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

Chapter 10 Interfaith Coalitions: The Story of the Northwest Interfaith Movement Individuals form groups in order to achieve common goals that are beyond the capacity of individuals or families. But even groups are at times too small and weak to bring about a desired change. In this case, groups gather to form a coalition or an alliance, for what cannot be done by one group can often be done by many.1 Community organizers and other agents of social improvement have traditionally turned to collaborative arrangements to effect wide-scale change. Barringer and Harrison (2000), examining research on ‘‘interorganizational relationships ,’’ found them to encompass joint ventures, networks, coalitions, consortia, community development corporations (CDCs), and alliances. These may be defined as ‘‘an association between two or more . . . organizations joined together to achieve a common goal that neither alone can accomplish’’ (Poole 1995: 2). Barringer and Harrison (2000) suggested that the benefits of ‘‘interorganizational relationships’’ are manifold : sharing cost while achieving mutual goals, minimizing financial and political risk, increasing visibility, increasing legitimacy, increasing focus on selected tasks, enabling one another to develop new products or services, and mutual learning. Congregations are also organizations that possess limited power and can benefit from joint ventures. In every American city, congregations have coexisted for many years. Many share the concern for the quality of life in their communities, yet most are too small and resourcede ficient to have a real effect on their environments, so they may elect to form a coalition or alliance. Philadelphia is no exception. In the City of Brotherly Love, religious organizations have participated in alliances and coalitions to achieve larger common goals, including providing social services. The existence of numerous congregations, as we documented in earlier chapters, is the basis on which larger superstructures can exist and work on behalf of the whole community, city, or region. Much academic work has focused on the extent of religiosity of faithbased organizations rather than their various organizational structures 198 Chapter 10 and ways of functioning. Various typologies classify faith-based groups according to their level of religiosity and according to the organizational integration of religious elements. These include works by Goggin and Orth (2002), Jeavons (1998), Monsma and Mounts (2002), Smith and Sosin (2001), Unruh and Sider (2001, 2005), and the Working Group on Human Needs in Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (2002). However, very little research on faith-based organizations distinguishes interorganizational faith collaborations from single-faith organizations. One notable exception is Ebaugh and Pipes (2001), discussed below. Sorely missing in the literature is any in-depth case study of one local faith-based coalition. Three coalitions/alliances have received attention in the literature. They are Boston’s Ten Point Coalition, which worked on reducing gang violence and teen murders in the poorest parts of Boston (PolakowSuransky 2003); Tying Nashville Together (TNT), a coalition of 43 congregations and other local groups working on community development (Byrd 1997); and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Churches (LAM), an association of small to midsized African American churches that formed in the aftermath of the 1992 South Central Los Angeles riots (Brown 2005). LAM recruited the Rev. Eugene Williams, a Philadelphia pastor and community organizer, to be its leader. LAM has 50 active member churches and is involved in issues ranging from poverty to education, from racism to prison reform (Cnaan and Sinha 2004). The most common forms of faith-based ‘‘interorganizational relationships ’’ are the ecumenical or local clergy alliances. These groups often focus on religious issues and seek to improve relationships between various congregations and the wider community. They rarely focus on social improvement. CDCs, however, are notable exceptions. As Cnaan, Wineburg , and Boddie (1999) noted, CDCs focusing on social improvement are commonly formed by congregations and faith-based groups, and religious CDCs composed a large share of all CDCs. A less discussed form of interorganizational collaboration is the local coalition/alliance. Ebaugh and Pipes (2001) studied faith-based coalitions in Harris County, Texas, and documented coalitions’ work in social services since the 1980s, when the economy in Houston plummeted. These coalitions were made up mostly of Protestant and Catholic congregations, which provided the majority of funding and volunteers needed to run the coalitions’ services and activities. By contrast, Pipes (2001) examined nine community-based ministries across the United States, observing their structure, staffing, services, and the role of faith. In these nine cases, the groups depended least on congregations and most upon contracts with government. Specifically, interfaith coalitions—collections...

Share