4
effectively managing the affairs of their organization (see Harris 1994, 48-51; and Wald
1987, 38). Policymakers also view religious institutions as important administrative
resources for assisting the federal government in delivering social welfare programs to
the general public. During his first month in office, President George W. Bush signed
Executive Orders 13198 and 13199 to establish a faith-based and community initiatives
program that would devolve greater responsibilities to religious organizations (Bush
2001a and 2001b).
In theory, we might expect that churches are equipped to implement President
Bush’s faith-based initiative because church mission statements frequently call upon their
members to actively support and participate in social causes such as donating items to
local food banks, volunteering time at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and providing
financial support to those less fortunate in society. Furthermore, given the common
perception of the federal bureaucracy as a set of complex organizations that slow the
implementation of public policy, scholars, government officials, and recipients of social
welfare programs might welcome the federal government’s efforts to shift some of the
implementation responsibilities from the bureaucracy to religious institutions.
Yet, “American public bureaucracy is not designed to be effective” (Moe 1989,
267). According to the extensive literature on organizational theory, structure can
influence the behavior of members within an organization. Organizations that depend on
the top-down command and control of their members experience different challenges in
motivating and mobilizing their rank-and-file members to action than organizations that
rely on the membership to dictate the level of action (for example, see Mintzberg 1979,
1983; and Thompson 1967). Religious groups can encounter similar types of
Convention