Toward an Understanding of Religious Organizations and Social Capital In Canada Dave Faber B.A., Western Pentecostal Bible College, 2001 Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration The University of Northern British Columbia April2009 © Dave Faber, 2009 UNivERSITY of NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA LffiRARY Prince George, B.C. ABSTRACT The value of religious organizations to society over the last few years has come into question. Various cities and municipalities have at times used their ability to disallow rezoning applications for religious organizations wishing to build within their cities. Losses of tax revenue from the property and increased costs associated with additional traffic have prompted this legal stance. The government of the United States of America has passed into law protective measures to assist religious organizations against their cities. The question of the benefit of religious organizations is not a simple discussion. However over the last twenty years the discussion and study of social capital is developing into an understanding of how it can be measured. Canada is leading the way with their studies through Statistics Canada into key indicators of social capital: giving, volunteering and participation. This paper is designed to contribute to this discussion and add to the knowledge of the impact of religious organizations on social capital in Canada. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......... ......... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ..................................................................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................... .......................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ....... ... ................................... ........ ....... ........... .. ............. ............................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... .. .. ........... .. ................................................................................................... vi DEDICATION ............................................. .............................................................. ............. ................. vii INTRODUCTION ......... ................. ........ .. ........... ............................................................. .......................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... 3 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ ................................................................... 5 DEFINITION : WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL? .. .. .... ................ .... ........ ........................... ... ...... . ......... .. ....... ......... ....... .. S WH Y IS SOCIAL CAPITAL IMPORTANT? .. .. .. ..... .. ...... .. ..... .. .. . .. ... ..... .. ..... ..... ...... .... .... ... ....................... ............ ....... 7 TREND : DECLINING SOCIAL CAPITAL. ... ..... .................................................................................. ...... ... .... .... ....... 9 RECENT ATIEMPTS TO CREATE SOCIAL CAPITAL .... ...... ... ...... ... .... ..... .... .... ........ ..... ............. ...... .... .... .... .. ........... . 13 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL. ...... .............. .. ................ .. ...... .... ..... ....... .................. . ............. 16 RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS CREATE SOCIAL CAPITAL .............................................. .... ........ ........ ..... ...... ............. 17 MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL ............................................. ................... ............. ....... ......... ... ......... ........ ........ 19 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SATISFACTION ............ ... ...... .. ...... .. ........ ......................... ... . .... . ...... ...... ... ..... ........ ............ 20 SUMMARY .... ........ .... .. ...... ..... ... .. ..... .... .. ...... ...... ...... ..... ........ .. ... ...... .. ............................. .... ..... ....... ... ........ . 23 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 25 INTRODUCTION ...... ...... ..... ............. ... .... ....... .. ... ........ ..... ... .. .... .... .... ........... ........ .. ........... .. ..... .. ... ................. 25 ANALYSIS..... ... .......... .. ..... ...... .. ......... ...... ....... ... ...... ..... ..... ..... . ...... .... ..... ......... ............ .......... .......... ..... ....... 28 The Role of Religious Activity in Giving ...... .... ...... ....................................... ................. .. .................... .29 The Role of Religious Activity in Volunteerism ...................... ..... .......... .. ...... .... .................. .... ...... ...... .33 11 The Role of Religious Activity in Giver and Volunteer Status .. .. .......... ... ........... .... .................. .... ........ 36 The Role of Religious Activity in Participation ............ ..................................... ...... ... .... ......... ....... ...... 37 Religious Organizations and Regional Differences ............... ..... ................. .. .... .............. .... ... ... ......... .38 CON CLUSION . . ..... .. . ... .......... ... .. . ...... ............... . . . .......... ...... ... . . . .... ...... ..... . ... ......... , .... . ................ . .... . .. . ... . . . . . . 52 REFERENCES .................... ........................ .... .. ........................ .......................... ............. ......................... 56 APPENDICES .................. ......................... ...................................................... ........................ ................. 60 PROVINCIAL GIVER AND V OLUNTEER STATUS GRAPHS .. .. .................. .. ..... . .................. . ........................................ 60 lll LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1- RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY BY PERCENTAGE OF CANADIAN POPULATION (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...... ..... ........................ 28 FIGURE 2- RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY AND DONATION RATES (AUTHOR 'S CALCULATIONS) .......................................... ...............•. .•.•. 30 FIGURE 3- PERCENTAGE OF DONATIONS TO ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN LEVEL OF RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY - (AUTHORS CALCULATION) ...... 31 FIGURE 4- PERCENTAGE VALUE TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATIONS) ...... ...... ..... .... ..•32 FIGURE 5- VOLUNTEERING RATES BY RELI GIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) .......••.......... .... .... .. ... .•.•.•........................ 33 FIGURE 6- PERCENTAGE OF VOLUNTEER HOURS BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY - (AUTHORS CALCULATION) ... ..... ...... ..•.... ..•.................. 34 FIGURE 7- PERCENTAGE OF VOLUNTEER HOURS TO VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (AUTHOR'S CALCULATIONS) .... .. .... ....................... 35 FIGURE 8- GIVER AND VOLUNTEER STATUS BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...................... ..... ........ .. ............. 36 FIGURE 9- PARTICIPATION RATE BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ..... ....... ...... .. .........•.......•....... ..... ..... ....... 37 FIGURE 10- ATIENDANCE RATES OF RELIGIOUS SERVICES BY PROVINCE (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ..... ..•. .... .. ......................•••••. 39 FIGURE 11- GIVER AND VOLUNTEER STATUS BY PROVINCE (AUTHOR 'S CALCULATIONS) .............. .......... .. .................. .. ...... ...... . 40 FIGURE 12- WEEKLY RELIGIOUS ATIENDANCE CONTRASTED TO VOLUNTEER AND GIVER STATUS (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...... .. .... 41 FIGURE 13- AVERAGE ANNUAL GIVING VERSUS AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY BY PROVINCE (AVERAGE ANNUAL DONATION (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION), AVERAGE ANNUAL SALARY (STATISTICS CANADA, 2006) .................................. ................................ .42 FIGURE 14- ANNUAL AVERAGE DONATION BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY AND PROVINCE (DONATIONS (AUTHOR, CSGVP 2004); ANNUAL SALARY (STATISTICS CANADA, 2006)) ................. ..... ... ...... ............... ....................... ..... .... ...... ..... ........... ... ...... ... .43 FIGURE 15- AVERAGE ANNUAL VOLUNTEER HOURS BY PROVINCE CONTRASTED WEEKLY, MONTHLY AND NO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...... ...... ..... ..... ..... . .. ............ ... .... ... ..... ..... ... .. ....................... ..... ..... .... ..... ... .......... ..... . .44 FIGURE 16- PROVINCIAL AVERAGE VOLUNTEER HOURS BY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) .................... .. .... ....... .45 FIGURE 17- REASON NOT TO VOLUNTEER MORE : NO ONE ASKED, NO INTEREST (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) .................... ....... .47 FIGURE 18- OVERALL PARTICIPATION RATES BY PROVINCE (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...... ....... .. .... .. .............. ................ ...... .48 FIGURE 19- QUEBEC PARTICIPATION RATES BY ORGANIZATION TYPE (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) ...... .... ..... .............. ................... 49 FIGURE 20- NATIONAL PARTICIPATION RATES BY ORGANIZATION TYPE (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) .. .. .................. .. .... .... ...... ....... 49 FIGURE 21- GIVING, VOLUNTEER AND PARTICIPATION RATES OVERLAID WITH SELF-REPORTED SATISFACTION RATES (AUTHOR'S CALCULATION) .. ... ................ .... ........ ... .................. ....... ........... ...... .......... ...... ... ......................... ............. , .. ....... 50 IV FIGURE 22- BELONG TO RELIGIOU S ORGANIZATION OR GROUP VERSUS SATISFACTION RATES (AUTHOR' S CALCULATION) ....... .... . 51 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I believe the completion of a degree such as a Master of Business Administration is not the work of a single individual. I would like to thank the MBA administration at the University of Northern British Columbia. Particular thanks go to Dana Helgason and Carol Zoernack who have had the unending task of arranging everything for us the students and the professors. Your work did not go unnoticed. Mike Ivanof and Phil Clough, thank you for your willingness to lead this program. To my professors, thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge and patience with us. To my supervisors Dr. Paul Bowles and Dr. Fiona MacPhail, my gratitude for your direction and assistance has been invaluable. Paul: Thank you for considerable patience and wisdom. To my cohort, thank you. Next time there is a Chrysler as big as a whale ... I am ready to set sail with all of you again. Most importantly, I need to thank my family. Elizabeth, you have allowed me to attain more than I could have imagined. You are my love. To my daughter Zoe, thank you for your wonderful smiles and love. You are the best girl a dad could ever ask for. vi DEDICATION I dedicate this project to my wife Elizabeth and my daughter Zoe. There is a little bit of all of us in this work. All my love, Dave April2009 Vll INTRODUCTION Non-profit organizations receive benefit from various levels of government in the form of tax relief. Specifically, churches benefit from no corporate income tax, no tax on properties for the primary place of worship and related buildings and the housing portion of licensed and ordained ministers' salaries are non-taxable as well as those contributors to receive a personal tax benefit based on the value of their donations. This is a significant benefit to these organizations. Currently in the United States of America, many cities are blocking churches from moving into their neighbourhoods by not rezoning church properties citing traffic flow, parking and loss of property tax income to offset these increased civic cost. The battle over property usage for churches in some USA cities has reached the courts system with both parties vowing to continue the battle to the Supreme Court. The American government passed the Religious Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RUILP A) in 2000 as a result to assist religious groups in these legal proceedings. In Canada, rezoning disputes between municipalities and churches have reached the Supreme Court of Canada. Lobby groups have formed to support religious organizations to maintain churches' tax free status both in Canada and the United States. Page 1 The use of these blocking techniques by cities and municipalities would seem to indicate churches are perceived not to have sufficient socio-economic benefit to the community at large to overcome the loss of tax base. This is evident in the case of Lafontaine, Quebec which conducted a tax survey prior to declaring the rezoning as an 'undue burden' to the surrounding neighbourhood. The debate continued to the Supreme Court of Canada in 2004 (Congregation des temoins de Jehovah de StJerome-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village)). The argument has been raised in the US Supreme Court (Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)) of the unfair additional tax burden placed on the surrounding taxpayers thereby creating support for the work of the church and allowing the church the benefit of government services without assisting with the expense. Rather than taking a micro view and looking at the merit of individual cases, this paper will take a macro view of the contribution of religious organizations to Canadian society. Productive, growing societies must build interpersonal connections to function effectively. These social connections are most beneficial to the community when built on trust between its members. Churches may contribute to this social cohesion or social capital through their activities. The focus of this Page 2 paper is an analysis of the ability of churches to generate social capital in the form of giving, volunteering and participation. If an increased level of involvement in religious organizations shows an increase in levels of giving, volunteering and participation by these involved individuals, it is understood these organizations have facilitated and encouraged this increase in social capital. Additionally, the creation of social capital is understood to be reflected in self-reported satisfaction rates. Therefore, providing this link between increase activity in religious organization and increased levels of social capital and self reported levels of satisfaction, religious organizations are a benefit Canadian society. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A major part of the problem is the question of what social capital is. This is debated at length in the available literature. At times within the context of one author compared to the next, the terms utilized become muddled. Social capital has many indicators. Among the most prominent are social activities such as giving, volunteerism and participation. The importance of these activities in the generation of social capital has gained much interest over the last two decades. This interest has led to the development of databases specifically Page 3 designed to more accurately capture how these forms of social capital are changing in Canada. One such database is utilized in this project to address the central question: Do religious organizations in Canada contribute to social capital? If the answer to this question is yes, this would provide evidence of the importance of religious organizations to the effective functioning of Canadian society and its communities. Seen in this light, the criticism of churches by local communities on the basis of their tax-free status is short-sighted and ignores the importance of the cohesion churches may be contributing to Canadian society. To examine this question, this project is structured as follows. A literature review will define social capital and establish its importance in society. The project will outline the recent history of social capital following its trends as well as examine the effectiveness of various organizations to develop and utilize it through various mediums. Finally, an examination of the connection between religious organizations and social capital is undertaken through an examination of giving, volunteering and participating both at the national and regional levels in Canada. Page4 LITERATURE REVIEW Definition: What is Social Capital? Social capital is a term used to describe the benefit contributed to society by interactions in social networks. Robert Putnam, in his book "Bowling Alone" uses the following analogy: By analogy with notions of physical capital and human capital - tools and training that enhance individual productivity- the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups. Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called "civic virtue. " The difference is that "social capital" calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital (Putnam, 2000, pp. 18, 19). Page 5 Putnam (Putnam, 2000) goes on to point out social capital is not by definition virtuous, it can be malevolent or antisocial. Social capital can be selfish, but for the greatest benefit to society to be achieved, social networks need to be virtuous acts of compassion for the benefit of the others. This benefit is achieved through multistranded relationships creating an interwoven web of positive benefit. Fukuyama is more succinct: "Social capital is an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals" (Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, 2006, p. 3). He argues that social capital is often considered negative as many groups achieve internal cohesion at the expense of outsiders. Outsiders are often treated with suspicion, hostility, or outright hatred and it is thus important when measuring social capital to consider its true utility net of its externalities. For Fukuyama, the basic element of social capital is friendship. It requires human relationships and trust networks; civil society and social norms are by-products of, not the actual ingredients of, social capital. It is important to note, social capital can be either bridging or bonding. Bridging social capital is the connections that are made from members of one identifiable social group to members of another- an outward focus. Bonding social capital is insular, intent on building relationships within a social construct. Social capital, therefore, is defined as the network of relationships individuals have with the Page 6 people in their communities both near and far. The quantity, quality, strength and intended use of which all vary. Why is Social Capita/Important? Social capital is the means by which societies change. According to Putnam, societal change happens through varying levels of two processes: individuals changing their tastes and habits en masse; and generational change. It is important to recognize generational change happens continually. The impact of this change varies with the size of the generation or the differences between one generation and the next, but, it happens nonetheless (Putnam, 2000). Societal change which includes individuals changing their behaviour en masse requires social capital or Fukuyama' s friendships . This type of societal change can be seen in protests, revolutions, and civic movements where there is cooperation between two or more individuals. The greater the number of people involved, the greater the web of relationships extends and gathers strength (Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, 2006). The increasing strength and multiplied bonds within networks increase societal trust. Reciprocity, honesty and trust, Putnam claims, are the key elements of social capital (Putnam, 2000). Fukuyama calls this friendship (Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, 2006). Page 7 Reciprocity is much broader than a simple, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." It is recognition of community responsibility and reactivity. Returns on acts of kindness are not always immediate or straight forward. One might not receive a good deed in return from the same source, in the same or timely manner. However, communities that are based on generalized trust and honesty have a measurable economic advantage as efficiencies and reduced transaction costs are gained through minimized effort on security, suspicion and worry. Trust, Zak and Knack insist, is a necessary component of any efficient, growing society. Their paper shows that trust depends on the environments in which the transactions occur. They also contend "If trust is too low in a society, savings will be insufficient to sustain output growth" (Zak & Knack, 2001, p. 296). In low trust communities too much time is wasted investigating the veracity of any given transaction between buyer and seller for meaningful economic gain to be achieved. Francois and Zabojnik draw a strong connection between trustworthiness and social capital: We argue here that the social norm of central importance is trustworthiness, and that social capital corresponds with a high prevalence of trustworthiness. Trustworthy people are those who keep their promises, even when doing so is both costly and requires taking actions which may not maximize payoffs. Such Page 8 trustworthiness is extremely valuable when relationships cannot be fully circumscribed by contracts, but when trade would be beneficial nonetheless. When confident that non-contracted contingencies will not be exploited to one's detriment, one may be willing to trade even when promises cannot be guaranteed. A society with many trustworthy members allows people to have that confidence, and is thus rich in social capital (Francois & Zabojnik, 2003, pp. 3, 4). Knack and Keefer report higher trust is conducive to growth in a sample of 29 market economies, where: Trust-sensitive transactions are those in which goods and services are provided in exchange for future payment, employment contracts in which managers rely on employees to accomplish tasks that are difficult to monitor, and investments and savings decisions that rely on assurances by governments or banks they will not expropriate these assets. Individuals in higher-trust societies spend less to protect themselves from being exploited in economic transactions. Written contracts are less likely to be needed, and they do not have to specify every possible contingency (Knack & Keefer, 1997, p. 1252). Trend: Declining Social Capital The problem, Putnam points out, is meaningful community involvement has been in decline beginning in the 1960s. It is within community involvement that Page 9 relationships, trust, and friendships are created. Fewer interconnected relationships are equated with lower levels of social capital. Many of the organizations that have grown membership roles since the early 1970s are what Putnam describes as "tertiary" memberships. Merriam Webster dictionary defines tertiary "of third rank, importance, or value" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009). For Putnam, a tertiary membership is a weak social connection. Often these links are short term with little in the way of face-to-face interactions requiring little effort and almost no personal cost of the membership. The most of the effective membership drives over the last 40 years have been the result of direct mail campaigns. These memberships are not much more than a fee paid to support a cause the recipient has an emotional response to and are Putnam's prime example of a tertiary membership. These tertiary memberships are fleeting and subject to losses in membership at similar rates. Putnam points to Greenpeace, which tripled in membership to 2,350,000 between 1985 and 1990, then lost 85% of its members in the next eight years. Indeed, the only cost to participation was a financial contribution. These tertiary organizations spend 20 to 30 percent of their income on generating new members to maintain cash flows. The question is not about the effectiveness or the importance of these organizations but rather their ability to create social capital: network connections that include reciprocity, honesty and trust between individual members. Page 10 By contrast, the national chapter-based organizations that grew through social interaction from 1900 through 1960 have not seen the same decline over the 40 years since. Putnam attributes the decline in traditional membership roles to a transition in generational attributes and the corresponding death rates. In other words, these groups lost membership numbers because, as a general rule, their members were dying as opposed to abandoning their membership by choice. The next generations are not filling the ranks. They are not interested in the same social activities their parents and grandparents were. Bucking the declining trend since 1970 are the religious evangelicals. Membership in denominations associated with the National Association of Evangelicals more than tripled from the 1940s to 1970s. Mainly insular prior to 1974, evangelicals have expanded into social and political activism. David Lasby and David Mcivor conclude in their report Where Canadians Volunteer, a disproportionate amount of the volunteer hours in Canada are provided by religious attendees (Lasby & Mciver, 2004). Just as book clubs and Parent Teacher Associations of the past began with a single internal focus evangelicals' transformation "aptly illustrates how social capital, civic engagement, and social movements feed on one another" (Putnam, 2000) to grow meaningful social capital. Page 11 When tertiary and grassroots (highly interconnected and relational) organizations face each other in political arena, grassroots organizations have the ability to organize en masse quickly and efficiently whereas tertiary organizations many times must scramble to find enough committed individuals to mobilize. Prime example of this is environmental group participation. Putnam reports: More than 60 percent of us claim that we often make a special effort to recycle, half claim to have given money to an environmental group in the past Jive years, 30 percent claim to have signed a petition about an environmental issue, 10 percent claim to be a member of a pro-environmental group, and 3 percent claim to have taken part in an environmental protest or demonstration (Putnam, 2000, p. 160). Contrast this report: Of one national sample of religious activists, 60 to 70 percent attend church more than once a week, compared with less than 5 percent of other Americans. And in a development that would have astounded and probably appalled their fundamentalist forebears, they are three to five times more active than the average American in virtually all forms of civic and political life (Putnam, 2000, p. 162). Grassroots organizations with their highly interconnected, relationally based communities are already engaged on a large scale. Those involved are committed to Page 12 continuous participation generating the friend ships Fukuyama claims necessary for social capital. Recent Attempts to Create Social Capital Whereas the telephone took 70 years to attain 75% market penetration, the internet took barely more than 10% of that time to reach the same level. Both of these technologies allow for the quicker transmission of information, but the question remains as to whether this truly translates into increased social capital. The question of technology as a means of generating social capital becomes important as the popularity of online social networks continues to flourish. Could online networks become the primary agent for the creation of social capital? Putnam contends new technology, be it the telephone or the internet, has not created new social capital but rather has allowed for the convenience of shorter social interactions to fill time that would otherwise be spent alone or meeting with friends directly creating a decrease in social capital. For Putnam, the lack of face to face contact makes it easier to avoid and deflect meaningful interactions. People of all generations are embracing the internet and online social networks have flourished creating a "virtual" social capital. Paul Duguid points out that the US Department of Labour discovered that during the Dot Com era of 1994 through 1999, a time where telecommuting, virtual offices and self-employment Page 13 opportunities were readily available, self-employment rates and downtown office vacancies fell to their recorded lowest levels. We can take advantage of the power new technologies give us to work on bits, alone. And we do. Yet, when there is serious work and learning to do, we implicitly draw on the power that comes from getting together. It is no longer inevitable that we must work together as it was when people had to flock to the same massive factories, but in certain situations, it remains invaluable. Despite all the hype of virtual worlds, we get a lot more than we realize out of material ones (Duguid, 2001, p. 45). Putnam points out online communities can be organized by interest rather than shared space and allows for a more efficient way of information transfer and building intellectual capital through reduced transaction costs. They also allow for anonymity which reduces or eliminates social control. However, Putnam points to four senous challenges for computer mediated communication. First, the digital divide created by social inequality of access where gaps of education, income, race, and family structure continue to grow. Second is the inability of electronic, text based communication to transmit emotion, posture, cooperation and trustworthiness. Misrepresentations and miscommunications are much more common and electronic groups tend not to develop the same solidarity Page 14 and consensus. Putnam posits more frequent face-to-face encounters are required and social capital may turn out to be a prerequisite for rather than a consequence of effective computer-mediated communication. Third, most communications in cyberspace are single thread only and diversity of thought is often vehemently rejected. These strings of information focus participant knowledge and interest. Real world interactions often force us to deal with diversity, a key element in the development of social cohesion. Fourthly, Putnam wonders, "Will computer-mediated communication 'crowd out' face-to-face ties?" or will we be able to "use the prospect of fast, cheap communication to enhance the now fraying fabric of our real communities?" (Putnam, 2000, p. 179) Blanchard and Horan (Blanchard & Horan, 1998) believe computer mediated social interactions are helpful to build social capital. While they agree with Putnam on the necessity of face to face interaction, they point out first impressions created on computer mediated forms of communication can be thoughtfully composed and edited prior to posting. Additionally stereotypes of those of visible minorities, disabilities and others can be avoided with the focus being centered on the content of the communication rather than the visible cues which may, positively or negatively, influence group members. Blanchard and Horan conclude no matter what form of communication any social networks utilize, the key element for the Page 15 creation of social capital is the subject of interest and the quality of the interpersonal connections (Blanchard & Horan, 1998). Religious Organizations and Social Capital McKeown et al report "We found that Canadians who attend religious services tend to donate and volunteer at higher rates than other Canadians. In addition, on average they make larger donations and volunteer more hours than other donors and volunteers" (McKeown, Mciver, Moreton, & Rotondo, 2004, p. 17). Lasby and Mciver (Lasby & Mciver, 2004) find in their study of the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation (NSGVP) religious affinity is the highest motivation for volunteering. To measure religious affinity, Statistics Canada separated survey respondents into five categories: Attends religious services weekly; Attends religious services monthly; Attends religious services three or four times a year; Attends religious services once or twice a year; Does not attend religious services. Not only were weekly attendees more likely to volunteer, but they volunteered significantly more hours than those who were less religious (202 hours versus 156 on average) (Lasby & Mciver, 2004). Putnam states: "Faith communities in which people worship together are arguably the single most important repository of social capital in America" (Putnam, 2000, p. 66). Putnam goes on to call churches an important incubator for civic skills, Page 16 .. , ,------------ civic norms, community interest and civic recruitment. Friendships, which Fukuyama claims to be the basis of social capital (Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, 2006), are developed and are more likely to be recruited into other forms of community activity. Putnam reports regular church attendees report talking with 40 percent more people during the course of a day. While this does not make a direct connection to the creation of social capital, it is clear religious people are unusually active social capitalists (Putnam, 2000). Religious Organizations Create Social Capital The Canadian government's Ministry of Canadian Heritage is "responsible for national policies and programs that promote Canadian content, foster cultural participation, active citizenship and participation in Canada's civic life, and strengthen connections among Canadians." (Canadian Heritage Ministry, 2009) Janet Lautenschlager produced a paper for the Canadian Heritage Ministry entitled, "Volunteering: A Traditional Canadian Value" in which she writes: Virtually all organized religious groups have considered it their responsibility to foster and support services for those in need. Guided by the concept of the basic dignity and worth of all individuals, religious organizations have been leaders and pioneers in the area of social welfare and health services in Canada. Page 17 Undoubtedly, these religious organizations have also influenced the attitudes of both individuals and society towards social welfare and health care, and have kindled social reform efforts over the years (Lautenschlager, 1992, p. 3). Andrew R. Lewis maintains churches provide five distinct benefits to their communities. First, churches provide economic benefit through job creation and direct and indirect support of local businesses. Secondly, churches provide social benefits such as assistance to the poor and needy, improvement of marriage relationships and decreased domestic violence, increasing moral community obligations, and, third, promoting charitable contributions and volunteering. Fourthly, churches also promote education and civic engagement as well as help to decrease crime and deviance and, fifth and finally, churches promote mental and physical health (Lewis, 2008). Hull and Bold use the theory of the firm and apply it to their analysis of the church and religion. They posit the essential and unintended function of churches and religion in general is the reduction of transaction costs primarily through the establishment and enforcement of a system of property rights through the incorporation of religious products, promise of blessing or punishment, within the church's faith system (Hull & Bold, 1989). For Hull and Bold, the church creates four classes of products: temporal bliss, social goods, deferred perpetuity and Page 18 altered fate . The social goods identified by Hull and Bold are: Income redistribution; rules of cleanliness, medical treatment, food preparation and sanitation and positive behaviour modification. Compliance to social codes of conduct is achieved through the threat and promise of hell and heaven. This reduction of transaction costs has been classified as social capital. Measuring Social Capital For Fukuyama, there is not a reliable way to measure the internal cohesiveness of a group. Every measurement would have to be subjectively taken by an outsider and the cohesion would vary within the group depending on the stressors placed on the group at any one given time . Fukuyama suggests measurement of social capital can be found in the changes in valuation of a company before and after takeover offers where the intangible assets of a company is the social capital embodied in the firm's workers and management (Fukuyama, Social Capital and Civil Society, 2006). This is indicative of a micro view and measurement of social capital. Onyx and Bullen attempt to utilize the results of a developed questionnaire and eight identified factors of social capital in five diverse communities in Australia to find correlates. These factors are: agency, Participation in the local community; social or proactivity in a social context; feelings of trust and safety; Neighbourhood connections; Family and friend connections; Tolerance of diversity; Page 19 Value of life; and Work connections. Onyx and Bullen summarize with high rates of participation having created a strong sense of commonality and social cohesion which they also referred to as social capital (Onyx & Bullen, 2000). Putnam has sought to measure social capital in the membership and proliferation of social groups in society by tracking their membership trends over the years. Fukuyama agrees with Putnam's tertiary membership theory that social capital in such groups are so widely varied the outcome of the group is what should be measured, not simply the size of the membership. Statistics Canada seeks to measure social capital through the measurement of social networks, social support and social interaction. These social factors are believed to be quantified in levels of giving, volunteering and participation. Bryant and Norris point out interaction with others is fundamental in the creation of social capital (Bryant & Norris, 2002). Social Capital and Satisfaction Felix Requena (Requena, 2003) develops a connection between levels of wellbeing at work and social capital based on Lowe and Schellenberg's development of a model which links social capital with levels of satisfaction (Lowe & Schellenberg, 2001). Requena uses an adapted version of Lowe and Schellenberg's model to apply it to levels of satisfaction and the results of the 2001 version of the annual Survey on Page 20 Quality of Life at Work by Spain's Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Requena suggests "one of the best possible scenes for observing social capital operating in advanced societies would be in organizations, where social capital generates a high potential for achieving objectives and facilitates higher goals with less effort (Requena, 2003, p. 334)." He theorises that the identifiable factors of social capital generate satisfaction and well-being among the people involved precisely because of the good relations, trust and commitment between them. Putnam quotes Thomas Greene: We come from all the divisions, ranks and classes of society ... to teach and to be taught in our turn. While we mingle together in these pursuits, we shall learn to know each other more intimately; we shall remove many of the prejudices which ignorance or partial acquaintance with each other fostered .... In the parties and sects into which we are divided, we sometimes learn to love our brother a the expense of him whom we do not in so many respects regard as a brother.... we may return to our homes and firesides with kindlier feelings toward one another, because we have learned to know one another better (Putnam, 2000, p. 23). Finally, Bryant and Norris (Bryant & Norris, 2002) of Statistics Canada in the Canadian report for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, point to social capital as important for higher levels of life satisfaction. These higher Page 21 levels of satisfaction may be achieved as a benefit to the community as a whole as the individual will continue to gain trust in others, develop networks and relationships with other members and participants (Bryant & Norris, 2002). Page 22 Summary Social capital, together with physical and human capital, is the third element of the development of societal efficiencies and therefore the creation of growth in community. The goal of the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation is to track social capital as the change, as an increase or decrease, in social interaction in Canadian society by measuring the conscious effort of various people groups to contribute to others and their communities through charitable giving, volunteering their time to charitable and non-profit organizations and by helping individual Canadians on their own as well as their apparent desire to reach out to their community through participation in social activities. This information is valuable in that it can suggest ways to sustain and encourage these activities in the Canadian population (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006). By contributing through giving volunteering and participation, the social capital for the community as a whole can benefit, while the individual will continue to gain trust in others, develop networks and relationships with other members and participants, which may contribute to a higher level of life satisfaction (Bryant & Norris, 2002). The presence of social capital may therefore be measurable in the self reported satisfaction levels of the community as recorded by the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation. Page 23 This paper is unique in its focus on the impact of religious organizations on social capital. While other literature has identified religious activity as a significant factor, this work goes further by comparing the effect of religious activity on giving volunteering and participation and the resultant self reported satisfaction between the provinces. It is the goal of this paper to develop an understanding of the effects of religious organizations on social capital in Canadian society. A clear indication of religious organizations' ability to impact social capital would be encapsulated in a increased levels of giving, volunteering and participation of their most active membership, weekly attendees, and a correlation to the levels of self reported satisfaction. Page 24 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Introduction In 1997 a coalition of government and non profit organizations initiated the National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (NSGVP). This special survey generated enough interest in the results that a second survey was commissioned in 2000 to coincide with the federal government's Voluntary Sector Initiative. A permanent program was established by the federal government in 2001 as an integral part of Statistics Canada and renamed the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (CSGVP) . Additionally a follow up survey has been developed, Follow-up Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (FSGVP) to track changes in behaviours from one survey to the next. These two surveys are claimed to be the most comprehensive in the world (Hall, et al. 2006). The effects of the levels of religious activity on giving, volunteering and participation became a major focus of the both the CSGVP and its predecessor, NSGVP. The question to be determined by this paper: Is there a clear association between levels of giving, volunteering and participation and the resultant satisfaction rates and increased attendance at religious organizations in Canada? The survey was conducted from mid-September to December 2004 and contains a representative sample beginning with 120,650 random dialled telephone numbers Page 25 proportionally spread across the provinces. There were a total of 29,031 responses prior to sub-sampling non-volunteers. Finally, the representative sample of 20,832 Canadians over the age of 15 of valid participants was randomly selected from these residences. Each record in the data set was provided a statistical weight to indicate the number of persons represented by the sampled unit. As instructed by the CSGVP 2004 Microdata User Guide, weighting was applied and is included in all data collected for use in this project. Page 26 The objectives of the CSGVP are threefold: 1. To collect national data to fill the void of information about individual contributory behaviours including volunteering, charitable giving and civic participation. 2. To provide reliable and timely data to the System of National Accounts; and 3. To inform both the public and voluntary sectors in policy and program decisions that relate to the charitable and voluntary sector. Hall et al. sum up the survey as follows: This research allows us to report on the state of charitable giving, volunteering and participating in Canada in 2004. It provides a portrait of the many ways in which Canadians express their interest, their values about community involvement and their compassion towards others. Taken altogether, it highlights our strengths and our vulnerabilities as a caring society (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006, p. 6). Page 27 Analysis 32 .0% Once a week Once a month 3 or 4 times a year 1 or 2 times a year Not at all Figure 1- Religious Activity by Percentage of Canadian Population (Author's calculation) It is important in looking at the rates of giving, volunteerism and participation to make note how religiously active the Canadian population is. A total of 71.7% of the respondents of the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation provided valid responses to their level of religious activity. The analysis of this paper utilizes these responses. This level of religious activity is not disaggregated by religious affiliation. Figure 1 indicates 24.2% of the population attending religious services weekly while 32% of the population report they do not attend religious services at all. In looking for associations within the CSGVP 2004 this paper will focus on these two groups as the highest contrast of religious activity available. Page 28 The Role of Religious Activity in Giving Hall et al. (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006) provide valuable insight into the role of religion in the area of giving as reported in the CSGVP. The total estimated value of donations is $8.9 billion in financial donations. Religious organizations received financial support from 38% of the population for 45% of the total donations or roughly just over $4 billion. Contrast the 57% donor support provided to health organizations and their 14% share of the total for approximately $561 million. Overall Canadians gave an average of $400 in 2004. Only 25% of Canadians donated more than $325; this is indicative of the most generous benefactors having a dramatic effect on the average. The average annual donation to religious organizations was $395 whereas health organizations, which enjoy the widest margin of support, only received an average of $84 per annum per donor. Religious organizations received 74% of their total donations from those who attended services weekly. (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006). Overall, as shown in Figure 2, those attending religious services weekly donate more than double than those attending monthly and just over quadruple the annual donations of those who do not attend. The difference in the average donation size is actually higher than this as those who did not attend religious services made 4.4% Page 29 more donations than weekly attendees. When considering the value of the donations given, those attending weekly provided 52% outgiving the other 75.8%. 60% $1,000.00 $889 50% $900.00 $800.00 40% $700.00 $600.00 30% $500.00 $400.00 $300.00 20% $200.00 $100.00 10% 0% Once a week Once a month - 9.0% 7.2% 3 or 4 times a year 1 or 2 times a year Percentage of Value $Not at all .....,. Annual Average Value Figure 2- Religious activity and donation rates (Author's calculations) When looking at the trend pattern of donations within the religious activity levels (Figure 3) to the various types of organizations, there is very little distinction except the expected results in giving to religious organizations. This indicates the importance of each organization is similar throughout the survey sample regardless of religious activity. The number of donations received by each group in Error! Reference source not found. represents the percentage of the number of donations received by each level of religious activity. Page 30 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% • -+- Once a week - Once a month .......,_ 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 ti mes a year ~ Not at all Figure 3 - Percentage of donations to organizations within level of religious activity - (Authors calculation) This is different from Figure 3 because of the population differences within each level of religious activity and slight variations in the giving patterns. Remembering there is 5.8% less of the population attending religious services weekly than those who do not attend religious services at all, this percentage gap in the number of donations received by the various types of charitable organizations are most often not maintained. In three of the eleven categories, not including the expected results for religious organizations, those attending religious services gave more often than their non-religious counterparts. Also in three categories, environment, philanthropic intermediaries and voluntary groups and business and professional organizations, the non-attendees outstrip the number of donations by weekly religious attendees by more than the population difference. Page 31 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ~o ~ iffio. ~ ~ ~~ ~ '<-<:' ~ ~ ~ ,.e ~ q_'<:' _._ Once a week - ~ e\ '1><}. oc.; ~ ~ ct ~ ~ Once a month --.- 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 times a year --jjE- Not at all Figure 4- Percentage value to various organizations by religious activity (Author's calculations) J Weekly religious attendees give the majority of the value of the donations received by several types of organizations: education and research; social services; development and housing; international; and religious. This is a clear indication of both bonding and bridging modes of social capital by the members of the religious organizations. The intense spike of giving to religious organizations is bonding while the additional value of the donations generated by the religiously active members to other types of organizations indicates the desire to bridge out to other segments of society. Those not attending religious services out gave in the areas of: culture and recreation; health; environment; and business and professional associations and unions. Page 32 Clearly religious activity is a major factor in charitable giving in Canada with those attending religious services weekly following the national trends on a more generous scale. The Role of Religious Activity in Volunteerism 45% 40% 250 42.7% ~ 35% 200 154 30% 135 25% 20% 21.7% 13.6% 15% 10% 150 24.1% 100 so 11.1% 5% ~ 0% Once a week Once a month -+- Percentage of hours 3 or 4 times a year 1 or 2 times a year -+- Percentage of organizations - Not at all Average Annual hours Figure 5- Volunteering rates by religious activity (Author's calculation) Those attending weekly services volunteered far more than those less religiously active in every category measured: Average annual hours, percentage of organizations and percentage of total hours volunteered as shown in Figure 5. In looking at hourly trends (Figure 6) within the differing levels of religious activity, those attending weekly religious services donate fewer hours to culture and recreation as well as education and research. Environmental organizations receive a greater portion of volunteer hours provided by those who do not attend religious Page 33 services. Religious organizations are, as expected, a favoured place to volunteer hours for those attending services weekly. 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% l -+- Once a week - Once a month - . - 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all Figure 6- Percentage of volunteer hours by religious activity- (Authors calculation) Figure 7, however, shows the number of volunteer hours received by almost every type of organization was provided by those attending weekly services. As Figure 6 and 7 indicate, environmental organizations receive most of their volunteer hours from those who do not attend religious services while receiving similar number of hours from those of all other levels of religious activity. Those attending religious services are most committed to volunteering hours to organizations in: health; social services; law, advocacy and politics; philanthropic intermediaries and voluntarism; religion; and business or professional associations and unions. Again, as in the results in giving (Figure 4), the pattern and distribution of volunteer hours Page 34 indicates religious attendees are engaged in both bonding and bridging activities forms of social capital. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% L~ I " a week - I K>t Once a month .......,.. 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all Figure 7- Percentage of volunteer hours to various organizations (Author's calculations) Page 35 The Role of Religious Activity in Giver and Volunteer Status It is also important to notice (Figure 8) those who attend services more frequently are more likely to provide charitable organizations with both their financial donations and their volunteer hours. Those that do not attend religious services at all are more likely to neither give financially nor volunteer. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Once a week Once a month 3 or 4 times a year 1 or 2 times a year -+- Volunteer & giver - -A- Not a volunteer, but a ~ Neither volunteer nor giver : Not at all Volunteer, not a giver Figure 8- Giver and volunteer status by religious activity (Author's calculation) Page 36 The Role of Religious Activity in Participation When examining the participation flag for all Canadians, 15,609 valid respondents of the 20,832 sample in the CSVGP, and filter for religious attendance has an effect on participation rates. The rate trends down from those that attend weekly services to those who do not attend religious services at all. People who attend weekly religious services have a 22.3% higher participation rate than those who do not attend services at all. Once a week Once a month 3 or 4 times a 1 or 2 times a year year Not at all Figure 9- Participation Rate by religious activity {Author's calculation) Participation in religious services was ranked third and attended by only 17% of the population while professional associations or union were second with 27% sports or recreation clubs ranked first with 31 percent. Most members of an organization were loyal to only one (45%) or two (30%) organizations (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006). Page 37 Religious Organizations and Regional Differences Hall et al. (Hall, Lasby, Gumulka, & Tryon, 2006) report there is a clear difference between the levels of giving, volunteering and participating in the various provinces. Clearly on a national level religious activity has impacted giving, volunteering and participation. The question now becomes, does the reported difference show a link between regional levels of giving, volunteering and participation and religious activity. Secondly, if there is a difference, can a link be drawn to levels of self reported satisfaction as a clear indication of religious organizations having an impact in social capital? REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTENDANCE OF RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS Religious attendance by province shows significant differences. The percentage of the population attending religious services weekly in every province except Quebec are significantly higher than those attending between one and four times annually. In Quebec, those attending weekly and monthly are outnumbered by those who do not attend religious services at by 11.5 percent of the population. All of the other provinces those attending religious services weekly and monthly far outnumber those who do not attend at all yet in Quebec, those not attending religious services are higher by 7.5 percent. The nearest comparative result is in British Columbia where non-attendees are outnumbered by 5.4 percent by those attending weekly and monthly (Figure 10). Page 38 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ~ ,_,c.; 1-.7; ~ j:-0.:; ~ ~ ~ ,;p o ~ ~ 1.> ~ ~~ oce- ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a week - Once a month ........,_ 3 or 4 times a year """*"'"" 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all Figure 16- Provincial average volunteer hours by religious activity (Author's calculation) When examining why people did not volunteer more of their time. All survey participants were asked to answer "yes" or "no" the following question: There are many factors that may influence one's decision or ability to (volunteer more/volunteer) on behalf of a group or an organization. Please tell me whether any of the following statements are reasons why you did not (volunteer more/volunteer) in the past 12 months (Statistics Canada, 2006). Page 45 In Figure 17, the blue line chart indicates the percentage of the population responded "yes" to the question, "Because no one asked you." Valid responses were received by 97.6% of survey participants. The red chart line indicates the percentage of the population who responded "yes" to the question, "Because you had no interest." Valid responses were received by 97.1% of survey participants. These two questions were selected for comparison as they are closely linked to social capital as a Fukuyama defines as "instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals." These two responds to indicate fewer individuals from Quebec would have volunteered or volunteer more if directly asked to do so while more individuals were simply not interested in giving any or more of their time. This indicates an apathetic response by those in Quebec. Since social capital is based on networks of relationships and personal involvement, this would further strengthen the conclusion of a low measure of the province's available social capital. This chart also indicates more people in Prince Edward Island would have volunteered if they had been asked. Prince Edward Island is an unexplained outlier with an unexpected drop in their provincial average annual volunteer hours. Page 46 50.0% 45 .0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25 .0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% ~ t vol(more) : no one asked - - - Didn't vol(more) : no interest Figure 17- Reason Not to Volunteer More: No One Asked, No Interest (Author's calculation) REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PARTICIPATION In Figure 18, using the "Flag: member or participant" variable which indicates involvement in any type of group or organization; it is clear Quebec has the lowest participation rate in the country. Newfoundland and Labrador have only a 3.4% higher participation rate, but Quebec trails the national average b y 9.1 %. Page 47 80% 70% 60% 50% , 70.0% ~ • 65.1% 61.5% I 7 ........ 69.7% 69.1% ~ I 56.5% 71.5% t • • 68 .9% 66.4% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ~ Figure 18- Overall Participation Rates by Province (Author's calculation) Participation rates observed in Figure 19 and Figure 20 clearly indicate the low level of participation in religious services in Quebec. A surprising result in most provincial results is observed quite clearly in Figure 20 from the following question: "Next I have some questions about your membership or participation in groups, organizations or associations. In the past 12 months, did you belong to: ... a religious organization or group like a group associated with the church or a choir?" When asked the preceding question, more respondents who do not attend religious services at all claim to belong to a religious organization than any other type of organization. Conversely, those who attend weekly services gave a lower response than to any other type of organization. Page 48 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( I I - . - once a week - Once a month -&- 3 or 4 times a yea r ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all Figure 19- Quebec participation rates by organization type (Author's calculation) 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25 .0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( )I( =:)1( - . - once a week - Once a month -&- 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all _j Figure 20- National participation rates by organization type (Author's calculation) Page 49 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN SATISFACTION RATES Putnam m aintains social capital must be costly if it is to be effective (Putnam, 2000). In Quebec, levels of volunteering, charitable giving and participation are the lowest in the country. With these key indicators of social capital being low in Quebec, the question arises, is there a connection to the variant results in reported giving, volunteering and participation rates versus religious service and meeting attendance as seen in Figure 10? If this truly is an indicator of social capital, would this show up in levels of self-reported satisfaction also polled in the CSGVP? The answer is yes according to Figure 21. 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% -+- Weekly Attendees - . - Giving Rate ~ Satisfied Rate Rate Rate Somewhat Satisfied Rate ~ o ~ - t t t o Figure 21 - Giving, Volunteer and Participation rates overlaid with self-reported satisfaction rates (Author's calculation) Page 50 The link between the very satisfied rate and giving, volunteering and participation appears to be closely related to weekly attendance rates. Is there a connection to religious organizations? Again, the graphical overlay seems to indicate this to be true. When compared to a yes or no answer to belonging to a religious organization or group, there appears to be a correlation with satisfaction rates. Interestingly, where the 'very satisfied' rate dips dramatically in Quebec, the 'somewhat satisfied' rate almost equally jumps (Figure 22). 70.0% ~~ ~~~~~ 60.0% 50.0% 30.0% 40.0% 20.0% ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ 10.0% .0% -+- Very satisfied - Somewhat satisfied ..,._ Belong to Religious organization Figure 22- Belong to Religious Organization or Group versus Satisfaction Rates (Author's calculation) Page 51 Conclusion The goal of this paper was to study the impact religious organizations have on social capital in Canada. The primary indicators available for this observation are giving, volunteering and participation data available through the Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participation 2004 with the understanding there may be an impact on self-reported satisfaction rates. Beginning at a national level it is quite clear religious activity measured by various levels of attendance has an impact on giving, volunteering and participation. Far and away religious organizations receive the greatest percentage of charitable giving. Those giving to religious organizations gave more per annum on average ($395) than those defined as Canada's top 25% donors ($325). Additionally, weekly attendees contributed 74% of all donations to religious organizations. The top nine percent donors who attended weekly religious services gave 42% of all donations. Weekly attendees also account for 35% of all volunteer hours though they comprise 19% of the population. The volunteer rate among weekly attendees is 44% higher than the national average and they contribute 56% more time each year. Weekly attendees did not just focus their attention on religious organizations rather they contributed 24% of all hours to non-religious organizations. Page 52 Participation is also impacted by religious activity. Participation rates are highest among those that attend weekly religious services trending downward from 79 to 57 percent for those who do not attend at all. Regionally, one province stood out having the lowest rates of giving, volunteering and participation -Quebec. Giving on average in Quebec is significantly lower in than any other province. Especially when considering annual salaries Quebec's giving rate is completely out of sync with the rest of Canada. Quebec's respondents appear apathetic when contrasted against the rest of Canada in their response as to why they don't volunteer more. Fewer people in Quebec than in any other province would have volunteered or volunteered more if they had been asked. Additionally, more people in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada said they didn't volunteer more because they were simply not interested. These factors together with the lowest rate of volunteerism in the country show a distinct difference of attitude in Quebec. Participation rates in Quebec are also lower. The differences are not as dramatic, but still show participation in Quebec to be 9.1% lower than the national average. Page 53 Quebec was also the province with distinctly different pattern of religious attendance rates. It was the only one of two provinces, with British Columbia to report more of their population not attending weekly services than attending each week. Quebec was the only province to have a greater percentage of the population to attend religious services between one and four times in 2004 than those who attended services either monthly or weekly. The difference is dramatic when compared to the other nine provinces. Finally, Quebec had distinctly lower self-report satisfaction rates. Quebec's "very satisfied" rate is so low it is surpassed by its own "somewhat satisfied" rate. Quebec reports a 9.1% lower "very satisfied" rate than the next lowest provinces, Ontario and Saskatchewan and 13% higher "somewhat satisfied" rate than the next highest province, Saskatchewan. To sum up, Quebec gives less, volunteers and participates less, attends religious services less and is much less satisfied with their lives than any other province in Canada. However, it is also clear that there are parts of Quebec exceptional nature which cannot be explained by differences in levels of religious activity. It has been shown that even those who attend religious services once a week behave differently across the country, especially in the case of Quebec. Therefore, factors other than Page 54 religious activity need to be taken into account and further research should use a multivariate approach. Nonetheless, this paper remains a positive reinforcement of the importance of religious organizations to Canadian society as a whole. This study is a macro view of only and is not able to calculate the value of the additional social capital to Canadian society. Further study would be required to calculate the value of the additional donations and volunteer hours and compare the financial benefit tax concessions received by religious organizations. However, religious organizations argue the positive social influence of its members in reduced crime rates, transaction costs and increased mental and physical health. As well, this is not a case study of one religious organization or local congregation. In conclusion, this paper reveals a connection between religious organizations and giving, volunteering and participation rates and the resultant satisfaction rates. The conclusion is clear: Religious organizations generate social capital and do their part to make Canadian society caring and involved. Page 55 REFERENCES Blanchard, A., & Horan, T. (1998). Virtual Communities and Social Capital. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from Social Science Computer Review: http://ssc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/3/293 Borgonovi, F. (2008, February; 73, 1). Divided We Stand, United We Fall: Religious Pluralism, Giving, and Volunteering. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from American Sociological Review: ABI/INFORM Global Bryant, C.-A., & Norris, D. (2002, August). Measuring Social Capital: The Canadian Experience. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from Orgnaization for Economic Co-operation and Development Website: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/21/48/2381103.pdf Canadian Heritage Ministry. (2009). Index: Canadian Heritage. Retrieved March 25, 2009, from Government of Canada Canadian Heritage Website: http://www.pch.gc.ca/index-eng.cfm Cnaan, R. A., Sinha, J. W., & McGrew, C. C. (2004). Congregations as Social Service Providers: Services, Capacity, Culture, and Organizational Behaviour. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from University of Pennsylvania: http://repository.upenn.edu/spp papers/9 Dingle, A., Sokolowski, W., Saxon-Harrold, S. K., Smith, J.D., & Leigh, R. (Eds.). (2001). Measuring Volunteering: A Practical Toolkit. Retrieved May 04, 2008, from United Nations Voluneers Website: http://www.unv.org Duguid, P. (2001, December). Realizing the limits of a digital world. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from Association Management: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=98745979&Fmt=3&clientld=12101&RQT=309 &VName=PQD Francois, P., & Zabojnik, J. (2003, October). Trust, Social Capital and Economic Development. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from CentER, Tilburg University, The Netherlands: http://ssrn.com/abstract=556947 Fukuyama, F. (2006). Social Capital and Civil Society. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from IMF Working Paper: http://ssrn.com/abstract=879582 Page 56 Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press. Hall, M., Lasby, D., Gumulka, G., & Tryon, C. (2006). Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Hull, B. B., & Bold, F. (1989). Toward and Economic Theory of the Church. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from International Journal of Social Economics, 16(7), 5.: ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1142094) Johnson, B. R. (2002). Objective Hope Assessing the Effectiveness of Faith-Based Organizations: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from Manhatten Institute for Policy Research: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/crrucsobj_hope.htm Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997, November). Does Social Capital have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from The Quarterly Journal of Economics: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2951271 Kolodinsky, J., Kimberly, G., & Isham, J. (2003, February). The Effects of Volunteering for Non-profit Organizations on Social Capital Formation: Evidence from a Statewide Survey. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from Middlebury College Department of Economics Website: ABI/Inform Global Kuo, J.-K., Lai, C.-N., & Wang, C.-S. (2008, March 1). Social Participation and Life Satisfaction: From Youth's Social Capital Perspective. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from Journal of American Academy of Business: http://www.proquest.com Lasby, D., & Mciver, D. (2004). Where Canadians Volunteer: Volunteering by type of organization. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from Canadian Centre for Philanthropy Web Site: http://www.ccp.ca Lautenschlager, J. (1992). Volunteering: A Traditional Canadian Value. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from Heritage Canada Website: http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/heritage/ComPartnE/pdfdocs/Tradval.pdf Page 57 Lewis, A. R. (2008, March 13). Some Positive Benefits Chruches Bring to Communities. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission Web Site: http://erlc.com/article/some-positive-benefits-churches-bringto-communities/ Lowe, G. S., & Schellenberg, G. (2001). What's a Good Job? The Importance of Employment Relationships. Retrieved March 21, 20069, from Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc. Web site: http://www.cprn.org/documents/2289_en.PDF McKeown, L., Mciver, D., Moreton, J., & Rotondo, A. (2004). Giving and Volunteering: The Role of Religion. Retrieved May 15, 2008, from Canadian Centre for Philanthropy Web Site: http://www.ccp.ca Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2009). "Tertiary.". Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www .merriam-webster. com/dictionary /tertiary Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000, March). Measuring social capital in five communities. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science: ABI/INFORM Global Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. Requena, F. (2003, March 1). Social Capital, Satisfaction and Quality of Life in the Workplace. Retrieved March http://www. proquest.com/ 21, 2009, from Social Indicators Research: Seely Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (1998, Spring). Organiziing Knowledge. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from California Management Review: http://proquest. umi.com/pqd web? did=98745979&Fmt=3&clientld=12101 &RQT=309 &VName=PQD Sinha, J. W., Cnaan, R. A., & Gelles, R. W. (2007, April). Adolescent Risk Behaviors and Religion: Findings from an National Study. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from University of Pennsylvania: http://repository.upenn.edu/spp papers/54 Page 58 Statistics Canada. (2006, November 2). Canada Giving, Volunteering and Participating 2004 Questionaire. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/inventory/0000/433.htm#doc Statistics Canada. (2006, March 30). Daily, Thursday, March 30, 2006. Income of Canadians. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from Statistics Canada Website: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060330/dq060330a-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2004). Microdata User Guide: Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating 2004. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from Statistics Canada: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/datalib/inventory/0000/433.htm#doc Statistics Canada. (2004). Table 2030018 - Survey of household spending (SHS), household spending on money gifts, alimony and charitable contributions, by province and territory, annually. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada. (2008). Table 3880002 - Income and Gross Domestic Product (GOP) by primary area of activity, nonprofit institutions and volunteering, annually (Dollars). Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001, April). Trust and Growth. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from The Economic Journal, Vol. 111, No. 470 pp. 295-321: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667866 Zimmerman, D. (1991, September). Nonprofit Organizations, Social Benefits, and Tax Policy. Retrieved June 08, 2008, from National Tax Journal (1986-1998): ABI/INFORM Archive Complete Page 59 APPENDICES Provincial Giver and Volunteer Status Graphs 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% -+- Once a week 30.0% - 20.0% Once a month ..,._ 3 or 4 t imes a yea r 10.0% ~ 1 or 2 times a year 0.0% Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, but a giver giver Neither volunteer nor giver ~ Not at all Newfoundland & Labrador 60 .0% 50 .0% 40.0% 30 .0% -+- Once a week - 20 .0% Once a month ..,._ 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all 0.0% Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, but a giver giver Neither volunteer nor giver Prince Edward Island Page 60 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% -+- Once a week 30.0% - 20.0% - . - 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% - * - 1 or 2 times a year 0.0% """'*'"" Not at all Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, giver but a giver Once a month Neither volunteer nor giver Nova Scotia 60.0% 50 .0% 40.0% 30.0% -+- Once a week - 20.0% Once a month - . - 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% - * - 1 or 2 times a year 0.0% """'*'"" Not at all Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, giver but a giver Neither volunteer nor giver New Brunswick Page 61 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% a week ~ 30.0% - 20.0% Once a month ....- 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% ""*- 1 or 2 times a year 0.0% ~ Not at all Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, giver but a giver Quebec ---- Neither volunteer nor giver --------- - - - - 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35 .0% 30.0% 25.0% ~ 20.0% - 15.0% a week Once a month ....- 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% ""*- 1 or 2 times a year 5.0% ~ Not at all 0.0% Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, Neither giver but a giver volunteer nor giver Ontario Page 62 50.0% 45 .0% 40 .0% 35 .0% 30.0% 25 .0% _._ Once a week 20.0% - 15.0% Once a month ...,._ 3 or 4 t imes a year 10.0% ~ 1 or 2 times a year 5.0% ~ Not at all 0.0% Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, Neither giver but a giver volunteer nor giver Man itoba 50.0% 45 .0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25 .0% _._ Once a week 20.0% - 15.0% Once a month ...,._ 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% ~ 1 or 2 times a year 5.0% 0.0% ~ Not at all Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, giver but a giver Neither volunteer nor giver Saskatchewan Page 63 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% ~ - 20.0% a week Once a month _.,_ 3 or 4 times a year 10.0% ~ 1 or 2 times a yea r ~ Not at all 0.0% Volunteer & giver Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, Neither giver but a giver volunteer nor giver Alberta 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% ~ : 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Volunteer & giver • - a week Once a month _.,_ 3 or 4 times a year ~ 1 or 2 times a year ~ Not at all Volunteer, not a Not a volunteer, Neither giver but a giver volunteer nor giver British Columbia Page 64