A matter of faith: Goal congruence, accountability, and organizational capacity in the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in Arkansas

Arkansas's faith-based organizations (FBOs) face a number of challenges should they decide to form collaborative partnerships with public agencies, a path increasingly common in association with Charitable Choice and the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. If faith-based organizations are more "mission" driven because of their religious nature, as the literature suggests, one might expect that the stated mission and goals of these organizations are critical in determining how such organizations coordinate, direct, and support the services they provide. One might also expect organizations to hold onto these goals and be reluctant to risk them or allow them to be manipulated.;Partnerships between government agencies and faith-based organizations (FBOs) raise a number of important questions about how such organizations can adapt their missions and goals to those acceptable for government funding. There are also a number of concerns about accountability and how it can be applied in organizations that are generally unused to overt, or any, government oversight. The ability of FBOs to develop and incorporate new standards of accountability or service performance suggests that such organizations may need to substantially change their missions and goals in order to qualify for or maintain government funding.;This research examined three fundamental concepts that are essential in helping to determine the potential success or failure of church-state collaborations in Arkansas: goal congruence, organizational capacity, and accountability. Goal congruence is essential as it assists in concluding the degree to which the formal goals of the Faith-Based Initiative are reflected in the operational or day-to-day goals of the organization. Organizational capacity determines the extent to which an organizational goal can realistically be achieved and helps to develop the processes necessary to implement a program or service that aligns organizational and partnership goals. Accountably is a necessary component of goal congruence and organizational capacity as it represents the official checks by the government and the organization itself, as well as the unofficial checks, such as adhering to professional or behavioral codes of conduct and reveals the extent to which the nonprofit partner is implementing the goals of the partnership.;This study surveyed 34 FBOs that were currently or had recently been involved in a partnership with a public agency in the state of Arkansas. Seven follow-up interviews were conducted administrators of these organizations to help explain some of the findings of the survey and this was in tandem with interviews with several state officials. The findings suggest that many FBOs participating in the survey appear to be at substantial risk of goal incongruities and mission displacement. This is evidenced by, among other factors, the simultaneous resistance to change goals and missions while also being open to expanding programs and developing new programs to compete for additional public funding. Evidence of organizational capacity, the ability to make policy, develop programs, attract, absorb, and manage resources, assess their performance, and anticipate change appeared to be was limited, and raises serious questions about the full implementation of faith-based public policy initiatives.;President Bush's initiative to invite FBOs to serve as proxies for government welfare efforts may very well flounder because of the lack of attention to the capacities of such organizations to effectively deliver social services and be able to reliably administer such programs over the long term. These challenges are further accentuated for the smallest of these organizations should they express willingness to participate. There also remain valid questions about the presence of effective program/service accountability and reporting. The literature is very clear that as organizations enter into partnerships they are pulled in multiple directions. This, and other studies, raises doubts about the suitability of traditional accountability mechanisms. In conclusion, the allocation of more funding, while helpful to many organizations will be unlikely to solve fundamental capacity issues. A substantial increase in management and evaluative capacity is needed before fruitful collaborations between church and state can be taken as more than a matter of faith.