Created in the image of God? Progressive social services and faith-based organizations

ABSTRACT

There are concerns that religion in state-funded social services for people experiencing poverty can lead to discrimination, proselytizing, and moralism. The welfare state ideals of universalism and comprehensiveness sought to overcome limitations of social services provided by faith-based organizations. Against the backdrop of the secular welfare state theories—albeit often unrealized—and concerns that faith in social services leads to exclusion, this article demonstrates how evangelical faith can drive progressive social services. Drawing on ethnographic research in Australia, the article illustrates how commitment to the doctrine that all people are created in the image of God shapes a model of social service where faith is explicitly positioned to disrupt distinctions between the moral and the immoral. Our analysis demonstrates how faith is used to challenge the assumption that people’s behaviors reflect their values, aspirations, and identities. Faith drives and justifies non-exclusionary social service provision.

KEYWORDS:

• Faith-based organizations
• social services
• universalism
• justice

Introduction

People have long drawn on faith to serve the poor in God’s name. In the United States (US), the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries with welfare states, faith-based organizations (FBOs) play a significant role in delivering state-funded social services (Bielefeld and Cleveland 2013a; Johnsen 2014). In the US, political support for FBOs to provide state-funded social services was strengthened under the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, especially by the former’s executive order of 2001 (Kramer 2010, 342). The role of FBOs as social service providers was likewise advocated by the Reagan Administration (Melville and McDonald 2006) and through the Charitable Choice Act of 1996 passed by the Clinton Administration (Bartkowski and Grettenberger 2018, 1). Outside the US, there is similarly wide political support for FBOs to provide social services. Blair’s New Labour Government in the UK and Howard’s Conservative Government in Australia facilitated the capacity of FBOs to obtain public funding to deliver social services (Johnsen 2014, 414; Maddox 2005, 234).

The increased function of FBOs as social service providers constitutes a social policy shift (Reingold, Pirog, and Brady 2007), enabled in the US by weakening restrictions imposed by strict interpretations of the First Amendment (Farnsley 2007, 347). John Bartkowski and Susan Grettenberger (2018, 1) explain that the increased role of FBOs as social service providers was attributed to a change in legislation that sought to level the playing field so that FBOs could compete with secular providers for US government funding. However, they note that the alliance between government and FBOs to provide social services far outdates the contemporary legislative changes. Others have analyzed the increased role of FBOs as part of a neoliberal logic (Hackworth 2010, 752) or dismantling of the welfare state (Bielefeld and Cleveland 2013a, 477). These drivers take place alongside arguments that faith in FBOs provides a distinctive moral and ethical force not present in secular organizations (Dinham 2009).

Despite the significant role that FBOs play in delivering social services in countries with varying types of welfare state, empirical evidence of the way faith structures social service delivery is lacking. On either side of the Atlantic, the role of faith in FBOs delivering social services is highly variable (Johnsen 2014; Wuthnow 2004). The evidence shows that the way faith plays—or does not play—out is so varied that it is meaningless to construct a neat distinction between FBOs and secular organizations. Observing homelessness and charitable service providers in the UK, Paul Cloke, John May, and Sarah Johnsen conclude:

Although there appear to be obvious distinctions between organisations which are avowedly Christian and those which are not, the significant diversity within the avowedly Christian grouping may in some cases be of greater significance than differences between Christian and non-Christian organisations. (Cloke, May, and Johnsen 2005, 400)

Robert Wuthnow (2004, 1–22) has demonstrated that advocacy for and arguments against FBOs providing state-funded social services are associated with an individual’s religious and secular identification. The answer to the question whether FBOs are better than or not as good as social services provided by secular organizations “depends on which side of the political fence one sits” (Netting, O’Connor, and Yancey 2006, 283).

Given that states have long funded and continue to fund FBOs to meet the needs of some of society’s most excluded individuals, it is of practical and conceptual significance to examine empirically how faith manifests in the practices of FBOs providing social services, including the way faith shapes the service delivery model (Reingold, Pirog, and Brady 2007). Organizational statements, histories, philosophies, and the faith of organizational members and employees tell us little about the way faith plays out in service delivery. Following Wolfgang Bielefeld and William Cleveland, our focus is not on services delivered by congregations, rather we use the term ‘FBOs’ to refer to “religiously influenced organizations which have an explicit goal and focus on providing services” (Bielefeld and Cleveland 2013b, 444).

Drawing on ethnographic research, we examine how faith influences a model of social service delivery in homeless accommodation provided by the Salvation Army. This organization has a long history of offering social services both with and without government funding. We investigate how the Salvation Army’s evangelical Christian faith, of which a central tenet is the belief that all people are created in the image of God and thus all people are equal in worth and value, drives its model of social service provision to people who are homeless. After documenting how faith is used to shape the social service model, the article addresses two research questions: how can faith be used to shape social services that propose an agenda of inclusion and normality for excluded individuals? How can faith in social service provision, otherwise assumed to be antithetical to the welfare state, be consistent with fundamental principles of universalism driving the ideals of the welfare state? The article’s contribution is to show how an explicit commitment to faith in the delivery of social services by an FBO can align with secular liberal principles. As demonstrated below, the literature illustrates that receiving government funding puts pressure on FBOs to balance contractual obligations with their commitment to mission (Ridings 2015, 332). FBOs providing state-funded social services downplay faith to comply with legislative conditions (Johnsen 2014, 419) and privately funded social services can exhibit stronger expressions of faith (Bartkowski and Grettenberger 2018, 6).

The remainder of the article proceeds over five sections. Firstly, we present literature which argues for and against the benefits and legitimacy of faith, and FBOs specifically, in social service provision. The arguments against faith in government-funded social service provision are significant as they suggest that an explicit commitment to faith at the level of service provision contrasts with secular liberal ideals and government funding requirements. We then outline the ethnographic research and conceptual framework driving the analysis. Following this, we describe the model of social service provision, the link between faith and model, and the way explicit faith principles represent a radical agenda to challenge the ‘othering’ of marginalized groups as deficient.

Arguments for FBOs delivering social services

Contemporary political support for FBOs to provide social services to people in poverty draws on multi-dimensional arguments which state that faith constitutes an effective and distinctive force not present in secular social services (Sager and Stephens 2005). One stream of this argument assumes that poverty is a product of immorality or alienation from faith. Consistent with ideas from the nineteenth century (Jawad 2012), advocates assert the criticality of FBOs to address poverty because, rather than government spending or structural change, faith or religious conversion leads to behavior change required for life improvements (Solomon 2003). Religious conversion, for example, is associated with desisting from offending (Schaefer, Sams, and Lux 2016, 601) and recovering from addiction, notwithstanding questions about the rigor of the evidence for the latter (Dilulio 2002, 55).

Advocates assert that FBOs have a function that the state cannot achieve, principally because people in poverty need rehabilitating through spiritual guidance and biblical instruction, not just material aid (Maddox 2005). Wuthnow shows the critical role of religious teaching, not only in caring for people who are disadvantaged, but also in terms of caring being a “universal or generalized good, rather than […] a good that engenders any specific obligations on the part of those who receive it” (Wuthnow 2004, 277–278).

The idea that caring for people ought to be done because of God’s will positions FBOs as contributing to social cohesion and increased societal wellbeing (Jawad 2012). Adam Dinham (2009, 120) points to the view that FBOs have a valued role because they bring a moral and ethical perspective to service delivery, whereas secular social services treat recipients as cases (Crisp 2015, 54). Moreover, the perception that FBOs deliver services as part of God’s work is used to justify the claim that FBOs are trusted by service users (Oslington 2015, 85) and able to reach and connect with people living in poverty (Kramer 2010, 343). Ellen Netting, Mary O’Connor, and Gaynor Yancey demonstrate that, for people working in some FBOs, helping the poor is about an overarching accountability to God that “trumps secular or professional expectations” (Netting, O’Connor, and Yancey 2006, 281).

In a nuanced analysis, Wuthnow (2004, 160) concludes that any advantages FBOs achieve over secular service providers are probably a product of FBOs imitating congregations where they have capacity to develop and sustain ongoing social support. Other scholars note that the benefits of FBOs are due to their capacity to draw on volunteers (Bielefeld and Cleveland 2013a, 469) and social capital (Dilulio 2002, 59). Indeed, the heightened social capital and trust that FBOs may command is typically directed toward a group of people who share the same religious, racial, and ethnic identity. As articulated in the following section, the trust shared by people of the same religion may be experienced as exclusion by those on the outside, a phenomenon Bartkowski and Helen Regis (2003, 21) refer to as Janus-faced social capital.

Concerns about FBOs delivering social services

Alongside the significant role of FBOs in providing state-funded services and advocacy for their benefits runs a debate about their legitimacy as social service providers. Similar to the multi-dimensional arguments for FBOs, arguments against FBOs providing social services have many strands. Scholars question whether faith in FBOs constitutes an advantage over secular social service providers as both espouse commitment to compassion and unconditional love (Melville and McDonald 2006).

A more critical argument highlights the potential contradiction of the separation of church and state when FBOs receive public funding to provide social services (Bielefeld and Cleveland 2013a). There is concern that FBOs will push religion on to social service users (Commission of Integration of Cohesion 2007). Cloke, May, and Johnsen (2005, 398) argue that a large FBO with international reach “represents an institution of social control”, which is “staffed by supposedly zealous proselytizers”. Claims that FBOs promote religion while they deliver publically funded social services has led some to downplay faith to funding bodies (Johnsen 2014, 419) or not to accept public funding due to loss of religious autonomy (Hodge and Pittman 2003, 31).

Arguments that FBOs proselytize while they deliver social services are supported by allegations of conditionality. Homeless people who had access to FBOs experienced sermons as “coercive, hypocritical, condescending, and conflicting with their preexisting beliefs” (Sager and Stephens 2005, 312). A conditional mode of service provision, particularly if informed by the view that poor people are to blame for their circumstances, undermines trust between service providers and service recipients (Sager and Stephens 2005). For Rose Melville and Catherine McDonald (2006, 72), FBOs’ conditionality is tantamount to the “moralization of welfare”.

The most contentious concern raised against FBOs providing state-funded social services is discrimination. Scholars worry that FBOs refuse to deliver services to people who live contrary to the FBOs’ religious beliefs. Submissions to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) study of freedom of religion in 2011 criticized FBOs for receiving public money and tax exemptions while discriminating “against those who may not fit with their values, such as gays, transsexuals, and single mothers” (Bouma et al. 2011, 39). Gary Bouma (2012, 292) concluded that FBOs which deliver publically funded social services use freedom of religion and belief to deny services to particular categories of people.

Concerns that FBOs discriminate are supported by exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation, which allow religious organizations to discriminate when employing staff, even though legislation prohibits FBOs discriminating at the point of social service delivery (Crisp 2015, 48). Dale Dominey-Howes, Andrew Gorman-Murray, and Scott McKinnon (2016, 8) observe that people identifying as LGBTI do not seek access to emergency services, as these have been outsourced to FBOs that vocally oppose non-normative sexual orientations. They argue:

Whether faith-based Christian institutions do or do not actively discriminate against LGBTI people in relation to provision of post-disaster services is less important than the perceptions LGBTI people have of how they will be accommodated or accepted or treated… Although faith-based Christian institutions may not intend to discriminate, the possibility that they can and that they demand the right to, may leave LGBTI people uncertain and cautious in seeking assistance. (ibid)

Conceptual framework

Following Bartkowski and Grettenberger (2018), this article draws on new institutionalism as a tool to take account of the way faith is dynamically and purposefully employed by FBOs to achieve organizational goals. Bartkowski and Grettenberger (2018) use new institutionalism to reflect the manner in which FBOs can express religion in ways that cannot be accounted for by the secularization thesis. Indeed, new institutionalism provides a framework to examine the multiple ways that actors within FBOs can express religion and how multiple expressions of religion within FBOs can be a purposeful response or adaptation to wider cultural and social forces regarding the perceived value or limitation of faith in the provision of social services.

As shown in Bartkowski and Grettenberger’s (2018) analysis of the diverse ways that people animated by faith draw on faith in their organization, the conceptual framework recognizes that FBO stakeholders exert agency and use faith in ways that expand beyond what can be explained by the FBOs’ formal ethos or theological traditions. Central to the new institutionalism paradigm—illustrated in the empirical section below—is the capacity of clients and providers of social services to exert agency. As we show, service providers do express agency and draw on their interpretations of faith to drive a social service model and clients actively make meaning of the service model in ways that both align and contrast with the faith principles of the formal model. New institutionalism can help contextualize the complexities of FBOs and the lived experiences of the social actors involved.

Research design

This article draws on ethnographic research at an FBO-operated homeless shelter in an Australian capital city. Consistent with the conceptual framework of new institutionalism, the ethnographic approach enabled investigation of the social practices of the delivery and experiences of faith in the social service model. This approach was important to examine how a state-funded FBO can express religion in practice (Bartkowski and Grettenberger 2018). The study sought to examine the FBO’s social service provision model as a theory, the in situ practices of the model, and client use of and experiences with the model. The research design builds on Cloke, May, and Johnsen (2005, 399) who note:

Ethnographic research is required to examine how postsecular or faith service provision plays out on the ground—where the performance and interactions occur—between the service providers and the service users. An ethnographic analysis is required, as the fine line between care and oppression cannot be judged by organisational ethos; rather it will be evident in the smaller scale ethical practices within spaces of care.

Through observations of service delivery in situ and interviews with service users and providers about their ideas for and experiences of service delivery (described below), the ethnographic approach enabled analysis of perspectives in action and perspectives of action. The latter include responses to questions about the model and the former are drawn from observation of the social service model in practice. Neither of the two sets of perspectives represents a singular truth, but together they enable examination of the agentic process of the way faith influences the delivery and experience of the social service model.

We use the pseudonym ‘Gain’ to describe the shelter. Gain provides crisis and transitional accommodation in single rooms in one building for 72 men and 17 women. There are shared bathroom and kitchen facilities, with a morning and evening meal provided in a dining-room. Gain has approximately 32 full-time staff, including case workers and a chaplain. There is no requirement to participate in any religious activities; the chaplain described her role as providing a “Christian presence on site” and an opportunity to help people connect with what is important to them. Gain’s operating budget is made up by approximately equal funding from the state and the Salvation Army.

The research included in-depth interviews and participant observation. Interviews were conducted with management staff responsible for designing and overseeing the social service model and professionals delivering the model in practice (n=8), as well as homeless people staying in the shelter (n=28). The interviews with the former examined the social service model objectives, the theories and worldviews that drove the model design, and the practices which characterize the model. The interviews with the latter addressed a gap in FBO literature on social services, identified by Bartkowski and Grettenberger (2018, 17), seeking to understand people’s experiences of the model, whether they were enabled to exercise agency over how they lived, and whether they experienced the model as different or the same as other models they had experienced. We adopted a maximum variation purposive sampling strategy (Kitto, Chester, and Grbich 2008) to target service providers and users with diverse experiences, including positive and negative experiences by service users and people in both senior and junior roles delivering the model.

We carried out participant observation at Gain to obtain insight into practice. Between 2016 and 2017, we accumulated approximately 320 hours of observation. We did this overtly and disclosed our researcher status. The study received full approval by the University of Queensland’s human ethics committee. We spent a significant amount of time at Gain informally conversing with participants; our overt research position can be described as that of participant observer (Spradley 1980). We participated in activities with both people who were homeless and those providing services, but it was recognized that we were present for the purpose of research. Observation included encounters between service providers and service users, service provider team meetings, and training workshops.

Interviews and participant observation were conducted over 18 months; each method informed the other. We used participant observation data to develop and update the interview guide to structure in-depth interviews; emerging themes from interviews honed the focus of participant observation. Method triangulation contributed to a comprehensive analysis of the model. Triangulation and sustained time in the field contributed to rigor (Padgett 2017, 217).

The interviews were professionally transcribed and participant observation was recorded in a fieldwork journal—first briefly noted down at the site, then extended on the same or next day. All data were thematically analyzed. We used NVivo to manage data, facilitate initial coding, and identify concepts and themes. The initial analysis was inductive; it produced contributions to social work about practice (Parsell, Stamble, and Baxter 2018) and to sociology about human agency (Parsell and Clarke 2019). Knowledge about faith and related arguments presented in this article came about inadvertently. The original research sought to understand the nature and impact of the new model of social service provision implemented by an FBO. The Salvation Army was selected because the service presented a model which rejected traditional and popular ‘wrap-around service’ provision, which involves organizing, integrating, and delivering multiple services to target the constellation of people’s needs. Instead, the Salvation Army proclaimed its model to be a pioneering means to enable homeless people to exert control over how they lived.

Nothing in the original research design, data collection or initial thematic analysis sought to examine religion or faith as the researcher assumed—incorrectly—that faith would be downplayed to comply with contractual obligations to the state (Johnsen 2014, 419). However, at the end of the fieldwork, when the first author presented initial findings to the Salvation Army, it became apparent that, if faith was ignored, knowledge about the purposes and practices of the social service model would be distorted (Marti 2014). The first author, who led the study as an independent researcher, learnt that the Salvation Army was developing a theological framework to integrate the organization’s faith and social service work. Its document outlining this framework for social service provision became a data source which we scrutinized using qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005).

The social service model

The Gain model of social service provision is predicated on the principle of service users’ normality and challenges the derogatory characterizations of homeless people as distinct (Parsell, Stamble, and Baxter 2018). A service provider responsible for leadership at Gain described the model’s philosophy:

Outcomes are not about results. The outcome for us is changing the way we do things, changing the way we look at people, changing the way we respect people, changing the way we see people and start calling them ‘people’, not ‘residents’ or ‘clients’ because that tends to have that power disparity automatically. One of the things we talk a lot about here is language because, if you have this perception that ‘I’m no different to anyone else, I’m going to treat you normally even though you’re experiencing homelessness’. (Personal interview, 10 August 2016)

Downplaying results as driving outcome and emphasis on service providers themselves changing how they think about and work with homeless people are part of the model’s vision to challenge service provision as a mechanism for service providers to change service users. Instead of only service users needing to change, service providers stressed the centrality of them developing a new framework to counter the belief that homeless people are deficient and thus need to change. The model’s philosophical principle was operationalized through a number of key practices. Firstly, the built environment was re-designed to reflect the principles of homeless people as individuals beyond their homeless experience and to minimize distinctions between service providers and service users. The purpose-built shelter was renovated to remove shared dormitories and create single rooms. The dining-room was re-modeled to resemble a café, rather than a space where homeless people queue to receive food provided for them. Gain’s re-design also included the removal of glass partitions that separated service providers from service users, given the view that service providers did not need protection from ‘dangerous’ homeless people.

Secondly, the model rejects traditional ideas about ‘homeless people’ needing wrap-around services; it thus rejects the idea that people in poverty need more—and paternal—social services to assist them in addressing their problems. A service provider explained:

[We’re] trying to get away from that ‘service first’ approach. We’re trying to have more links to natural supports within the community … we’re trying to get away from wrapping around. Some of the people we work with will have up to 15 services working with them that just wrap around, and we just find, from reports back from the people we work with, it’s making them more unwell. (Personal interview, 19 September 2016)

Those who designed and deliver the model—social service providers themselves—criticized traditional social services for homeless people because these services are counterproductive regarding the needs and interests of normal people, to have their lives saturated by practices which refer to, link with, and provide a continuous stream of services. Service providers designed the model in order to move away from what they described as the deficient assumptions underpinning mainstream social service provision. This was described as based on the misconception that homeless people and people who experience poverty were deficient and that the job of social services was thus to manage them.

Taking a position that engages similar arguments to reject state-funded welfare and social services (Murray 1984), service providers constructed the resources and supports provided through mainstream services as barriers to clients fully participating in society. Moreover, the moral justification of the model’s superiority in promoting links to ‘natural supports within the community’ can be read as minimizing the state’s responsibility to contribute to a social environment where marginalized citizens can be included, on the one hand, and ignoring that disadvantaged people are limited in their capacities to provide supportive resources to their fellow community members, on the other hand (Desmond 2012). A service provider reflected on the way she had practised as a social worker before joining Gain:

Yeah, managed care. Look, that whole fairy godmother side of things, it was, you would have a worker wanting to fix something for someone and tell them, “Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it.” (Personal interview, 24 August 2016)

The normality of homeless people driving the model’s central theory means that social services should not restrict people’s capacity to make autonomous decisions, including decisions that the service provider believes are counterproductive to the service users’ needs. In practice, the model works by service providers intervening to create the conditions for homeless people to do tasks for themselves. Observations of practice illustrated this: service providers would, for instance, not transport people to appointments or make phone calls for them, despite what many service users requested. As shown below, this model was appreciated by some and dismissed by others. Although the majority of service providers advocated the model, some rejected it. We observed a service provider making a phone call to attempt to organize housing for a service user, which this service provider acknowledged was contrary to the model; she justified her practice by arguing that some of the assumptions underpinning the model were based on a flawed understanding of what homeless people needed. The service provider asserted that “we are supposed to be helping people find accommodation” (personal interview, 14 October 2016).

Our ethnographic research—which involved an extended period of time at the shelter—enabled us to observe the ideal model in practice and to engage with service users about their experiences with the model. The research illustrates that the model’s theoretical principles were frequently enacted. Homeless people both rejected and lauded these principles. As for the former, some experienced Gain as abandoning them. Whereas the model sought to enable people to take control of their lives by creating an environment where they could act autonomously, some homeless people criticized this approach because they wanted service providers to do things for them. Describing her experiences with the Gain model, a woman staying at the shelter argued that the service “needs help”:

The staff don’t help anyone. That’s how people get stuck and don’t want to leave. The model that they work with is “we will help you if you ask”, which I don’t agree with because it’s how people get stuck, because they don’t ask and then their lives can be ruined. (Personal interview, 22 July 2016)

People rejected the model because they wanted more from the service providers. They wanted leniency when they had insufficient money to pay rent; we frequently observed them request service providers to transport them to appointments and their disappointment when they were inevitably refused. Lamenting the approach which required him to complete his own housing application, a person staying at Gain described that the shelter’s former approach involved service providers who would “help you with stuff. Filling out the paperwork for stuff like housing.” He complained that now at Gain, “you have to get off your [backside] if you want anything done”. (Personal interview, 21 July 2016).

The experiences of people staying at Gain illustrate that the model’s approach to promote autonomy is not universally appreciated. Most people, however, valued the model in terms of service providers adopting an approach that respected their capacities and decisions to engage with service providers under conditions of their choosing. Reflecting this sentiment, a service user described the benefit of service providers playing a role in helping him decide what to do, rather than having his problems solved by them: “Yeah, they’re pretty straightforward, but they get you to think up the answers instead of trying to figure it out for you.” (Personal interview, 2 November 2016) Recognizing the model’s approach that seeks to help people solve problems themselves, instead of doing things for them, a woman staying at Gain reflected on the practices of the model: “It’s funny that you treat human beings more like humans and they act more like humans.” (Personal interview, 2 November 2016)

The experience of being treated like a human was further realized by the provision of single rooms rather than shared dormitories. People at Gain described long histories of homelessness and frequent use of accommodation provided for the homeless. They appreciated that the single rooms provided at Gain enabled them to exert a degree of control over their situation and the privacy afforded by single rooms was uncharacteristic of accommodation provided elsewhere. One person remarked: “It’s private. I’ve never seen anything like this sort of thing where you get a room like you do and have the freedom like you’ve got.” (Personal interview, 8 July 2016)

The Gain model is not merely about promoting autonomy by creating the material and practical conditions for people to carry out their own day-to-day tasks. It also promotes autonomy by not imposing normative rules for the way people ought to behave or by excluding people for transgressive behavior. Although trading illicit substances would lead to eviction and using illicit substances is not permitted, in practice, people who use such substances are not excluded. A service user described the interaction with a service provider after illicit substances had been found in his room:

“We found something in your room. I’ll come up with you.” I came up there, she opened the door and she said to me: “What’s going on? How are you doing? You struggling?” Didn’t crucify me, nothing like that. I thought I was out. I thought I was gone. I wouldn’t have deserved to be kicked out. She said, “We’re just worried about you.” Didn’t kick me out. I couldn’t believe it. That’s when I was doing the detox. The worst thing she could have done is kick me out on the streets. I wouldn’t be sitting here now with the help I have right now. It’s that hard, those days to stopping, that would have sent me over the edge. I wouldn’t be in the position I am right now. (Personal interview, 1 December 2016)

Although this service user appreciated the approach that meant he was not evicted for possessing illicit substances, which is similar to different perspectives expressed about other elements of the model, other service users were critical of the tolerance, the consequence of which is that people are not excluded for illicit substance use. Although the model does not exclude, given the intention to create positive conditions for people to be autonomous rather than have their behavior controlled by service providers, some service users experienced this approach as affecting them negatively by bringing them into contact with influences that would subvert their capacity to preserve their abstinence. A woman remarked that the approach to promote autonomy led to an environment where

They’re dealing drugs here and a lot of the guys are coming to these sorts of places because they’ve got problems, they’re trying to get themselves clean, and it’s in their face. (Personal interview, 12 March 2017)

The ethnographic data illustrate the theory, practices, and service user experiences of the Gain model. The data and the conceptual framework drawing on new intuitionalism show the agentic and diverse ways that faith is both engaged and experienced. Although faith was explicitly used as a means to promote justice through the design and delivery of the social service model, our data illustrate how some service providers challenged the link between the model and justice. Indeed, some service users experienced the fundamental faith-based principles to be the antithesis to justice. Next, we develop the analysis to demonstrate how the Salvation Army’s theology drives the Gain model.

Faith and the Gain model

Evangelical Christianity underpins the Gain model. The document which outlines the Salvation Army’s theologically informed practice framework cites Genesis 1:27 as the fundamental principle guiding their work with people: “God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them: male and female he created them.” Taking the position that all people are created in the image of God, the theological framework sets out to establish how the Salvation Army works with people. The starting premise of this work with people—including paid staff and congregational members—is that “we see the people we serve as equal to ourselves” (The Salvation Army 2016, 21).

The theological framework codifies the Gain model’s disruption of distinctions between service users and service providers. The link between the model and the theology of ‘created in the image of God’ is further evident in three principles which are outlined in the framework. Firstly, every person is unique and has inherent dignity and dignity and worth transcend any personal characteristics. Secondly, people’s worth is based on who they are before God, not on any social position in society. Thirdly, all people have capacity for free will to make decisions about their own lives: the priority is “their agenda, not ours” (The Salvation Army 2016, 24). This principle recognizes individual and social constraints to autonomy and control, but proposes that these constraints do not negate people’s capacity to exercise choice and autonomy about options available to them.

The theological framework cites the Wesley tradition and Catherine and William Booth’s missionary legacy of practical theology. The framework draws on William Booth’s (1996) In Darkest England to reject any practice or language that dehumanizes individuals. The framework pays significant attention to language, emphasizing that commitment to the principle of ‘all people are created in the image of God’ must be reflected in speech. As demonstrated in the next section, the framework links the Wesley tradition and Booth’s work to contemporary sociological debates. It states: “We aim to recover the living breathing person hidden by labels such as cases, service users, clients, consumers, and recipients. This language dehumanizes, and turns people into objects.” (The Salvation Army 2016, 22) The framework articulates how faith structures the practice parameters of the Gain model. The model illustrates how the notion ‘created in the image of God’ shapes service delivery to homeless individuals: how they are seen, described, and worked with and their vision for life. The model illustrates the individual’s position within society and a broader vision for social justice. The theological framework concludes:

We work for justice because we believe that every person, made in the image of God, flourishes best in a world that is fair and equitable. The God of the Bible loves justice. (The Salvation Army 2016, 78)

Discussion

Faith made explicit

Contributing to the literature which shows that FBOs either avoid state funding to retain autonomy or downplay faith to appeal to secular ideals and funding requirements, we have demonstrated that faith shapes a model of state-funded social service delivery. Building on Bartkowski and Grettenberger’s (2018) use of new institutionalism, we have described how an FBO uses faith as a resource to pursue its goals. Citing the biblical principle that all people are created in the image of God, the organization incorporated faith into all aspects of its Gain model, including design, on-the-ground practices, and the re-development of the shelter. Changing from dormitories to single rooms reduced the shelter’s bed capacity from 128 to 89, but the change—and loss of revenue—was considered to be justified because dormitory accommodation is dehumanizing. Other instrumental examples of the way faith shaped the model include not excluding people for illicit substance use, despite formal policy. As Gain is funded through a hybrid model of state and internal revenue, the FBO must achieve a balance between obtaining outcome results required by government funding and the internal commitment that “outcomes are not about results” (personal interview, 10 August 2016).

In addition to motivating work with those in poverty (Cloke, May, and Johnsen 2005), the Gain model shows how faith influences what an FBO can do to address poverty. Faith is expressed in the view that homelessness is an injustice—incongruent with what people deserve—that the FBO must respond to, rather than a duty of the religious (Jawad 2012). The doctrine that all people are created in the image of God shapes the social service model in creating conditions for people which allow them to realize their humanity by having access to resources free from participation in a program as clients.

Highlighting the worth of Christian theology in contemporary normative debates about exclusion, yet challenging the assumption that bringing religion into the provision of state-funded social services is problematic because of the belief that FBOs will moralize recipients (Melville and McDonald 2006), we have shown how religious teachings can be advocated and consistent with secular priorities (Crisp 2015, 48). The commitment to the notion ‘created in the image of God’—and the manner in which this influences how social services are delivered—shows that FBOs in receipt of public funds can retain spirituality.

On the other hand, the explicit incorporation of faith does not include the requirement to participate in religious ceremonies (Johnsen 2014, 416). Faith in the Gain model is about a vision for people which is fundamentally tied to the imago dei. The model is not about bringing people to a faith identity or a religious community. Indeed, when service users spoke about what living at Gain and what the Gain model meant to them, they described feeling independent of the FBO: some experienced independence as abandonment, others as enabling autonomy. Nevertheless, whether perceived as enabling or abandoning, none felt pressured to join the FBO’s religion. Faith is central to the model, yet the centrality of faith does not involve proselytizing.

The welfare state

Faith in the Gain model provides reflection on the secular liberal principles of the welfare state and how universalism can, counter-intuitively, be achieved through religious doctrines. The modern welfare state does not have a unified type or objective; there is great diversity in who is targeted and how resources are distributed and withheld (Esping-Anderson 1990). Diversity notwithstanding, the welfare state was developed with the key ideal of universalism. This ideal sought to overcome limitations in poor relief provided by congregations and charities that excluded people because of faith or race, created distinctions between deserving and undeserving, and were insufficiently resourced to meet the needs of people experiencing poverty in contemporary society (Spicker 2002).

Despite its ideal of universalism and the opportunity to break away from the taint of the poor laws, outside the Nordic countries, the welfare state is narrowly directed toward people who are extremely marginalized (Spicker 2002). Universal and non-discriminatory principles remain unrealized (Wuthnow 2004). Indeed, it is not just that the welfare state has failed to achieve aspirational ideals, its operation is dismissed as governing paternalism (Schram et al. 2010) or as a pillar of the penal state (Wacquant 2009). People who receive government pensions, unemployment benefits or family assistance do not endorse the secular welfare state as a mechanism which makes them feel valued and included as citizens (Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011).

Faith expressed through the Gain model represents an example of universalism. The ethnographic data and the conceptual framework of new institutionalism enabled identification of the agentic process involved, whereby there was not a unified view on what type of practice best expressed religious principles and, indeed, clients experienced the religious principles of the model in ways that both endorsed and rejected the formal intention of creating conditions for them to express autonomy and enact control over their lives.

The model adds to findings that faith in social service delivery constitutes discrimination and moralizing and is thus antithetical to the welfare state principles of justice and universalism (Bouma 2012). The principles of the Gain model mean that discrimination or exclusion of any people is antithetical to faith. Our ethnographic research of its practice illustrates that faith was used as an inclusionary element. Although members of the Salvation Army abstain from alcohol and illicit substances themselves, their commitment to the idea of ‘created in the image of God’ motivated them to work with people who behave differently to them, on the basis that the difference in behavior does not constitute difference in the individual.

Identity and ‘othering’

The Gain model forces consideration of the identities imposed upon homeless clients and people in poverty and the manner in which they are ‘othered’. The model challenges derogative identities cast on people and at the same time outlines a theological justification for the reasons why derogatory and stigmatizing identities are unjust.

Living in poverty is not merely a matter of material deprivation. Poverty comes with a devalued identity and with limited resources and social power to assert and have one’s identity publically endorsed (Bauman 2004). Being homeless and having one’s life on public display results in the imposed identity as ‘the homeless other’, based on what people lack (Parsell 2018). When people are excluded from housing, they are forced into a dependent position of reliance, which in turn reifies their position as different and in need of care (ibid). The identities imposed upon people because of what they lack are both ill-fitting and have detrimental consequences. The homeless ‘other’ is responded to in accommodation for the homeless where they have to demonstrate their moral and individual worth by going through a progressive set of steps (Stuart 2016).

The Gain model is not utopic. Its inclusionary agenda, which is driven by its commitment to theological teachings, is unlikely to alter people’s perceptions of FBOs holding discriminatory beliefs about some sections of society (Dominey-Howes, Gorman-Murray, and McKinnon 2016, 7). Further, some perceive promoting conditions of autonomy as lazy and disinterested service provision. As we have shown, there are competing views among service providers about what practices are required to enable people to act autonomously.

The role of FBOs as social service providers is interpreted as following neoliberal logic; the Gain model’s emphasis on choice can be interpreted likewise (Hackworth 2010, 752). Our ethnographic data show, however, that the model is not a simple expression of neoliberalism. Service providers practise on the premise that people’s choices and autonomous actions to improve their lives are interdependent, reliant on the resources, support, and opportunities that the social conditions of their lives make available or withhold (Young 2011). Nevertheless, service providers’ advocacy of the model as a counter-approach to wrap-around services does lead to assumptions about natural community support that aligns with societal narratives that seek to discredit state-funded welfare and social services. The Gain model is an example where the explicit expression of faith contributes to an inclusionary agenda, even for those who do not identify with the FBO’s religion. We stress, however, that we examined the Gain model because it seemed different from what other FBOs offer. In the absence of data we make no generalizable claims about the Salvation Army or other FBOs.

Conclusion

The Gain model demonstrates how evangelical expression of faith can constitute a driver for radical social services that transcend ideas which characterize people by material deprivation. The principle of ‘all people are created in the image of God’ can represent an impetus for FBOs to commit not only to universalist principles, but also to practices that are both explicitly religious and consistent with secular liberal ideals.

The ethnographic approach builds on contemporary work to show how social actors in FBOs actively use religion to deliver state-funded social services in a diversity of ways to fulfill funding requirements and achieve organizational objectives. As Bartkowski and Grettenberger (2018) observe, analysis of FBOs needs to examine expressions of faith by actors within individual agencies alongside wider social processes of religion and secularism. The analysis presented in this article shows that faith was expressed and experienced in contrasting ways by social actors and that their perspectives and experiences were tied to wider social processes about the function and value of secular services within the wider social service system.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the people living and working at the service where we conducted this research. They gave their time generously and shared their experiences candidly. Thanks also to two anonymous referees of the Journal of Contemporary Religion and Elisabeth Arweck for valuable critique and assistance.

Disclosure statement

Marcus Hutchins and Chris Deighton were employed by the Salvation Army at the time the research was conducted. The Salvation Army provided no funding and had no opportunity to approve or reject this publication.

Additional information

Funding

The first author conducted the research with a “Discovery Early Career Researcher Award” funded by the Australian Research Council (DE150100382) and a seed grant from the “Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course” (CE140100027).

Notes on contributors

Cameron Parsell

Cameron Parsell is Professor of Social Science; he conducts empirical research at the intersection of poverty, welfare state, and ground-up initiatives to respond to people experiencing deep exclusion. He is currently an Australian Research Council Future Fellow at the University of Queensland, Australia.

Marcus Hutchins

Marcus Hutchins has qualifications in Social Work and Christian Theology. His extensive work experience lies in the not-for-profit and faith-based community service sector.

Laura Simpson Reeves

Laura Simpson Reeves is a PhD candidate at the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her research focuses on poverty and inequality, using ethnographic and visual methods to encourage open dialogue and critical thought. Her PhD project explores cultural perceptions of ‘the good life’ among the Pasifika community in Brisbane, Australia.

Chris Deighton

Chris Deighton has a background in finance, management, and leadership in not-for-profit organizations and government.CORRESPONDENCE: Cameron Parsell, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Queensland, Australia.