This grounded theory study of 15 faith-based programs in four urban cities examines how initiators and founders find homes for their visions of addressing unmet community needs, especially those of children and their families. Founders can be congregations, individuals, or groups with diverse characteristics. This study suggests that they place their visions in viable contexts through developing new organizations in which to place their programs, temporarily incubating them until a new organization can be formed, tethering them to congregations, or birthing them in well-established faith-related agencies with deep historical roots in the community. These programs have the potential to become legends, influencing the identity of their organizational homes and the larger community's images of those homes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbzugR., & GalaskiewiczJ (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), pp. 51-73.
2.
AllahyariR.A. (2000). Visions of charity: Volunteer workers and moral community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
3.
BednarS. B. (2003). Elements of satisfying organizational climates in child welfare agencies.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84(1), 7–12.
4.
BlockS. R., & RosenbergS. (2002). Toward an understanding of founder's syndrome: An assessment of power and privilege among founders of nonprofit organizations.Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 353–368.
5.
BrilliantE., & YoungD. R. (2004). The changing identity of federated community service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 28(3/4), 23–46.
6.
CandaE. R. (2003). Heed your calling and follow it far: Suggestions for authors who write about spirituality or other innovations for social work.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84(1), 80–85.
7.
DuttonJ. E., & DukerichJ. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.
8.
GilbelmanM., & KraftS (1996). Advocacy as a core agency program: Planning considerations for voluntary human service agencies.Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 43–59.
9.
GioiaD. A., & ThomasJ.B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 370-403.
10.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.Chicago: Aldine.
11.
GlissonE., & HemmelgarnA (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children's service systems.Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401–421.
12.
GronbjergK. A., & NelsonS. (1998). Mapping small religious nonprofit organizations: An Illinois profile.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(1), 13–31.
13.
HodgeD.R. (2002). Equally devout, but do they speak the same language? Comparing the religious beliefs and practices of social workers and the general public. Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Human Services 83(5/6), 573-584.
14.
HollandT. P., & HesterD. C. (Eds.). (2000). Building effective boards for religious organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
HydeC. (2000). The hybrid nonprofit: An examination of feminist social movement organizations.Journal of Community Practice, 8(4), 45–67.
16.
KiernerC. A. (1998). Beyond the household: Women's place in the early south 1700-1835. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
17.
KlugerM. P., RiveraN. & Mormile-MehlerM. (2001). Defining and measuring program effectiveness at a mental health/social services agency.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(6), 549–553.
18.
KoroloffN. M. & BriggsH. E. (1996). The life cycle of family advocacy organizations.Administration in Social Work, 20(4), 23–42.
19.
MaguraS., & MosesB. S. (1986). Outcome measures for child welfare services.Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
20.
McCarthyK. D. (1982). Noblesse oblige: Charity & cultural philanthropy in Chicago 1849-1929.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
21.
McCarthyK. D. (Ed.) (1990). Lady bountiful revisited: Women, philanthropy, and power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
22.
McCarthyK. D. (2003). American creed: Philanthropy and the rise of civil society 1700-1865. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23.
MinkoffD. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401.
24.
MoxleyD. P., & ManelaR.W. (2001). Expanding the conceptual basis of outcomes and their use in the human services.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(4), 569–577.
25.
NortonM. B. (1980). Liberty's daughters: The Revolutionary experience of American women 1750-1800.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
O'ConnorM. K. (2002). Using qualitative research in practice evaluation. Social workers’ desk reference. (pp. 777-780). In: RobertsA. R. and GreeneG. J.. Social Work Desk Reference. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
PeaseJ. H., & PeaseW. H. (1990). Ladies, women & wenches: Choice & constraint in antebellum Charleston & Boston. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
28.
PecoraP. J., FraserM.W., NelsonK. E., McCroskeyJ., & MeesanW. (1995). Evaluating family-based services.NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
29.
ScheinE. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
SingletaryJ., RogersR., & YanceyG. (2005). The comparative analysis processes of grounded theory: An exploratory study of faith-based organizations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
31.
ScottA. F. (1993). Natural allies: Women's associations in American history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
StraussA., & CorbinJ (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
