Strategic Religious Engagement in International Development: Building a Basic Baseline

Abstract

This essay introduces a special, open-access issue of this journal focused on the intersection of religion and relief & development. It describes the discussions—of terminology and tangibility, of perspective and practice—that shaped the research done for the “Evidence-Based Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement,” a conference organized and hosted October 5–8, 2020 by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). This special issue consists of four research papers produced for the Summit, along with four response essays. While the available empirical evidence, expertise, and experience varies across myriad issues involving the nexus of religion and relief & development, these papers do document the tremendous growth of this field in the last 20 years, as well as the enormous opportunity to contribute.

Keywords:

• faith
• religion
• relief
• humanitarian
• development
• strategic
• engagement

I did not have similar expertise for integrating religious principles into our efforts at diplomacy. Given the nature of today’s world, knowledge of this type is essential … The State Department should hire or train a core of specialists to be deployed both in Washington and in key embassies overseas … Religion is a large part of what motivates people and shapes their views of justice and right behavior. It must be taken into account. Nor can we expect our leaders to make decisions in isolation from their religious beliefs … We must live with our beliefs and also with our differences; it does no good to deny them.

— Madeleine Albright 2006¹

We have, in fact, very little systematic knowledge about what is currently occurring as the US foreign policy rubber hits the religious road around the world … In a way, we may well be back to the future … we have only barely begun to understand and theorize what all of this means for world politics today, for how states and religions relate globally, what kind of power dynamics are at play, and what types of international norms and practices are emerging in an international system that it may be increasingly problematic to call Westphalian at the dawn of the twenty-first century.

— Gregorio Bettiza, 2019²

In order for us as [USAID] to be able to accomplish our core purposes, our core mission, whether it be in development assistance or in humanitarian relief, we need to reach corners in communities where governments cannot effectively go or where they have chosen not to go. We must be able to touch people who have been left behind, people who have been forgotten. In many settings, being able to partner with the community of faith, with faith-based organizations, enables us to do just that. Faith-based partners are often uniquely trusted in those forgotten communities. They can harness networks and resources and insights that help us reach out in ways that we otherwise could not … [A]t USAID, in partnership with others, we aim to reinforce and strengthen ethnic and religious pluralism where it has historically existed. It isn't about the content of faith; it never has been. It's about society's tolerance for multiple faith traditions. We believe that religious pluralism, which is part of a cultural mosaic, is worth preserving as a matter of development, as well as an expression of our values.

— Mark Green, 2018³

This special open-access issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs builds on the October 5–8, 2020 “Evidence Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement.”⁴ The Summit was sponsored and hosted by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and was co-convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the United States Institute of Peace, and the Templeton Religion Trust. The Summit brought together leading experts to review and discuss existing evidence about, and experience in, partnering with local religious communities and faith-based organizations in relief and development, as well as the implications for policy and practice.

The research committee for the Summit included Katherine Marshall (Georgetown University), Sudipta Roy (World Faiths Development Dialogue), Hugo Slim (Oxford University), and Chris Seiple (then with the University of Washington), who served as chair. The committee produced four research papers for the event. The first is a personal reflection by Katherine Marshall on the nature of evidence in the still emerging field of religion and development. This piece sets the stage for three subsequent papers that respectively discuss the importance, impact, and implementation of strategic religious engagement. These papers are supported where possible by published literature, as well as by the research team’s experience, and judgement. The purpose of the papers was twofold: (1) to accurately name the state-of-play at the nexus of religion and relief/development; and, thus (2) help inform and shape the Summit’s deliberations, as well as future discussions about this complex issue.

These four papers are presented here⁵ along with four new response essays contributed by: Olivia Wilkinson (Joint Learning Initiative on Faith and Local Communities), Azza Karam (Religions for Peace), Peter Mandaville (George Mason University), and Adam Phillips (USAID Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships). Open-access publishing was made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton Religion Trust. We aimed to write in a way that is useful to both the scholar and practitioner, and that is accessible to the person encountering the field for the first time. We are honored to be able to offer this collection in The Review of Faith & International Affairs, which is widely cited across disciplines and has published numerous articles and theme issues on religion and development throughout its two decades of publication.⁶

Some caveats, however, are in order, as we present these papers and reviews pursuant a midstream survey of this still-emerging field, and the establishment of at least a preliminary baseline understanding of extant research—and gaps therein. First, while the research conducted for this collection of papers drew from a wide and diverse range of sources and voices, due to time constraints it was not possible to incorporate every worthy source.⁷ We do not purport to offer the definitive last word through this collection; merely, an interim report on a field and practice that is still emerging. Indeed we hope it is supplemented or even eclipsed entirely by future analyses. A particular “sin of omission” is that the research process did not have time to include many non-English language sources—an issue that Sudipta Roy named during the committee’s very first meeting.

Second, the “evidence” summarized—about which there is an ongoing debate, per the below discussion—was skewed toward availability (but not out of bias). As Katherine Marshall writes in the first paper:

The evidence is lop-sided, with far more focused on Christian experiences, a fair amount on parts of the Muslim world, and less on, or from within, other traditions. There is more evidence on Africa than other regions. More work has focused on religious NGOs than on local communities and less formal institutions. No compelling conclusions emerge as to unique features of development work linked to religious actors, as is to be expected given their wide diversity and different types of engagement. Many hypotheses as to the distinctive advantage of capacity to reach to remote and especially vulnerable communities are affirmed at least to a degree, albeit with nuances reflecting variations by place and community … [M]uch that is published has been produced by religious bodies and especially Christian organizations, and it presents largely positive, rather uncritical stories of their work, in some cases with an important eye to fund-raising.

Third, some of the strengths but also limitations of this collection are tied to the fact that the original primary audience for the research was a professional, and largely governmental (USAID) one. The papers, like most Western approaches to relief & development, do lean toward the science of (measurable/quantifiable) impact, which perhaps reflects assumptions that key decision makers are likely quite secular and skeptical in disposition and thus need “hard evidence” to be convinced. Consequently, the papers themselves do not spend nearly as much time on the art of engagement as they do the science of impact.

The papers do touch on a wide range of questions regarding engagement itself. What are the skills of engagement? What does it mean to practically partner with someone of a different belief system than yours? Further, what is the difference between religious engagement and “strategic” religious engagement? And what, after all, is the relationship between religious freedom and religious engagement, and how does that understanding relate to how relief and development personnel might embody and educate religious pluralism as an essential foundation to democracy? But the papers reveal no comprehensive answer that is satisfactory. Then again, perhaps we should not be surprised. As we note in our final paper (which most directly addresses engagement): “To our knowledge, there is no USG or USAID template for assessing the religious landscape and its intersection with humanitarian assistance and development goals and projects, let alone a template for engaging particular countries.” There is much still to be discerned regarding strategic religious engagement.

All to say, the title of this introductory essay is not false modesty, but rather an accurate assessment of our aspiration: a “basic baseline” for strategic religious engagement. If you take away one thing from this strategic snapshot of an emerging field, there is plenty of opportunity to contribute—in a principled, philosophical, and practical manner.

*****

It is within this larger context of unclear terminology and lingering questions that our research committee began our work. Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the various, often heartfelt, opinions it generates, we soon recognized that every point about a particular issue or application had the instant potential to return to two elephants in the room: (1) the ever-present interaction between religious and non-religious perspectives, at the individual and institutional levels (and, related, that both perspectives are rarely stand-alone elements but are rather often embedded in each other as well as in larger contexts like culture and economics); and, (2) the definition, and availability, of evidence in such complex contexts.

Religious & Non-Religious Perspectives

In any relationship between and among different parties, by definition, there are multiple perspectives present. Naming, understanding, and navigating those perspectives—and potential paths—is key to a strategic engagement, a relational diplomacy, that builds partnerships by developing shared goals.

Respected experts state that 84 percent of our planet’s population has a religious affiliation.⁸ An estimated 83 percent of the world’s population now lives in countries where there are “high or very high levels of overall restrictions on religion”—either through government policies from the top-down or through the social actions of individuals and/or groups from the bottom-up (Pew Research Center 2018; see also Majumdar 2021).⁸ The Pew Research Center (2020) also reports that people in emerging economies “tend to be more religious and more likely to consider religion to be important in their lives” than those in wealthier countries. Religious actors can also play an exacerbating or reconciling role in fragile states, where 80 percent of the world’s poorest people are expected to live by 2030 (OECD 2018).

At least, it would seem, various religious perspectives are not only present, but, depending on the circumstance and context, could also play positive or negative roles in many places where USAID works, and where it does or can engage with faith-based organizations (FBOs).

Proselytization, for example, has always been a point of discussion between religious and non-religious perspectives. The issue is distinct from the religious freedom principles which are clear that the right to proclaim one’s faith and to change is an integral part of human rights. Rather, in humanitarian and development work, the issues are both imbalances in power and resources and the particular vulnerabilities of concerned populations. On the one hand, most FBOs and religious communities recognize that linking religious activities to humanitarian activities, favoring one community over others, or making food, water, and health in any way conditional on religious commitments is rightly regarded as a profound violation of their own beliefs, not to mention the principles of humanity, impartiality, and neutrality.

Mainstream humanitarian FBOs are keenly aware of these humanitarian values, agree with them, and have helped to frame them in various codes of conduct.⁹ For example, FBOs were actively involved in drafting the explicit mention of proselytizing in the third article of the Code of Conduct for Disaster Relief (IFRC and ICRC 1994). Most FBOs recognize and respect this Code, but it is nevertheless true that some do not, and that the boundaries are often complex and contested. This is an issue that will always be present.

On the other hand, FBOs and other activist, non-religious, humanitarians also support the rejection of total neutrality. They affirm a right to speak out and espouse political or religious opinions, while insisting that the provision of aid must never be conditional on the beneficiaries agreeing to a particular political or religious perspective. This non-neutral position is as important to non-religious NGOs like Oxfam and the International Rescue Committee as it is to FBOs like Islamic Relief and Catholic Relief Services. For FBOs and religious communities, however, it ensures they can actively identify as distinctly faith-based.

While this combination of religious and non-religious perspectives around a common principle of freedom of expression is certainly positive, it also demonstrates the regular blending of religious and non-religious perspectives, and their embeddedness in each other, as well as larger contexts. Blurred boundaries and definitions, and therefore complexity, results.

As one wise person said in a development/faith consultation, everyone has faith, the question is: in what? A symptom of the complexity is the endless debate about definitions: what is religion? Faith? Spiritual? FBOs? And what is linked to religious beliefs, and what to culture? How to distinguish formal religious beliefs and practice from daily lives? What is the religious component of a bitter conflict? And where does belief end and ideology or politics intervene?

In seeking to understand, let alone implement, strategic religious engagement (SRE), it is absolutely vital first to recognize and respect the enormous complexity and importance of how religious beliefs, leaders, practices, and institutions, consciously and sub-consciously interact with each other, as part of a broader socio-economic-political-cultural context within which development, conflicts, and humanitarian needs transpire (Seiple 2016).

In other words, there remains much more to be explored regarding the interaction of these perspectives. For example, the literature increasingly suggests that there are just as many (un)known biases among and within religious perspectives as there are within and among non-religious perspectives. At the very least, these are real if strongly perceived concerns, from both perspectives, that also have the very real potential—if not named and discussed appropriately—to result in tensions that can positively or adversely affect the possibility of partnership.

Some areas of disagreement are inevitable—and impede partnership—due to the convicted beliefs of each perspective. Gender equality is a prominent example. Full representation of women is a central expectation for development institutions including USAID. The same applies for LGBTQ communities and people. In working to advance non-religious principles it can become obvious, quickly, that many religious communities do not operate according to those same principles, and perhaps never will.

Other differences result from the stereotypes that religious and non-religious perspectives can have of the other. For example, there is a perception that many in the non-religious realm of the humanitarian and development system believe that religion belongs in a private space. This perception also holds (often unspoken) concerns about the negative (only) impact of “religion” and its tendencies towards violence and extremism, as well as patriarchy. These stereotypes can produce suspicions of (manipulative) proselytizing, and the foment of societal tensions.

From another perspective, some religious actors perceive global donor agencies to practice the illusion of inclusion as the donor de facto sets the policies, procedures, and procurement rules. Worse, there is the perception that the non-religious perspective is using the religious perspective merely as a means to message and implement pre-decided programs. USAID’s David Hunsicker, a significant contributor to USAID’s 2009 handbook on religion, conflict, and peacebuilding (Moberg 2009), illustrates this phenomenon, often termed “instrumentalization,” as follows:

Sadly, one of the things that I have encountered again and again in my work in the USG on this is there is a tendency to view religious leaders as tools to deliver a particular message, whether that be around CVE, HIV-AIDS, malaria, elections, etc. These initiatives treat religious leaders as simply vehicles to deliver a message without any independent agency … the field has definitely matured over the years where increasingly there is more general partnership around issues of mutual concern. But I think it falls short of what I like to call “sustained, substantive engagement,” where we are in an ongoing dialogue with religious communities and thereby more organically identify those common interests, rather than just when the donors have money around a specific initiative that they want to message.¹⁰

Seeing religion solely or primarily as a political means—and thus failing to understand the beliefs that undergird and propel both positive and negative FBO actions, according to those beliefs—can lead to serious misdiagnosis, and conflict (Bitter and Frazer 2020).

In sum, interaction between religious and non-religious perspectives is continuing and almost always significant. The potential for an ongoing and deepening engagement is just as real as its opposite. As Secretary Albright says: “We must live with our beliefs and also with our differences; it does no good to deny them” (Albright 2006, 285).

Evidence

Faith-based implementing partners can expect USAID officers to have an appreciation and respect for the impact, actual and potential, of religious actors and communities in development or humanitarian situations. Such USAID awareness entails knowledge about the religious communities’ roles, views, capabilities, and impact. It also calls for strategic engagement with key actors in the religious landscape who play significant development and humanitarian roles, including leaders and institutions.

Measuring and evaluating impact, however, first requires a conversation about what “evidence” is available, and pertinent, to USAID officers. The state of evidence supporting the positive and negative impact of SRE is generally weak compared to other policy areas in humanitarian assistance and development. Four basic factors make assessment difficult, even as they point to exciting opportunities for research and reflection:

1. SRE is not a recognized policy and practice. SRE is not specifically defined as a form of humanitarian assistance or development practice; and so it is not pursued as an agreed and observable set of goals and standards. Both the U.S. government and academic disciplines have yet to define the field clearly. Few studies set out to analyze something called “strategic religious engagement,” and very few organizations systematically conduct SRE. SRE assessment templates are just now emerging. The Summit research committee therefore had to take an “indirect” approach; e.g., the third research paper largely focuses on the generally positive “impact” of FBOs (also focusing on less positive aspects), highlighting what we know about their value, and why and when they should be engaged.

2. Academic neglect of religion in relation to development. There is a long tradition of overlooking the salience of religion as a focus of study in international relations, development studies, and humanitarian studies. For example, between 1982 and 1998, the Journal of Development Studies had only one article with a focus on religion in development compared to 46 on gender, 38 on population, and 19 on the environment for the same period (ver Beek 2000; Heist and Cnaan 2016). The “field” of religion and development has only emerged in the last 20 years, and does not provide a comprehensive baseline and/or comparable evidence for SRE.¹¹ Meanwhile, deciding appropriate standards as to what constitutes “evidence” is especially difficult as SRE involves a wide range of professional disciplines (e.g., anthropology, religious studies, leadership, history, economics, sociology, philosophy, psychology, public health, education, etc.), each with different approaches and standards for what constitutes evidence.

3. Patterns of preponderance in the literature since 2000. Although the academic taboo around religion has been broken, in general, studies about religion are characterized by the following foci, which weaken the framework against which USAID normally assesses development research and evidence:

   • The preponderance of studies is qualitative. Such studies gather experience and observations of FBO practice from which they infer certain theories and generalizations, which soon become assumptions.

   • There is almost a complete absence of quantitative empirical studies of operations and practice that measure SRE results against objectives, thus impeding deductive reasoning.

   • The preponderance of the available literature focuses on Christian and Muslim engagement. It is also distorted by region with more work on Africa than other regions (the distorted focus of research in certain “research friendly countries” applies more broadly to development studies).

   • Standards of excellence and perceptions of relevance differ widely among different actors (religious and non-religious alike).

4. FBO perspectives on development and SRE. Religious communities and faith-based actors and organizations often bring distinctive perspectives regarding the goals and processes of development which can affect evidence standards. In a recent review of the available literature, one scholar queried what indeed “does development mean for different religious groups, and by extension how do religious groups engage with the ideology and practice of development?” (Bompani 2019, 178). Some distinctly faith-inspired views of evidence differ significantly from traditional social science.¹² Emma Tomalin, a leading scholar in the realm of religion and development, goes so far as to say the following:

   These [religious] communities are mostly disconnected from the global development industry [traditional government and non-governmental aid providers] but also have their own visions of development, within which religious worldviews typically have an impact … This includes both ethnographic and historical research, where studies of the religion-development nexus globally reveals that religion is often deeply engrained in people’s visions of what counts as progress and that this has shaped understandings of ‘development’ long before the emergence of secular global development discourses from the late 1940s. (Tomalin 2020)

Scholar-practitioner Jill Olivier (2017) sums up the challenge, and opportunity, this way: “This is a dispersed intersectional area of scholarship—so there are no clear boundaries, and no associated body that is tasked with shaping the research agenda.”

What are the implications for relief and development in general, and USAID in particular? Simply, there is no sector of engagement where religious aspects are entirely absent or irrelevant, even if they are not immediately apparent; and there are significant gaps in evidence, especially quantitative, to inform engagement. This reality puts considerable weight on the judgement of USAID officers, i.e., their capacity to access, assess, and analyze the religious landscape of the country involved. And it places the same weight upon us, the research committee, as we balance evidence and experience, exercising our own judgement about how best to say it.

The bottom line regarding this emerging field of SRE is twofold. First: there is rich and fascinating experience and evidence that can enable and equip the journey to more just and sustained development and self-reliance. There are, however, large gaps in knowledge, and the knowledge available can take unfamiliar forms. Second: context matters. There should be no illusions that there is a common model or typology of faith-based organizations or religious communities, let alone their approaches to humanitarian assistance and development—just as there is no common approach from development agencies like USAID. Neither is there a one-size-fits-all method regarding how best to engage religious actors. In fact, many will contest one form of engagement vs another. Context matters in understanding an actor’s perspective on terms of reference, and evidence, and therefore how s/he will engage on a specific issue, in a particular place; and in the way that actor presents the resulting assessment and analysis of the evidence. Humility and honesty are essential to understanding, discussing, and conducting strategic religious engagement.

Disclaimer Statement

The views expressed in this introduction are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Agency for International Development, the co-conveners, or the United States Government.

Acknowledgments

Support for the production of these research papers was provided by the US Agency for International Development and the US Institute of Peace. The publication of the research papers and response essays as a special open-access issue of The Review of Faith & International Affairs was made possible through the additional support of the Templeton Religion Trust. We also want to express particular thanks to the USAID Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives (CFOI) team.¹³ This topic has not been addressed in this manner before, in part because it is always tricky, always delicate. We thank Kirsten Evans for her leadership, and her conviction that now was the time to think humbly and comprehensively about the interrelated set of issues that is strategic religious engagement. We also thank Amanda Vigneaud for the idea and vision for this summit, as well as her insightful capacity—along with such CFOI stalwarts as Alexandra Rice, Courtney Brode Roberts, and Jared Noetzel—to implement it. USAID’s David Hunsicker has been a steady and thoughtful hand in providing feedback on all dimensions of this project, as have USIP’s Susan Hayward and Melissa Nozell, who also helped facilitate our work. We also express our gratitude for Themrise Khan, Fulata Moyo, and Digvijay Rewatkar, who were integral in the first phase of the humanitarian literature review. We are also thankful for Alan Berg, Paul Eisenman, Louise Fox, Jeffrey Haynes, Robert Klitgaard, Marie Juul Petersen, Alexander Shakow, Emma Tomalin, and, Olivia Wilkinson, for their prompt and insightful review of Katherine’s reflection on evidence. And we are thankful to the USAID personnel who took time to review the various iterations of our work. All of these folks improved our work, not only through their comments and suggestions, but according to their good hearts, and their long service in these fields. Finally, we are thankful for Jean Duff, who is an inspiration to, and a catalyst of, this emerging field. Jean’s is an indefatigable spirit. Her passion for practical research that is as humble as it is honest, patient as it is persistent, pushes us all forward. And in so doing, she makes all of us better. Our hope is that this special issue would do the same.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chris Seiple

Chris Seiple (Ph.D., The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy) is President Emeritus of the Institute for Global Engagement and Principal Advisor to the Templeton Religion Trust’s Covenantal Pluralism Initiative. A former U.S. Marine infantry officer, he has served as a Senior Fellow for Comparative Religion at the University of Washington’s Jackson School of International Studies, as Senior Advisor to the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Evidence-Based Summit on Strategic Religious Engagement (2020), and as Co-Chair of the U.S. Secretary of State’s “Religion and Foreign Policy Working Group” (2011–2013).

Katherine Marshall

Katherine Marshall has worked on international development for some five decades. A Senior Fellow at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs and Professor of the Practice of Development, Religion, and Conflict in the School of Foreign Service, she also directs the World Faiths Development Dialogue (WFDD), whose mission is to bridge gulfs separating the worlds of development and religion. A long career at the World Bank was as an operational manager.

Hugo Slim

Hugo Slim is Senior Research Fellow, Las Casas Institute for Social Justice, Blackfriars Hall, University of Oxford. He has combined a career in academia and humanitarian agencies, including Save the Children, the UN, the ICRC, Oxfam GB, and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. He was Reader in International Humanitarianism at Oxford Brookes University and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflict at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. He is a Visiting Professor at Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University and Academic Director of the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights.

Sudipta Roy

Sudipta Roy is a Senior Researcher at the World Faiths Development Dialogue at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affair. He is currently co-leading several research and learning programs in South and Southeast Asia that focus on religious dimensions of development, freedom of religion and belief, and social cohesion. Sudipta also directs the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies—a consortium of higher education and research institutions in the United States and Bangladesh.

Notes

1 Albright 2006, 75–76, 285.

2 Bettiza 2019, 226, 233.

3 USAID Administrator, Mark Green, July 16, 2018; available from: https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/jul-26-2018-usaid-administrator-mark-green-remarks-ministerial-advance-religious-freedom.

4 See https://www.usaid.gov/faith-and-opportunity-initiatives/2020-evidence-summit-strategic-religious-engagement.

5 The papers were edited for length and style but the substantive arguments remain unchanged.

6 See for example, among others, Tomalin, Haustein, and Kidy 2019; Wodon 2018; Karam and Marshall 2016; Sidibé 2016; Olivier 2016; Karam 2015; Olivier and Wodon 2014; Marshall 2013; Gill 2013; Shah 2013; King 2011; Marshall 2010; Kaplan 2010; Anderson 2008; Thomas 2004. Special theme issues of The Review of Faith & International Affairs that have dealt with religion and development include: “Religion and Sustainable Development,” (Fall 2016, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rfia20/14/3); “Faith-inspired Healthcare in Sub-Saharan Africa,” (Spring 2014, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rfia20/12/1); “Religious Liberty & and Economic Development” (Winter 2013, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rfia20/11/4); “Religion and Global Development” (Winter 2010, https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rfia20/8/4).

7 The pandemic significantly hamstrung the contracting process of the research team, who, as a result, produced these papers in under 90 days.

8 Religious identity exists among multiple identities and allegiances. By stating that 84 percent of the world self-identifies with a belief system is not to say that those beliefs always frame and order behavior. It is simply to say that, depending on the circumstance and context, “religion,” like the air, will be present, and not always discernible. According to the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project, by 2050, 87 percent of the world will self-identify as a believer of some kind. See http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/. That said, others suggest that religion is in global decline. For example, see Inglehart 2020.

9 For Islamic FBOs’ codes of conduct, please see Mohamed and Ofteringer 2015, and Ghafran and Yasmin 2019. In addition, for a Christian perspective, please see World Council of Churches 2011.

10 Personal email to the lead author, July 31, 2020. Quoted with permission.

11 For a useful overview of how the field of religion and development has emerged and evolved, see Tomalin 2020.

12 For example, one of the key findings & recommendations for action from the July 7–9, 2015 World Bank conference on “Religion and Sustainable Development” (https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/07/12/global-conference-religion-sustainable-development) was to: “Develop faith-inspired measurement and metrics, and a faith-inspired understanding of evidence.” Also, please see Check, Green, and Kumar 2020. Whatever one’s opinion of the theology, clearly there is a separate filter for monitoring and evaluation not found in traditional social science.

13 The Center has since been renamed the “Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” under the Biden Administration.

Appendix: A Note on Research Methods

The emerging field of strategic religious engagement is vast and complex due to diverse geo-religio-political-social-cultural contexts within which communities function and interact. The research committee aimed to first recognize and then understand the emerging and often uncharted territory of religious engagement within the broader global developmental and humanitarian frames. The committee sought a large array of academic, gray, experiential, and other relevant “evidential” literature, in order to map and practically navigate the intersection of religion and humanitarian aid & development. Guided by these goals, the committee conducted a meta-narrative review of literature at several stages to identify points of consensus, debates, and research gaps.

The committee had several scoping meetings where we finalized research questions and identified search terms and prospective databases. We conducted both online and offline (personal libraries) searches. For example, some of the online databases included ABI/INFORM from ProQuest and Business Source Premier from EBSCO. We also used databases of particular disciplines; e.g., psychology (PsycINFO), education (ERIC), or healthcare (PubMed), ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), CSA Sociological Abstracts, CSA Social Services Abstracts, and the LANCET series. For gray literature, published and unpublished essays from contacts at organizations such as Joint Learning Initiative (JLI), the World Bank, Christian Conference for International Health (CCIH), International Partnership on Religion and Sustainable Development (PaRD), and from several other websites were collected. We used the following search terms, specified in Table 1, following the BOOLEAN search method to generate search results:

Table 1. Search terms.

Keywords	Operators/Modifiers	Keywords
Religion		Engagement, Partnership, Health, Food Security, Environment, Global Climate Change, Education, Children in Adversity, Democracy, Human Rights, Conflict Management and Mitigation, Humanitarian Assistance, Youth and Women’s Empowerment, Workforce Development, Gender-based Violence, Family Strengthening, Corruption, Minority, Fragility
Faith FBO	AND OR
Religious literacy
Religious engagement
Religious freedom
Religious pluralism

We used an open source bibliography management software (Zotero) to organize results from the initial literature search. After removing duplicates, the initial search process resulted in 1,064 resources. The committee utilized its expertise, experience, judgement, and scholarship to select 236 resources for use as the primary background research for the four research papers. These resources include seminal books, book chapters, peer-reviewed original quantitative and qualitative journal articles, descriptive case studies, previous reviews of literature, NGO reports, government documents, manuals, guidebooks, toolkits, and relevant web pages from both faith-based and non-faith-based actors.