informal educational opportunities would facilitate the

122

communication of the human ecological framework to individuals presently working in
religious institutions.

Implications for policy. A policy implication of this research is the necessity of
government at all levels to rethink the notion that the separation of church and state
excludes the cooperation Of these entities. The decline of government resources available
for the support of children, youth and families will require individual communities to rely
on their particular and present resources to meet their needs. Indeed, it is the people and
organizations that comprise the social fabric of rural areas, small towns, and urban
neighborhoods that are being singled out as the key ingredients necessary for community
transformation (McKnight, 1995; Riﬂdn, 1995). Riﬂdn (1995) states that,

Community-based organizations will increasingly act as arbiters and ombudsmen

with the larger forces of the marketplace and government, serving as the primary

advocates and agents for social and political reform. Third-sector organizations

(which includes religious institutions) are also likely to take up the task of

providing more and more basic services in the wake of cutbacks in government

aid and assistance to persons and neighborhoods in need. (p. 249)

These communities and their community-based organizations will have religious
institutions as active participants. Riﬂtin (1995) urges government, and what he calls the
third sector, to forge new partnerships dedicated to restoring civic life. Government
agencies and their representatives must release the notion that cooperation between
government and any religious institution for any reason is forbidden under the guise of
separation of church and state in order for these partnerships to develop and succeed.
Policy must, in the future, keep the establishment and empowerment of these partnerships

as a primary focus. For example, current policy considerations Of taxing non-proﬁt

organizations, many of which have meager budgets and rely on volunteers, would have a

123

serious negative effect and would jeopardize the process of forging these needed
partnerships.

Religious institutions must also forego the notion that separation of church and
state includes non-cooperation with government agencies. They must become active
participants in the community of organizations dedicated to the support of children, youth
and families, and vital to civic revitalization (McKnight, 1995; Riﬂcin, 1995). A policy
implication for religious institutions is the encouragement for all religious institutions to
participate in at least some kind of collaborative effort to meet a need of families in their
communities. It remains for many religious institutions to get past their self-imposed
isolation and take the concept of "community" outside the walls of their buildings to the
people beyond. Decisions to collaborate made by individual institutions should be
encouraged and applauded by their denominations. Where no coalitions exist, religious
institutions should be encouraged to creatively explore the options and become
visionaries that inspire other community organizations to collaborate for the support of
children, youth and families.

In summary, analysis of these data has shown that many religious institutions
participate in community coalitions of some kind. The rate of participation of religious
institutions in community coalitions discovered in this research should be encouraging to
community and religious leaders. Coalition leaders should seek opportunities to get
acquainted with the many religious institutions in their communities and seek their
participation regardless of institutions size, location, or denominational afﬁliation.

Religious institutions should be encouraged to become involved in coalitions in their

124

communities based on their sincere desire to help children, youth and families and not on
a real or perceived uninvolvement of other religious institutions. Beyond material
provisions, religious institutions are a rich resource of experiences and abilities, Often in
the form of volunteers, that make a tremendous contribution to the work of community
coalitions. The effective utilization of these resources are, however, contingent upon a
willingness to reassess the notion that religious institutions cannot or should not
COOperate with others to meet the needs of communities.
Summm

For decades communities in American society have met increasingly complex
problems through a reliance upon monies and services provided by state and federal
governments. This approach to meeting community needs predominated until economic
and socio-political conditions began to reduce government support. Communities are
now facing a host of needs with less help from government sources and without a net of
community support. Collaborations, "efforts that unite and empower individuals and
organizations to accomplish collectively what they could not accomplish independently"
(Kagan & Rivera, 1991, p. 3), are increasingly encouraged as a means by which services
are provided for supporting children, youth, and families effectively. and efﬁciently
(Benard, 1991; Keith et al., 1993).

Since religious institutions are found in nearly all communities, they can be
important participants in community coalitions that support children, youth, and families.
However, little empirical research exists concerning religious institutions and their

involvement with other community organizations. This exploratory research addressed

125

that paucity with the following questions: First, if religious institutions differ as to their
participation in community coalitions, are these differences related to characteristics of
the institutions (size of the institution, location of the institution, and the ethnic
composition of the congregation) and characteristics of the leadership team of the
institution (size of the leadership team, type of leadership team, and dimensions of
teamwork of the leadership team)? Second, do dimensions of teamwork of the leadership
teams differ by team type or team size and by size or location of the institution? Third,
what combination of the above factors best discriminates religious institution
participation in community coalitions that support children, youth and families?

It was found that most religious institutions participate in a community coalition
of some type, but participation was not related to the size, geographic location,
denominational afﬁliation of the institution. Furthermore, their participation was not
related to either the size of the leadership team of the religious institution nor the type of
leadership team, that is, whether it was comprised of volunteers or of paid staff.
Although three dimensions of teamwork differed signiﬁcantly according to the location
of the religious institution and the type and size of its leadership team, the overall
teamwork scale did not discriminate religious institution participation in community
coalitions.

In summary, communities have the ability to provide an environment for the
healthy development of individuals and families. They also depend upon the ability of
their members to work together to see that this development is a priority and that it takes

place. To echo the sentiments of Goodlad (1994), the continued existence of good

126

communities depends heavily on the nature of the connections between the parts of its
community ecosystem. For a community to be very good, the component parts of this
ecosystem, including religious institutions, must be attentive to their role in promoting
healthy development. Community leaders and coalition leaders are encouraged to
develop relationships with religious institutions in their communities. Religious
institutions of all denominational afﬁliations participated in coalitions of some kind.
Therefore, coalition leaders must offer each religious institution in their community the
opportunity to become a partner in the coalition regardless of their afﬁliation.

The role of religious institutions in community coalitions is complex. Religious
institutions provide many resources to the work of coalitions, but their most important
contribution is people whose faith, experiences, and abilities are valuable resources for
coalitions and communities. Although they are important partners in community life,
much of the present literature implies that religious institutions are, at best, ambivalent
about working with other community partners. They seem skeptical of the value of their
institutions' resources. There is, however, much support encouraging religious
institutions to embrace a proactive and cooperative stance toward the problems facing
communities today.

Whether clergy or volunteers, representatives of religious institutions become a
vital part of the process of communities joining together to solve complex problems.
Religious institutions, with material and people resources and a history of volunteerism,
are an important resource for communities and community coalitions.

The great contribution that [religious institutions] . . . can make today is [their]
emphasis on the fact that individuality and society are not opposites but require

127

each other . . . . A [religious institution] that can be counted on and that can count

on its members can be a great source of strength in reconstituting the social basis

of our society. Such [an institution] may also, through its social witness, have the

inﬂuence to help move our society in a healthier direction. (Bellah et al., 1985,

pp. 246-247).

The faith and beliefs of religious institutions provide a vital balance in the process
of making informed decisions. Religious institutions must emphasize the value their

participation has to the whole collaborative effort. Religious institutions must get

involved and stay involved.

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Cover Letter

Date - -, 1994

Religious Institution Name
Address
City, State, Zip Code

Dear Leader,

For the past three years the Community Coalitions In Action project has focused upon what
community institutions are doing to support children, youth, and families. Religious institutions
provide communities with valuable resources, programs, and peOple that are an important part of
strong communities. But the question of how often these resources are utilized in collaborative
efforts of communities remains unanswered. That is why the Community Coalitions In Action
Project of the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families needs your help.

What we need you to do:
0 Complete the Community Action and Leadership Survey that is enclosed (it should
take about 30 minutes of your time)

0 Fill out the blue postcard and return it with your completed survey by October 29,
1994

As a way of saying "Thank you", we would like to give you:
0 An opportunity to win one of two $40.00 gift certiﬁcates for dinner at the State
Room, in the Kellogg Center, MSU

To be eligible to win one of the $40.00 gift certiﬁcates you must ﬁll out the blue postcard and
return it with a completed survey. Your answers will be kept strictly conﬁdential. Returned
postcards and surveys will not be given matching identiﬁcation numbers.

 

The Greater Lansing area has a tremendous resource in its religious institutions. You can be a
part of helping us work together for a better future for our children, youth, and families. Thank
you for your time and help.

Sincerely,

Martin Covey, M.A.
Community Coalitions In Action Project

128

Appendix B

Community Action and Leadership Survey

Community Action and Leadership Survey

Religious institutions provide communities with resources, programs, and people that understand,
respect, and support the needs of children, youth, and families. They play an important role in building strong
communities.

The Community Coalitions In Action Project (CCIA), part of the Institute for Children, Youth, and
Families at Michigan State University has been studying communities in Michigan that support children, youth
and families. One of the previous CCIA ﬁndings has been that religious institutions are often involved in
community coalitions that help provide that support. The Community Coalitions In Action Project is attempting
to further its understanding by conducting a study of religious institutions and their involvement in community
coalitions in the Greater Lansing Area.

The Community Action and Leadership Survey is designed to elicit information from various types of
religious institutions regarding four areas: 1) The kinds of services or programs that support children, youth,
and families they provide to their community, 2)'demographic information about the religious institution, 3)
how the respondent feels the leadership of his/her religious institution works as a team, and 4) personal
information about the respondent.

In contacting you, CCIA is hoping that you will commit a portion of your valuable time to respond to
our survey. The survey is easy to fill out and should take between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. Your

responses will be kept conﬁdential.

Please read the survey carefully. There are items that have speciﬁc instructions. We are interested in
information about those services and programs that support children, youth, and families. Pleas remember this
as you respond to the items in the survey. If you have any questions about any item, feel free to contact me. My
name, address, and office phone numbers are:

Martin Covey Ofﬁce Phone: (517) 353-6617
Institute for Children Youth and Families Ofﬁce hours: M-W-F

Suite 27, Kellogg Center 1:30 PM - 4:30 PM
Michigan State University Home Phone: (517) 355-9843

E. Lansing, MI 488244022

Please return your complete survey, along with the blue postcard, in the enclolsed stamped enve10pe by
September 30, 1994. Thank you very much for your COOperation and help.

Sincerely,
Martin Covey

129

130

How is Your Institution Involved?

A coalition is considered a group of three or more concerned organizations, within a community,
uniting, meeting, and combining resources to meet the needs of children, youth, or families. This
would not include district, denominational, or national religious organizations. Listed below are four
categories of coalitions that could be present in your community of which your religious institution

couldbe apart.

How To Complete The Survey

Please read over the list, #1 - 18, and its accompanying examples. For gag]; gategpgy circle the number
that most accurately describes your religious institution's involvement with that kind of group.

- Circle 1 (Comm.leition): If your religious institution is involved in one or more community
coalitions comprised of a combination of organizations (businesses, government
agencies, schooLr, hospitaLr for example) to provide a service or program to children,

youth, or families.

° Circle 2 (Other reL inst.) .' If your religious institution cooperates with at least one other
religious institution to provide a service or program.

° Circle 3 (Own prog.) : If your religious institution on its own provides a service or program.

0 Circle 4 (Does not apply): If your religious institution oﬂ'ers nothing in that category.

W: W: (these are only examples)
‘ g a 3 E E -
E a e e " 9 E
u u o at 5 a: .
l. Artistic Groups: choral, theatrical, writing '1 2 3 4
2. Charitable Groups: Red Cross, Cancer Society, United Way 1 2 3 4
3. Civic Events: July 4th celebrations, art fairs l 2 3 4
4. Collectors Groups: stamp collectors, flower dryers, antiques 1 2 3 4
5. Community Economic
Development: job training, housing, credit unions 1 2 3 4
6. Community Support: friends of the library, nursing home 1 2 3 4

1 Please turn the page and continue.

10.

ll.

l3.

14.
15.

16.
17.

18.

Casual:

Elderly Groups:

Ethnic Associations:

Health & Fitness:
Men’s Groups:

Mutual Support:
Neighborhood

Associations:

Outdoor Groups:

School Groups:

Social Cause
Groups:

Sports Leagues:
Women's Groups:

Youth Groups:

131

Example; (these are only examples)

senior citizens

Sons of Norway, Black Heritage Club,
Hibemians

bicycling, jogging, aerobics, exercise

cultural, political, social, educational,
vocational

Alcoholics Anonymous, La Leche League,
childbirth classes
crime watch, neighborhood beautiﬁcation

garden clubs, Audubon Society,
conservation clubs

PTA, child care, schools, tutoring

peace, rights, advocacy, service

bowling, swimming, softball, volleyball

cultural, political, social, educational,
vocational

4H, Future Farmers, Scouts

IQ

Coalition
0n prog.

Comm.
Other
Rellut.
"on not
"’1"!

b3

N10

IQ

to

Is)

I»)

Please turn the page and continue.

19.

20.

21.

7')

~~l

23.

132

 

If you circled If you did not circle any items If you did not
any items as #1 as #1, but did circle one or circle any items
more items as #2 as
ti 1 or #2

l l 4r

Complete items Complete items 19 through 26. Skip to Item 27.
19 through 26.

 

 

 

Pick the strongest coalition (from category 1 - 18) that you participate in; write the number
and name of its category on this line: it Category name: . Think
of this coalition when you answer items 20 - 26.

Check the box next to the description of the individual that represents your institution in the

coalition. (Check mly are)
_ a. yourself _b. someone else from your institution

How is this individual related to your institution? Check the line that best describes this
individual. (Check mix 95;)

__ a. is a paid clergy

_ b. is a paid staff member

__ c. is an unpaid volunteer from your institution

_ d. other: (please specify)

 

The gender of this individual is: _a. male_ b. female

Place a check mark beside the highest level of education that this individual has completed:

_ a. Some high school _ d. Completed college

_ b. Completed high school __ e. Some graduate or professional
school

__c. Some college __ f. Completed graduate school

3 Please turn the page and continue.

133

24. Does this individual from your institution perform any leadership functions in the coalition
of which they are a part?
_ a. Yes _ b. No _c. Don't know
25. If you answered “Yes” to number 24, what leadership functions does this individual
perform? (Check 25.11125! functions as apply.) However, if you answered “No" or “Don't
know" for number 24, please go to number 26.
_ a. Coalition chairperson
_ b. Executive committee member
_c. Chairperson of any committee in the coalition
__ d. Member of a committee in the coalition

_e. Other: (please specify)

26. Does your institution provide as part of its involvement in this coalition any of the
following? (Circle either ”Yes" or "No" for each item.)

Yes No a. Building usage

Yes No b. Office supplies

Yes No c. Food/refreshments

Yes No d. Equipment (computers, copiers, sports equipment, etc.)
Yes No e. Transportation/vehicles

Yes NO f. Personnel (custodians, attendants, babysitters)

Yes No g. Other (Please specify):

 

4 ' Please turn the page and continue.

134

ORGANIZATION INFORMATION

This section of the survey asks you to provide some information about the religious
institution of which you are a part. Please read each question carefully as there may be
Special instructions for some items.

27. Check the letter that most closely estimates the number of attenders in your religious

institution, including members and non-members.

_a. o- 100 _d. 301.400
_b.‘ 101-200 ___e. 401-500
_c. 201-300 _f. 501 or more

28. Check the letter which best describes the community in which your religious institution is
located? (Check mly pg: line.)
_ a. Rural/Open country
_ b. Small town (under 2,500 in pOpulation)
_c. In a town of 2,500 to 9,999
_ d. In a small city (10,000 to 49,999)
__ e. In a medium size city (50,000 to 250,000)

29. Circle the number that most closely estimates the
percentage of the attenders in your religious

:- e
e' m i
o o a I u ‘ n a F “
institution in each ethnic category. to a: .; i; c;
. .3 _ 3'
Use the followrng scale: a 3 a an o

a. Asian 1 2 3 4 5
b. Black 1 2 3 4 5
c. Latino (Hisp.) 1 2 3 4 5
d. Native American 1 2 3 4 5
e. West Indian 1 2 3 4 5
C White 1 2 3 4 5
g. Other 1 2 3 4 5

(Please specify):

3 Please turn the page and continue.

135

30. Circle the number that most closely estimates the percentage of the attenders in your

religious institution in each age category.

31.

32.

.2

Use the following scale: ;

a. 21 - 30 years Old 1
b. 31 - 40 years Old 1
c. 41 - 50 years old 1
d. 51 - 60 years old 1
e. 61 and above 1

6%o155

l9 to (U 10 IO

:31:
iii}.
asto
345
345
345
345
345

Circle the number that most closely estimates the percentage of the attenders in your

religious institution that lives within each category

of distance from where you meet.

0$-5%

Use the following scale:

1 mile or lens
2 to 5 miles

6 to 10 miles
11 to 15 miles
16 to 20 miles
over 20 miles

"PP-09‘?
v—v-nv—or—v-av—I

Giolyi

{U 19 IO 10 [Q to

as;
as?
n n O
345
345
345
345
345
345

Check the box next to the name of the religious group to which your religious institution is

most closely related. (Check m 931)

Adventist __h. Islam
Ba Hai' __ i. Jehovah' s Witnesses
Baptist __ j. Jewish
. Catholic _k. Lutheran
Congregational _I. Methodist
Episcopal _m. Mormon
Hindu _n. Non-denominational
6

_o. Orthodox Catholic
_ p. Presbyterian

_q. Reformed

__ r. Other (please specify)

 

Please turn the page and continue.

136

33. Describe your religious institution by checking asmany of the following descriptors as

apply:
_a. Catholic _f Hindu
_b. Charismatic __g. Islam
_c. Conservative _h. Liberal
_d. Evangelical _i. Moderate
_e. Fundamentalist _ j. Protestant

 

INSTITUTION LEADERSHIP INFORMATION

Leadership is a crucial component in collaborations. Leadership in a religious
institution could be the board of elders or deacons, council, board Of administration, paid
staff — whatever body primarily governs and gives leadership to the institution at the
local level. The next section of the survey contains a number of items that differentiate
levels of team performance. Your responses to these items will be helpful in assessing
the team effectiveness of the leadership teams of religious institutions.

34. Check the line of the leadership team that you consider as giving primary leadership to
your institution.

. our paid staff

a
b. elected volunteers from our institution
c. our entire institution serves as the primary leadership team
d

. other (please specify):

 

35. How many individuals serve on this leadership team? (Check m 9.0.: line.)

_a. 1-5 _d. 16-20
_b. 6-10 _e. over 21
_c.11-16

7 Please turn the page and continue.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

137

Now answer the following questions with this primary leadership team as your reference.
You will be asked to report the extent to which certain features are true or not true of the primary
leadership team in your institution. Read each item, think about the extent to which it describes
your leadership team, and circle the appropriate number. Use the following

scale:

1 = True
2 = More true than false

3: More false than true 3
4=False 3% g
5‘5 5- s
2 2e 23 2'1

Our leadership team's decision-making process encourages
judgments based on factual and objective data.

._.
IO
M

A

Our leadership team has an established method for monitoring individual
performance and providing feedback. 1 2 3 4

Our leadership team is fair and impartial toward all team members. 1 2 3 4

There are clear consequences connected with our leadership team's

success or failure in achieving our goal. 1 2 3 4

Each individual on our leadership team demonstrates a strong desire

to contribute to the team's success. 1 2 3

IO
M
J.

Our leadership team provides me the necessary autonomy to I

achieve results.

8 Please turn the page and continue.

42.

43.

45.

47.

138

5
3% i1
3 ii: 5; -§
The signiﬁcance of our leadership team’s goal is appealing: :5 z =-
a. Our purpose is noble and worthwhile. l 2 3 4
b. Our goal represents an Opportunity for an exceptional level of
achievement. 1 2 3 4
c. Our goal challenges individual limits and abilities. I 2 3 4
Our leadership team is open to new ideas and information from team
members. 1 2 3 4

Our leadership team is sufﬁciently recognized for its accomplishments. l 2 3 4

Our leadership team is given the resources it needs to get the job

done.

Each member's relationship to our leadership team is deﬁned in terms of

role clarity and accountability. 1 2 3 4
Our leadership team recognizes and rewards superior performance. 1 2 3 4
As a leadership team we embrace a common set of guiding values. 1 2 3 4

9 Please turn the page and continue.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

139

Our leadership team’s communication system has:

a. information which is easily accessible.
b. credible sources of information.
c. Opportunities for team members to raise issues not on the

formal agenda.

d. methods for documenting issues raised and decisions made.
Our leadership team has high standards of excellence.

Members of our leadership team trust each other to act completely
and responsibly in performing our individual tasks.

Members of our leadership team help each other by compensating for

individual shortcomings.

Each leadership team member exhibits personal commitment

to our team's goals.

Leadership team members possess the essential skills and abilities

to accomplish our objectives.

There is a clearly deﬁned goal to be achieved or a purpose to be

served which justiﬁes the existence of our leadership team.

Our leadership team exerts pressure upon itself to improve

performance.

11) Please turn the page and continue.

tbaa fake

More true

2

Is)

IJ

IJ

I.)

More false thaa

False

57.

58.

59.

61.

62.

63.

64.

66.

140

Leadership team members are willing to devote whatever effort is

necessary to achieve success.

Our leadership team exhibits trust by giving us meaningful levels
of responsibility.

Leadership team members require each other to perform according to

our established standards of excellence.

Achieving our leadership team’s goal is a higher priority than any

individual objective.

Our leadership team presents challenging opportunities which stretch

each individual's abilities.

The design of our leadership team is determined by the results we

need to achieve rather than by extraneous considerations.

Our leadership team is supported by those individuals capable of

contributing to our success.

Our leadership team has articulated its goal in such a way as to

inspire commitment.

Our leadership team is willing to confront and resolve issues
associated with inadequate performance by team members.

Leadership team members are conﬁdent in each other's abilities.

More true
thaa false

14 [0

Id

IJ

More false thaa

true

False

l 1 Please turn the page and continue.

141

1:1
it :5.
‘5 3
2 £5 £3 .1
67. Leadership team members believe that personal success is achieved
through the accomplishment of the team goal. 1 2 3 4
68. Leadership team members trust each other sufﬁciently to accurately
share information, perceptions and feedback. 1 2 3 4

69. Our leadership team avoids compromising the team's objective with

political issues.

70. Leadership team members are capable of collaborating effectively
with each other.

71. Our leadership team’s goal is compelling enough that I can derive a
worthwhile sense of identity from it. 1 2

 

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Please answer the following questions. The answers will help us know more about you, our respondent.

72. What is your gender? _ a. Female _b. Male
73. Your age is: _a. 21 - 30 _c. 41 - 50
_b. 31-40 _d. 51-60 _e. 61 or more

12 Please turn the page and continue.

142

74. Place a check mark beside the highest level of schooling that you have completed.

_ a. Some high school _d. Completed college
_ b. Completed high school __ e. Some graduate or professional school
_ c. Some college _f. Completed graduate school

75. What is your position in your religious institution? (Check gn_ly 95; line.)

 

 

_ a. Paid Clergy _c. Paid Assistant/Associate
__ b. Volunteer __ d. Other (please specify):
Thank you

for taking the time to respond to the

COMM UNITY ACTION AND LEADERSHIP SURVEY.

Again, if I can be of any help, you may contact :
Martin Covey

Institute for Children, Youth, and Families
Suite 27, Kellogg Center
Michigan State University

East Lansing MI 48824-1030

Ofﬁce phone: (517) 353-6617
Ofﬁce hours: M-W-F. 1:30 pm - 4:30 pm
Home phone: (517)355-9843

 

 

 

Appendix C

Reminder Letter

October 3, 1994

Institution Name
Institution Address
City, MI Zipcode

Dear Leader;

Several weeks ago you received a packet that included the COMMUNITY ACTION AND
LEADERSHIP SURVEY from the Community Coalitions In Action Project, Institute for
Children, Youth, and Families, Michigan State University. I would like to remind you to take
the time to complete the survey and return it by October 28, 1994 if you have not already done
so.

The beneﬁts of completing the survey are:
0 it Offers an Opportunity to consider and reﬂect upon the teamwork and leadership of

your institution
0 it can be an encouragement for your efforts in collaboration, teamwork, and leadership
0 it can provide information useful in planning future leadership training

If you would like your name included in the drawing for one of two $40.00 gift certiﬁcates for
dinner at The State Room, in the Kellogg Center, MSU, we need to have your completed survey
and your completed blue postcard sent to us by October 28, 1994. If you have any questions
regarding the survey, or you need another packet sent to you, please call the Community
Coalition In Action Project at: 517- 353-6617

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the COMMUNITY ACTION AND LEADERSHIP
SURVEY.

Sincerely,

Martin Covey, M.A.
Community Coalitions In Action Project

143

Column #:

1-3

Appendix D

Codebook for

Community Action and Leadership Survey

Survey #:

Variable Name:

Subject I.D.

Artistic Groups

Charitable Groups

Civic Events

Collector's Groups

144

Code:

001 - 475

l = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

10

ll

12

13

14

10

11

145

Community
Economic
Development

Community
Support

Elderly Groups

Ethnic
Associations

Health & Fitness
Groups

Men's Groups

Mutual Support
Groups

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition

15

l6

l7

l8

19

20

12

13

14

15

16

17

146

Neighborhood
Associations

Outdoor Groups

School Groups

Social Cause

Groups

Sports Leagues

Women's Groups

2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 == Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 2 Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

1 = Community Coalition

147

2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution

3 = Own program

4 = Does not apply

9 = Missing data

Youth Groups 1 = Community Coalition
2 = Coalition w/ other
religious institution
3 = Own program
4 = Does not apply
9 = Missing data

Strongest 1-18 = Reference Coalition
Coalition 19 = No Coalition

99 = Missing data
Representative of 1 = Yourself
Religioous 2 = Someone else from
Institution in institution
Coalition 8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

Relation to l = Paid clergy

Religious 2 = Paid staff member

Institution 3 = unpaid volunteer
4 = other

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing data

Gender of 1 = Male
Representative 2 = Female
8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing data

26

27

28

30

31

23

24

25a

25c

25d

148

Education Level
of Representative

Leadership
function in
coaliton

Coalition
chairperson

Executive
committee
chairperson

Chaiperson of any
committee

Member of any
committee

1 = Some high school

2 = Completed high school
3 = Some college

4 = Completed college

5 = Some graduate or
professional school

6 = Completed graduate or
professional school

8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

1 = Yes
2=No
3 = Don't know

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing data

If checked, code 1=Yes

If not checked, code 2 = No
7 = Not a leader in coalition
8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

If checked, code 1=Yes

If not checked, code 2 = No
7 = Not a leader in coalition
8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

If checked, code 1=Yes

If not checked, code 2 = No
7 = Not a leader in coalition
8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

If checked, code 1=Yes

If not checked, code 2 = No
7 = Not a leader in coalition
8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

25c

26a

26b

26c

26d

26e

26f

26g

149

Other

Provide building

usage

Provide ofﬁce
supplies

Provide
food/refreshments

Provide
equipment

Provide
transportation

Provide personnel

Other

If checked, code 1=Yes

If not checked, code 2 = No
7 = Not a leader in coalition
8 = No Coalition

9 = Missing data

1 = Yes

2 = NO

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=No

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=No

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=No

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=No

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=NO

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

1 = Yes

2=No

8 = No Coalition
9 = Missing Data

40

41

42

43

44

27

28

29a

29b

29c

150

Number of
attenders

Geographic
location of
religious
institution

Percent of
attenders that are
Asian

Percent of
attenders that are
Black

Percent of
attenders that are
Latino (Hisp.)

1= 0- 100
2:101-200
3 = 201 - 300
4:301-400
5:401-500
6:501 or more
9 = Missing data

1 = Rural/open country

2 = Small town (under 2,500
in population)

3 = Town (2,500 to 9,999)

4 = Small city (10,000 to
49,999)

5 = Medium sized city
(50,000 to 250,000)

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

45

46

47

48

49

50

29d

29e

29f

29g

30a

30b

151

Percent of
attenders that are
Native American

Percent of
attenders that are
West Indian

Percent of
attenders that are
White

Percent of
attenders that are
Other

Percentage of
attenders that are
21 - 30 years old

Percentage of
attenders that are
31 - 40 years old

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

= 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%
9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

51

52

53

54

55

56

30c

30d

30e

31a

31b

31c

152

Percentage of
attenders that are
41 - 50 years old

Percentage of
attenders that are
51 - 60 years old

Percentage of
attenders that are
61years old and
above

Percentage of
attenders that live
lmile or less from
where religious
inst. meets

Percentage of
attenders that live
2 to 5 miles from
where religious
inst. meets

Percentage of
attenders that live
6 to 10 miles from
where religius
inst. meets

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

1 = 0% - 5%

2 = 6% - 25%
3 = 26% - 50%
4 = 51% - 75%
5 = Over 75%

9 = Missing data

57

S8

59

60-61

62

31d

31e

31f

32

33a

153

Percentage of
attenders that live
11 to 15 miles
from where
religious inst.
meets

Percentage of
attenders that live
16 to 20 miles
from where
religious inst.
meets

Percentage of
attenders that live
over 20 miles
from where
religious inst.
meets

Religious group

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Catholic

1: 0%-5%
= 6%-25%
3=26%-50%
4=51%-75%
5=Over75%
9 = Missing data
1: 0%-5%
2= 6%-25%
3=26%-50%
4=51%-75%
5=Over75%
9 = Missing data
1: 0%-5%
2= 6%-25%
3=26%-50%
4=51%-75%
5=Over75%

9 = Missing data

01 = Adventist

02 = Ba Hai'
03 = Baptist
04 = Catholic

05 = Congregational
06 = Episcopal

07 = Hindu

08 = Islam

09 = Jehovah's Witness
10 = Jewish

11 = Lutheran

12 = Methodist

13 = Mormon

14 = Non-denominational
15 = Orthodox Catholic
16 = Presbyterian

17 = Reformed

18 = Other

99 = Missing data

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

63

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

L2cl

33b

33c

33d

33e

33f

33g

33h

33i

33]

34

154

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Charismatic

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Conservative

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Evangelical

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Fundamentalist

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Hindu

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Islamic

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Liberal

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Moderate

Religious inst.
describes itself as
Protestant

Leadership team
in religious inst.
that provides
primary
leadership

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

If checked, code 1 = Yes
If not checked, code 2 = No

1 = Paid staff
2 = Volunteers from
institution

3 = Entire institution serves
as leadership team

4 = Other

9 = Missing data

L2c2

L2c3
through
L2c43

L2c44

L2c45

L2c46

L2c47

35

36-71

72

73

74

75

155

Number of
members of
primary
leadership team

Teamwork
variables of the
leadership teams

Gender of
respondent

Age of respondent

Educational level
of respondent

Position of
respondent in
religious
institution

1 = 1 - 5 members

2 = 6 - 10 members
3 = 11 - 16 members
4 = 16 - 20 members
5 = over 21 members
9 = Missing data

1 = True

2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

9 = Missing data

1=Female
2=Male

9 = Missing data
1:21-30
2:31-40
3:41-50
4:51-60

5 = 61 or more
9 = Missing data

1 = Some high school

2 = Completed high school
3 = Some college

4 = Completed college

5 = Some graduate or
professional school

6 = Completed graduate or
professional school

9 = Missing data

1 = Paid clergy

2 = Volunteer

3 = Paid assistant/associate
4 = Other

9 = Missing data

Eight Dimensions of Teamwork

L2c6
L2c9
L2c 10
L2cl 1
L2027
L2c43

L2c3

L2c4

L2c 15
L2c 1 8
L2c 19
L2c20
L2c2 l
L2c34

L2c7

L2c26
L2c38
L2c42

L2c29
L2c32
L2c39

L2c 17
L2c23
L2c24
L2c40

L2c22
L2c28
L2c3 1

L2c 13
L2c l4
L2c35

39
42a
42b
42c
55
71

36
37
46
49a
49b
49c
49d
62

40
54
66
70

57
60
67

48
51
52
68

50
56
59

44
45
63

156

Clear, Elevating
Goals

Results Driven
Structure

Competent Team
Members

Uniﬁed
Commitment

Collaborative
Climate

Standards of
Excellence

Support &
Recognition

1 = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

1 = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

1 = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

l = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

1=Tme
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

1 = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

1 = True
2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

L2c5

L2c8

L2c 12
L2c l 6
L2c25
L2c30
L2c33
L2c36
L2c37
L2c41

38
41
43
47
53
58
61

65
69

157

Principled 1 = True

Leadership 2 = More true than false
3 = More false than true
4 = False

LIST OF REFERENCES

List of References

Appley, D. G., & Winder, A. E. ( 1977). An evolving deﬁnition of collaboration
and some implications for the world of work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science 13(3), 279-291.

 

Bachelder, R. S. (1992). Churches building bridges. Christian CenturyL109, 924-
925.

Balswick, J. O., and Balswick, J. K. (1991). The family: A Christian perspective
on the contemporary home. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Balswick, J. O., and Morland, J. K. (1990). Social problems: A Christian
understanding and response. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Barner, R. (1994). The new career strategist: Career management for the year
2000 and beyond. The Futurist, September-October, 8-14.

Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985).
Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California.

Benard, B. (1989). Working together: Principles of effective collaboration.
Illinois Prevention Forum. 10(2), 4-9.

Benard, B. (1991). Fosteringresiliency in kids: Protective factor; in the family.
schooL and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,
Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, Far West
Laboratory.

Benson, P. L., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. (1994). Congregations as partners in
positive youth development. Search Institute Source, 10(1), 1-3.

Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. S., & Allen, R. L. (1987). Spectacular teamwork: How
to develop the leadership skills for team success. New York: Wiley.

158

159

Borden, L. (1996). Community collaboration: When the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champaign-
Urbana.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by

nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1985). The parent/child relationship and our changing
society. In L. E. Arnold (Ed.), Parents. children. and change (pp. 45-57). Lexington,
MA: Lexington.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human
development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology. 22. 723-742.

Bubolz, M. M. (1991). Theory, research, and practice in home economics.
Themis: Journal of Theory in Home Economics. 1(1), 1-14.

Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss,
W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of
family theory and methods (pp. 419-448). New York: Plenum.

Carasco, J ., Reed, 8., & Wendorf, M.W. (1991). Reﬂections on church-based
community organizing. Church and Society-81. 55-61.

Chaves, M., & Higgins, L. M. (1992). Comparing the community involvement
of black and white congregations. Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion. 31(4),
425-440.

Coleman, J. (1987). Families and schools, Educational Researcher. 16. 32-38.

Colson, C. (1992). Will the church miss the volunteer revolution? Christianitv
Today, 36(3), 88.

Comer, J. (1984). Home-school relationships as they affect the academic success
of children. Education and Urban Socieg. 16. 323-337.

Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia
tr_ap. New York: Basic Books.

Daka-Mulwanda, V., Thomburg, K. R., Filbert, L., & Klien, T. (1995).
Collaboration of services for children and families: A synthesis of recent research and
recommendations. Family Relations. 44. 219-223.

160

De Bevoise, W. (1986). Collaboration: Some principles of bridgework.
Educational Leadership. 44(2), 9-12.

Demos, J. (1986). Pas; present. and personal: The familyand the life course in
American history. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dill, E. R. (1991). A multipoint approach to urban community ministry. Ihe
Christian Ministry. 22. 12-13.

Doherty, W. J ., Boss, P. G., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W. R., & Steinmetz, S. K.
(1993). Family theories and methods: A contextual approach. In P. G. Boss, W. J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of family
theory and methods (pp. 3-30).

Dryfoos, J .G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health and social
services for childrenyyouth. Lad families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dudley, C. S. (1991). From typical church to social ministry: A study of the
elements which mobilize congregations. Review of Religious Research. 32. 195-212.

Dudley, C. S., & Johnson, S. A. (1989). Mobilizing congregations for
community ministry. The Christian Ministry. 20. 31-33.

Finch, F. E. (1977). Collaborative leadership in work settings. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science. 13(3), 292-301.

Fuchs, V. R., & Reklis, D. M. (1992). America's children: Economic
perspectives and policy options. Science. 255(5040), 41-46.

Garbarino, J. (1982). Children anch_amilies in the social environment. New
York: Aldine.

Gardner, S. (1990). Failure by fragmentation. Equity and Choice. 6(2), 4-12.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for Qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Glossop, R. G. (1989). Bronfenbrenner's ecology of human development: A
reappreciation. In A. R. Pence (Ed.), Ecological research with children and families:
From concepts to methodology. New York: Teachers College Press.

161

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachersabetter schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guthrie, G. P., & Guthrie, L. F. (1991). Streamlining interagency collaboration
for youth at risk. Educational Leadership, 49(1), 17-22.

Hawley, A. H. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago: University
of Chicago.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1989). The smre client: The demographics of education and
service delivery sys_tems. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Hughes, R., Jr. (1994). A framework for develOping family life education
programs. Eamily Relations. 43. 74-80.

Hunt, J .G., & Hunt L. L. (1987). Here to play: From families to life-styles.
Journal of Family Issues. ( 814, 440-443.

Independent Sector. (1993). From belief to commitment: The community service

activities and ﬁnances of religious congregations in the United States. Washington, DC:
Author.

James, W. A. (1992). Wholeness means community ministry. American Baptist
Quarterly. 11, 70-75.

Johnson, M. A., & Mullins, P. (1990). Community competence in religious
congregations. American Journal of Communitﬂsychology. 18, 259-277.

Kagan, S. L., & Rivera, A. M. (1991). Collaboration in early child care and
education: What can and should we expect? Young Children. 47(1), 51-56.

Kanagy, C. L. (1992). Social action, evangelism, and ecumenism: The impact of
community, theological, and church structural variables. Review of Religious Research,
339 34-5 1 .

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the
high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Keith, J. G., Perkins, D. F., Zhou, 2., Clifford, M. A., Gilmore, B., & Townsend,

M. Z. (1993). Building and maintaining community coalitions on behalf of children.
puth and families (Research Report 529). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University

Agricultural Experiment Station.

162

Keith, J. G., Covey, M. A., & Perkins, D. F. (1996). Building and maintaining
community coalitions on behalf of children. @uth and families: The role of religious
institutions (Research Report 543). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Agricultural Experiment Station.

 

Keith, J. G., & Perkins, D. F. (1995). @000 adolescents speak: A proﬁle of
Michigan youth. E. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Children,
Youth and Families.

Kent County Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (1995).:1‘3
role of the frath community in protecting children. Grand Rapids, MI: Author.

Killen, P. O. (1991). The practice of Christian community. St. Luke's Journal of
Theology, 34(2), 115-130.

Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant analysis. Sage University Paper series on
Qaantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-019. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Klein, D. M., & White, J. M. (1996). Family theories: An introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the
inside out: A path toward ﬁnding and mobilizing a community's assets. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

Lang, S. J. (1995). Changing society from the inside out. Discipleship Journal,
L32), 53-57.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/What
can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lasch, C. (1977). Haven in a heartless world: The family besieged. New York:
Basic Books.

Lasch, C. (1983). Social pathologists and the socialization of reproduction. In
M. Gordon (Ed.), The American family in social-historical perspective (pp. 61-79).
New York: St. Martin's.

Lavee, Y., & Dollahite, D. C. (1991). The linkage between theory and research
in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 361-373.

Loughran, E. L. (1982). Networking, coordination, cooperation, and
collaboration. Community Education Journal 37(4), 28-30.

 

163

Lupton, B. (1995). Unneighborly neighbors. Discipleship Journal. 15(2), 43.

Mark, C. B. (1993). Building community coalitions for youth at risk: Strategies
for facilitating the transfer of training. an exploratory study Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing.

Marty, M. E. (1981). The public church. New York: Crossroad.

Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work.
St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits.
New York: Basic.

National Commission on Children. (1991). Beyond rhetoric: A new American
agenda for children and families. Washington, DC: Author

Neslund, R. E. (1991). Team excellence on large teams. 54. 09A, p. 3125,
(University Microﬁlms International No. 9201054).

Norusis, M.J. (1988). SSPS/PC+ Advanced statistics V2.0. Chicago: SPSS.

Ortiz, V. (1992). We need to make the church relevant to the community.
Christian Social Action. 5, 40.

Pancoast, D. L., & Richmond Garland, D. S. (1990). Issues for the future. In D.
S. Richmond Garland, & D. L. Pancoast (Eds.), The church's ministry with families: A
practical guide (pp. 235-239). Dallas: Word.

Perkins, D. F. (1994). Leadership for effective service. The Journal of
Leadership Studiesal (2), 131-136.

Perkins, D. F., Ferrari, T. M., Covey, M. A., & Keith, J. G., (1994). Getting
dinosaurs to dance: Community collaborations as applications of ecological theory.
Home Economics ForumJU), 39-47.

Pierce, G. F. A. (1989). How community organizing can beneﬁt the
congregation. Christian Ministry. 20. 22-24.

Reynolds, H. T. (1984). Analysis of nominal data (2nd ed.). Sage University
Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. 07-007. Beverly Hills:
Sage.

164

Richmond Garland, D. S., & Conrad, A. P. (1990). The church as a context for
professional practice. In D. S. Richmond Garland, & D. L. Pancoast (Eds.), The church's

minisg with families: A practical guide (pp. 71-87). Dallas: Word.

Riﬂdn, J. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the
dawn of the post-market era. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Roehlkepartain, EC. (1992). Community partners. The Christian Ministry,
23(4). 7-

Scheie, D. M., Markham, J., Williams, T., Slettom, J., Ramirez, S. M. A., &
Mayer, S. E., (1991). Religious institutions as partners in community based
development: Findings from year one of the Lilly Endowment Program. Minneapolis,
MN: Rainbow Research.

Scheie, D. M., Markham, J., Williams, T., Slettom, J., Ramirez, S. M. A., &
Mayer, S. E., (1994). Better together: Religious institutions as partners in community
based development. Minneapolis, MN: Rainbow Research.

Schindler-Rainman, E. (1981). Toward collaboration - Risks we need to take.
Journal of Voluntary Action Reﬂch. 13, 120-127.

Schorr, L. ( 1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New
York: Anchor Press.

Shavelson, R. J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 6.1 [Computer Software] (1994).
Chicago: SPSS, Inc.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, C. (1994). Christians must get their own house in order. American
Family Association Joumarla18(9), 24.

Tshimika, P. K. (1990). Community organization and Christian leadership.
DirectionJ 9. 87-93.

Vaughn, G. G. (1994). Collaboration: Finding pathways for change. Home
Economics Forum. 7(1), 6-12.

165

Weaver, J. (1991). Community investment: The ministry of empowerment. ﬂe
Christian Centug, 108, 370-372.

"llllllllllllllll