Social work and faith-based agencies in Sweden and Australia

Abstract

The roles which faith-based agencies play in social work provision vary between countries. This article provides an overview of social work provision by the Church of Sweden in Sweden and the Catholic Church in Australia and explores how different relationships between faith-based organizations and professional social work practice have emerged in different countries. The article concludes with questions about the role of faith-based agencies which readers can reflect upon in their own contexts.

Keywords

Australia Catholic Church Church of Sweden faith-based agencies religion social work practice Sweden

Introduction

It is not uncommon to hear social workers exclaim ‘Of course, social workers. . .’ or ‘Of course, social work. . .’. However, assumptions about social work which can readily be taken for granted within one country do not necessarily apply elsewhere. This particularly applies to the place of religion and the role of faith-based organizations in the provision of social work services, and may relate to the form of welfare state which has been adopted by a country and the dominant religious traditions present (Yeung et al., 2006), as well as the political climate.

Esping-Andersen’s (1990) identification of three distinct models of welfare states provides a useful starting place for those engaged in cross-national comparisons of faith-based welfare provision. In the Social Democratic model, which typifies welfare provision in Scandinavian countries, the state has responsibility for provision of core services, with voluntary organizations, including churches, providing additional or complementary services to those provided by the state. In the Liberal model, often associated with anglophone countries such as the UK, the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the state has primary responsibility for ensuring key services are provided but may do so in conjunction with non-government agencies whereas the Conservative model, present in many continental European nations, has a more limited role for the state in direct welfare provision and a corresponding emphasis on provision by other service providers when possible. In other words, the scope of services provided by churches and other faith-based agencies is likely to vary depending on the model of welfare state (Bäckström and Davie, 2010).

While many churches and other religious organizations provide forms of welfare or social assistance to individuals in need, the focus of this article is restricted to the provision of services by social workers, that is, persons with professional expertise in welfare provision. Although such services may be organized and run at a local level by individual churches (or a cluster thereof), it has been suggested that some religions, for example Catholicism and Judaism, have more of a propensity to develop centralized services which may be organized on a national or regional (e.g. state, province, diocese) basis (Sinha, 2012). Such services are often underpinned by religious teachings about a need for taking communal responsibility for members of society experiencing disadvantage, rather than an explicit faith-based identity (Wittberg, 2012). Hence, within a nation such as the USA, it has been proposed that models for analysing Protestant faith-based initiatives may have limited utility in other settings (Jeavons, 2004; Smith and Sosin, 2001).

Over the last decade and a half, much of the literature which has emerged concerning faith-based welfare provision has originated from the USA (e.g. Boddie and Cnaan, 2006; Tirrito and Cascio, 2003) and contrasts with literature from many European countries where faith-based welfare provision is not highly politicized (Bäckström et al., 2010, 2011). A frequent theme in the American literature has been attempts to establish the legitimacy of faith-based services, since the introduction of the so-called ‘Charitable Choice’ funding in 1996. This provided new, but not uncontroversial, opportunities for faith-based agencies to receive state funding. Hence, the agenda of researchers such as Cnaan et al. (2003) and Sider and Unruh (2004) have focused on explicit expressions of religion in the management and staffing of organizations and the extent of religious content service users are exposed to through their interactions in the agency and/or with agency staff. They also raise the question as to the extent of expectations on service users to participate in religious activities, have religious experiences or undergo religious conversion.

Other questions which might be asked when undertaking comparisons of faith-based welfare initiatives concern the religious culture (Smith and Sosin, 2001) and include, whether services are aimed primarily to co-religionists or to the wider community (Thyer, 2006). This latter point is important given that services which are aimed at the wider community, are far more likely to receive state funding (Baker, 2012).

Although it has sometimes been proposed that the opposite of a program or agency which is highly explicit in its religious identity is one with a secular orientation (e.g. Cnaan et al., 2003; Sider and Unruh, 2004), such distinctions have been questioned (e.g. Dinham et al., 2009; Netting, 2004; Whiting, 2008). Gilligan’s (2010: 61) contention is that faith-based approaches to social work ‘arguably fall into two contrasting types: “fundamentalist or exclusive” and “liberal or open” approaches’. Whereas the former is premised on religious salvation being the ultimate imperative, in the latter approach religious beliefs are recognized as an underlying motivation to service provision and the religious underpinnings of a program or agency may in fact emerge in the public sphere as a commitment to ‘care’ (e.g. Belcher, 2008; Camilleri and Winkworth, 2005) rather than utilize explicitly religious language. This is certainly the case in respect of social work services provided by many faith-based agencies in countries such as Sweden and Australia.

A European approach to researching faith-based social work in different countries has been to focus on welfare provision by the majority church in each country. In countries where no single church accounts for the majority of the population, a focus on welfare provision by the church which has the highest proportion of the population affiliated with it (Pettersson, 2011). While recognizing that there are limitations to this approach, this article explores social work services by the largest churches in Sweden and Australia.

Social work by the Church of Sweden in Sweden

Although there are other faith-based providers of welfare services in Sweden, most faith-based services are associated with the Church of Sweden (Borell and Gerdner, 2011) which considers itself to be a ‘church which embraces the whole country’ (Church of Sweden, 2012) and not just its members. Even though few Swedes attend church regularly (Edgardh Beckman, 2001) or have strong religious beliefs (Jeppsson Grassman and Whitaker, 2006), 80 percent or more consider themselves to be members of the Church of Sweden (Andersen, 2004; Leis-Peters, 2009). Consequently, although it provides services to all Swedes, welfare provision by the Church of Sweden is predominantly the church providing care to its own community. Indeed, the constitution of the Church of Sweden requires all parishes to undertake some form of diaconal or social work in addition to activities of a more explicitly religious nature (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006).

Welfare provision by the Church of Sweden, is funded by a tax levy on church members and enables the employment of 1200 deacons in parishes across the country (Hansson, 2006) who are trained professionals in welfare delivery (Borell and Gerdner, 2011; Jeppsson Grassman and Whitaker, 2006). This is a considerable workforce (Jokela, 2009). For example, in the town of Gävle, which levied a fee of 1 percent of taxable income on church members, the five parishes, which covered a population of around 70,000 employed a total of 20 staff to undertake this work. This is in addition to church staff employed in other roles including priests, administrators, musicians and educators (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006).

Prior to the emergence of the welfare state in the 20th century when responsibilities for education, social welfare and care of the aged were transferred to various state and municipal agencies, the Church of Sweden had a major role in welfare provision (Hansson, 2006). But what is the role of faith-based agencies when there is a supposedly comprehensive welfare state?

The Swedish welfare state has been characterized as all encompassing. It is constructed around the individual citizen and his life risks from cradle to grave. It aims at achieving social balance and social redistribution within society. The state and the municipalities play a dominant role in the provision of welfare. They set the framework for welfare, they are in charge to control all welfare activities, and they run most of the welfare services themselves. (Leis-Peters, 2009: 148)

In this context, non-government agencies, including faith-based organizations, generally seek to provide services that complement those provided by the welfare state. In particular, they are significant providers of services for groups whose needs are largely unrecognized by the welfare state (Lundström and Svedberg, 2003). In some instances this has resulted in churches running welfare services which have subsequently received state funding (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006). In addition to running services, there is also an expectation that the Church of Sweden will support individuals and communities at times of crisis (Hansson, 2006; Jeppsson Grassman and Whitaker, 2006). Hence it has been proposed that ‘The church in Swedish society today can be best understood as one of several cultural resources upon which the individual can draw in important life-transitions and situations of crisis’ (Edgardh Beckman, 2001: 7). This can include people experiencing poverty and social exclusion or a relationship breakdown, or who need support greater than can be provided by the so-called comprehensive welfare state (Edgardh and Pettersson, 2010; Jokela, 2009).

Until 2000 when it was disestablished, the Church of Sweden was a state church and it has been proposed that this change of status may in future enable a greater involvement of the church in welfare provision (Edgardh and Pettersson, 2010):

Before that, the Church of Sweden pastorates have been official church municipalities. This status allowed the parishes to pursue social work only in a very limited area and to a very limited extent. They could not use their tax money to run welfare services since it was assumed that this would present a competition against corresponding services run by their civil municipality. (Leis-Peters, 2009: 149–50)

Social workers employed in secular contexts might acknowledge that although the Church of Sweden certainly makes a contribution to the welfare of the community, they do not regard this to be ‘social work’ per se as typified by comments such as ‘Of course, social work and religion are separate’. A strict separation in responsibilities between church and state reflects a Lutheran theological ideal of two kingdoms which underpins the development and thinking in the Church of Sweden. In such thinking, the role of the church pertains to the spiritual salvation of the population or care of the soul, whereas the state is responsible for their worldly needs or care of the body (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006). However, in practice, this distinction may not be straightforward. In writings about welfare provision by churches in Europe, it is not uncommon to see the term ‘social work’ used in respect of a wide range of care roles provided by the church and not necessarily confined to the work of professional social workers (Middlemiss, 2006; Yeung, 2006). Indeed the Church of Sweden refers to ‘social work’ when describing the role of deacons on its website (Church of Sweden, 2012) and statistics for the number of Church of Sweden employees in welfare roles tend to combine social work with the work of deacons (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006).

Social work by the Catholic Church in Australia

Like Swedes, most Australians identify with a religion (ABS, 2006) although few are regular participants in religious services (Bellamy and Castle, 2004). However, there has never been a state church in Australia, and no religious grouping has the allegiance of the majority of the population. Two-thirds (64%) of all Australians identified themselves with some form of Christianity in the 2006 national census with the largest groups being Catholics (26%), Anglicans (19%) and Uniting Church (5%). A further 5 percent identified with a non-Christian religion and 19 percent stated they had no religion (ABS, 2006).

Religious groups, and particularly the Catholic Church, have played a significant role in the establishment of professional social work services in Australia (Gleeson, 2008a; Hughes, 1998). In 1928, the Catholic Church sponsored scholarships for two students to undertake social work training at the Catholic University of America, who on their return were credited as being Australia’s first trained social workers (Gleeson, 2000). In the early 1960s, when the Federal Government started funding marriage counselling, it was Catholic welfare agencies which fought for these new programs to be staffed by qualified social workers (Gleeson, 2008b) and Catholic agencies continue to establish innovative welfare services to this day (Murray et al., 2008).

Although Catholic welfare agencies in the 19th and much of the 20th centuries were predominantly established to provide services to Catholics in need (Gleeson, 2008a; Hughes, 1998), in the 21st century Catholic agencies provide services to members of the Australian community in need irrespective of their religion. This includes both regular services and relief efforts by Catholic agencies, working in conjunction with other service providers at times of crisis. With annual provision of services to more than one million Australians each year (Catholic Social Services Australia, 2012), Catholic social services are firmly entrenched in the system of welfare provision (Camilleri and Winkworth, 2004; Gleeson, 2000) with agencies associated with the Catholic Church collectively forming arguably the largest provider of welfare services. Welfare agencies, which are generally associated with dioceses and religious orders rather than individual parishes, employ hundreds of staff. Hence, Catholic welfare agencies are a significant employer of qualified social workers (Camilleri and Winkworth, 2004).

As with the Church of Sweden, Catholic agencies in Australia have often sought to provide services for communities and individuals most in need, particularly where there is a lack of other services (Winkworth and Camilleri, 2004). Such thinking tends to be based on Catholic Social Teaching, which has a strong emphasis on providing care and ensuring dignity for those in need (Camilleri and Winkworth, 2005). Nevertheless, as many Catholic agencies are highly reliant financially on funding contracts from government sources which specify what, and sometimes how, services must be provided (Camilleri and Winkworth, 2004), overt religious expression, including displays of religious imagery, may be very limited. Hence, the question as to what makes a service distinctively ‘Catholic’ is being debated within some Catholic agencies (Crisp, 2010a; Reid, 2008).

Although Catholic welfare agencies, like several other Australian faith-based agencies, have been subject to recent public scrutiny over their role in involvement in forcing single mothers to give up their children for adoption prior to the mid-1970s, and for physical and sexual abuse of children in their care (also mostly pre-1980s), faith-based agencies are generally considered to be a legitimate setting in which social workers are employed. Indeed, the Code of Ethics of the Australian Association of Social Workers specifically notes a requirement for social workers to be respectful of faith-based agencies:

Social workers will recognise, acknowledge and remain sensitive to and respectful of the religious and spiritual world views of individuals, groups, communities and social networks, and the operations and missions of faith and spiritually-based organisations. (AASW, 2010: 18)

Many of the social workers and other staff employed in Catholic social service agencies in Australia would not necessarily identify with the religion of their employer (Crisp, 2011). Nevertheless, for many of their staff, Catholic agencies have an attractive ethos, even if the positions are less well paid than positions elsewhere in the welfare sector (Winkworth and Camilleri, 2004).

Conclusion

This article has outlined some key features of social work provision by mainstream churches in Sweden and Australia. While other forms of service occur in both settings, arguably services provided by the Church of Sweden are mostly provided to church members whereas services provided by the Catholic Church in Australia are far more likely to be provided to non-members. As might be expected in settings which are staffed by welfare professionals (Smith and Sosin, 2001), religious conversion is not considered a primary aim of welfare provision in either of these settings.

As Furness and Gilligan (2010a: 2198) have noted, ‘social workers often consider the relevance and impact of religion only from the perspective of their personal belief systems’. Likewise, their appreciation of faith-based social services may be highly dependent on their own experiences with such services (Dinham, 2009). Nevertheless, an understanding that the roles of faith-based agencies may vary considerably between countries is not only necessary for the increasingly mobile international social work workforce (Moriarty et al., 2011) but for all social workers who work with migrant service users who may bring expectations about faith-based agencies which do not apply in a new country. For example, service users may be disinclined to use services provided by a faith-based agency if they are worried that in receiving a service there may be expectations of a religious nature. Conversely, service users who are attracted to services provided by a particular religious group, may be surprised to find that the service provided is secular in nature and that the staff providing the service may not share the religious beliefs and affiliation of the organization which employs them.

An awareness of different agendas and approaches may also assist readers to gain a more informed understanding of social work practice literature on religion and spirituality which comes from different countries. For example, despite much of my own writing on social work and spirituality drawing very strongly on, and being consistent with forms of Christian theology (Crisp, 2008, 2010b), I tend not to use overtly religious language or discuss specifically religious practices. To my surprise, this has at times resulted in suggestions that my work is highly secular or even new age, rather than recognizing that in the Australian context in which I work, being explicitly religious, would not be acceptable in many social work practice settings. Similarly, understanding that ‘a feature of Swedish culture to keep religion within the private sphere and many feel it embarrassing when this privacy is exposed in a public or semi public space’ (Edgardh Beckman et al., 2006: 24) can assist in understanding social work provision by the Church of Sweden.

Both case studies raise questions which cannot be answered in this article, but which readers may benefit from pondering in their own contexts. The Swedish case study raises the question as to where can social work be practiced, or more precisely, what makes welfare provision ‘social work’ if carried out by the welfare state but not if provided by a faith-based agency? Variants of this question occur elsewhere and during the years I worked in Scotland I encountered some social workers who did not recognize welfare provision as ‘social work’ if not provided by statutory authorities, and who would have been reluctant to accept a legitimate role for faith-based agencies as providers of social work services. As faith-based agencies often provide services for groups who are not a priority for the welfare state, does the failure to recognize work with marginalized groups as social work reinforce their marginalization by the welfare state?

The Australian case study will probably raise questions for some readers as to whether service provision to the wider community and which lacks a religious message, can rightly be called faith-based? While the principle of ‘caritas’ or ‘care’ is central in religions such as Christianity (e.g. Baxter, 2007; Gordon, 2006), in some churches it risks being relegated to a position of lesser importance than to mission or evangelism. Readers may wish to reflect on what basis they would regard welfare provision by a religious group to be considered as being ‘faith-based’ and what is considered to be faith-based social work in their context.

Both case studies suggest that there are nevertheless expectations that faith-based agencies will provide services for those not provided for by the welfare state. But who should pay for this? While parishes in the Church of Sweden receive some funds for welfare provision from tax levies paid by church members, and many Catholic agencies in Australia receive funds for specific program delivery, the costs of responding to personal or national crises may rely on the capacity and benevolence of faith-based agencies and their members to fund such activities.

The roles and activities of faith-based agencies in welfare provision have never been static and are unlikely to become so (Furness and Gilligan, 2012). In recent years there has been much more prominence of religion on the public stage in general (Boer, 2008) as well as more specifically in social work (e.g. Furness and Gilligan, 2010b; Gale et al., 2007). While much of this has focused on the spirituality and religion of individual practitioners and service users, consideration of the relationship between faith-based organizations and social work has been limited, particularly in an international context. Recent research in Europe has explored the role of welfare provision by churches and religious agencies in a number of countries but this research is primarily being undertaken by religious sociologists and theologians rather than primarily addressing issues pertaining to professional social work practice (Bäckström et al., 2010, 2011). This article is a start but further contributions providing insights from different countries and religious traditions are needed to develop our thinking as to the role of faith-based agencies in social work in the 21st century.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biography

Beth Crisp is a professor in the School of Health and Social Development and discipline leader for social work at Deakin University, Australia.

References

Andersen

J.A.

(2004) ‘Vicars vs Managers: Do Vicars Differ from Managers in Terms of Leadership Behaviour?’, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion 1(2): 201–23.

Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) (2010) Code of Ethics. Canberra, ACT: AASW. Available online at: http://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/740 (accessed 19 January 2011).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006) ‘2006 Census of Population and Housing’, Religious Affiliation by Sex. Available online at: http://www.abs.gov.au (accessed 15 April 2012).

Bäckström

Davie

(2010) ‘The WREP Project: Genesis, Structure and Scope’, in Bäckström

Davie

Ergardh

Pettersson

(eds) Welfare and Religion in 21^st Century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections. Farnham: Ashgate.

Bäckström

Davie

Ergardh

Pettersson

(eds) (2010) Welfare and Religion in 21^st Century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections. Farnham: Ashgate.

Bäckström

Davie

Ergardh

Pettersson

(eds) (2011) Welfare and Religion in 21^st Century Europe: Volume 2 Gendered, Religious and Social Change. Farnham: Ashgate.

Baker

(2012) ‘Spiritual Capital and Economies of Grace: Redefining the Relationship between Religion and the Welfare State’, Social Policy and Society 11(4): 565–76.

Baxter

(2007) ‘Beloved Community: A Glimpse into the Life of Holy Rood House’, in Baxter

(ed.) Wounds that Heal: Theology, Imagination and Health. London: SPCK.

Belcher

(2008) ‘Explaining a Paradox: Church and Health Policy in the 1940s and 1970s’, Australasian Catholic Record 85(3): 259–73.

10.

Bellamy

Castle

(2004) 2001 Church Attendance Estimates. Sydney, NSW: NCLS Research.

11.

Boddie

S.C.

Cnaan

R.A.

(2006) Faith-based Social Services: Measures, Assessments, and Effectiveness. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Pastoral Press.

12.

Boer

(2008) ‘The New Secularism’, Arena Journal 29/30: 35–57.

13.

Borell

Gerdner

(2011) ‘Hidden Voluntary Social Work: A Nationally Representative Survey of Muslim Congregations in Sweden’, British Journal of Social Work 41(5): 968–79.

14.

Camilleri

Winkworth

(2004) ‘Mapping the Catholic Social Services’, The Australasian Catholic Record 81(2): 184–97.

15.

Camilleri

Winkworth

(2005) ‘Catholic Social Services in Australia: A Short History’, Australian Social Work 58(1): 76–85.

16.

Catholic Social Services Australia (2012) ‘About Catholic Social Services Australia’. Available online at: http://www.catholicsocialservices.org.au/node/39188 (accessed 1 November 2012).

17.

Church of Sweden (2012) ‘Facts about the Church of Sweden’. Available online at: http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/default.aspx?id=657773 (accessed 12 April 2012).

18.

Cnaan

R.A.

Kang

J.J.

McGrew

C.C.

Sinha

J.W.

(2003) ‘Identiteit Meetbaar Maken: Gedachten van de Andere Kant van de Atlantische Oceaan [Incorporating Religious Identity into Organizational Identity: Thoughts from the Other Side of the Atlantic Ocean]’, Bulletib Onderwijs & Inspiratie 32(5): 23–5.

19.

Crisp

B.R.

(2008) ‘Social Work and Spirituality in a Secular Society’, Journal of Social Work 8(4): 361–73.

20.

Crisp

B.R.

(2010a) ‘Catholic Agencies: Making a Distinct Contribution to Australian Social Welfare Provision?’, The Australasian Catholic Record 87(4): 440–51.

21.

Crisp

B.R.

(2010b) Spirituality and Social Work. Farnham: Ashgate.

22.

Crisp

B.R.

(2011) ‘If a Holistic Approach to Social Work Requires Acknowledgement of Religion, What Does this Mean for Social Work Education?’, Social Work Education 30(6): 657–68.

23.

Dinham

(2009) Faiths, Public Policy and Civil Society: Problems, Policies, Controversies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

Dinham

Furbey

Lowndes

(eds) (2009) Faith in the Public Realm: Controversies, Policies and Practices. Bristol: The Policy Press.

25.

Edgardh

Pettersson

(2010) ‘The Church of Sweden: A Church for All Especially the Most Vulnerable’, in Bäckström

Davie

Edgardh

Pettersson

(eds) Welfare and Religion in 21st Century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections, pp. 39–56. Farnham: Ashgate.

26.

Edgardh Beckman

. (2001) ‘Mrs Murphy’s Arising from the Pew: Ecclesiological Implications’, Ecumenical Review 5(1): 5–13.

27.

Edgardh Beckman

Ekstrand

Pettersson

(2006) ‘The Church of Sweden as an Agent of Welfare: The Case of Gävle’, in Yeung

A.B.

Edgardh Beckman

Pettersson

(eds) Churches in Europe as Agents of Welfare: Sweden, Norway and Finland, pp. 20–85. Uppsala: Institute for Diaconal and Social Studies.

28.

Esping-Andersen

(1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

29.

Furness

Gilligan

(2010a) ‘Social Work, Religion and Belief: Developing a Framework for Practice’, British Journal of Social Work 40(7): 2185–202.

30.

Furness

Gilligan

(2010b) Religion, Belief and Social Work: Making a Difference. Bristol: Policy Press.

31.

Furness

Gilligan

(2012) ‘Faith-based Organisations and UK Welfare Services: Exploring Some Ongoing Dilemmas’, Social Policy and Society 11(4): 601–12.

32.

Gale

Bolzan

McRae-McMahon

(eds) (2007) Spirited Practices: Spirituality and the Helping Professions. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

33.

Gilligan

(2010) ‘Faith-based Approaches’, in Gray

Webb

(eds) Ethics and Value Perspectives in Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

34.

Gleeson

D.J.

(2000) ‘Professional Social Workers and Welfare Bureaus: The Origins of Australian Catholic Social Work’, The Australasian Catholic Record 77(2): 185–202.

35.

Gleeson

D.J.

(2008a) ‘Some New Perspectives on Early Australian Social Work’, Australian Social Work 61(3): 207–25.

36.

Gleeson

D.J.

(2008b) ‘The Foundation and First Decade of the National Catholic Welfare Committee’, The Australasian Catholic Record 85(1): 15–36.

37.

Gordon

(2006) New Journeys Now Begin: Learning on the Path of Grief and Loss. Glasgow: Wild Goose Publications.

38.

Hansson

A-S.

(2006) ‘The Psychosocial Work Environment in the Church of Sweden: An Explorative Study’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership 16(3): 329–43.

39.

Hughes

(1998) ‘Catholics and the Care of Destitute Children in Late Nineteenth Century New South Wales’, Australian Social Work 51(1): 17–25.

40.

Jeavons

T.H.

(2004) ‘Religious and Faith-Based Organizations: Do We Know One When We See One?’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(1): 140–5.

41.

Jeppsson Grassman

Whitaker

(2006) ‘With or Without Faith, Spiritual Care in the Church of Sweden at a Time of Transition’, Omega 53(1–2): 153–72.

42.

Jokela

(2009) ‘Ruling Relations of the Church’s Social Work in the Lutheran Church in Finland’, Social Work and Society 9(1): 135–8.

43.

Leis-Peters

(2009) ‘Majority Church and Welfare in Sweden: Some Reflections on Results from Two Swedish Research Projects: A Response to Beate Hofmann’, Christian Bioethics 15(2): 147–53.

44.

Lundström

Svedberg

(2003) ‘The Voluntary Sector in a Social Democratic Welfare State: The Case of Sweden’, Journal of Social Policy 32(2): 217–38.

45.

Middlemiss

(2006) ‘Divided by a Common Language: The Benefits and Problems Created by Linguistic Diversit in a Comparative European Project’, in Yeung

A.B.

Edgardh Beckman

Pettersson

(eds) Churches in Europe as Agents of Welfare: Sweden, Norway and Finland, pp. 11–19. Uppsala: Institute for Diaconal and Social Studies.

46.

Moriarty

Hussein

Manthorpe

Stevens

(2011) ‘International Social Workers in England: Factors Influencing Supply and Demand’, International Social Work 55(2): 169–84.

47.

Murray

Malone

Glare

(2008) ‘Building a Life Story: Providing Records and Support to Former Residents of Children’s Homes’, Australian Social Work 61(3): 239–55.

48.

Netting

F.E.

(2004) ‘Commentary on Typology of Religious Characteristics of Social Service and Educational Organizations and Programs’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(1): 135–9.

49.

Pettersson

(2011) ‘Majority Churches as Agents of European Welfare: A Sociological Approach’, in Bäckström

Davie

Edgardh

Pettersson

(eds) Welfare and Religion in 21st Century Europe: Volume 2 Gendered Religious and Social Change, pp. 15–59. Farnham: Ashgate.

50.

Reid

(2008) ‘Personal Morality and Counselling within a Catholic Agency’, Australasian Catholic Record 85(4): 429–41.

51.

Sider

R.J.

Unruh

H.R.

(2004) ‘Typology of Religious Characteristics of Social Service and Educational Organizations and Programs’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33(1): 109–34.

52.

Sinha

J.W.

(2012) ‘Unintended Consequences of the Faith-based Initiative: Organizational and Religious Identity Within Faith-based Human Service Organizations’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, published online 22 October 2012. DOI: 10.1177/0899764012462457.

53.

Smith

Sosin

(2001) ‘The Varieties of Faith-Related Agencies’, Public Administration Review 61(6): 651–70.

54.

Thyer

B.A.

(2006) ‘Faith-Based Programs and the Role of Empirical Research’, in Boddie

S.C.

Cnaan

R.A.

(eds) Faith-based Social Services: Measures, Assessments, and Effectiveness, pp. 63–82. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Pastoral Press.

55.

Tirrito

Cascio

(eds) (2003) Religious Organizations in Community Services: A Social Work Perspective. New York: Springer.

56.

Whiting

(2008) ‘“No Room for Religion or Spirituality or Cooking Tips’’: Exploring Practical Atheism as an Unspoken Consensus in the Development of Social Work Values in England’, Ethics and Social Work 2(1): 67–83.

57.

Winkworth

Camilleri

(2004) ‘Keeping the Faith: The Impact of Human Services Restructuring on Catholic Social Welfare Services’, Australian Journal of Social Issues 39(3): 315–28.

58.

Wittberg

P.A.

(2012) ‘Faith-Based Umbrella Organizations: Implications for Religious Identity’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, published online 10 October 2012. DOI: 10.1177/0899764012461954.

59.

Yeung

A.B.

(2006) ‘The Finnish Lutheran Church as an Agent of Welfare: The Case of Lahti’, in Yeung

A.B.

Edgardh Beckman

Pettersson

(eds) Churches in Europe as Agents of Welfare: Sweden, Norway and Finland, pp. 142–203. Uppsala: Institute for Diaconal and Social Studies.

60.

Yeung

A.B.

Edgardh Beckman

Pettersson

(2006) ‘Researching the Changing European Landscape of Welfare and Religion’, in Yeung

A.B.

Edgardh Beckman

Pettersson

(eds) Churches in Europe as Agents of Welfare: Sweden, Norway and Finland, pp. 1–10. Uppsala: Institute for Diaconal and Social Studies.