Black Churches and Targeted Funding

Disparity of Targeted Funding in the Black Urban Community

There are many ways to get funding for different types of projects, no matter where a person or organization is located. Some of the areas most in need of funding for projects are in black, urban communities (Barnes, 2005; Day, 2002; Haight, 1998; Patillo-McCoy, 1998). Money is often scarce there, and without funding there are few programs that can help people who really need it. This puts these residents at a distinct disadvantage, and makes it more difficult for them to get out of poverty and build better lives for themselves. No matter what types of programs need funding and financial help, there are different ways in which getting that funding can be considered.

Church congregations often help raise money for community projects, but there are other ways in which these congregations can help those in need (Billingsley, 1999; Brown & Brown, 2003; Wood, 2002). One of those ways is through voting in local elections. That allows more support to be given to officials who are interested in funding those projects that are deemed important by the community (Calhoun-Brown, 1996; Cavendish, 2000; Chaves & Higgins, 1992).

The individuals who hold elected office are the ones who generally control what programs receive targeted funding in various communities (Wood, 2002). With that in mind, it is possible to focus on voting in order to elect people who are more interested in funding causes that are deemed important to the people of the church, who often represent a large segment of those who live and work in the community (Chaves & Higgins, 1992; Harris, 1999). This paper will explore the disparity of targeted funding in the black urban community, and how the black churches within that community can use their strong congregational influence to vote for elected officials who will fund the projects that are considered important to the church and the surrounding area.

Targeted Funding

Targeted funding is that which is specific to something, instead of being used for a broad range of issues (McClerking & McDaniel, 2005). For example, providing $50,000 to build a community playground would be targeted funding, where providing that same amount of money to the community to use as it saw fit would not be targeted. Both types of funding are important and can be significant for a community, but they are used for very different purposes (Barnes, 2005). When a community has something that matters strongly to a majority of its residents, the focus can become how to find targeted funding that will allow it to move forward with that project (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990).

There are also a number of ways in which targeted funding can be acquired by communities that really need it. One of these is through grants, because getting a grant can really help a community move in the right direction. With a good action plan, leaders in the community can apply for a grant for a very specific thing, and they may be more likely to receive that money than they would if they were only interested in being given a grant to spend however, they like (Patillo-McCoy, 1998).

While grants are very important ways to get funding for community projects, another way to get those projects funded is through the money that the elected officials have in the budget (Smith, 1996; Wood, 2002). A lot of money goes to targeted projects every year, and the officials are the people who determine which projects get the money and which are denied (Chaves & Higgins, 1992).

If officials have strong opinions about certain projects or communities, whether those opinions are good or bad, this will generally affect whether or not the projects receive funding so they can move forward. If too many people in the community remain dissatisfied with the funding being provided through elected officials, there are ways to correct the problem. The most common way is to vote out the current officials and elect new ones who will be more interested in providing the community with funding for projects that are significantly important to its residents (Wood, 2002).

The Black Urban Community

When considering targeted funding issues, it is important to analyze the black urban community. This is a community that often struggles for the basics, and that recognizes the need for help with many different aspects of life (Chaves & Higgins, 1992; McClerking & McDaniel, 2005; McRoberts, 1999). It is not so much a racial issue as it is a poverty issue (Wood, 2002). Statistics show that black urban communities and neighborhoods generally have less money per resident than communities with a higher proportion of white residents (Barnes, 2005; McClerking & McDaniel, 2005).

With this in mind, the black urban community must become aware of its plight and look for ways to improve upon the issues with which it deals (Barnes, 2005; Billingsley, 1999). Without working for improvement, there can be little the community can do in order to provide its residents with the help and hope they need in order to become more successful. Unfortunately, the culture of the black urban community does not always make working for something better a trait or skill to be applauded. There is a great deal of diversity within the community itself, and some of it is, unfortunately, geared toward the reinforcement of negative stereotypes.

As the black urban community moves toward improvement for its residents, there are a number of things it can do. Neighborhood watches and other anti-crime programs are popular, but there is also money needed (Cavendish, 2000). Targeted funding is an excellent way for these kinds of communities to see more success and to help their residents work their way out of poverty and into something better (Barnes, 2005). This kind of funding can take the form of scholarships for education, or it can be used to improve recreation areas, libraries, and other places where the entire community can gather and where everyone can benefit from the proceeds of the funding (Barnes, 2005; Patillo-McCoy, 1998). That is one of the best ways to help the black urban community.

Black Church Congregations

Among the activities that are commonly seen in a large number of residents of the black urban community is church attendance (Barnes, 2005; Chaves & Higgins, 1992). Many black churches have large congregations that are very dedicated to improving the community as a whole and bringing more people to the love of God. As they work to convert people to their faith, they also spend time in the community doing good works and helping others as much as possible (Barnes, 2005). This desire to help others can be used to the advantage of everyone in the community when it comes to targeted funding in black urban areas (McClerking & McDaniel, 2005).

Church congregations are often mobilized to help others as a group or a cohesive unit, and the ways in which they do that can become very political in nature (Calhoun-Brown, 1996; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). Because large groups of dedicated people can get things done, the church is a logical place to bring information about what can and should be done in the community (Wood, 2002). A number of black churches are dedicated to community improvement, and this is seen as more of a duty or mission in those churches than would typically be seen with white congregations (McClerking & McDaniel, 2005; Patillo-McCoy, 1998).

With black churches, there are two main schools of thought that address community and political activism. One of these is a more hands-off approach where issues are addressed but there is no direct encouragement to change voting habits (Barnes, 2005). This passive way of getting things done may not work as well, however, because not everyone will be moved to change anything based on it. Many black churches, though, take a hands-on approach to more than just worship (McRoberts, 1999; Wood, 2002). They believe that part of their religious duty is to improve the world around them, and they want to see things get done that will further their community (Brown & Brown, 2003; Day, 2002). They are tight-knit groups, and they are committed to the people in their congregation and their neighborhood (Haight, 1998). With that in mind, they know they need to keep pushing leaders to make changes if they are going to get anything done that will benefit those around them.

Because black churches in larger urban areas often have significant numbers of people in their congregations, there are large groups of people who are focused on the changes they see as important. This can make a difference at the grass-roots level, but there is more to the issue than that (Harris, 1999). These congregations often start programs to help people in need, and they may also provide food and shelter to homeless people or those who do not have enough money to eat properly (Wood, 2002). They plant community gardens, clean up parks and green spaces, and work to make their part of the world a better place (Barnes, 2005). While all that helps a great deal, it can only go so far. Once they have reached the limit of what they are capable of doing, that is as far as they can go because they do not have permission to move forward with larger projects. They also do not have the funding that would be needed to advance projects that are large in scope, as those kinds of changes require a lot of money (Barnes, 2005; Billingsley, 1999).

The way to get that money -- and to actually see the work get done -- is to get the community interested in and lobbying for the project. From that point, the community needs to elect officials who believe in the project and who are interested in making the community a better place (Cavendish, 2000). With a large number of church attendees, the opportunity to change the political landscape is a real possibility (Chaves & Higgins, 1992). However, the church has to get a significant number of community members as congregants, and also has to get them all to agree regarding the proposed projects that are important to the community (Billingsley, 1999; Brown & Brown, 2003).

From that point, it needs to be determined which projects are the most important to the people in the area and which of the people running for an elected office believe in and support those projects (McClerking & McDaniel, 2005). Then, the focus can be on ensuring those people get elected, so the projects can go forward with the right backing and the level of finances needed (Wood, 2002). Until these things all come together, even the largest black church will not be able to make significant strides in its community.

The Impact on Elections

Studies have shown that the black church can have a significant impact on elections in the community where it operates (Wood, 2002). City leaders are aware of how this works, and many of them will attempt to get on the "good side" of large black congregations so they can remain in office. People who are seeking office generally find out what is important to the black church congregations in the area and then focus on those issues in an effort to garner support from the churches at a high enough level to get elected. There are questions as to the honesty of this particular practice, of course, because it would imply that people who want to become elected officials in a community should only cater to the influence of the black church. However, elections have always been about the candidates who cater to the largest number of people. In black urban neighborhoods, that is generally the church congregations. In other types of neighborhoods, other kinds of groups would be most commonly seen as having the strongest influence.

In black urban neighborhoods, the church has a significant say in who is elected, because congregants will vote en masse for the candidate they feel supports the projects that are important to them (Barnes, 2005; Billingsley, 1999). If enough people attend the church, the candidate supported by that church will be the one elected. For much smaller congregations, there might not be enough influence or enough voting members to ensure that the "right" person is elected. That can be frustrating, but it is a frustration that is not often shared by the larger congregations. The focus of interest for black urban neighborhoods can be very different across cities and states, as well (Wood, 2002). This can affect elections, because the goals of a black church in the south may not be the same as the goals of a black church in the Midwest. Different goals mean a different style of community leader or elected official may be sought.

The circumstances in the neighborhood, church, and surrounding town are different based on size, income, location, current infrastructure, and many other factors, and these all have to be considered (Wood, 2002). Each one of those factors can have an impact on the projects that are important to the congregation and the neighborhood, so they can also have an impact on who gets elected. When people are running for office they generally say what the people want to hear, because they know it will give them a better chance of getting elected. However, it is also important to take a careful look at the track record of the person who wants the elected position. If he or she has a history of lying to get into positions, or if he or she has a history of not following through with promises, there are no guarantees that electing him or her to another position would change any of that. This is something which black church congregations must carefully consider. Electing the person who promises to get the important projects done is important, but only if the person will actually do what is promised.

It is impossible to know if a person, once elected, will really do what he or she said would be done. Black church congregations must take chances with this, just as other groups of dedicated people would do when electing someone. Those who do get elected also need to know the political and professional climate of a particular neighborhood or community, so they have a higher level of awareness about what they must do to keep the job and be successful in it (Day, 2002). Those who do a good job can get re-elected, as well, while those who do poorly are going to find that they are quickly voted out at the next election. It can be argued that this will happen if they do not follow the will of special interest groups (i.e. The church), but it can also be argued that the church congregation represents a significant number of people in the community and, therefore, cannot be considered a special interest group (Barnes, 2005). In that case, the congregation would be representative of the community as a whole.

Elected Officials and Accountability

One of the most important issues for any elected officials, but especially those who have been elected in black urban communities, is accountability (Cavendish, 2000). If the black church gets its congregation together to vote for a particular person, and he or she does not do what was promised, it will be made known that is a problem. Elected officials can and should be held accountable, and black congregations in urban areas understand the importance of that (Wood, 2002). They are generally not afraid to speak their minds and call out elected leaders who are not doing what they promised they would do during their campaigns. Sometimes this is out of the leaders' control, but if it is simply a change of heart or a lack of desire to really do what is right, pressure will be put on the official to do the right thing. That can galvanize an elected official into action and help ensure that he or she continues to move forward with projects that are important to the community (McClerking & McDaniel, 2005).