In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 4 Informal Care by Congregations One common criticism of congregational social programs is that they are small, unsustainable, and limited in scope (Chaves 1999; Farnsley 2003). The accuracy of this specific criticism will be assessed in the next chapter. In this chapter we focus on the importance and scope of informal care and, in so doing, show that these presumed weaknesses are also strengths and assets. Small and informal also mean flexible and adaptable . Our focus in this chapter is on social support that is not organized formally but provided on an as-needed basis. We rely on the literature on social capital and Robert Wuthnow’s (1998) concept of ‘‘loose connections ’’ between members of the same community that are not mandatory and yet are quite bonding. We argue that the loose connections that bond members to their congregation and to other members are fruitful in many ways that are unique to American congregations, whereas in other societies they may be unnecessary. Congregations are places where many Americans easily acquire social capital (Ammerman 2005; Bane, Coffin, and Higgins 2005). In a society like the United States, where helpful immediate ties to extended family members are scarce and information is costly and rarely available, informal support, referral, and advice are especially valuable. Often, individuals and families confront situations that are stressful and that require expertise that is hard to get. In a congregation one can find a sympathetic ear, readily available expertise, and willingness to help find solutions to individual needs. In this respect, the informality and smallness of congregations make possible an open house for all people, especially members, to offer creative and personal solutions to idiosyncratic problems or, at least, to find connections that can lead to the problems’ solution. Help for human needs can come in many different forms: from personal advice by a relative or a friend to a national program that provides technical or fiscal assistance. While our attention is often focused on formal services and the agencies providing them, most care and support are offered informally and in an ad hoc way. And at times the distinction between formal and informal care is hard to make. The following example from our study may highlight this issue. 64 Chapter 4 Informal care by congregations may take many forms. One small Pentecostal church in West Philadelphia collects money that the pastor gives to poor people who come and ask for help. In addition, the church routinely houses one or two homeless families who are referred by word of mouth. The church property becomes their home for a while, and they use the church kitchen and food supplies for their daily meals. When a family finds a suitable housing situation, a new homeless family may move in. These two modes of assistance, monetary and nonmonetary, have not grown into full-sized or formal modes of help, but rather have remained informal, on an as-needed basis. There has been no congregational meeting to discuss these programs, and help is offered only when a needy individual or family is referred to the church. Yet, at the same time, this church has a food pantry that is a formal program. The food pantry provides groceries on a weekly basis to some twenty needy families . It is planned in detail, and certain members are designated to carry it out. The help for the homeless, meanwhile, does not involve planning; no one in the church is responsible for making sure that a homeless family will live on the church property or that they will leave at a designated date, as is customary in more organized programs that provide housing for the homeless. Most people feel uncomfortable applying to a formal program; they prefer to be assisted personally and informally. As adults in the United States, we assume that we should be able to solve our problems and needs by ourselves; if this is too difficult, we turn to friends and relatives. The ideology of economic individualism calls on us to be responsible for our needs, to use our informal network to solve problems, and only when everything else has failed, to call upon public services (Cnaan, Hasenfeld, Cnaan, and Rafferty 1993). Also, using public services is associated with a high degree of stigma and failure. In this chapter, we will show how congregations position themselves to play the role of the extended family and close and trusted friends, serving as informal care providers. We will also discuss the...

Share