The Development of a Concept Map for Understanding Spiritual Integration in Evangelically Based Social Service Organizations

Abstract

The role that spirituality and religion play in the delivery of social services in faith-based organizations is a relative unknown. Specifically, what remain missing are well-defined operational indicators that cover the continuum of spiritual integration. This article describes results from a study using concept mapping to create a conceptual model of spiritual integration for The Salvation Army in Chicago. Eleven brainstorming sessions were convened with counselors, case managers, program directors, pastors, secretarial staff, church parishioners, and other Salvation Army affiliates (N = 112), and a list of 117 spiritual integration indicators was generated. Using Concept Systems software, 15 of the original panelists sorted the 117 items and a total of 105 study participants rated them along the dimension of importance for the concept of spiritual integration. Using hierarchical cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling, a conceptual map with 9 clusters was produced. Clusters with the highest importance ratings were Living Your Faith, Treatment of Others, and Evangelism. This research presents a conceptualization of spiritual integration and identifies the constituent domains. Findings may help focus programmatic and research efforts, leading to the development of measures that open the field for further research and theory generation.

KEYWORDS:

• concept mapping
• spiritual integration
• faith-based organizations
• The Salvation Army

Faith-based organizations (FBOs) are generally predicated on a two-fold mission: the religion or church on one side, and social services on the other (S. Wright, personal communication, November 23, 2012).

William Booth, the founder of The Salvation Army, likened this relationship to that of Siamese twins; whereby ministry and service are conjoined and to kill one is to slay them both (Miller, December 2005–January 2006). While this mission twinship is what makes FBOs an attractive alternative for many, these organizations often struggle to successfully balance accountability to their religious heritage and the bureaucratic realities demanded of modern organizational structures (Vanderwoerd, 2004). These missions often become divided and at times have even been characterized as schizophrenic (as cited in Miller, December 2005–January 2006).

According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), faith organizations within the field of public social services are at risk of succumbing to powerful forces within the institution of social welfare that can drive missions apart. One of the most notable trends of the past 10 years includes increased funding relationships between government and religious organizations. Specifically, under the Charitable Choice provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, faith-based organizations were granted permission to compete for public funding on equal footing with secular providers, with the caveat that consumers do not pay for services that are exclusively religious in design (Cnaan & Boddie, 2008). Thus, faith organizations wishing to promote religious services who enter into contracts under Charitable Choice rules put themselves at potential risk for mission drift (Jones, 2007), whereby restrictive clauses can actually change the identity of the organization (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Vanderwoerd, 2004).

This study proposes another reason why spiritual and social missions have drifted apart in many FBOs; simply put, the role and character that faith plays in respect to service delivery, regardless of funding source, is not well understood (Ebaugh et al., 2003; Fischer, 2004). That is, many faith organizations struggle to bridge faith and social missions because they lack clearly defined and measurable indicators. In the absence of such indicators, FBOs may struggle to determine whether it is “… the ‘faith’ in ‘faith-based’ that mainly determines any observed differences” (Dilulio, 2000). Hatry, Van Houten, Plantz, and Greenway (1996) referred to this as the ability to demonstrate faith intensity, or the number, frequency, and strength of faith-based practices that are present in the delivery of social services. While prior research does demonstrate that FBOs are effective in achieving their stated target outcomes, they rarely are able to explicate why the programs are effective (Ferguson, Wu, Spruijt-Metz, & Dyrness, 2007).

Given how little is known about spiritual integration in FBOs and the general lack of well-developed indicators, The Salvation Army in the Chicagoland area (known as the Metropolitan Division) convened a study in an effort to learn more about how its’ members integrate spirituality into their specific roles in the organization. The final product reflects those individual indicators and their prioritization. Hence, this study sought to achieve three main objectives: (a) Identify the universe of spiritual integration indicators, (b) Use the indicators to create a visual map of the overall domain of spiritual integration, and (c) Identify the most critical spiritual integration elements.

For the purposes of this study, spiritual integration is defined as the extent to which spiritual aspects are applied to the helping or service delivery process (i.e., the number, frequency, and strength of spiritual indicators applied in the helping relationship).

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ebaugh, Chafetz, and Pipes (2006) agree that most conceptualizations of faith are predicated on the notion that religiosity in FBOs exists on a continuum from low to high faith intensity, but what remains missing are well-defined operational indicators of that continuum and their application to actual service delivery (Ferguson et al., 2007, Fischer, 2004, Johnson, 2002, Kennedy & Bielefeld, 2002, Ragan, 2004, Zanis & Cnaan, 2006). Such indicators could help to pinpoint where spirituality and social services intersect in FBOs and how they may relate.

While there continues to be a relative dearth of information available on indicators developed by FBOs, some researchers have attempted to develop approaches for judging the presence of faith in programs (Kennedy & Bielefeld, 2003; Monsma & Soper, 2003). Several researchers have identified two types of religious dimensions of social service programs: environmental (the creation of a religious environment apart from client interactions) and active (religious elements that involve direct communication of a religious message to clients; Ebaugh et al., 2006; Sider & Unruh, 2004). Overwhelmingly, the role of faith in the literature has been conceptualized by contextual or environmental factors as opposed to active ones (Fischer, 2004).

As early as 1998, Jeavons identified seven key areas in which faith emerges in organizations: self-identity, religious convictions of participants, the extent to which religion helps or hinders the acquisition of resources, the extent to which religion shapes goals, products and services, the impact of religion on decision making, religious authority and power of leadership, and the extent to which religion determines interorganizational relationships (Ebaugh et al, 2006). In a study conducted by Ebaugh et al., 2006, 21 items related to religious practices that fell within three distinct scales (service religiosity, staff religiosity, and organizational religiosity) were identified.

A full understanding of mission integration requires empirical investigation of individual and collective views of various stakeholders, or those with a strong interest in seeing that spirituality is effectively and responsibly integrated with social services. Ferguson et al. (2007) suggested that one way for eliciting input in defining key variables evident in faith-based services is through focus groups. To achieve this objective, a process known as concept mapping was used to help identify organizational practices with works and affiliates of The Salvation Army. In particular, this study made use of a concept mapping approach developed by a company called Concept Systems Inc. (CS) based out of Ithaca, New York. Concept mapping is a mixed methodology that has been used for multiple purposes, including program theory development, survey development, logic model development, and to better understand organizational culture (Ridings et al., 2008; Kelly, Baker, Brownson, & Schootman, 2007; Kolb & Shepherd, 1997; Rosas, 2005).

To be clear, concept mapping is a widely used mixed-methods approach that has been in practice for over 20 years. In their pooled analysis of CS articles, Rosas and Kane (2012) were able to locate 69 published CS articles written within the past 10 years alone. Most relevant to the current study, Kolb and Shepherd (1997) introduced concept mapping as an alternative approach to the study of organizational cultures. Additionally, Yampolskaya, Nesman, Hernandez, and Koch (2004) demonstrated how concept mapping could be used to develop a program logic model and articulate a program theory for program assessment. In a study by Rao, Alongi, Jenkins, Stokes, and Kane (2005), concept mapping was used to help state health departments’ strategic plan to address end-of-life issues in communities and develop priorities. All of these studies point to the importance and value of using a participatory approach like CS, which allows local intended users to drive organizational learning. By design, the CS process is a departure from prior community organizing approaches and is more of a structured conceptualization that involves distinct data collection phases—brainstorming, sorting, and rating. When data from these three phases are analyzed and triangulated, a conceptual framework is revealed that can be presented as a relational data map (Kane & Trochim, 2007). In essence, CS emphasizes shared decision making and participant empowerment (Kane & Trochim, 2007), which is what sets it apart from many of the other approaches. This article presents the results of the Salvation Army’s concept mapping study, which may serve as a replicable model that other FBOs may follow to identify and rank their own faith indicators. The final product reflects the individual indicators developed for the Salvation Army Metropolitan Division and their prioritization.

METHODS

Setting/Context

The Salvation Army is an international organization, headquartered in London, England. In the United States, the functions of The Salvation Army are coordinated under the direction of the National Commander, located in Alexandria, Virginia. The United States is divided into four territories (Central, East, South, and West), each territory coming under the leadership of a territorial commander. Each of the four Salvation Army territories functions as a tax-exempt corporation with the national commander as president. This study was set in the Central territory in the Chicagoland area (Fact Sheet: Salvation Army Organization and Structure, 2010).

Territories are made up of smaller units know as divisions. There are 40 divisions in the United States and each is headed by a divisional commander. Each division is made up of corps community centers. The functions of each corps include religious and social services that are adapted to meet local needs. Each corps falls under the supervision of a commanding Officer who is responsible for the administration of Army services under his or her command. Officers in The Salvation Army are individuals who are in essence a minister of the Christian faith, but who also fulfill many other roles not usually filled by clergy of other denominations (such as serving as program directors of large social service organizations). They do so having been trained and commissioned to serve and lead at one of The Salvation Army’s officer training colleges, and are given a quasimilitary rank (Lieutenant, Captain, etc.; The Salvation Army, 1987).

At the divisional level, the organizational structure is further divided into three general components: administrative, program, and social services. Administrative services operate out of Divisional Headquarters (DHQ), with responsibility for overseeing all divisional activities. Evangelical services are carried out in the “corps” or congregational centers. The main mission of these centers is to meet the spiritual and social needs of the geographic community in which they are located (Lewis, 2008). At the time of this study, there were 32 such corps centers in the Chicagoland area. The social services component consists of freestanding programs often situated in or near the corps community centers, as well as coordination of a category of services operating in several locations throughout the greater metropolitan area. This study was initiated and managed out of the Metropolitan Division’s DHQ (The Salvation Army Northern Division, 2013).

The Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives workgroup (Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, 2002) adapted a typology to better define and conceptualize FBOs, which include: faith-saturated; faith-centered; faith-background; faith-related; faith-secular partnership; and secular (from very strong commitment to spiritual mission to lack-there-of). The Salvation Army best fits the description of a faith-centered organization, whereby the organization was founded for a religious purpose and the governing board and almost all staff are expected to share the organization’s faith commitments. “Faith-centered programs include explicit religious messages but are designed so that participants can readily opt out of these activities and still expect positive outcomes” (p. 32). Thus, some members employed by The Salvation Army may not share its religious beliefs (Hazzard, 1998). According to Hazzard, “The Army straddles the divide between evangelical conservative and mainline churches” (1998, p. 128).

Study Preparation/Sample Selection

A nonrandom quota sampling approach was used to select participants from relevant population subgroups, which allowed for comparison across subgroups (Monette, Sullivan, & DeJong, 2008). Targeted enrollment for this study was set at 150 participants, divided by three major participant groups: ministry leadership (called officers), SA staff (social workers, counselors, etc.), and SA affiliates (volunteers, etc.). All study participants were asked if they were a soldier. A soldier in The Salvation Army is a person who is at least 14 years of age and has been enrolled as a member in a Salvation Army church (called a corps). Thus, The Salvation Army provides a church for anybody who wishes to attend, however, it does not impose church membership or solider status on its staff, volunteers, and clients. The decision to attend a corps is completely voluntary.

Subgroup Descriptions

Steering Committee

From the total sample (N = 179), 15 participants (six officers and nine staff) were invited to serve on a steering committee to oversee all details of the CS process. Regardless of church affiliation, this researcher determined that all members were qualified to provide information that would help him answer the research questions. Final decisions for committee selection were made on a first-come–first-served basis. The members were asked to participate in all phases of the CS process during two work retreats at Camp Wonderland in Camp Lake, Wisconsin and help recruit participants into the study.

The steering committee conducted a stakeholder analysis to identify relevant groups possessing the most potential to influence or be influenced by the project (Bryson, 2004). In a stakeholder analysis, project-planning members brainstorm a list of possible stakeholders and then rate them based on their interest in and level of influence on the project (Bryson, 2004). The analysis showed that while officers hold high levels of influence (they ultimately enforce divisional policies and help formulate budgets), they also may have low levels of availability due to competing work responsibilities and time constraints. Similarly, the analysis showed that front desk workers, volunteers, and soldiers, while possessing lower levels of influence, may potentially be very interested and available to participate in the study. Using this information, lists of groups and individuals were compiled and used to set up a strategy for recruitment.

Description of Officer Sample

A total of 50 officers participated in the study (see Table 1). Thirty were male and 20 were female. Twenty two self-identified as White and non-Hispanic, six were African American and two were some other race (20 were missing). Six officers identify their ethnicity as Hispanic. Seventy-three officers were age 40 or older. Twenty-one officers worked in Chicago and 19 worked in a neighboring area (10 missing). Their average number of years associated with the Salvation Army was 31.

TABLE 1 Sample Description

Variable	All (N = 172)	Officers (N = 50)	Staff (N = 95)	Associated with SA (N = 27)
Gender
Male	46% (n = 79)	60% (n = 30)	39% (n = 37)	44% (n = 12)
Female	53% (n = 91)	40% (n = 20)	60% (n = 57)	52% (n = 14)
Missing	1% (n = 2)	—	1% (n = 1)	4% (n = 1)
Race
White	44% (n = 75)	44% (n = 22)	38% (n = 36)	39% (n = 9)
African American	30% (n = 48)	12% (n = 6)	40% (n = 38)	17% (n = 4)
Other	1% (n = 5)	4% (n = 2)	22% (n = 21)	44% (n = 14)
Missing	25% (n = 44)	40% (n = 20)	—	—
Ethnicity
Hispanic	10% (n = 18)	20% (n = 6)	4% (n = 4)	29% (n = 8)
Non-Hispanic	62% (n = 106)	80% (n = 44)	76% (n = 72)	71% (n = 19)
Missing	28% (n = 48)	—	20% (n = 19)	—
Age
18–29	9% (n = 14)	4% (n = 1)	8% (n = 8)	19% (n = 5)
30–39	15% (n = 26)	8% (n = 4)	20% (n = 19)	11% (n = 3)
40–49	18% (n = 31)	26% (n = 13)	18% (n = 17)	2% (n = 1)
50–59	27% (n = 46)	34% (n = 17)	25% (n = 24)	19% (n = 5)
60 and older	14% (n = 25)	12% (n = 6)	15% (n = 14)	19% (n = 5)
Missing	17% (n = 30)	16% (n = 8)	14% (n = 13)	30% (n = 8)
Role Status
Officer	29% (n = 50)	100% (n = 50)	—	—
Staff	55% (n = 95)	—	100% (n = 95)	—
Volunteer	8% (n = 13)	—	—	48% (n = 13)
Other	8% (n = 14)	—	—	52% (n = 14)
Missing	—	—	—	—
Soldier Status
Yes	48% (n = 82)	—	26% (n = 25)	59% (n = 16)
No	38% (n = 66)	—	61% (n = 58)	26% (n = 7)
Missing	14% (n = 24)	—	13% (n = 12)	15% (n = 4)
Primary Location
Chicago	55% (n = 95)	42% (n = 21)	74% (n = 70)	19% (n = 10)
Suburbs	29% (n = 50)	38% (n = 19)	16% (n = 15)	81% (n = 17)
Missing	16% (n = 27)	20% (n = 10)	10% (n = 10)	—
Average Number of Years Associated with SA	18 (SD 16)	31 (SD 16)	14 (SD 13)	14 (SD 17)

Note. SA = Salvation Army.

Description of Staff Sample

A total of 95 staff participated in the study (see Table 1). Fifty-three percent were female and 46% were male (1% missing data). Almost half self-identified as White and half identified as African American. At least 10% identified their ethnicity as Hispanic (62% non-Hispanic and 28% missing). At least 59% were age 40 or older (the remaining 41% were under age 40 or missing). Fifty-five percent worked in Chicago and 29% rest worked in a neighboring area (16% missing). Their average number of years associated with the Salvation Army was 14. Additionally, 55% of this subgroup identified as a solider in The Salvation Army.

Description of Associated with Salvation Army Sample

A total of 27 affiliates with the Salvation Army participated in the study (13 volunteers and 14 others). Participants who fit into the category of other were church members, board members, and other SA affiliates. Twelve were female and 14 were male (one missing). For race, nine self-identified as White four African American and 14 other. Eight of these SA affiliates identified their ethnicity as Hispanic. Nineteen were age 40 or older. Seventeen operated out of the Chicago suburbs and the rest were from Chicago. Their average number of years associated with the Salvation Army was 14. Additionally, at least 16 members of this subgroup identified as a soldier (seven nonsoldier and four missing).

Procedures

According to HHS/OASH, survey and interview procedures with nonincarcerated adults is exempt under 45 CFR 46.101(b)(2) so long as the information obtained is not both sensitive and identifiable. As such, a review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approval and informed consent of subjects were not required for this study. The risk related to privacy and confidentiality was eliminated by not collecting identifiable information from participants. Additionally, no sensitive questions were asked by the researcher. While a formal IRB was not required, ethical guidelines outlined by Doyle (2011) were followed throughout the study.

The respondents were informed about the purpose of the study before consenting to participate. To ensure that the respondents would not face any possible adverse consequences should they choose to participate in the research, no identifying information like names or social security numbers were recorded that could have linked study participants to individual responses or completed surveys. Although no sensitive or potentially emotionally challenging questions were asked, the respondents were still informed prior to engaging in this study that they could choose not to answer any question and could choose to leave the focus group or stop the survey at any time. To some extent, this explains why some of the demographic questions were not answered by participants. No promises were made to the respondents about the organizational improvements that could result from the data collected beyond what was possible. The respondents were not compensated for their participation, but the focus groups were conducted at locations convenient for the respondents (such as at work retreats, work offices, and conferences). Respondents were informed that their individual responses would not be made available to their direct supervisors or coworkers, and would not be distinguishable in the final analysis. No visitors were allowed during the focus groups and no images were taken during the process. All paper-based forms collected during this study were kept in a locked storage bin in the researcher’s office. The electronic data was kept on a password protected computer and CS software only known to the researcher. Consistent with the CS method, participants completed one or more of three data-collection phases (item generation, sorting, and rating). Each phase is discussed in detail below.

Item Generation

Sixty-five percent of the total sample participated in one of 11 brainstorming sessions (N = 112; 21 officers, 65 staff, 11 volunteers, and 12 other Army affiliates). During these sessions, response statements were recorded concurrently on a laptop computer and projected on a screen so participants could see that their statements were being properly recorded. The following focus prompt was developed by the steering committee during the first work retreat to guide the generation of responses: “Please describe a short sentence or statement that describes how you can integrate spirituality into your area of work. …” Prior to each session, it was also determined that The Salvation Army mission statement would also be presented, which reads:

The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. (The Salvation Army, 1993)

The 11 brainstorming sessions generated 472 statements. These statements were then stratified by keywords. After eliminating duplicates and statements beyond the scope of the focus prompt and consolidating similar statements, a final list of 117 unique statements was compiled (see Table 2). This was just under the recommended cut-off limit of 125 items (Rosas & Kane, 2011). These 117 statements then were entered into the CS Core software so sorting and map interpretation exercises could be completed.

TABLE 2 Items by Cluster With Average Importance Ratings

Item #	Items by Cluster	Average Importance Rating
Cluster 1: Treatment of Others		4.21
3	Help others maintain their dignity when they come to us in duress	4.69
101	Treat others no less as you would like to be treated	4.66
51	Help clients develop a sense of hope	4.56
82	Respect clients regardless of where they are coming from	4.55
68	Project a nonjudgmental attitude when working with others	4.51
28	Create a warm and safe environment for others	4.46
16	Avoid labeling when working with others	4.40
18	Build trust with others	4.38
117	Value clients and what they bring to the table	4.34
85	Respect religious and cultural differences when providing services	4.31
45	Follow up with the client	4.29
77	Provide unconditional positive regard toward clients	4.28
100	Treat newcomers like guests	4.27
84	Respect people’s faith roots	4.25
12	Approach each person individually	4.22
88	Smile and shake people’s hand when you greet them	4.22
46	Foster a sense of hospitality	4.19
50	Help client’s meet their basic needs when they first present to us	4.15
94	Tell clients that you care about them	4.15
73	Provide help when you encounter individuals and families in need	4.15
91	Stop to talk to people	4.02
24	Communicate verbally and nonverbally to the client that we believe their presence in our organization is purpose driven	3.92
1	Ask the client if they would like a pastoral visit	3.92
80	Remember the names of the people you meet	3.88
60	Practice mutuality in your relationship with others	3.80
58	Participate in fellowship with clients	3.41
Cluster 2: Providing Support		4.04
103	Use active listening with others	4.46
11	Apply a holistic approach when working with clients	4.39
93	Take time to get to know others	4.36
112	Use pastoral support staff to greet clients when they first enroll in a program	3.91
76	Provide transportation for program participants to the corps or other churches	3.21
Cluster 3: Christian Ethics & Respect		3.76
53	Inspire clients’ faith through your actions	4.50
2	Avoid forcing faith on clients	4.20
55	Make pastoral care available to clients	4.13
9	Allow ourselves to understand and feel the suffering of our clients	4.04
95	Tell clients they don’t have to pray or go to church to receive our help	3.93
107	Use discretion when introducing your faith to clients	3.92
23	Communicate verbally and nonverbally to the client that our motivation to provide help is faith driven	3.89
54	Link clients to networks of Christian support	3.78
6	Act as if you may be the only person that a person interacts with from our organization	3.60
14	Attend corps services with the clients you invite	3.51
47	Framing for clients how we would envision them growing in faith	2.84
13	Ask clients about their religious background	2.60
Cluster 4: Initial Spiritual Growth		3.87
64	Pray for situations in the communities we serve	4.51
49	Grow through personal prayer and Bible study	4.38
7	Adopt a personal intentional focus on spiritual growth	4.31
29	Create opportunities for staff to explore personal spiritual growth	4.18
61	Pray at staff and volunteer meetings	4.12
34	Discuss religious beliefs and interests with coworkers	3.26
111	Use music to communicate the gospel with others	3.06
35	Distribute religious materials to others	3.05
Cluster 5: Living Your Faith		4.40
63	Pray for others	4.56
57	Model fruits of the spirit for others (love, joy, peace, kindness, faithfulness, patience, goodness, and self-control)	4.74
30	Demonstrate faith through actions	4.69
31	Demonstrate God’s love to others	4.66
8	Allow God to work through us to affect others	4.62
32	Demonstrate God’s patience to others	4.62
15	Attend to your own personal spiritual growth in order to be more helpful to others	4.60
17	Be ready to pray with clients if they request it	4.41
109	Use language that models Christianity	4.27
65	Pray with others	4.25
10	Allow yourself to be strengthened by others	4.22
86	Set up rooms for individual prayer for clients coming in for services	3.27
Cluster 6: Evangelism		4.10
96	Testify/evangelize to others about the impact God has had in our lives	3.93
66	Preach the Gospel to others	3.82
72	Provide Biblical teachings to others	3.81
114	Use relationships to communicate the Gospel to others	4.26
87	Share your faith with others	4.09
106	Use Christian values to instruct clients	4.16
69	Project yourself as an ambassador of Christ	4.13
79	Reflect the beauty of Jesus in the way you live your life	4.56
104	Use Bible verses to encourage others	3.85
27	Connect clients to congregations	3.80
105	Use Biblical principles to guide decisions	4.34
62	Pray during program activities	3.86
56	Mentor and support others in the development of their faith	4.15
25	Conduct prayer and/or devotions before and after program activities	3.65
71	Promote God’s love in the community you serve	4.53
Cluster 7: Training & Development		4.04
92	Support the development of and access to a full range of effective services	4.06
99	Train staff to be missionally aligned in their activities	4.27
36	Educate leadership and staff on how programs are linked to each other	4.08
98	Train staff to be intentional in the services they provide to clients	4.24
40	Encourage corps leadership to familiarize/participate in program activities	4.28
4	Understand what other staff and programs do	4.13
26	Conduct teambuilding in order to be more effective in mission delivery	4.12
67	Prioritize grants and donors who do not place restrictions on faith practices	3.66
41	Encourage those in program leadership positions to attend corps services	3.58
42	Engage in collaborate efforts	4.08
38	Educate yourself about the people and resources that exist in the community your serve	4.26
52	Increase involvement in the community you serve	4.07
Cluster 8: Linkages & Collaboration		4.03
75	Provide information about local congregations	3.49
113	Use prompts, telephone reminders, and written reminders to help clients increase attendance	3.31
102	Understand how family structures effect individuals	4.12
108	Use interministry protocols so that services are provided in an “intentional,” appropriate, and relevant manner	3.91
115	Use service opportunities to inform clients about programs in the corps	4.01
33	Develop mechanisms for sharing and using evidence and best practices	3.98
74	Provide information about corps activities	4.05
90	Stay adequately trained and prepared to do your job	4.54
70	Promote evaluation in the planning and development of services	4.06
81	Remind each other of what our mission is	4.31
43	Enlarge the circle of people and organizations that understand our ministry and are committed to helping others	4.20
83	Respect coworkers regardless of their position or where they come from	4.54
Cluster 9: Communication & Education		3.58
110	Use monitors to communicate worship services and gospel messages	3.05
116	Use social media to communicate faith to others	3.27
20	Communicate our mission to others through visuals like posters and videos	3.46
22	Communicate positive messages about working for The Salvation Army with others	3.99
97	Train staff on Salvation Army history and terminology	3.74
21	Communicate our Salvation Army mission and goals to others	4.15
39	Emphasize that The Salvation Army is a Christian organization in client materials	4.07
37	Educate others on Salvationist’s terminology and history	3.21
5	Wear clothing and other items that create opportunities to garner questions about us	2.95
44	Extend training to our community partners so they can learn about us	3.60
59	Place items of Christian identification in public spaces of Salvation Army property	3.59
78	Publicize our services to community members	3.91
89	Staff attend retreats and weekly devotional services	3.48
48	Give preference to job candidates who align missionally	3.58
19	Choose good role models and study them with care	3.96

Sorting

After item generation, steering committee members completed the sorting phase. Unlike other phases of data collection, the sorting phase generally only uses the steering committee members because the activity requires a higher level of time and commitment. In this study, a total of 15 steering committee members completed the sorting exercise (5 officers, 9 staff, and 1 volunteer). During this phase of data collection, each statement from the brainstorming sessions were translated printed on a 3 × 5 card. Participants are asked to group the cards into piles based on the similarity of the cards; the piles were later aggregated into a common sort or final grouping of clusters. Participants are given permission to add a new category, name an unnamed category, rename an existing category, or delete a category. The final way in which each participant categorized the cards was recorded and entered into the CS software for analysis.

Rating

Next, in an effort to expand the number of participants that would allow for comparative analysis between subgroups, a predominantly new group of Army workers and affiliates were asked to rate each of the 117 statements generated in the brainstorming phase (Trochim, 1989). A rating sheet was developed in Survey Monkey and distributed to all Salvation Army members in the Metropolitan Division via e-mail. Participants were asked to rate each statement on a scale from 1 (relatively unimportant) to 5 (extremely important), in relation to their comparative importance to the other items. Originally, 105 participants (41 Officers, 55 staff, and 9 others) completed the rating exercise (58% of sample). The other group was comprised of adherents and other Salvation Army affiliates (such as volunteers and board members). However, 20 rating sheets were excluded from the final analysis because of missing data (cases where at least 30% of items had not been rated), multiple responses (cases where at least 30% of items had more than one response category indicated), or extreme response patterns (cases where the majority of items had been given the same rating response), or ambiguous responses (such as drawing in decimal anchors and not writing legibly). Therefore, 85 rating sheets were used in the final CS analysis. During this phase we also asked participants if they had participated in the brainstorming phase of the study and only 31% indicated that they had (no attempt was made to match brainstorming and rating data together using direct or indirect qualifiers).

Map Analysis

The concept mapping analysis was conducted using the CS Global software program (Ithaca, NY). CS Global software performs two major analyses to formulate a cluster map: (a) a visual representation of multidimensional scaling (MDS) and (b) hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of the data. First, the MDS displays each statement developed in the focus groups as a separate point on the concept map. The distance between the points is meaningful: the closer two points are on the map the more frequently those two ideas were grouped or sorted together by the steering committee members. Therefore, points that are closer together are more similar on average in meaning, and points that are distant are more dissimilar (Concept Systems, Inc., 2002). Next, the HCA draws distinct lines between the points to and from clusters of similar statements based on how the participants sorted the items. The cluster map “displays the labeled results of the cluster analysis and provides a ‘big picture’ overview of the domain of ideas” (Kane & Trochim, 2007, p. 17).

Within a cluster map, the placement of clusters does not reflect any hierarchical order or priority. Instead, placement represents the relationship of ideas to one another. Clusters in the middle of the map may contain ideas that are linked to multiple regions on the map. Some clusters that are otherwise conceptually clear may appear near the boundaries of the map, because many participants matched the items together and did not put them with other items on the map. This results in the cluster being pushed away from the rest of the clusters and toward the edges of the map. A larger cluster that encompasses more space on the map often represents a domain that is quite broad or that bridges two related ideas on the map (Concept Systems, Inc., 2006).

Although the size of the cluster is not important, the thickness of the cluster indicates the relative importance of the cluster as rated by participants. As Figure 1 illustrates, each cluster is displayed as a series of layers to represent the average rating for the items within that cluster (Concept Systems, Inc., 2006). Thus, clusters displaying more layers were rated higher in importance by the participants on average.

FIGURE 1 Nine-cluster concept map of spiritual integration with items numbers and latent dimensions.

The end product was a “cluster map” that revealed how the items, as represented by numbered points, were grouped. The final number of clusters is achieved by looking at multiple map configurations (e.g., a map with 10 clusters, a map with 11 clusters, etc.) and then selecting the map that reflects parsimony among the clusters without obscuring the distinction between clusters (Kane & Trochim, 2007). The procedure used in this study was to begin with a 12-cluster solution and successively increase and decrease the solutions by one. The higher and lower solutions were examined and a decision was made for each configuration by the steering committee as to whether the separation or merger of clusters appeared to adequately represent the data as stated, organized, and prioritized by participants. From a review of the different configurations, a nine-cluster solution was determined to be the best in preserving the most detail while offering the most substantive interpretation (Haque & Rosas, 2010).

Concept Mapping Interpretive Session

Ten steering committee members attended the second work retreat to review the proposed cluster labels and offer any preliminary interpretive comments. A guided tour of the map was provided using a laptop computer and projector, describing how the analyses constructed the map as well as the meaning of the proximal location of the points representing the statements. Following the review of the map, a group discussion was held with participants working cluster by cluster to recommend acceptable labels that captured the content of each cluster. Agreement of the labels among the participants was achieved. Participants were invited to discuss their interpretations and suggest how the map might be used in strategic planning.

RESULTS

The MDS analysis of the similarity matrix converged after 10 iterations, producing a final stress value of 0.28, which was found to be average across concept mapping studies managed by CS (Rosas & Kane, 2011). The stress score is a goodness-of-fit measure that is produced from the sorting information (Jackson & Trochim, 2002). A lower stress score value indicates a better fit and reflects a stronger relationship between the optimal and actual configurations (Kruskal & Wish, 1978).

The steering committee grouped 117 items into nine major clusters (in no particular order): (a) Initial Spiritual Growth, (b) Evangelism, (c) Living Your Faith, (d) Christian Ethics & Respect, (e) Treatment of Others, (f) Providing Support, (g) Linkages & Collaboration, (h) Training & Development, and (i) Communication & Education (Figure 1.). Each cluster is discussed in detail as follows. Table 2 shows the full list of indicators within each cluster, in descending order of average importance for each indicator.

Living Your Faith

The Living Your Faith cluster includes 12 indicators with average importance ratings ranging from 4.71 (“Model fruits of the spirit” [Item #57]) to 3.32 (“Set up rooms for individual prayer for others coming in for services” [Item #86]). This cluster had five layers and an overall importance rating of 4.40 (the most important of the nine clusters).

Treatment of Others

The Treatment of Others cluster included 26 indictors with average importance ratings ranging from 4.71 (“Help others maintain their dignity when they come to us in duress” [Item #3]) to 3.41 (“Participate in fellowship with others” [Item #58]). This cluster had five layers and an overall cluster importance rating of 4.21 (the second most important of the nine clusters).

Providing Support

The Providing Support cluster included only five indicators with average importance ratings ranging from 4.46 (Use active listening with others” [Item #103]) to 3.21 (“Provide transportation for program participants to the corps or other churches” [Item #76]). This cluster had three layers and an overall importance rating of 4.04.

Evangelism

The Evangelism cluster included 16 indicators with average importance ratings ranging from 4.56 (“Reflect the beauty of Jesus in the way you lead your life” [Item #79]) to 3.64 (“Conduct prayer and/or devotions before and after program activities” [Item #25]). This cluster had three layers and an overall importance rating of 4.10, which was the third most important cluster.

Training & Development

The Training & Development cluster included 12 indicators with average importance ratings ranging from 4.26 (“Encourage ministry leadership to familiarize/participate in program activities” [Item #40]) to 3.60 (“Encourage those in program leadership positions to attend ministry services” [Item #41]). This cluster had three layers and an overall importance rating of 4.04.

Christian Ethics & Respect

The Client Autonomy & Respect cluster included 12 indicators with average importance ratings ranging from 4.50 (“Inspire others’ faith through your actions” [Item #53]) to 2.56 (“Ask clients about their religious background” [Item #13]). This cluster only had one layer and an overall importance rating of 3.76.

Linkages & Collaboration

The Linkages & Collaboration cluster included 12 indicators with average ratings ranging from 4.52 (“Stay adequately trained and prepared to do your job” [Item #90]) to 3.26 (“Use prompts, telephone reminders, and written reminders to help others increase attendance” [Item #113]). This cluster had three layers and an overall importance rating of 4.03.

Initial Spiritual Growth

The Initial Spiritual Growth cluster included eight indicators with average rating values ranging from 4.47 (“Pray for situations in the communities we serve” [Item #64]) to 3.08 (“Use music to communicate the gospel to others” [Item #111]). This cluster had two layers and an overall importance rating value of 3.87.

Communication & Education

The Communication & Education cluster included 15 indicators with bridging values ranging from 4.12 (“Communicate our mission and goals to others” [Item #21]) to 2.96 (“Wear clothing and other items that create opportunities to garner questions about us” [Item #5]). This cluster had only had one layer and an overall rating value of 3.58 (the lowest among the nine clusters).

Latent Dimensions

Latent dimensions are logical cluster groups that emerge inductively, and are identified by examining gaps or white spaces in the map (Kruskal & Wish, 1978). These dimensions can enhance the overall interpretability of the concept map. When the concept map is partitioned into 2 vertical sections, items focused on administration or Service Preparation are on the left side and items focused on Service Delivery aspects are on the right side. Furthermore, when the map is partitioned into two horizontal sections, Faith is on the top half and Caring for Others is on the bottom. The linkages & collaboration cluster is the largest cluster on the map, indicating that the cluster is less more broad and may serve as a bridge between training & development and providing support. In contrast, providing support occupied the smallest space, signifying the most conceptually coherent set of items. Item 75 (“Provide information about local congregations”) is the centermost point on the map, indicating that the item had a centralized relationship to all other items on the map.

DISCUSSION

This discussion summarizes the key findings of the concept mapping analysis, addresses how each cluster fits within the larger construct of spiritual integration, and illustrates how the information may be used to more fully understand and analyze the intersection of faith with caring for others. The findings are significant for understanding spiritual integration because the content of the clusters represents the collective thinking of a broad cross section of individuals directly affiliated with a large FBO.

Service Preparation

As mentioned, the map was able to tease out Service Preparation indicators (left region of the map) from those more related to Service Delivery (right region of the map). The clusters in this left region include Communication & Education, Training & Development, Initial Spiritual Growth, and part of Linkages & Collaboration.

While the Education & Communication cluster was rated as one of the least important in relation to overall spiritual integration, this concept still has value in the overall model. The items in this cluster describe how to create a context for which all faith service delivery takes place; a welcoming context where work with clients can transpire seamlessly (e.g., the client does not get mismatched messages from what they see from what they hear). However, the magazine article suggests that context should be not used in place of direct faith work with clients because doing so is predicated on the notion that spirituality and religion can be promoted indirectly (Bukiewicz, 2012). The concept map supports this notion given that the final placement of the Education & Communication cluster rests in the Service Preparation region and not in service delivery.

The Initial Spiritual Growth cluster was also relatively low in importance, but also has value in the overall model. In the absence of Initial Spiritual Growth, Army workers may be underprepared to evangelize, live their faith, and practice Christian ethics and respect clients. People may have already experienced initial spiritual growth before they become an FBO employee (i.e., missionally aligned), or they may grow spiritually as they progress through their FBO career or both. Examples of such indicators can be viewed in the initial Spiritual Growth cluster in the cluster map. Collins (2005) called this self-care, or an individual’s ability to balance personal, professional, emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual components in order to live in a balanced, energized manner that assist one in coping with day-to-day stressors. Dane (2002) suggested this might include, “taking an afternoon to sit, find a place that encourages contemplation … learning to mediate, pray …” (p. 14). Regardless of how spiritual growth happens, the hospitality or ministry of presence paradigm should be given consideration as the minimum expectation for service delivery in faith-based settings. One may deduce from the model that if an FBO fails to promote spiritual growth amongst its employees that its workforce may not recognize spiritual issues at all in the clients they encounter and work with.

The Training & Development cluster was rated higher in importance and includes items that prepare workers to perform practices that are faith based and also those that resemble standard helping practices (such as are commonly used in the field of Social Work or Counseling). There are clear subconcepts in this cluster; including team-building, coordination and communication. This cluster was positioned in the bottom half of the map, meaning that it may be more weighted toward caring for others than for faith. Additionally, there are aspects in this cluster that read as both service preparation (communication that helps workers be more effective) and service delivery (linkages done for the benefit of clients), which is why it is divided.

Service Delivery

The clusters in the Service Delivery region include a mix of items that come from both Faith clusters (Evangelism, Living your Faith, and Christian Ethics & Respect) and Caring for Others clusters (Treatment of Others, Providing Support, and part of Linkages and Collaboration).

The Living Your Faith cluster includes items that seem to communicate a message about how God works through Army workers to help others, for example: “Use language that models Christianity” (Item #109), “Demonstrate God’s love to others” (Item #31), and “Model fruits of the spirit” (Item #57). Likewise, the Treatment of Others cluster includes items that reflect best standard clinical practices, such as: “Respect clients regardless of where they are coming from” (Item #82), “Project a non-judgmental attitude when working with others” (Item #68), and “Avoid labeling when working with clients” (Item #16).

The map shows that the Christian Ethics & Respect cluster, while very low in overall importance, may serve as a bridging cluster between the Living Your Faith and Treatment of Others clusters with respect to overall service delivery. This cluster includes practices such as: “Avoid forcing faith on clients” (Item #2), “Tell clients they don’t have to pray or go to church to receive our help” (Item #95), and “Use discretion when introducing your faith to clients” (Item #107). Valuing client autonomy conveys important messages concerning his or her worth and dignity (Hodge, 2000) and may be more associated with effective outcomes (Cornett, 1992; Hodge, 2000; Richards & Bergin, 1997). What is quite interesting about the indicators in the Living Your Faith and Treatment of Others clusters is that they are by and large indirect and lower in importance. By comparison, the Evangelism and Providing Support clusters are more direct and carry greater levels of importance.

This section of the map (Living Your Faith, Christian Ethics & Respect, and Treatment of Others) emulates the legacy of William Booth’s eschatological ethic as a holistic approach to mission (Miller, December 2005–January 2006). Scholarship has characterized this paradigm and practice as a hospitable way to approach Christian social ethics (Pohl, 1999). Miller (December 2005–January 2006) suggested that hospitality can serve as a preferable paradigm for social ministries within The Salvation Army because it does not bifurcate spiritual and social ministries. Additionally, this type of approach has been referred to as a “ministry of service” model that both uplifts the client to facilitate personal change and provides interventions that alter negative social circumstances (Winship, 2001).

The strength of this model is that it includes several practices that can be implemented by workers regardless of restrictive clauses or a client’s spiritual or religious preferences. Some of these practices include: treating newcomers like guests (Item #100), practicing mutuality in the helping relationship (Item #60), valuing clients and what they bring to the table (Item #117), helping clients maintain their dignity when they come to the Army in distress (Item #3), and telling a client that the Army cares about them (Item #94).

Limitations and Strengths

This study makes a contribution on three levels. First, it provides a successful example of a structured methodology that organizations similar to the Salvation Army can use for engaging community members in the process of organizational learning and strategic planning. Second, it provides a visual representation of convergent and divergent stakeholder interests to facilitate a better understanding of the integration of spiritual and social service missions in a large FBO. Lastly, this study provides a bank of indicators that could be used by the Salvation Army to help them explain their outcomes.

As is the case for most concept mapping studies, the specific results of the study have limited generalizability; even to other like organizations. Participation was limited to Salvation Army members and affiliates with a stake in the Metropolitan Division only (basically the Chicagoland area), so it is very possible that the results would have evolved differently with input from Salvation Army personnel from other divisions or territories, or from FBOs with a completely different faith orientation (i.e., Catholic Charities, Council for Jewish Elderly, etc.).

Table 1 reveals a noticeable amount of missing responses (15%–16%) in areas such as role and location. No attempts were made to clean this data because no names or other identifying information were included on the survey. This presents a permanent limitation to the study, but one that does not seem to impact the quality of the overall concept map.

CONCLUSION

Many professionals have actively disparaged FBOs because they assume that secular programs of social care get supplemented or supplanted for religion (Thyer, 2006). To some extent, this cause for concern is justified given that what makes an organization “religious” or “faith-based” is generally not well researched or shared with the general public (Ebaugh et al., 2006). This study does demystify the inner workings of one large Evangelically based FBO (The Salvation Army in the Chicagoland area) to some extent. The map shows that modeling Christian beliefs and practices and building relationships may be their preferred and optimal service delivery approach. Furthermore, the map shows that the overall model is not role specific and can be implemented at varying levels across workers. This is a critical finding given the top-down organizational structure of the Salvation Army.

The goal of the study was to identify faith-based indicators that could help The Salvation Army better understand, articulate, and measure how they integrate spirituality across their social service provision. The results of this effort includes a graphical map that can guide strategic planning for the organization for many years to come. Arguably, the results from this study could be used by other Salvation Army Divisions and Territories. Further research could determine if similar faith indicators are present in FBOs comparable in mission or faith orientation to the Salvation Army. Similar to Rosas’ study on family support benefits, the map showed that intervention strategies do not operate independently, but are organized in a multiple domain framework (2005). While the study revealed that participants felt that many program practices are interrelated, the direction of these relationships can only be speculated on until more research is conducted.

In the future, the map and items could be used to develop a standardized faith-intensity assessment measurement tool or guide in the identification of outcomes. This instrument could have the potential for use in both practice and research settings.

ORCID

John Ridings

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2463-1336