CHURCHES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL: THE ROLE OF CHURCH OF SCOTLAND CONGREGATIONS IN LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A Report of Research Carried out on Behalf of the 
Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility 

By 

The Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow
September 2002







CHURCHES AND SOCIAL CAPITAL: THE ROLE OF CHURCH OF SCOTLAND CONGREGATIONS IN LOCAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

John Flint, Rowland Atkinson and Ade Kearns
Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by the Church of Scotland and was conducted on behalf of the Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility. The authors wish to acknowledge the support and advice provided by Ian Baillie and Joyce Buchanan of the Board of Social Responsibility in the conception and management of this research. We also wish to acknowledge the administrative support provided by Margaret Merchant during the course of this project. 

We are grateful for all those individuals who have freely given their time to contribute to this research. In particular we wish to thank all our key informant interviewees for their valuable insights into the research and the ministers and other members of the nineteen congregations who agreed to be interviewed and provided very helpful information for the vignettes stage of the research.

We are especially grateful to the members of the four case study congregations of Bonhill, Holy Trinity, Lilliesleaf and St. Monans Church of Scotland congregations for participating in the focus groups and returning questionnaires. The four ministers of these congregations: Rev. Ian Millar, Rev. Stanley Brook, Rev. Frank Campbell and Rev. Donald McEwan provided invaluable information, support and encouragement that made the case studies possible. We also wish to thank the members of local organisations and local residents in these parishes who contributed to this stage of the research.

Finally, but by no means least, we are grateful to all the ministers and other church members who completed our detailed and lengthy national survey so diligently.


CONTENTS
List of Tables
List of Figures
Executive Summary
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: Research Methods
Chapter Three: Literature Review
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Social Capital
3.3 The Policy Context
3.4 Churches and Social Capital: Civic Engagement and Community Development
3.5 Existing Research Evidence on Churches and Social Capital
3.6 The Church of Scotland
Chapter Four: Findings from the National Survey of Congregations
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The Contexts of Congregational Activities
4.3 Congregations Involvement in Activities that Generate Social Capital
4.4 The Direct Provision of Services and Facilities
4.5 Facilitating and Utilising Information Networks within Local Communities
4.6 Building Cohesive Communities: Promoting Social Integration and Understanding     
4.7 Promoting Community Development
4.8 Supporting the Institutional Structure of Local Communities
4.9 Creating Community Identities: Pride, Safety and Belonging
4.10 The Role of the Church in Local Communities
4.11 Strengths and Weaknesses
4.11 Conclusions
Chapter Five: Findings from the Case Studies of Congregations
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Case study of Bonhill Church of Scotland
5.3 Case study of Holy Trinity Church of Scotland
5.4 Case study of Lilliesleaf Church of Scotland
5.5 Case Study of St Monans Church of Scotland
5.6 Aggregated Survey Findings
5.7 Conclusions
Chapter Six: Conclusions and Recommendations
References
Appendices
Appendix A Survey Returns 
Appendix B List of Congregations involved in Stage Three of Research
Appendix C An Explanation of the Social Capital Activities Scores


List of Figures
1.1 A Framework for Congregational Relationships
3.1 The Different Roles for Faith Groups
3.2 A typology of the domains of social capital and the potential impact of churches on 
      social capital
3.3 Concerns about Church Engagement in Community Development Activities

List of Tables
4.2.1 Characteristics of the Local Areas Congregations Operate In
4.3.1 Social Capital Scores
4.3.2 Social Capital Scores by Parish Type
4.4.1 Congregations Directly Providing Services and Facilities
4.4.2 Congregations Providing Educational, Cultural and Health Services 
4.4.3 Congregations Providing Self-help and Personal Growth Services
4.4.4 Congregations Providing Direct Services to Local People in Need
4.4.5 Congregations Providing Facilities for General Use in Local Area
4.5.1 Techniques for Disseminating Information
4.5.2 Forms of Consultation
4.6.1 Congregational Support to Particular Groups in Communities
4.7.1 Congregation’s Involvement in Community Development Activities
4.7.2 Encouraging Mutual Support
4.8.1 Proportion of Church Members Involved in Other Local Groups
4.8.2 Organisations Church Members are Involved With
4.8.3 Local Organisations Supported by Congregations
4.8.4 Types of Congregational Support Provided to Local Organisations
4.8.5 Church Involvement in Activities and Events for Local People (including non-
          members) in the Last Two Years
4.8.6 Nature of Congregational Involvement
4.8.7 Congregation’s Involvement in Local Partnerships
4.8.8 Local Community Organisations Established Through Church Activity in Last       
         Two Years
4.8.9 The Nature of Relationships
4.8.10 Working With Other Churches
4.8.11 Partnerships Outside the Local Area
4.9.1 Congregation’s Contribution to A Sense of Community
4.9.2 Local People’s Trust of and Involvement with Congregations
4.10.1 The Focus of Congregation’s Activities
4.10.2 Funding Sources for Congregations
4.10.3 Respondents’ Attitudes to Funding and Service Provision
4.10.4 The Division of Responsibility Between the Church and Other Agencies
4.11.1 Enabling Factors
4.11.2 Factors Inhibiting Engagement
5.2.1 Attitudes Towards Bonhill Church
5.2.2 The Local Importance of Bonhill Church
5.3.1 Attitudes Towards Holy Trinity Church
5.3.2 The Local Importance of Holy Trinity Church
5.4.1 Attitudes Towards Lilliesleaf Church
5.4.2 The Local Importance of Lilliesleaf Church
5.5.1 Attitudes Towards St Monans Church
5.5.2 The Local Importance of St Monans Church
5.6.1 Church Members’ Local Connections and Activities
5.6.2 Church Members’ Involvement in Other :Local Organisations
5.6.3 The Role of Churches in Encouraging Organisational Membership 
5.6.4 Members’ Preferred Levels of Congregational Engagement
5.6.5 Church Connections to Non-Members
5.6.6. Residents’ Preferred Levels of Church Engagement



Executive Summary

1. Background
There is a growing interest amongst policy makers in the contribution that faith groups may make towards government objectives, particularly related to reducing social exclusion and supporting neighbourhood renewal. At the same time policy has highlighted social capital (the features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit) as a crucial factor in successful policy outcomes. The Church of Scotland’s recent A Church Without Walls document outlined an agenda for a renewed engagement of congregations with their local communities based around the importance of the local and relational, the fundamentals of social capital. It appears that there is a remarkable synergy between the aims of the Church and the government and an emerging consensus about how these aims are to be achieved. However, supportive rhetoric from policy makers towards faith communities has been less forthcoming in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Additionally recent commentaries have claimed the Church of Scotland to be an institution experiencing both a decreasing membership and a declining influence in local communities. Despite considerable research evidence from the United States, and a number of studies about the role of faith groups in regeneration initiatives in the UK, no study had been conducted in Scotland about the extent of congregations’ contributions to social capital at national and local levels. In order to address this deficit in the understanding of the role of the Church of Scotland, the Board of Social Responsibility commissioned a team of researchers from the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow to establish the extent of congregations’ engagement with their local communities, to identify the processes involved in congregations’ contributing to local stocks of social capital and to identify issues arising from the research findings for congregations, the Church of Scotland and policy makers at the national and local levels.

2. About The Research
This research was funded by the Church of Scotland and was conducted by the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, on behalf of the Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility between August 2001 and June 2002. The research comprised five stages:
A Literature Review of existing research into congregations and social capital
Key Informant Interviews with members of the Church of Scotland, ecumenical organisations and local and national policy makers
A National Questionnaire Survey of Congregations, posted out to every Church of Scotland charge. A total of 454 were returned, a forty two percent response rate providing a sample representing one third of all Church of Scotland parishes
Vignettes involving semi-structured telephone interviews with nineteen congregations throughout Scotland engaged in specific activities identified as being particularly important in generating local stocks of social capital.
Case Studies of four Church of Scotland congregations, both urban and rural and involving focus groups, interviews with local organisations, and postal surveys of both church members and non-member residents.

3. Key Findings from the Research
* Church of Scotland congregations operate within very diverse local communities, both between and within parishes. This diversity suggests the need for flexibility, sensitivity and innovation amongst both congregations and wider Church structures in their attempts to engage with local communities.
* Church of Scotland congregations are involved in a wide range of activities that generate benefits for local communities beyond their own congregations. Involvement in such activities also often generates beneficial outcomes for congregations themselves.
* Church of Scotland congregations are on average involved in half of an identified range of activities that may generate social capital in their local communities. 
* Congregations in urban and/or deprived communities are involved in a greater number of activities than those in rural or affluent parishes. Congregations operating in ethnically diverse parishes have above average social capital scores. Neither the size of congregations, nor the presbytery they are located within are significant factors in determining their involvement in activities.
* Church of Scotland congregations provide a wide range of services and facilities to local communities. This is more likely to be through a facilitating and enabling role to other organisations rather than through direct provision. 
* The spiritual, communal and secular dimensions of congregational activity are complimentary components of the ability of churches to contribute to local stocks of social capital.
* Church premises are vital sites of civic engagement in local communities.
* Congregations play an important role in disseminating information within local communities. Congregations have been less prominent in gathering information from their wider communities. 
* The diversity of local communities provides both challenges and opportunities for congregations. Many congregations have played an important role in addressing this diversity through attempting to support and integrate the most marginalised individuals and vulnerable groups within local communities and have sought to increase general levels of social cohesion and levels of engagement that are crucial to social capital and successful community development. The impacts of these congregations’ activities have been substantial. However the survey shows that only a minority of congregations are engaged in these activities, indicating that many congregations who are not currently involved in community cohesion activities should develop such a role for themselves.
* The survey findings demonstrate the strength of inter-faith linkages and the commitment of Church of Scotland congregations to engage in ecumenical partnership working. The evidence indicates that the activities of local faith groups are far more likely to create and encourage a sense of social cohesion rather than foster divisions in local communities. 
* Church of Scotland congregations are less engaged in community development activities such as defining local needs and involvement in local campaigns. However, such engagement is most likely to empower local people within decision-making processes and is often the most symbolic demonstration of a congregation’s commitment and relevance to the wider, non-church community.
* The contribution of the Church of Scotland congregations to social capital is as likely to be achieved through the activities of individual members than through formal ‘church labelled’ activities. The church may well play an important role in facilitating and supporting the participation of their members in organisational activity locally. However, the reliance on these forms of engagement appears to result in a neglect of formal structures and in weak linkages between many congregations and other local organisations and agencies. The strength of such institutional linkages is a vital factor in the outcome of individuals’ activities and therefore should be a priority for congregations. 
* A significant number of newly established community groups are being generated by Church of Scotland congregations across the nation. 
* Congregations play an important role in contributing to a sense of community within their parishes, usually through a celebration of diversity as well as of the common bonds between local people. 
* Churches appear largely to be trusted local organisations. Four in ten congregations report that their relations with their communities have improved or increased in the last two years, suggesting the dynamics of congregation-community relations are moving in the direction envisaged in A Church Without Walls. There is little intolerance to the presence of churches in communities. However, this is coupled with a lack of awareness amongst non-members about the activities of congregations.
* The majority of church members and non-members within the local communities studied supported a greater engagement of churches in their local communities, suggesting internal and external support for the Church Without Walls agenda. However, a great deal of uncertainty still exists within the Church about the desirability and feasibility of congregations engaging in a wider community development role and particularly in direct service provision. These ambiguous findings are related to differences in the perceived priorities, strengths and weaknesses of local congregations. 
* Faith and mission and being trusted are reported to be the most important factors in enabling congregations to contribute to their local communities, whilst a lack of resources (financial, human and physical) and local apathy within wider local communities are cited as the factors that most inhibit greater community engagement.





4. Recommendations

Church of Scotland Congregations should:
* Conduct a review process of their activities, an audit of local needs and members skills and identifying wider perceptions of the church and local needs they may address. 
* Recognise the importance of small-scale actions. An internal focus upon the structures, processes and external images of congregational life provides a starting point to further community engagement. Recognise the diversity and legitimacy of many forms of community activity
* Continue to support and encourage the activities of their individual members in community organisations and activities whilst at the same time facilitating more formal structures of communication and increasing interaction with local organisations and agencies. Such an approach is complimentary rather than an alternative to the individual activities of members
* Recognise that whilst informal relationships are essential and often the traditional method of interaction within communities, they may not have the visibility and capacity to reach beyond existing circuit of communication. More formal ‘church labelled’ activities potentially increase the profile and accessibility of congregations as local organisations to be included and engaged in communal activities.
* Review the use of their church buildings where applicable. These are both of symbolic importance and are also crucial sites of civic engagement. Congregations should identify whether these premises could be further utilised by local communities (dependent on resources).
* Give priority to developing wider linkages for themselves and other local community groups, with other organisations and agencies beyond the parish. Such wider linkages are likely to increase the influence of local communities in decision- making processes 

The Church of Scotland should:
* Combine a focus upon maintaining its unique identity with an explicit recognition that it represents one voice amongst many in local communities and should facilitate partnerships with local organisations and agencies
* Develop and facilitate a role for congregations at the centre of local communities that places local churches firmly within the wider voluntary sector, enabling the church to plug into existing circuits of communication and support from which it is presently relatively isolated. This can be achieved without any diminution of the Church’s identity and particular strengths
* Continue to facilitate debates within the Church about the desirability and feasibility of congregation’s increasing engagement in service provision 
* Develop structures and processes, in line with Church Without Walls, that promote the autonomy and flexibility of local congregations, and enable risk taking and innovation in attempts to develop new forms of community engagement
* Further develop structures of support between congregations, so that resources may be distributed in such a way that congregations who wish to undertake community development activities are not prevented from doing so by a lack of resources
* Address the issue of congregations’ poor record of accessing mainstream funding sources by developing processes and structures that provide support and advice to individual congregations in application procedures. In tandem, it should continue to construct linkages to local and national government
* Recognise that partnerships with community organisations, agencies and local government may be successfully developed without endangering the priorities and identity of the Church

Policy makers should:
* Recognise the substantial contribution that Church of Scotland congregations make to social capital in Scottish communities 
* Accept that wider messages of declining Church membership and influence disguise the crucial role played by many congregations in local communities, including the establishment of a significant number of new community organisations, premises, facilities and services
* Support the maintenance and renovation of church buildings, recognising their importance as existing sites of civic engagement 
* Recognise the extent of multi-faith working between Church of Scotland congregations and other faith groups and identify the activities of congregations as largely supportive of wider social cohesion rather than sources of social division
* Facilitate funding mechanisms that enable congregations to more readily access grants for their activities and recognise that the centrality of faith to congregations’ activities should be reconciled, with safeguards, within funding guidelines, rather than being a barrier to applications
* Recognise the Church of Scotland as a potential partner or significant actor in a wider range of policy initiatives than is currently the case

Chapter One: Introduction

‘I sense a new and vital energy about the practice of faith in the UK. A new and vital energy within the churches and other faith groups about engagement in the communities in which you work and have your being.’
(Tony Blair, speech to the Christian Socialist Movement, 29 March 2001).

It is argued that in the UK faith communities are enjoying a greater degree of recognition than ever before across the political spectrum (Sarkis, 2001). In A Church Without Walls, the report of the Church of Scotland’s Special Commission anent Review and Reform, the authors argue that ‘the Church ‘works’ where people join together, building relationships with each other and the community to which they belong’. The report explicitly emphasises the importance of the local and the relational in the purpose and work of the Church of Scotland. A Church Without Walls focuses on the local congregation as the site of church action in the community and the nature of the relationships between church members, church structures and the wider community. 

This focus on the local and relational is concurrent with a growing policy emphasis upon how levels of social capital within local communities contribute to the wellbeing and sustainability of communities. In particular there is an increasing policy and academic focus upon the contribution that social capital can make towards policies aimed at achieving neighbourhood renewal and community regeneration, particularly within the most deprived communities in the UK. 

One of the two main pillars of the Scottish executive’s recent Community Regeneration  Statement is that ‘We must make sure that individuals and communities have the social capital-the skills, confidence, support networks and resources- to take advantage of and increase the opportunities to them’ (Scottish Executive, 2002, p3). Social capital refers to the non-monetary value of co-operation and networking existent in social relations between residents in local communities. Its most prominent advocate, the US scholar Robert Putnam, has defined social capital as:

‘The features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam, 1993).

As policy aims have increasingly focused upon reviving the public civility and participation of citizens and policy interventions have become targeted at the scale of local neighbourhoods and communities, the importance of strong local associationalism becomes paramount. The key elements of social capital therefore lie in both the ‘local’ and the ‘relational’ which A Church Without Walls highlights. 

The remarkable resonance between UK government policy documents such as A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001) and Church Without Walls would suggest that high levels of synergy already exist between Church of Scotland congregations and local and national policy makers. Official UK policy pronouncements certainly espouse a wider and more strategic role for faith communities in government policy and community regeneration initiatives (Evens, 2001). Both UK government policy documents and government ministers in personal statements argue that churches are potentially important organisations within local communities, and particularly in deprived neighbourhoods suffering economic and social decline. 

However, the current policy context and perceptions about the role of the church appear extremely complex. Despite the official support at the level of the UK national government, the relationship between churches and policy makers continues to be controversial. In particular the recent Faithworks campaign in the UK has argued that the willingness of faith organisations to become involved in community development is frustrated by an implicit or explicit discrimination against them by local authorities and other funding organisations. There is also a contrast between the explicit recognition of a role for faith groups in Whitehall documents and the lack of such a defined role in recent policy statements from the Scottish Executive. For example, the Scottish Executive’s recent Community Regeneration Statement (2002) outlines an important role for ‘community leaders’ and ‘voluntary and community organisations’, but without any specific reference to faith organisations in Scotland. 

One aspect of this debate is the extent to which congregations are unique and inherently different from other local voluntary organisations. This raises issues about whether church contributions to local communities can best be facilitated by framing them within a wider third sector or, alternatively, creating particular structures that reflect their own unique characteristics. It also raises questions about how the roles and priorities of churches are perceived both internally and externally.

Secondly, previous research provides contradictory findings about the capacity of churches to become more engaged in community development activity. Whilst some studies identify a range of resources which congregations may offer to local communities, other studies have highlighted a range of barriers congregations face in widening their involvement within local communities.

A third aspect involves the nature of relations between churches. Social capital can act both as a bridging element between diverse communities or it can act exclusively to strengthen division between groups in society. In the aftermath of racial and religious tensions following the events of the 11 September 2001, race riots in northern English towns last summer and the continuing debate about the extent of religious sectarianism within Scottish society (Devine, 2001), the contribution, or otherwise, that churches make towards social cohesion and tolerance of diversity within a more heterogeneous and multi-cultural nation has come under severe scrutiny. 

Fourthly, the relationship between congregations and local people is also subject to dispute. Commentators report an increasing disengagement from traditional religious participation, arguing this to be demonstrated in declining church attendance and membership. Evidence to support this view comes from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2000 which reported that church attendance in Scotland has declined over the past two decades due to both falling religious attachment (identifying oneself as belonging to a religion) and lower rates of church going among the religious themselves (Park, 2002). Thus, in 2000, only 35 percent of adults belonged to the Church of Scotland and only 23 percent of religious Scots attended church on a weekly basis. 

It is also suggested that congregations may be insular organisations, conferring benefits to their membership but not to the wider, non-church community. On the other hand, others argue that the role played by religious organisations is as great as ever, and that congregations may well ‘punch above their weight’. Firstly because they are often one of the few remaining associational organisations engaged in those communities suffering the most acute economic and social distress, and secondly because the faith of their members leads to them being disproportionately involved in organisational activity within their local communities.

Many of these debates have taken place without any real knowledge about the nature and extent of faith organisations’ activities within their local communities in the UK. Research from the US suggests that congregations make a significant contribution to stocks of local social capital, both through their own formal activities and also through enhancing civic participation and voluntary commitment in their members, bringing benefits to the wider communities within which they are situated.

The relational role of local congregations is determined through congregational linkages to six groups: congregational members, the national Church and its infrastructure, local and national secular policy makers, other local voluntary and community organisations, other churches and faith groups and local people, as illustrated in figure 1.1:

Fig 1.1 A Framework for Congregational Relationships












It becomes evident that not only are local congregations potentially involved in an array of relationships with different groupings, but the context in which they operate will also be affected by the nature of relationships between other groups. Thus, whilst the activities of congregations will influence social capital, congregations themselves will also be affected by social capital. 

This piece of research, commissioned by the Board of Social Responsibility attempts to address these issues with reference to Church of Scotland congregations and thereby to contribute to the growing number of studies that seek to better our understanding of the relationship between congregations, social capital and communities.

In particular, the research set out to address these questions:
* What is the extent and nature of Church of Scotland congregations’ involvement in activities and processes that may generate social capital within their communities?
* What are the outcomes of this congregational involvement for Scottish communities?
* What is the nature of relationships between congregations, local people, other faith groups, voluntary organisations and policy makers?
* How is the future role of Church of Scotland congregations in community development perceived and envisaged by local residents, church members, church ministers and policy makers?
* How may congregations, where they wish to do so, be facilitated in contributing to social capital? Within this, what particular strengths do congregations possess and what barriers do they face at local and national levels?

The findings presented in this report are based on evidence from research conducted between June 2001 and June 2002, using a number of techniques including a national survey of congregations, semi-structured interviews, vignettes of particular congregational activities and detailed case studies of local congregations. 

Chapter Two of this report provides details about the research methodology used. Chapter Three reviews the current scene, including sections on social capital, the policy context in the UK, the existing research evidence on the links between churches and social capital and policy developments within the Church of Scotland. The findings from the national survey of congregations and vignettes are presented in Chapters Four to Seven. The findings from the case studies of congregations are reported in Chapter Eight. Chapter Nine provides conclusions and recommendations arising from the research.

Chapter 2: Research Methodology

This research was funded by the Church of Scotland and was conducted by the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, on behalf of the Church of Scotland Board of Social Responsibility between August 2001 and June 2002. The research comprised five stages.

Stage One: Literature Review
A comprehensive review of the existing literature relating to social capital, congregations and community activity was carried out. This included analysis of relevant government and church policy documents in Scotland, the United Kingdom and the Unites States. Findings from previous research studies of congregations in local communities in these countries were also examined. The literature review is presented in Chapter Three.

Stage Two: Key Informant Interviews
In order to develop our understanding of the context of Church of Scotland congregational activity and to identify key issues and questions for our research, a series of semi-structured interviews were carried out with the following individuals:
Rev. Ewan Aitken		Church of Scotland Minister, City of Edinburgh Councillor
Mr. Graham Blount	    	Scottish Churches Parliamentary Officer
Mr. John Dornan           	Development Co-ordinator, Scottish Churches Community Trust
Rev. John Miller	Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland
Rev. Martin Johnstone 	Urban Priority Areas Adviser, Church of Scotland Board of National Mission 
Sir Neil McIntosh		Member of Church of Scotland Church and Nation Committee, Chair of Commission into Local Government and the Scottish Parliament
Mrs. Linda Rosborough	Head of Social Inclusion Division, Scottish Executive	
Stage Three: National Questionnaire Survey of Congregations
A postal questionnaire survey was sent to every Church of Scotland parish. This was a detailed questionnaire asking respondents about their parish (es), the nature of their congregation, the extent and nature of community activities they were involved in and their perceptions about the role of the church within local communities. The overwhelming majority of returned questionnaires were completed by ministers, although we received questionnaires that had been completed by minister’s partners, session clerks, elders and members of the congregations with specific responsibility for community outreach activities.

1083 postal survey questionnaires were sent out to ministers. 454 completed questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 43 percent. The number of congregations facing vacancies at the time of the survey is presented in Appendix A, Table A.1. There were 236 such congregations, representing 15 percent of the total number of congregations. The impact of vacancies on the response rate is apparent in that only nine such congregations returned surveys. Taking vacant ministries into account the survey response from occupied ministries was higher, at 54 percent.

Due to the Church of Scotland system of linked parishes in some areas, ministers may be responsible for more than one parish.  There are 1564 congregations listed in the 2001-2002 Church of Scotland Handbook. Survey returns covered 493 congregations, making the coverage of congregations 32 percent.

Church of Scotland congregations are organised within 47 geographical presbyteries (including one for England). Surveys were returned from congregations in all 47 presbyteries. Five presbyteries had response rates of less than 20 percent, whilst seven presbyteries had response rates of 40 percent or over. The response rates from the other presbyteries fell within the 20-39 percent range (the complete response rate by presbytery is presented in Appendix A, Table A.1).

We also identified urban priority area (UPA) congregations, as defined by the Church of Scotland. There are 295 UPA congregations, of which 103 returned surveys, giving a UPA response rate of 35 percent. The UPA returns by presbytery are detailed in Table A.2 in Appendix A. The findings from the national survey are presented in Chapters Four to Seven.

Stage Four: Vignettes
Given the dynamic and complex processes involved in generating social capital in local communities and the number of factors that impact upon congregation’s attempts to become involved in wider community activity, we sought to deepen our understanding of the issues facing local churches through a series of vignettes. These involved semi-structured telephone interviews with congregations that were involved in specific activities that we identified from the postal survey as being particularly important in generating local stocks of social capital. In total, nineteen such interviews were conducted. In most cases interviews were carried out with ministers, although in some instances minister’s wives, church elders and members of other local organisations were also interviewed. The findings from these interviews are presented in a series of boxed paragraphs running through Chapters Four to Six and are designed to compliment the survey data through providing concrete examples and in-depth analysis of the processes congregations are involved in. A full list of the congregations involved in this stage of the research is given in Appendix B. 

Stage 5: Case Studies
Detailed case studies were conducted of four Church of Scotland congregations. These congregations were selected to provide a broad geographical coverage and to reflect diverse economic and social circumstances and a range of congregational structures and activities. The case studies involved four elements:
a) A focus group with ministers, elders and other church members involved in church activities in the wider community.
b) A series of telephone interviews with members of local organisations which sought to identify the nature of their relationship with the church
c) A postal survey of church members enquiring about their activities in the local community and their perceptions of their church
d) A postal survey of two hundred local residents in each case study area asking for their perceptions about the role of the church within their communities.

The findings from the case studies are presented in Chapter Eight.
Chapter Three: Social Capital, Churches and Communities

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the concept of social capital and develops a theoretical framework for evaluating the role of church congregations in generating social capital. The chapter continues by assessing the current policy context, characterised by an increasing focus upon social capital as a vital element of government policy and a recognition of the potential contribution churches may make towards successful community development. Previous literature on the relationship between churches and community and civic development is discussed and is followed by a summary of the findings of existing research work into churches and social capital in the UK and the United States. Finally, the chapter briefly describes the organisational characteristics of the Church of Scotland and the Board of Social Responsibility and concludes by placing this research report within the Church of Scotland’s wider reform agenda encapsulated in its Church Without Walls document (Church of Scotland, 2001).

3.2 Social Capital

Social capital has a long academic history, and was used as early as 1916 in a study of rural community centres in the United States. The concept has re-emerged as an important element of contemporary academic and policy debates, particularly influenced by the work of James Coleman (1988), Robert Putnam (1993) and Frances Fukayama (1995, 1999). Robert Putnam provides a useful introductory description of social capital:

‘By analogy with notions of physical capital and human-capital tools training that enhance individual productivity- social capital refers to features of social organisation such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate co-ordination and co-operation for mutual benefit. Social capital enhances the benefit of investment in physical and human capital’. 

Frances Fukayama (1995) describes social capital as: 

‘The ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and organisations…the ability to associate depends on the degree to which communities share norms and values and are able to subordinate individual interests to those of larger groups. Out of the shared values comes trust, and trust has a large and measurable economic value.’

Fukayama highlights that social capital involves ‘reciprocity, moral obligation, duty toward community and trust, which are based in habit rather than rational calculation.’

Fukayama also tells us that social capital is dynamic: 

‘Social capital is created when relationships are formed which facilitate co-operation and co-ordination…since transactions create, renew or destroy relationships, social capital can potentially change with each transaction’.

Therefore:
* Social capital is an intangible resource which exists in the relations between people
* Stocks of social capital, like financial capital, are self reinforcing and cumulative
* Stocks of social capital become depleted if not used
* Social capital involves expectations of reciprocity

Social capital can be summarised as:

 ‘A set of informal values and norms shared among members of a groups that permits co-operation amongst them’ (Fukayama, 1999).

The particular relevance of social capital in current policy debates is based around its role in neighbourhood decline or renewal. A healthy community is assumed to be have high levels of social capital:

‘In which individuals trust, or feel a mutual sense of obligation to each other. This feeling of trust creates an environment wherein people feel comfortable socialising with neighbors and relative strangers because people expect others to behave in accordance with social norms that encourage mutually beneficial interactions’ (Temkin and Rohe, 1998).

In contrast, declining neighbourhoods experience networks that are disrupted and weakened and population turnover erodes familiarity and trust. Policies and initiatives aimed at reversing the decline are being implemented in a context of community disengagement and disillusionment. Social capital is therefore an important determinant of the success, or otherwise, of a range of policy interventions: 

‘Researchers in such fields as education, urban poverty, unemployment and the control of crime and drug abuse, and even health, have discovered that successful outcomes are more likely in civically engaged communities’ (Putnam, 1995).

This focus on policy outcomes rather than processes highlights a vital point of distinction in studies of social capital between the existence of social relationships and the extent to which these relationships are actually utilised by local communities to achieve desired goals. This ability to successfully utilise social networks has been termed collective efficacy (Sampson et al., 1997). This issue is highlighted in debates about thick or thin social networks and bonding versus bridging social capital. Bonding social capital may be defined as thick social networks between like individuals (e.g. families) which enable people to ‘get by’. Bridging social capital in contrast comprises weaker, but wider linkages between heterogeneous individuals which provide opportunities to ‘get on’. A related point, and important to any discussion of the churches’ role in generating social capital, is the extent to which bonding social capital, involving strong ties within a group, may actually act to exclude outsiders, bringing benefits to members at the expense of other groups (Portes and Landolt, 1996). 

This focus on the extent to which communities are able to use social capital to generate local benefits requires an examination of how local communities relate to others at a wider spatial and social scale. Whilst social capital exists in relationships between individuals (Routledge and Amsberg, 1996), social capital is also defined as the ability of people to work together in groups and organisations (Fukayama, 1995). Within our focus on the outcomes of social relationships, and particularly the extent to which they generate bridging capital, the role of local organisations, including churches, is likely to be crucial. This requires a focus on the institutional infrastructures existing in local communities, the ability of organisations to act on behalf of residents and the extent to which co-operation is effectively institutionalised (Temkin and Rohe, 1998; Boix and Posner, 1998).

In summary, any study of the contribution of church congregations to local stocks of social capital needs to address:
* To what extent do congregations contribute to bonding and/or bridging social capital?
* To what extent do benefits remain within the congregation or accrue beyond it? Are congregations ameliorating or adding to divisions between groups with strong internal bonding social capital but little bridging social capital between them?
* How do congregations contribute to the institutional infrastructure of local communities through working with and supporting networks of local organisations?
* To what extent do congregations contribute to an outward-looking focus for local communities, developing important beneficial linkages with agencies and communities at wider spatial scales?
* What sort of social capital is being generated in congregations? Do congregations differ, and if so, in what ways, from other community/voluntary organisations? 

In posing this last question, Allen Hayes (2001) suggests four processes through which congregations may contribute to social capital: 
* Mobilising resources that might not otherwise be mobilised to address community problems
* Raising consciousness about community problems among people who would not otherwise be aware or engaged
* Creating linkages between social groups that would not normally exist
* Empowering social groups that normally have little influence

In identifying faith groups as potential agents of transformation and ‘enablers’ of their local community, Lewis and Randolph- Horn (2001) identify four key roles for faith groups, contrasting traditional and transformative roles (Fig 3.1):
Fig 3.1 The Different Roles of Faith Groups

Traditional roles
Transformative Roles
Identity
* Shared culture with other people of faith
* Worship
* Religious beliefs
* Pilgrimage

* Develop community pride
* Neighbourhood celebrations
* Share values that reflect the common good
* Implement change
* Place for people to experience spirituality
Care
* Care for their members
* Serve others
* Sanctuary and place of refuge
* Reach out to others and enable others to care
* Nurture others’ talents
* Place of peace and renewal for all
Prophetic
* See needs and respond
* Denounce injustice
* Offer alternatives for members
* Ensure all voice are heard
* Give the poor a voice
* Co-create a common vision of how things could be
* Strive for peace, here and abroad
Organisation
* Legal charitable structure
* National organisation
* Sole use of buildings and skills
* Set moral standard for secular life


* Mentors and nurturers of smaller organisations
* Support local economy
* Share use of space, incubate social enterprises and community finance organisations; support social entrepreneurs
* Practice local and fair trade
Source: Lewis, J. and Randolph-Horn, E. (2001) Faiths, Hope and Participation: celebrating faith groups’ role in neighbourhood renewal

Building upon these two models, we have identified eight component domains of social capital, and suggest that congregations may contribute to each of these domains (Figure 3.2). The important characteristics of our typology are that the domains are interlinked: activities in one domain will have effect on other domains, and secondly, congregations may contribute to some domains of social capital more than to others.







Fig. 3.2 A typology of the domains of social capital and the potential impact of churches on social capital
Domain
Description
Potential impact of church activity
Empowerment 



 

Participation


 
Associational 
activity and
common  purpose 

Supporting 
networks
and reciprocity


Collective 
norms and 
values


Trust



Safety



Belonging
That people feel they have a voice which is listened to,  that they are involved in processes that affect them and that they can themselves take action to initiate changes


That people take part in social and community activities. Local events occur and are well attended

That people co-operate with one another through the formation of  formal and informal groups to further their interests


 That individuals and organisations co-operate to support one another for either mutual or one-sided gain. An expectation that help would be given to or received from others when needed

 That people share common values and norms of 
 behaviour



That people feel they can trust their co-residents, local organisations and authorities responsible for governing or serving their area

That people feel safe in their local area and are not restricted in their use of public space by fear


That people feel connected to their co- residents 
and their home area. They have a sense of belonging to the place and its people
Providing support to community groups, giving local people ‘voice’, helping to provide solutions to problems, assisting local people to have a role in policy processes. Showing people they can do things for themselves

Establishing and/or supporting local activities and local  organisations, publicising local events

Developing and supporting networks between  
organisations in the area Assisting the formation of local groups and organisations


Creating, developing and/or supporting an ethos of co-operation between individuals and organisations which develop ideas of community support and collective welfare

Developing and promulgating an ethos which residents recognise & accept; securing harmonious social relations and promoting community interests

Encouraging trust in residents in their relationships with the Church, each other and other  institutions and the wider community

Encouraging a sense of safety in residents. Involvement in local crime prevention initiatives

Creating, developing and/or supporting a sense of  belonging in residents
These domains and identified potential impacts provide the theoretical framework for the research reported in the following chapters of this report. This chapter now continues by placing this potential role for Church of Scotland congregations within its current policy context. 

3.3 The Policy Context

The context for current government interest in faith-based organisations is the priority given to the regeneration of deprived, socially excluded communities and neighbourhoods in the UK. As part of this aim, there is a revival in interest in the role that faith groups may play in policy delivery and community development in the UK (Sarkis, 2001). This interest, which mirrors similar trends in the United States, is based upon a growing recognition of the range of community initiatives that local faith communities are engaged in and the potential synergy between the aims and practices of faith groups and government policy objectives relating to neighbourhood renewal, reinvigorating civil society and tackling social exclusion (Kramnick, 1997; Farnsley, 1998). Four aspects of churches1 are regularly highlighted as making them key actors in achieving these policy aims:
* The contribution of churches to the cohesion of neighbourhoods
* The resources that churches have
* Church links to their localities 
* The continuing church engagement within the most deprived and declining neighbourhoods.

In the Foreword to a recent report on the role of faith-based organisations in community development, the General Deputy Assistant for Policy Development in the US Department of Housing and Urban Development stated: ‘Faith-based organisations are important to the cohesion of neighbourhoods and the development of local communities.’ The Bush administration actively supports religious voluntarism as part of his avowed agenda of ‘strengthening civil society and America’s communities and has established a White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (White House Press Release, 2001).

These dual policy aims of civic reengagement and strengthened local communities, and rationales about the particular contribution churches may provide towards achieving these goals, are mirrored in the enthusiasm that the UK government demonstrates towards an increasing role for faith-based organisations. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997) guidance document for involving communities in urban and rural regeneration argues that ‘Faith communities have a significant contribution to make to neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion’. 

The Prime Minister himself has placed this role for churches at the heart of church presence in local communities: ‘Community action has always been a central mission of the churches and other faith groups…faith groups make a unique contribution.’ (Tony Blair, speech to the Christian Socialist Movement, 29 March 2001). Blair highlighted the importance of the churches’ role and suggested a developing ethos of partnership between church and government:
‘The churches’ role in the voluntary sector, working in partnership with central and local government, is legitimate and important. And where [churches] have the desire and ability to play a greater role, with the support of your communities, we want to see them do so’ (ibid).

The Scottish Executive has also acknowledged the potential importance of churches within its wider policy goal of tackling social exclusion. Speaking in 1999 the then Communities Minister, Wendy Alexander said: ‘Churches have always had a unique role in the life of our communities and they will continue to have an important role in spreading the message of social inclusion’ (Scottish Executive, 1999).

This avocation of a church role is often premised around the perceived particular strengths of local churches:

‘Compared with other community organisations, faith communities are often well resourced, have broad memberships with wide ranges of community contacts. Faith communities can help partnerships understand the needs and concerns of local people or groups particular needs’ (DETR, 1997).

Thus, churches are perceived to be:
* Well resourced
* Have a broad membership
* Are well connected within local institutional networks
* Have a direct connection with local people and are able to represent the diversity of local communities

Tony Blair argues ‘You [Faith communities] are engaged directly. You know the terrain. You have committed volunteers and often an infrastructure invaluable for delivering projects speedily and effectively’ (Tony Blair, speech to the Christian Socialist Movement, 29 March 2001). This emphasis on the efficiency of church organisations reflects another rationale for government support. Elsewhere in his speech Blair states that faith organisations ‘have developed some of the most effective voluntary and community organisations in the country. In many cases you meet urgent social needs directly. In others you work in partnership with central and local government to give a special character to the delivery of public services which the states funds and would otherwise have to provide directly’. 

This perception of the effectiveness of churches, operating within the wider voluntary sector is echoed by the former leader of the Conservative Party:

‘The general lesson that sometimes things can be done better by religious, by voluntary organisations, by charities than have ever been done by the state or local authorities, I think is a very powerful lesson.’
(William Hague, quoted in Evens, 2001). 

A further rationale for the involvement of faith groups in social inclusion is the belief that faith groups ‘May offer a channel to some of the hardest to reach groups’ (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). The Home Secretary has explicitly highlighted the unique contribution that churches play in renewing civil society and engaging individuals in the most deprived and socially excluded communities:

‘[Church organisations] are a resource available to all areas of our country, even the most deprived, the least active and the most likely to be disengaged form the political process. This is a resource that every Government regeneration programme and the development of community leadership cannot match…we wish to enable faith communities to contribute to the wider active community’ (David Blunkett, quoted in Dobson, 2001). 

A recent report by the Christian Socialist Movement (2001) suggests that the involvement of faith communities in regeneration initiatives is appropriate ‘since faith communities are often one of the few groups that operate in neighbourhoods long abandoned by banks, businesses and shops.’

Faith communities are therefore argued to provide in some instances ‘the only community-based structures in areas where other social institutions had been eroded and are often long term ‘stayers’ familiar with local realities’ (Inner Cities Religious Council, Press Release). Such thinking underpins a gradual move towards a wider and more strategic involvement of faith communities in government-funded regeneration initiatives during the 1990s (Evens, 2001). 

Several steps have been taken to further the involvement of faith-based organisations in neighbourhood renewal programmes. The UK Government has indicated that it will pay VAT on the repair of listed buildings in the faith sector and introduced the Community Investment Tax Credit to improve incentives for the private sector to support voluntary and faith-based initiatives. The government has also pledged support for the Inner-Cities Religious Council and has briefed local community initiatives such as Sure Start and Experience Corps about forming partnerships with faith organisations. The government appears to be seeking three policy objectives. Firstly, to build the capacity of faith-based organisations. Secondly, to facilitate and promote neighbourhood partnerships that include faith communities. Thirdly, and most controversially, to reduce barriers to faith communities accessing public funding for community initiatives. (These objectives mirror those of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, see White House Press Release, 2001).


A Comparative Funding Framework: Charitable Choice in the United States

In the United States, the ‘Charitable Choice’ provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act (1996) gave religious organisations the same opportunities that secular non-profit agencies have in competing for contracts to deliver welfare reform services. 

‘Charitable Choice’ seeks to eliminate boundaries between church and state in the provision of local services. State governments opting to contract with social service providers are prohibited from excluding faith-based organisations simply on the basis that they are pervasively sectarian (Griener, 2000). The legislation clarified the range of acceptable partnerships and sought to address fears about discrimination and evangelism. Faith based organisations did not have to alter their environment (e.g. remove religious symbols) and were able to use religious language and concepts in their welfare programmes (Griener, 2000). Charities may employ their own workers on religious grounds, but may not discriminate amongst recipients of aid based on individual’s religious persuasion, nor could receiving aid be made conditional on undertaking religious activity. In addition the government must guarantee an alternative if a client objects to receiving services from a religiously affiliated provider (Spain, 2001). It also requires that federal funds must not be spent on inherently religious activities such as sectarian worship or proselytising (White House Press Release, 2001).

The Bush administration argues that many states and localities continue to ignore the legal requirements of Charitable Choice; that the regulations of some federal programmes continue to restrict the involvement of faith-based organisations more than the law suggests and that federal agencies do not do enough to form partnerships with faith-based organisations (White House Press Release, 2001).


The most complex and controversial area of government and church relationships and the role of churches has been in accessing public funds.  The UK government has stated that ‘A pragmatic approach will be taken to funding faith groups recognising that they may be the most suitable organisation to deliver community objectives’ (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001). The Chancellor of the Exchequer has explicitly stated that faith communities are to be included in government attempts to build partnerships with voluntary and community organisations and to increase the access of these groups to public funding:
‘This funding will be available to all groups who meet the criteria, including faith-based groups- mosques, synagogues and churches- who every day can make such an important contribution to their local communities.’ (Gordon Brown, quoted in Faithworks Press Release, 2001)

Obstacles to Church Involvement
There has been concern amongst the faith communities that, despite professed government support, faith-based organisations have been prevented from adopting a more active role in community development and neighbourhood renewal. Prior to the 2001 General election, the Faithworks campaign, led by senior British clergymen, called on the government to ensure that church groups were actively supported in regeneration activity, rather than discriminated against. The Faith in Politics report (Christian Socialist Movement, 2001) suggested that, whilst there was a willingness amongst faith organisations to work in partnership with the government on regeneration initiatives, there was a frustration amongst faith organisations that agencies including local authorities were unwilling or unable to work with faith communities. The report was based on a survey of 3000 church leaders across the UK which found that 99 percent of churches would like to see specific support from national and local government to ensure they were not excluded from funds on the basis of their faith.  The study claimed that on average 20 percent of churches in the UK felt they had been discriminated against by local or national government in the allocation of grants (the figure was 19 percent in Scotland). Nearly nine in ten respondents indicated that their church would be interested in running or supporting projects aimed at helping the local community if more funding and support were available from local or national government. A two-year study by the Shaftesbury project (2001) similarly found that faith-based community work was often poorly funded. In response to such concerns the Prime Minister has called for pilot projects involving church groups and local regeneration partnerships and has stated his determination to remove obstacles to churches becoming involved in regeneration activity.

3.4 Churches and Social Capital: Civic Engagement and Community Development

Historically, churches have played important roles in contributing to both civic engagement and community development. Indeed, prior to the growth of the state and the development of government welfare infrastructures, churches were the primary providers of civic engagement and social services (Sweeney et al., 2001). Churches have never been purely religious bodies, rather they have traditionally been centres of civic life and prime centres for volunteering. Churches have also historically contributed to community development and there is a long association between religion and social reform (Kramnick, 1997). Newman (1999) describes how the Catholic Church in Chicago has affected how neighbourhoods form and change and how people develop interactions and become engaged in these neighbourhood communities. Figure 3.3 highlights some of the positive attributes of churches cited in discussions of the church’s role in the community. 

Figure 3.3 Positive Characteristics of Churches as Instruments of Community Development
Churches…
* Provide a vehicle for social integration and a voice for marginalised groups
* Provide opportunities to develop civic values and civic skills
* Are a factor in the construction of identity and belonging
* Are a means of combating stigma and boosting self-esteem
* Are a generator of trust within communities through beliefs, customs and obligations
* Provide opportunities to exercise organisational control and develop organisational networks
* Are trusted by communities and seen as legitimate organisations in which to invest time, effort and resources
Churches and other religious organisations have often provided important social services in urban areas, particularly for immigrants and the poor, an example being the long history of church influence on African-American community development in the Unites States (McRoberts, 2001). Churches have also played a crucial role in integrating new groups into dominant civic orders and have provided a voice to those traditionally marginalised within mainstream society, including the urban poor, immigrants and women (Ammerman, 1996; Spain, 2001; Verba et al., 1995).

It is argued that churches provide an impressive example of widespread civic engagement and that congregations represent, in the US context ‘a significant part of the American civic order’ (Ladd, 1998; Ammerman, 1996). The spiritual focus of churches provides a moral foundation for civic regeneration (Saguaro Seminar, 2000). In this analysis they internalise an orientation towards the public good. Churches are seen as encouraging and providing opportunities for volunteering, making financial contributions and developing civic skills and increasing networks and associations- thereby contributing to the foundations of social capital (Newman, 1999; Verba et al., 1995). Churches are both primary meeting localities for communities, providing sites of ‘sociability’ and ‘redemptive’ places for local people (Ladd, 1998; Ammerman, 2000; Spain, 2001) and civic associations that encourage large numbers of citizens to participate in an array of social activities (Ammerman, 1996). 
In advocating the strengthening of congregations as civic institutions, Robert Putnam (2000) claims that congregations create both what he terms ‘civically relevant’ values, such as compassion, public duty etc. and civic skills such as association and organisation. It is argued therefore that congregations and other voluntary organisations generate both the basic ‘social capital’ of association and the ‘civic capital’ of communication and organisational skills and that they do this especially well for those least advanced in other sectors of society (Ammerman, 1996). For example, immigrant groups have often used church parishes to build social capital through learning civic skills and building networks enabling them to develop and control their own institutions (Newman, 1999).

Churches may also play a role in creating the sense of wellbeing that is crucial to strengthening communities. In an article about the relationship between mental health and religious communities, Lynne Friedli (2001) argues that faith communities need to be seen as more than simply an extension of ‘the care package’. She argues that faith communities play an important role in increasing understanding, challenging stigma and discrimination and also in strengthening communities in terms of self-esteem, inclusion, communication and cohesion. Faith is often a key factor in the construction of identity and belonging for both individuals and communities (Ahmed, 2001). Such identities and sense of belonging are both prerequisites and outcomes of social capital formation. Faith-based social capital is grounded in the beliefs, customs, habits and obligations of followers and this generates a form of trust that goes beyond the formal mutual responsibilities of members of a common association (Candland, 2000).  Recent research in the UK also found that ‘the faith factor’ is significant as a social force in the empowerment of individuals facing social exclusion as shown by many examples of ‘faith-motivated social entrepreneurs’ working in deprived communities (Sweeney et al., 2001). 

It is difficult to assess the extent to which churches play such a role, and the contribution of churches to social capital compared to other civic institutions.  A report by the Saguaro Seminar on Social Capital (2000) claims that religious organisations sustain more social capital and social capital of varied forms than any other type of institution in the Unites States. The report estimates that half of all the United States’ stocks of social capital are religious or religiously affiliated. Other advocates of greater church involvement in strengthening communities argue that rather than being another type of voluntary organisation, churches are a unique community resource: 

‘One of the primary functions of faith-based communities is to provide points of identification and belonging in modern society. Some organisations are especially important gateways to participation in the larger social order. Belonging some places simply counts more and congregations are one of those places’ (Ammerman, 1996).

Ammerman believes that congregations are able to expend social capital in service to the community because they are recognised as legitimate places for investment by people with social capital to spend. In addition Ammerman claims that congregations have the most pervasive infrastructure of any voluntary organisations for the meeting of community needs and that congregations enjoy particularly high levels of trust within their local communities. Whether the same observations about the legitimacy and trust of congregations can be made in the UK context is open to question.

As Farnsley (1998) rightly points out, in order to validate these claims, we require to know more about congregations, what type of churches are involved in community development and which ones are capable of such involvement. A growing amount of research evidence is emerging on the contribution that churches make to civic engagement and community development. 

3.5 Existing Research Evidence on Churches and Social Capital

The Extent of Churches’ Contributions to Social Capital and Community Development
The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey conducted by the Institute of Government at Harvard University (2000) reported that religious engagement had a significant impact on civic life in the United States and that ‘religious communities embody one of the most important sources for social capital and concern for community in America’. The study suggests that involvement in communities of faith is strongly associated with giving and volunteering. Religious involvement is positively associated with most other forms of civic involvement. Controlling for demographic characteristics, religiously engaged people show higher levels of social capital. They are more likely to be involved in civic groups of all sorts, more likely to vote, to be active in community affairs, to give blood, to trust other people, to socialise with friends and neighbours and to have a wider circle of friends (see also Vallely, 2001). 

* Studies have also found very high levels of participation amongst churches in community or social service programmes, with over 90 percent of congregations indicating they were involved in at least one community project in surveys carried out in the UK (Faithworks, 2001) and the US (Printz, 1998; Ammerman, 2000). 

* However, The Urban Institute Study in the US, using data from the 1990 National Congregations Study with a sample of over 1000 congregations, found that only 57 percent of congregations were involved in or supported social service projects. This lower figure than other studies is suggested to reveal an urban bias in previous studies. 

* The Organising Religious Work Project conducted by the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, which gathered data from 549 congregations in seven research sites in the US, found that on average congregations provided money, volunteers, space, in-kind donations and staff time to six community outreach organisations. The UK Faithworks report, based on a sample of 3000 churches, claimed that an average of three projects were run by those churches that reported being active in their communities.

* If the Faithworks sample is representative, it suggests that there are 131,000 church-run projects in the UK. Similarly the Faith Makes Community survey estimated that faith-based organisations provide thousands of volunteers to community projects in the UK. 

What Activities are Churches Actually Engaged In?
The Hartford Study found the primary task of congregations to be the spiritual wellbeing of their members. Although this brings internal benefits to the congregations, the study suggests it can be also source of empowerment, particularly to marginalised individuals. The secondary priority for congregations was generating fellowship. Again the work that congregations do at building up a caring and functional internal community may bring indirect benefits to the wider community, although this has not been adequately demonstrated. The study categorised congregational activities into five types:
The provision of direct services to people in immediate need (for example clothing, food, shelter)
Contributions to the educational, health and communal life of local communities
Community development and/or political and social advocacy
Evangelical and mission work
Civic and social causes (including opportunities for personal growth and self-help)

The activity which congregations were most commonly involved in was the first of these, the provision of direct services to people in immediate need. This finding was replicated in the Urban Institute study which reported that congregations were most likely to provide small-scale, short-term relief involving a small number of volunteers on well-defined periodic tasks rather than to operate on-going projects. Spain (2001) defines this difference as ‘commodity-based benevolence’ for example food pantries and thrift shops, compared to ‘relational ministries’ of job mentoring and training. 

The second most common involvement of congregations related to educational, cultural or health activities. The Urban Institute study found that churches also made significant contributions to social capital through supporting local organisations and by bringing together a diverse range of people within communities around a common concern and then mobilising their various resources to respond to the concern. The study found that 87 percent of churches had connections with at least one other community organisation and that three quarters provided volunteers to other community organisations. 57 percent of congregations donated a church space, and 45 percent made financial donations, to other organisations. 59 percent of individual church members claimed they participated in other community service organisations on a regular basis.  The most frequent partnerships are with religious non-profit organisations, including other congregations.

This institutional infrastructure reflects the findings in the US studies that congregations tend to work in partnerships with other voluntary and governmental organisations, rather than running programmes themselves or devoting staff members: ‘It is by weaving together a network of money, volunteers and other supports that service agencies and congregations together do good in their communities’ (Ammerman, 2000).

What Impact Do The Characteristics of Congregations Have Upon Their Activities?
Both of the US studies found that their theological orientation influences how congregations relate to their community and the extent of their involvement in service provision. The Hartford Study divided churches into three categories: Evangelistic (44 percent of congregations were defined in this category), Member-orientated (39 percent) and Activist (17 percent). Member-orientated churches generated a lot of internal bonding social capital whilst activist congregations were most likely to be involved in community development initiatives. The Urban Institute Study found that politically and theologically liberal congregations were most likely to be involved in community service projects. A similar conclusion was drawn in the Flourishing Communities report in the UK, although it argued that whilst theology was an important determinant of levels of community engagement, a wide range of theological positions could facilitate such engagement. 

The Hartford Study found that regional differences were not important in determining involvement in partnerships generating social capital, although rural congregations were less involved in partnerships than urban ones. The Urban Institute Study claimed that active congregations are most likely to be large, to be located in poor neighbourhoods, but not to be wholly low-income themselves. The Hartford Study found that educational and racial composition makes no difference to levels of partnerships, however the Urban Institute reported that African-American congregations were more likely to seek public money. 

In terms of size, whilst the Urban Institute Study found that large congregations are most likely to be involved in community service partnerships, the Hartford Study suggests that it is primarily the level of financial resources, rather than number of members that enables church connections with other community organisations to be formed and sustained (Ammerman, 2000; Chaves, 1999). Similarly, the Flourishing Communities report found in the UK that church size and the age profile of members do not provide a good measurement of congregational engagement in the local community. In large churches, the very size of local membership means they are an important organisation in the neighbourhood. On the other hand larger churches have a tendency to get caught up with internal development and maintenance and small churches may have a very strong ethos of community involvement.

The Processes of Generating Social Capital: Strengths and Concerns
Research in the UK has confirmed many of the claims of US commentators about the potential contributions churches may make. The mission statements of congregations reflect concerns for local communities, they often have significant resources, they provide a physical location for community activity and there are many examples of church partnerships with wider networks and faith-based activity in regeneration initiatives in providing local voice. The recent Faith Makes Community Work report (Shaftesbury Society, 2001) confirmed the current policy belief that churches in the UK could be particularly useful in reaching excluded populations in regeneration areas. Similarly the Faiths Hopes and Participation study (Lewis and Randolph-Horn, 2001) suggests that churches have a crucial role to play in neighbourhood renewal for a number of reasons. These include the fact that churches are rooted in deprived communities and their members actually live in these communities and they can bring a sense of hope and community identity to neighbourhood renewal which can act as an important balance to the negative imagery which is often involved in securing regeneration funding, inspiring and reproducing significant value commitments (see also Sweeney et al., 2001). The report suggests that churches, at their best, have a transforming effect within communities:

‘They can empower others in the community to participate as they help develop a sense of local identity and pride, provide a local infrastructure, promote self-sufficiency and begin to speak with a common voice and vision.’ (Lewis and Randolph-Horn, 2001).

The report highlights the point that faith groups often have a long-term perspective which allows them to offer continuity and commitment to regeneration which can complement other agency work in renewal which may be of a short duration. A crucial role for faith groups is their ability to provide viable structures for supporting small social enterprises. Other reports have highlighted the valuable contribution of faith communities towards employment and vocational training initiatives and the importance of ‘citizenship’ and ‘community’ as motivating factors for faith community involvement in these areas (Evens, 2001). 

A number of concerns about the capacity and desirability of church involvement in community development activities have been raised by previous research (see Fig 3.4)






Figure 3.4 Concerns and Constraints about Church Engagement in Community Development Activities
* Churches primarily generate bonding rather than bridging social capital
* Churches focus on social welfare and charitable concern rather than broader notions of community development and empowerment
* The capacity of churches to become involved in community development is activity is limited
* Church structures and congregations may not always fit with a neighbourhood focus
* Churches are often bypassed, or regarded as ‘troublemakers’ in partnership or consultation processes. 
* Faith-based organisations often face distrust from some potential sources of funding, including local government, leading to a reliance on religious sources and charitable trusts
* Churches have a limited ability to handle short term funding cycles and complex application procedures 
* Local history can be an important barrier to church involvement
* Churches are weakly linked to mainstream voluntary networks and agencies
* There is a lack of top-down support for grassroots projects

A common concern of commentators is that religion may create bonding at the expense of bridging social capital. Allen Hayes (2001) argues that:

‘Whilst acknowledging the important role that spirituality can play in bridging differences, one must also be aware of its potential to bind people together in communities that reject outsiders. In addition to creating exclusive communities, organised religion can reinforce existing secular privileges and inequalities’. 

Historically, Allen Hays argues, Christian churches have sorted themselves out by social class and ethnicity. When community involvement is pursued by a middle class church, it may be within strict limits that prevent the involvement from challenging fundamental inequalities in the community. Such concerns are reflected to some extent in the findings of the Benchmark Social Capital Survey in the US which found that intensive involvement in communities of faith is more likely to be associated with some aspects of social intolerance. Religious involvement is linked to greater support for individuals, but not necessarily for social justice. The report suggests that ‘the social capital embodied in religious communities is more likely to bond individuals with those like them than to bridge to those unlike them. Communities of faith are generous in their giving and volunteering but are less likely to be involved in measures of social action and exhibit relatively low tolerance.’ 

However, bonding social capital within congregations may in fact help marginalised populations such as immigrants tackle their exclusion through preserving culture and language, providing informal support mechanisms and generating strong local institutions which encourage civic participation (Ammerman, 1996; Newman, 1999). Thus the extent to which bonding social capital is used to maintain or to tackle exclusion is likely to depend on the social and political power of individual congregations within wider society.

 The social bonds promoted by religious sentiments may not be conducive to forming social capital and community development (Candland, 2000). Famously, Robert Putnam’s study of Southern Italy suggested that organised religion was an alternative to, rather than an enhancer of, the civic community (Putnam, 1993). Candland highlights the importance of the relations between the state and religious groups on the ability of faith-based organisations to generate social capital for community development. Newman (1999) argues that parishes are often able to build strong bonding social capital, but are less able to build bridging social capital due to a lack of institutional infrastructure, a finding replicated in several of the recent UK studies.

There are concerns about the capacities of churches to become involved in community development. Commentators have expressed doubts about whether faith-based organisations are adequately staffed and trained, with particular regard to receiving government funding (Sink, 2001). Writers such as Farnsley have expressed concern about the consequences of such a lack of capacity:

‘The people who are pushing for congregations to shoulder more of the burden for urban development need to be honest about church realities and capacities. In the long run, congregations could be damaged by shifting too much attention to community development and away from their many other ministries, both internal and external. The more immediate danger is that many needy people will go unserved if we assume that most congregations are doing or could do something that they cannot’ (Farnsley, 1998)

It is argued that if churches are to be given increased responsibility, the challenge is to discover community development practices and polices that build on the actual institutional strengths of religious institutions (McRoberts, 2001). Studies have highlighted that many congregations have very limited resources, including finance, and suffer from an over-reliance on a small number of already overloaded volunteers, making it difficult for congregations to devote staff or volunteers to competing institutional commitments (Sweeney et al., 2001). The urgent requirement for capital investment in church buildings demonstrates one such competing priority for resources. There may also be differences of priority between ministers and congregations about the extent to which congregational activity should be externally rather than internally focused.

The concern about discrimination within funding regimes and the marginalisation of faith groups within local decision-making structures has already been discussed earlier in this chapter, and has been identified in other recent studies. A history of negative relationships between local organisations, including faith groups and local government, can act as a significant obstacle to the development of partnership working and an ethos of co-operative institutional interaction.  The fact that community projects tend to be ad hoc and not tied into any strategic local or national framework is often a result of short term funding streams, and such involvement often relies on charismatic individuals, with the long term viability of these projects jeopardised by a lack of sustainable institutional support (Sweeney et al., 2001). The limited capacity of churches to access funding resources and to negotiate (often complex) funding application systems is also a barrier to further involvement.

A number of studies have highlighted the finding that whilst churches contribute a high proportion of local community activity, and have increasingly strong networks with other faith groups, they are less well linked to mainstream voluntary networks and agencies as well as local politicians, which may effect their ability to achieve some of their aims (VAM, 1999).  ‘The Churches still have a poor grasp of their potential role in networking with other agencies to tackle social exclusion and promote social justice. The work of their social action often goes unrecognised and undervalued, even within the Church and certainly in the wider community (Sweeney et al., 2001). The Flourishing Communities report recommended that churches needed to be better linked to existing networks. To facilitate this process, agencies needed to recognise the potential role for churches and churches themselves required to position themselves more firmly as part of the local community and voluntary sector rather than as a separate local faith sector.

Concerns have also been raised about the role of churches in neighbourhood renewal and the extent to which congregations are linked to their neighbourhoods and how tightly they should be linked (Farnsley, 1998). In some cases, such as parishes, these are closely tied to their neighbourhoods and are geographically based, serving a particular geographic community rather than a particular congregation. Indeed parish boundaries may become informal or even formal neighbourhood boundaries (Newman, 1999). Sweeney et al. suggest that parishes are venerable local institutions, acting as depositories for local people’s sense of place (2001). However, faith as a form of social capital need not be located in a geographical community, because a community of believers may not require repeated face-to-face interactions to place trust in each other, rather shared faith may be enough (Candland, 2000). The New Deal for Community Evaluation found that some churches had particular characteristics such as charismatic leadership, a particular theology or historical status that attracted members from beyond the parish boundaries and created ‘gathered churches’ with little local contacts (Musgrave et al., 1999). Research in the US has shown that different faith based partnerships have very different relationships with neighbourhoods and neighbourhood organisations (Allen Hays, 2001).  Churches are not necessarily neighbourhood institutions. Churches may pull people together around ethnicity, class background, life stage or lifestyle rather than shared neighbourhood identity. Many churches therefore draw membership from a geographic area much wider than the immediate neighbourhood. This may increasingly be the case given the closure of local church buildings in inner-city areas, resulting in remaining churches serving areas larger than individual neighbourhoods (Musgrave et al., 1999). They may not associate with neighbouring religious organisations, but are just as likely to link with similar churches located in other neighbourhoods. This may offer opportunities where churches think of themselves and their network building activities as locally based but not neighbourhood focused. For example Newman (1999) has described how Catholic congregations strengthened their stocks of bridging social capital and increased their autonomy in local decision-making through creating informal leagues of parishes which created ties between the immigrant enclaves in Chicago. Thus whilst churches may contribute to generating social capital, an exclusive focus on neighbourhood impacts may not utilise churches in the most beneficial manner (McRoberts, 2001).

A final concern has been the extent to which the hierarchical structures of churches inhibit the engagement of congregations at a local level. Despite the expressed encouragement, for example by the Church of Scotland, for congregations to take risks and to develop innovative strategies of community development (see below), some of the previous UK studies have suggested that existing national hierarchical structures do not provide sufficient autonomy and flexibility for local congregations to respond to specific local needs.

A number of recommendations have arisen from these various studies of church involvement in community development activity in the UK. The From Story to Policy report (Sweeney et al., 2001) suggested that:
* Faith communities should set themselves the aim of contributing to society’s stock of social capital- establishing, extending and maintaining networks throughout the community for the purpose of human wellbeing-consonant with a Christian theology of koinonia and communico as defining the mission of the Church to the world
* Faith communities should commit themselves to close ecumenical and inter-faith partnerships to establish an effective faith network
* Faith communities should work alongside partners in local regeneration efforts, collaborate with the wider voluntary sector and participate with public and governmental bodies in a combined assault on social exclusion
* Faith communities should encourage volunteering and better training and use of volunteers

The Faith Makes Community Work report (2000) suggests that the following long-term church commitments build up social capital:
* Gradual acceptance of a community development approach by the minister and congregation over many years, including a you-can-do-it assumption
* The practice of worship with other local Christians
* Use of mission audit to help church look at itself and consider aims
* Development of a lay involvement model which enables people to ‘blossom’
* Not being limited by a church building
* Support for citywide work though involvement by church personnel at the diocesan level. 

These particular strengths of congregations, identified concerns and recommendations are examined in our research findings. The final section of this chapter briefly describes the Church of Scotland and its recent influential report A Church Without Walls.

3.6 The Church of Scotland

The Church of Scotland represents a truly national institution within Scotland. The General Assembly is the church’s highest decision-making body and is served by various Boards and Committees overseeing the national structures and processes of the Church. The church comprises 1564 congregations, situated in almost every community in Scotland and organised into 46 presbyteries in Scotland (with additional presbyteries in England and overseas). The Church had 607, 714 communicants in 2000, with 43,661 elders and 1101 ministers serving 1269 charges. 

Within the Church of Scotland, the Board of Social Responsibility (established in 1869) co-ordinates the largest voluntary sector agency in Scotland with over 80 units and projects, 835 full time and 837 part time employees and an estimated 2000 volunteers, providing care and support for over 4000 people per year with an annual budget of £39 million.

Despite recent controversies about both the traditional and contemporary roles of the Church in Scottish life (Reid, 2002; Devine, 2000), including arguments about a declining influence based on falling membership and vacant ministries, the presence of congregations throughout the nation suggests that the nature and extent of church engagement in local communities will have a potentially significant impact on neighbourhood renewal and community development in Scotland. 

The recent report of the Church of Scotland’s Special Commission anent Review and Reform (2001), entitled A Church Without Walls sets out the framework for the primary purpose and shape of the Church of Scotland at the beginning of the new Millennium. Many of the findings of the report are convergent with a focus upon the role of congregations in generating social capital in Scotland’s communities. The report states that within a core calling of the church based around ‘the personal, the local and the relational…the church ‘works’ where people join together, building relationships with each other and the community to which they belong.’ Church Without Walls urges an explicit external focus for congregations, including undertaking a community review at least once every ten years to reflect on issues in the local community. Congregations are also urged to assess potentials for developments within and beyond the congregation, to explore linkages with other churches and to take risks in encouraging faith to grow. 

This research report aims to examine how congregations are engaged within such a process, focusing on the personal, local and relational elements of congregational activity. As such it attempts to answer some of the questions raised in another recent Church of Scotland publication, Good News for A Change (2001) which documents some examples of innovative Church of Scotland engagement within local communities and asks:

* What is happening in places where the church is active?
* Why did congregations decide to do what they are doing?
* How have these projects helped to serve the community?
* Have they helped change the church?


Chapter Four: Church Activities, Services and Facilities

4.1 Introduction

The next four chapters report on the findings from the national postal survey of congregations, conducted between November 2001 and January 2002. The survey contained a mixture of closed and open questions, enabling a range of quantitative and qualitative data to be generated. A full description of the response rates is provided in Chapter Two. An explanation of the social capital scores used in these chapters is provided in Appendix C. This chapter describes the local contexts in which congregations operate, the involvement of congregations in activities that generate social capital and the extent to which congregations are involved in providing direct services and facilities to local people.

4.2 The Local Contexts of Congregational Activities

The context within which congregations operate would be expected to have an important influence on the nature and extent of their activities. Whether a parish is rural or urban and the economic characteristics of the local community will impact on the form and process of congregation’s involvement within their local communities and will also affect the outcomes of such involvement.  The diversity of local communities will also have important consequences for the Church of Scotland nationally in terms of the range of strategies it requires to facilitate wider community involvement within its Church Without Walls agenda.

Table 4.2.1 reveals that congregations operate in very diverse communities across the nation. Whilst over four in ten ministers identified themselves as being situated in an urban area, three in ten operate in rural areas and a quarter of congregations serve mixed urban and rural areas. Similar diversity is encountered within local areas. Half of the survey congregations operate in areas of very mixed economic and housing conditions. Four in ten congregations operate in mostly affluent parishes. Only one in ten congregations reported operating in mostly deprived areas. Housing tenure closely reflects economic characteristics as would be expected. Only three percent of congregations operate in ethnically diverse areas, although of course, there are many areas where small numbers of individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds will be present.

Table 4.2.1 Characteristics of the Local Areas Congregations Operate In
Characteristics of local areas
Number*
Percent*
The nature of the area


Urban
194
43.1
Rural
142
31.6
Mixed urban/rural
114
25.1
The economic characteristics of the area


Very mixed affluent and deprived 
221
49.9
Mostly affluent
169
38.1
Mostly deprived
53
12.0
The housing tenure of the area


Very mixed area of owner–occupied and social housing 
222
49.2
Mostly owner-occupied housing
179
39.7
Mostly social housing
50
11.1
The ethnic composition of the area


Predominately white
440
96.9
Ethnically diverse
14
  3.1
* Missing cases have been omitted from this analysis

The survey findings confirm the recent concerns of commentators (Reid, 2002) about the extent to which congregations continue to reflect the wider communities they are based in. A quarter of ministers felt their congregations were very representative of the local population compared to thirteen percent who believed they were not very representative. The majority of ministers (sixty one percent) felt their congregations to be fairly representative, suggesting a need for congregations to continually seek methods for attracting diverse sections of their local communities to become involved in church activities.


4.3 Congregation’s Involvement in Activities That Generate Social Capital 

The survey asked a range of questions about various activities that congregations may be involved in that potentially contribute to stocks of social capital within their local communities. The results are presented in Table 4.3.1. Using responses to these questions we generated a social capital score ranging from 1- 25, signifying the extent of congregations’ involvement in these activities further disaggregated into four categories: 
* Local Activities: including provision of services and facilities, disseminating information, assisting integration and resolving conflicts within local communities
* Community Development: including advocacy, involvement in local campaigns and empowering local people
* Community Relations: including relationships with other organisations, facilitating partnerships, building networks and establishing new community groups
* Pride, Safety and Belonging: the extent of the congregation’s involvement in activities that generate any of these elements of social capital in local communities

The full list of questions asked and further information about the construction of this social capital measurement instrument is provided in Appendix C.







Table 4.3.1 Average Social Capital Scores

Max
Average
Local Activities 
8
3.6
Community Development 
6
1.8
Community Relations 
8
3.8
Pride, Safety and Belonging 
4
1.7
Social Capital Score
26
10.9
The results indicate that on average congregations are engaged in just under half of the identified social capital generating activities. This proportion is consistent across local activities, community relations and activities that contribute to local pride, safety and belonging. The figures indicate that community development is an area where congregations are less likely to be engaged. These findings provide support for previous work that suggests congregations are more likely to be engaged in activities that address the existing problems faced by communities, rather than activities that seek to empower local communities within wider social and political processes. It may be argued that whilst congregations have scope to undertake further activities in each of the four areas, particular focus should be given to community development strategies. However, this is the very area in which congregational involvement is likely to be most controversial as it includes involvement in lobbying and campaigning activities, community advocacy and challenging various local decision-makers.

Table 4.3.2 shows that urban congregations are, on average, involved in a greater number of social capital generating activities than rural congregations. This may reflect greater social problems and more potential partner organisations as well as a difference in the nature and process of community between urban and rural areas, particularly the extent of formal as opposed to informal activity.






Table 4.3.2 Social Capital Scores by Parish Type
Parish 
Characteristics
Average 
Score
Urban
Rural
Mixed urban/rural
Urban Priority Area
Deprived
Affluent
Mixed deprived/affluent
All 
11.79
09.92
10.54
11.43
12.98
10.73
10.51
10.90
Similarly, congregations in deprived areas (including Urban Priority Areas) are also more likely to be engaged in social capital activities, with those churches in social rented housing areas being the most likely to be engaged (the average social capital activities score in parishes containing mostly social housing is 13.02 compared to 10.91 in owner occupied areas). These findings are consistent with previous research and validate the focus upon churches as crucial institutions in deprived and declining communities. The figures suggest that congregations operating in areas of mixed housing and mixed income are involved in slightly less activities than those in more homogeneous parishes (either deprived, social housing areas or mostly affluent areas of owner occupation). This may reflect the difficulty such congregations face in attempting to engage with a diversity of priorities and potentially competing needs. The fourteen congregations who reported working in very ethnically diverse parishes had above average social capital scores (average = 12.93). This partly reflects the fact they are likely to be located in deprived, urban areas, but it also reveals the extent of these congregations’ involvement in various strategies to improve integration and social cohesion in their parishes (these activities are discussed in section 5.2 of the following chapter).

We examined the impact that the numerical size of congregations has on involvement in social capital generating activities. The correlation is .042 suggesting that size has a very modest impact upon the likelihood of congregations being involved in social capital generating activities. Similarly, presbyteries appear to have little influence on the extent of congregational involvement in these activities. Presbytery average social capital scores range from 8 to 14.5. Congregations in the large urban presbyteries of Edinburgh (14.1) and Glasgow (12.5) have above average social capital activities scores, and smaller presbyteries have lower social capital activities scores, but there are not enough cases in these smaller presbyteries to draw any inferences from this.


4.4 The Direct Provision of Services and Facilities to Local People

Much of the current debate about the role of congregations in community development and their access to funding sources has focused upon a direct provision role for congregations in which they establish and deliver a variety of services and facilities to local people. We classified these services and facilities based upon categories developed in surveys of congregations in the United States (Chaves, 1999; Ammerman, 2000).

Table 4.4.1 shows that a sizeable majority of congregations (sixty five percent) provide educational, cultural or health services to local people. However, only a minority of congregations were involved in other forms of service provision with just over a quarter of responding congregations indicating that they provide direct services to local people in immediate need and a similar percentage providing self-help and personal growth services to local people.

Table 4.4.1 Congregations Directly Providing Services and Facilities
Congregations…
(N=454)
N
%
More than 50% of users are non-members
(%)
More than 80% of users are non-members
(%)
Providing educational, cultural, or health services to local people
290
65.3
72
36
Providing self-help and personal growth services to local people
118
26.9
84
64
Providing direct services to local people in immediate need 
117
26.0
81
65
One issue identified in the debate about churches’ roles in local communities is the extent to which they provide benefits to the wider community beyond their own membership. The findings indicate that congregations do indeed offer services to the wider community. Over seven in ten congregations reported providing these services to a majority of non-members, with self-help and direct services overwhelmingly provided to non-members.

Educational, Cultural or Health Services
Children’s clubs are the most common form of facility provided, with four in ten congregations involved in running such clubs, which include both ‘traditional’ organisations such as Boys Brigades and Guides and a variety of other types for members and non-members of the church alike. Three in ten congregations provide some form of crèche facility for church services or events organised by other community groups. Just over twenty percent of congregations provide some form of cultural event for local people, and similar percentages provide transport services and day care clubs for local elderly people. Few congregations were involved in other forms of activity identified in this area. Only approximately one in ten congregations provided arts projects, non-religious educational classes or after-school clubs. Six percent of congregations provided day care clubs for local people with special physical or mental needs and two percent provided home help services.
Table 4.4.2 Congregations Providing Educational, Cultural and Health Services

Number
Percent
Children’s clubs
188
41.4
Crèches
136
30.0
Cultural events
100
22.0
Transport services
90
19.8
Day care clubs for elderly
86
18.9
Arts projects
50
11.0
Educational classes (other than religious)
50
11.0
After-school clubs
45
9.9
Day care clubs for mental/physical needs
30
6.6
Home help services
8
1.8
Other
77
17
Self-help and Personal Growth Services
Again, children feature prominently, with twelve percent of congregations offering pre- school clubs for local children (Table 4.4.3.). Small percentages of congregations provided support groups for parents, carers and people with addictions. Very few congregations were involved in tutoring or mentoring activities or employment and training facilities.

Table 4.4.3 Congregations Providing Self-help and Personal Growth Services

Number
Percent
Pre-school clubs
58
12.8
Addiction support groups
39
8.6
Parents support groups
24
5.3
Carers support groups
20
4.4
Tutoring/mentoring
13
2.9
Employment/training
5
1.1
Other
24
5.3
Direct Services to Local People in Immediate Need
The most frequent form of direct service provision to local people in immediate need is congregational support to the homeless, with just over one in ten congregations involved in such support (table 4.4.4). Only a small percentage of congregations were involved in providing food, housing or shelter to local people.

Table 4.4.4 Congregations Providing Direct Services 
To Local People in Immediate Need
Direct services provided
Number
Percent
Support to the homeless
53
11.7
Food pantries
30
6.6
Meals to the housebound
13
2.9
Housing/shelter
13
2.9
Other a
70
15.4
a Many of these other services involved activities we have categorised elsewhere such as day care and lunch clubs or transport provision. Other services also included food co-ops, cafes or food parcels, benevolent funds that make emergency payments or grants to individuals in need, provision of clothing and bereavement care facilities.

Community Facilities
Social capital depends upon informal interaction between people, and such interaction requires physical sites where people are able to participate in associational activity. The survey suggests that churches are important in providing such sites of interaction in local communities (Table 4.4.5). 

Table 4.4.5 Congregations Providing Facilities for General Use in Local Areas

Number
Percent
Meeting rooms
284
62.6
Community hall
271
59.7
Audio/visual equipment
120
26.4
Transport
21
4.6
Other facility
42
9.3
Six in ten congregations provide meeting rooms for local organisations and individuals and a similar number provide a community hall, which may be utilised by local communities for a wide range of activities. Additionally such halls are likely to have a symbolic value in terms of creating a sense of communal identity in localities. The survey provides no evidence about the extent to which such facilities are utilised and the diversity of their users, but these figures suggest that providing meeting rooms and centres for communal activities is one of the most significant contributions that Church of Scotland congregations make to local social capital.  Beyond the local utility provided by church buildings, just over a quarter of congregations make audio or visual equipment available to local people. A small number of congregations also offer some sort of transport facility, for example a minibus.  

A Supportive Role: Martyrs Boarhills and Dunino linked with St Andrews Martyrs

This linked parish comprises the Boarhills and Dunino and St Andrews Martyrs congregations. The parish is predominately rural, and mostly affluent, situated in the north east of Fife in and around the town of St. Andrews. Members of the congregation are involved individually in community activity including membership of the community council and local educational projects. The congregations have become involved in the Families First project in St. Andrews. This community project has been instigated by the local Baptist church which spent several years researching local needs in St. Andrews and the surrounding area to prepare an audit of services required. The newly established voluntary organisation involves professionals and volunteers in delivering a wide range of services including a family befriending service, parent and toddler groups, babysitting facilities, holiday, sports and after school clubs, training courses, a community drop-in centre and financial support projects. The organisation is currently sharing office facilities with the Baptist Church. 

The project is supported by Boarhills and Dunino and St Andrews Martyrs Church and the other Church of Scotland congregations in St Andrews in addition to other local denominations. The minister of Boarhills and Dunino felt that as a parish church, this was certainly an area of activity her congregation should be involved in. It was important to her that such involvement ‘came with no strings attached’ and that it was not simply perceived as an attempt to recruit new church members. She also wished to be certain that this rationale was shared by the other organisations involved, and became convinced that this was the case. 

It is clear that the development of denominational partnership working in this project has been facilitated by the open approach of the Baptist Church. Their minister initially attended a meeting with the Boarhills/Dunino and Martyrs congregations and outlined the plans for the Families First initiative. Following this, an open meeting was held to launch the organisation at which several parish members, including the minister, attended and became individual members of the new organisation (there may be an opportunity for the parish to join the project as a corporate member at a later stage). The church has maintained its involvement as the organisation has become established with the minister attending meetings with the project manager to discuss local needs and the contribution that her congregations may be able to make. Already the church has made its meeting room available to the organisation and has offered specific help as and when required. 

The involvement of the Boarhills/ Dunino and St. Andrews Martyrs congregations in this new voluntary community organisation highlights a number of issues. Firstly, it demonstrates that different churches can successfully work together and that such partnership working is dependent on the attitudes of these churches and other organisations towards each other. The attitudes towards the local Church of Scotland congregation are important in this context. In this instance, the openness of the Baptist Church and the willingness of churches to work together, reflecting a history of ecumenical co-operation in the area, undoubtedly helped to facilitate the involvement of Boarhills/Dunino and St Andrews Martyrs congregations. Secondly, this example confirms that community needs may not be so obvious in rural or affluent communities, but they exist and are important. The comprehensive community audit to identify such needs prior to the establishment of the Families First organisation has enabled it to develop a targeted range of services across several issues. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, the nature of the Boarhills/Dunino and Martyrs parish involvement highlights the fact that Church of Scotland congregations can play an essential role in supporting community activity instigated by other organisations. As such they may often play an enabling and facilitating role rather than directly establishing or managing communal or organisational activities. Whilst such support may be on a relatively small scale, it may be vital to the success of community services, and provides opportunities for congregations to become involved in community development. In this instance, although Boarhills/Dunino and Martyrs are generally elderly congregations and many members are engaged in other community activities, the congregations are still able to offer their premises, time and perceptions to other organisations. Such involvement fosters good relationships between the congregations and other organisations, including churches, with beneficial outcomes for both the congregations and the wider local community.

4.5 Summary
The diversity of Scottish communities suggests that congregations will require differentiated mechanisms for engaging in community development activities. Flexibility and the ability to respond to local needs are likely to be crucial factors and the Church of Scotland requires structures that facilitate autonomy, innovation and differentiation within congregations to respond to such diversity. The involvement of congregations in local communities is also made more complex by the diversity that exists within, as well as between, parishes- half of congregations work in ‘very mixed’ areas. Such diversity generates various, and sometimes competing, priorities and congregations need to be sensitive to the range of needs existing within local communities. The survey results suggest that, whilst congregations are not entirely unrepresentative of their local communities, there is scope for the church to broaden its appeal to less represented sections of their parishes.

Church of Scotland congregations are on average involved in just under half of an identified range of activities that may generate social capital in their local communities. Congregations are less likely to be involved in activities that contribute towards community development, suggesting that there is a focus on addressing existing problems rather than any wider, long-term focus upon community needs and empowerment. Community development is, however, an area where the church’s relationship with the local authority and other responsible agencies needs to be defined and its role in community planning activities clarified.

Congregations in urban or deprived communities are involved in a greater number of activities than those in rural or affluent parishes. Reflecting the complex nature of engagement in diverse communities, congregations in heterogeneous areas are slightly less likely to be involved in activities than those in more homogeneous parishes. The one exception to this are congregations in ethnically diverse areas who have above average social capital activities scores. Neither the size of congregations nor the presbyteries they are in appear to be significant as a determinant of involvement in social capital generating activities. Whilst this measurement instrument is crude and does not enable an analysis of the extent and efficacy of involvement in each activity, the findings indicate that there is scope for congregations to examine areas of activity in which they are not presently involved and to expand the range of their activities.

Church congregations are involved in a wide range of activities that provide services and facilities to local people. A significant number of congregations are involved in such activities, in particular those related to education, health and culture, with a prominent focus around children. However the role of Church of Scotland congregations in directly providing services to local people is limited and the majority of congregations are not at present engaged in direct service provision. Rather, the more common role of Church of Scotland congregations in social capital development is one of enabling and facilitating services established or delivered by other organisations, through offering the use of church resources.

Congregations appear to play a crucial role in the provision of physical sites for interaction, participation and communal activity that forms the basis of social capital in local communities. The majority of congregations make their buildings accessible to locals groups and individuals, and as such provide a very large number of centres for facilitating civic engagement throughout Scotland. Rather than the danger of churches being, as one key informant interviewee put it ‘simply street furniture’, this research suggests that congregations appear willing to open their doors to community usage. The extent to which these premises are actually utilised is not established, but providing support to congregations to maintain or adapt these buildings and to facilitate the use of these community premises by a diverse section of the local population offers a potentially effective means of supporting one of the most important contributions that Church of Scotland congregations make towards social capital in their communities.


Chapter Five: Developing Communities

5.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the nature and extent of congregations’ involvement in activities that contribute to the development of communities. It reports on congregations’ facilitation and utilisation of information networks in local communities and the contribution congregations make towards building cohesive communities through promoting social integration and understanding. The chapter reports on congregational involvement in a range of community development activities and presents findings on the influence of congregations upon feelings of identity, safety and belonging within local communities. 


5.2 Facilitating and Utilising Information Networks within Local Communities

Providing Information
The empowerment of individuals to become engaged in communal activities depends, at the most basic level, on a regular supply of information telling individuals about forthcoming events and opportunities for them to participate in these events or to join local organisations. Congregations play an important role in assisting these networks of dissemination through acting as conduits for community news and through distributing information about their own and other community events to local people, including those individuals who have no connection with the church. Three quarters of responding congregations reported that they provide information to all local people. Table 5.2.1 shows that newsletters are the most common method for disseminating information. Obviously, the extent to which such church newsletters contain information about non-church events and organisations will vary considerably. Three in ten congregations reported providing a column in a local newspaper which may be a useful method of reaching a wider audience. Information technology provides new opportunities for churches to provide information, and slightly more congregations reported using a website than the traditional method of notice boards. Given the unequal access to informational technology (for example within deprived communities or amongst the elderly) traditional methods of communication are likely to remain important in reaching as wide and diverse a range of local people as possible. 

Table 5.2.1 Techniques for Disseminating Information

Number
Percent
Newsletter
238
52.4
Web site
142
31.3
Notice board
135
29.7
Column in local newspaper
135
29.7
Seeking the Views of Local People
In addition to disseminating information, effective engagement in local communities depends on congregations accessing information about the needs and priorities existing within their parish. Twenty eight percent of congregations have formally consulted or sought the views of local people in the last two years. The proportions of congregations utilising particular forms of consultation in the previous two years are shown in Table.5.2.2.

Table 5.2.2 Forms of Consultation 

Number
Percent
Public meetings
65
 14.3
Representation on local committees
56
 12.3
Church newsletter
41
 9
Surveys
40
 8.8
Local press article
30
 6.6
Written consultation
22
 4.8
Other
16
 3.5
Congregations who have undertaken formal consultation exercises have utilised a range of techniques to seek the views of local people. This consultation occurs in four main areas. Several congregations have utilised surveys and public meetings to consult local people about the nature of their local church organisation and activities. They seek the views of local people about their perceptions and expectations of the church and the services they wished to see their local church providing. This involves firstly ‘internal’ aspects of congregational activity such as the style, timing and location of services and also includes consultation about the future organisation and priorities of parish ministries. A second aspect involves activities linked to the Church Without Walls agenda of external engagement and how churches could further meet the social needs of their communities. Several congregations have sought the views of local people on outreach activities in the parish and the type and forms of activities the congregation should be involved in within the community. This often takes the form of trying to identify priorities and new areas for congregational activity.

The second area of consultation relates to church facilities and buildings. Congregations have sought community opinions about the management, renovation, redevelopment and future usage of community church halls. Specific consultation exercises include canvassing views on how to encourage more community groups to use a church hall, the adaptation of church buildings as local community centres or medical surgeries, purchasing or developing new church centres and the community usage of church grounds. 

 A third aspect of congregation’s consultation activities relates to the needs of local people and concerns over the provision of local services and social problems. These involve a large range of local authority services, including elderly, maternity services and health and educational services, particularly the future of local schools. Some congregations have specifically consulted local young people about their needs. Congregations are also involved in consultation about environmental issues concerning transport, industrial or housing developments, road safety and mobile phone masts. Local people have been asked their views on local facilities such as retail provision and the location of cash machines. Consultation occurs about a range of local social problems including drugs and alcohol dependence, vandalism, racism, homelessness and crime. Other consultation activities have taken place over the issues of refugees and asylum seekers. There was one reported instance of a congregation consulting local people about relations between two rural communities (see vignette). Churches have also hosted general election hustings. Churches have used this information to either plan their own activities, to facilitate the establishment of local organisations or activities that address these needs or to represent community views in a wider consultation process, for example with local authorities.

The final area of consultation activity involves congregations seeking local views on the future of local areas. These include planning applications, economic development and regeneration activities and local people’s perceptions of the future need for facilities and retail provision and the identification of priorities through local development plans. Specific issues include the siting of licensed premises and community facilities required for new housing developments.

Seeking the Views of the Community: Linton lw Morebattle and Hownam lw Yetholm

Linton is a rural parish of three linked congregations (Linton, Morebattle and Hownam, Yetholm) in the Scottish Borders. The minister became aware that changes were occurring within the local community and that there was a need for the church to reflect upon these changes and particularly about how these changes impacted upon the perceptions of the church and what local people wished the church to offer them. In a two-stage process the Kirk Session sought to identify the needs and priorities of the congregations and then sought to compare these to the priorities and agendas of local people outwith the church. As such, this work coincided with national church developments such as Church Without Walls, which seek to establish where the church is moving to. The minister also wished to establish information about the local people who comprised his parish. This second stage involved the printing and distribution of a questionnaire to every household in the parish (just under one thousand households). There were approximately two hundred returns. Whilst the response sample may be seen as biased because those most interested or involved tended to respond, it produced interesting, if complex, findings. The survey asked a range of questions about people’s faith, what they wished from church services and also a question about what the congregation should be offering the wider community. Another component of the survey was an attempt to build up a local skills register. The minister felt that anecdotal evidence suggested that the very act of consulting people had generated interest (even where this was hostile) and that the exercise had demonstrated that the church was at least trying to be attentive to local concerns.

It proved difficult to translate the findings of the survey into obvious reforms of church practice, and this finding is of wider significance to the perceptions that congregations have of their roles within communities. The most striking finding was the sheer diversity of views on all aspects of church life which emerged. For instance, whilst both congregation members and the survey of local residents indicated a wish for more flexible services, there was no consensus about what this would involve. Similarly, respondents provided very differing views about which different styles of music, use of prayer and fellowship activity should be used. This raises the issue of how one parish church may, given its resources, meet all these needs and in particular reconcile traditional and modern priorities in service style. Despite these concerns, the minister believes the exercise was worthwhile because it prevent