Faith Based
Organizations:
Potential Partners in Rural Transportation
Rural Disability and Rehabilitation Research Progress Report # 35
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
The University of Montana Rural Institute
May 2007
Twelve million rural Americans, 41% of the rural population, live in counties with no public transportation (Rural Transit Assistance Program,1995; Community Transportation Association of America [CTAA], 1995). The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: a Legacy for Users provides new resources and means to address this problem. Still, rural people with disabilities and those who serve them report that the lack of transportation is one of their most significant and persistent problems (Gonzales, Seekins, & Kasnitz, 2001; Gonzales, Stombaugh, Kasnitz, & Seekins, 2006; National Council on Disability, 2005).
Rural advocates, program planners, policy makers, and people with disabilities often suggest asking Faith-Based Organizations (FBO) to help provide transportation (e.g., Gonzales, Seekins, & Kasnitz, 1999/2000; CTAA, 2002). Proponents stress that FBOs are numerous and many have service missions that could augment scarce social resources. This presumes that many, if not most, FBOs own vehicles for transporting their members, and that they feel called to serve those with disabilities by providing basic transportation.
However, no one could say how many FBOs own vehicles, or the extent to which they might provide accessible community transportation. Undoubtedly, some FBOs do own vehicles and do transport their own members. They may have certain barriers that prohibit them from also transporting community members. The frequently heard proposal that FBOs could solve rural transportation problems prompted us to survey rural FBOs to assess their interest in providing local transportation and their capacity to do so.
Key Terms:
Communities of Faith - Not all congregations have a permanent facility, nor do
all congregations with such a facility refer to it as a church. The more
important concept is the community of those who profess a shared faith.
Faith-Based Organization - A generic term that refers to a community of faith
and any independently organized programs or services it operates.
Rothauge's Typology - A recognized categorization of communities of faith
determined by the size of the congregation, including family, pastoral, program,
and corporate churches (Rothauge, 1983).
Method
There are 365,312 U.S. churches with telephone book listings. Of these,
approximately 119,823 are located in non-metropolitan counties. The great number
and variety of faith communities creates challenges in developing research
samples. In order to conduct a national survey of rural FBOs, we randomly
selected 716 FBOs, each located within 15 miles of a center for independent
living (CIL) identified as "rural". Forty percent (N = 288) of their
congregational leaders responded to our mailed survey.
The survey asked about transportation issues, barriers to conducting
transportation activities, congregational demographics, and about the
congregation's general orientation to community outreach activities.
Findings
The average respondent led a faith community of 300 worshiping adults,
of whom 9.5% were estimated to have a significant disability. Most (98.4%)
respondents led a Christianity-based FBO. Most respondents were neither willing
nor unwilling to provide transportation to the general public or to people with
disabilities, but 32% said they would be willing or very willing to do so.
About a third (n = 74) of respondents' faith communities owned one or more
vehicles. Of 146 vehicles reported, 27 (18.5%) were reported to be equipped with
a lift or ramp for transporting people who use wheelchairs, scooters, or other
mobility devices.
Respondents whose faith communities served larger geographic areas reported
owning more vehicles c2 (2, n = 224) 8.03, p = .018; and more accessible
vehiclesc2 (2, n = 179) 7.58, p = .023. However, the distribution of the number
of vehicles owned is skewed toward the low end and limits the ability to
generalize these findings.
The survey asked if FBOs provided transportation to their members or provided
any outreach programs to non-member community residents. Over half (55.2%, n =
132) reported providing transportation to members. More FBOs reported
transporting members than reported owning vehicles. Several respondents
anecdotally reported having informal volunteer arrangements to provide rides for
members.
Researchers compared CILs' ratings of the quality of public transportation, both
for all community members and for people with disabilities (see Research
Progress Report #32), with the ratings of the FBOs in the same areas. We found
that CILs rated local transportation quality markedly lower than did the
churches in their areas.
It was expected that FBOs would face barriers to transporting people with
disabilities who are not members of their congregations. Table 1 presents the
distribution of the barriers reported by respondents across Rothauge's
categories of church size. We used an analysis of variance to examine the sum of
these barriers and found no significance F (3, 221) = 2.530, p = .058.
Respondents also identified the supports required for them to become involved in
local transportation. Table 2 presents these supports.
Table 1. Number and Percent of FBOs (by Rothauge's Typology) Endorsing Barriers to Providing Transportation Description of Table 1
Barriers |
||||||||
Type of |
Not in mission |
Liability |
Stretch |
Lack skills |
Lack staff |
Lack money |
Government |
Church policy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Family (1-50) |
19 (37.1%) |
36 (60.0%) |
33 (55.0%) |
30 (50.0%) |
50 (83.3%) |
55 (91.7%) |
24 (40.0%) |
5 (8.3%) |
Pastoral |
33 (40.7%) |
46 (56.8%) |
47 (58.0%) |
47 (58.0%) |
62 (76.5%) |
74 (91.4%) |
30 (37.0%) |
5 (6.2%) |
Program |
19 (39.0%) |
18 (43.9%) |
21 (51.2%) |
20 (48.8%) |
30 (73.2%) |
35 (85.4%) |
10 (24.4%) |
2 (4.9%) |
Corporate |
17 (39.5%) |
20 (46.5%) |
13 (30.2%) |
18 (41.9%) |
28 (65.1%) |
34 (79.1%) |
14 (32.6%) |
3 (7.0%) |
Overall |
91 (38.4%) |
127 (53.6%) |
117 (49.4%) |
121 (51.1%) |
178 (75.1%) |
207 (87.3%) |
81 (34.2%) |
16 (6.8%) |
Table 2. Number and Percent of FBOs (by Rothauge's Typology OR Rural Categories) Endorsing Supports Required for Becoming Involved in Providing Transportation
Support Required |
||||
Type of church & No. of members |
Council approval |
Funding |
Freedom from interference |
Inter-denominational sponsor |
Family (1-50) |
25 (41.7%) |
38 (63.3%) |
22 (36.7%) |
10 (16.7%) |
Pastoral |
43 (53.8%) |
62 (77.5%) |
32 (40.0%) |
19 (23.8%) |
Program |
21 (51.2%) |
30 (73.2%) |
16 (39.0%) |
9 (22.0%) |
Corporate |
27 (61.4%) |
38 (86.4%) |
11 (25.0%) |
14 (31.8%) |
Overall |
121 (51.1%) |
175 (73.8%) |
83 (35.0%) |
54 (22.8%) |
Limitations
While this study used a random national sample of rural FBOs, selection was predicated on the proximity to centers for independent living in non-metropolitan counties. CILs are not randomly-located, however. They are most likely located in "central market" communities to maximize efficiency. As such, the findings of this study may not generalize to all rural FBOs.
Recommendations and Next Steps
While most respondents were ambivalent, 32% indicated they were willing or very willing to become involved in transportation. Therefore, transportation advocates may want to invite local inter-denominational organizations to help develop local transportation. In communities without organized transportation systems, FBOs may want to convene local transportation planning meetings. Leaders of faith communities can serve as "honest brokers" by calling and chairing such meetings.
References
Community Transportation Association of America. (1995). Atlas of Public Transportation in Rural America, 1994. Washington, DC: Author.
Gonzales, L., Seekins, T. & Kasnitz, D. (2001). Rural Policy Brief: Rural Transportation for People with Disabilities -- Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21) 2003 Reauthorization. Missoula: The University of Montana Rural Institute.
Gonzales, L., Seekins, T. & Kasnitz, D. (1999/2000, Fall/Winter). Taking on rural transportation. Common Threads, 13-15. Missoula: Montana University Affiliated Rural Institute on Disabilities.
Gonzales, L., Stombaugh, D., Seekins, T. & Kasnitz, D. (2006). Accessible rural transportation: An evaluation of the Traveler's Cheque Voucher Program. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society, 37, 3, 106-115.
Jeskey, C. & Bush, M. (2002). Our Role in the Process: A Grassroots Guide to
Building Community-based Employment Transportation. Washington, DC: Community
Transportation Association of America & Center for Community Change.
National Council on Disability (2005). The Current State of Transportation for
People with Disabilities in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
Rothauge, A.J. (1983). Sizing Up a New Congregation for New Member Ministry. New
York City: Episcopal Church Center.
Seekins, T., Hartsell, A., & Spas, D. (2006). Faith Based Organizations and
Rural Transportation: Rural Disability and Rehabilitation Research Progress
Report #32. Missoula: The University of Montana Rural Institute.
For more information, contact:
Tom Seekins, Director
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities, The University
of Montana Rural Institute: A Center of Excellence in Disability Education,
Research and Services
52 Corbin Hall, Missoula, MT 59812-7056
888-268 2743 Toll free;
406-243 4200 TTY;
406-243 2349
Fax
http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu
email the Rural Institute
Grant #H133B030501 from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research, U.S. Department of Education supports our research. The opinions
expressed are the author's and are not necessarily those of the funding agency.
Tom Seekins prepared this report, © RTC: Rural, 2007. It is available in text,
large print and Braille formats.
