PIONEER PUBLICATION · ACCEPTED ARTICLE · ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE · PRESPECIFIED OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS · HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES · INTERFAITH STUDIES · SOCIAL CAPITAL

Bridging Faith Communities and Public Institutions: Interfaith and Institutional Collaboration and Perceived Community Security in Abuja, Nigeria

Syrenius Dangana Okoriko¹*, Charles Ogundu Nnaji¹, and Adeola Kehinde¹

¹Department of Christian Studies and Religious Communication, University of Abuja, Abuja, Nigeria

Correspondence: Syrenius Dangana Okoriko:dimeokodan2007@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: Institutional and interfaith collaboration is frequently invoked in Christian responses to insecurity, but its relationship with community-level outcomes requires specific measurement. Objective: To determine the relationship between institutional and interfaith collaboration and perceived reduction of community insecurity (PRCI) in the FCT, Abuja. Methods: The study used the 586-response CECIQ household survey drawn from 24 clusters across all six FCT Area Councils. Scale reliability, item distributions, weighted Spearman association and the prespecified survey-weighted simultaneous model were examined; the full model used 366 complete cases and Holm correction across five hypotheses. Results: IIC had weighted M=3.753 (SD=0.909), α=0.858, ω=0.860. Its weighted association with PRCI was ρ=0.450 (pairwise n=492). In the full model, B=0.157, 95% CI [.031, .283], standardized β=0.174, Holm p=.050, with ΔR²=0.020. The relationship remained positive in the equal-weight sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: the prespecified IIC objective concerning denominational, interfaith, governmental and professional collaboration

Keywords: interfaith collaboration; institutional collaboration; social capital; religious peacebuilding; human security; church engagement; Abuja; Nigeria

1. Introduction

No single congregation can address the layered consequences of insecurity. Victims may need emergency relief, psychosocial care, legal advice, health services, accurate security information and protection mechanisms that lie outside ecclesiastical competence. Religious communities also operate in plural neighborhoods where insecurity can cross denominational, ethnic and religious boundaries. Collaboration is therefore not an optional public-relations activity; it is a governance problem involving trust, role clarity, accountability and access to institutions with specialized or lawful authority.

Social Capital Theory distinguishes bonding ties within a group from bridging ties across groups and linking ties to institutions with authority or resources (Coleman, 1988; Putnam et al., 1993). This distinction is especially useful in Abuja, where Christian institutions coexist with Muslim communities, civil-society organizations, professional services and federal agencies. Bonding solidarity can mobilize help quickly, but without bridging and linking arrangements it can remain exclusionary, duplicate services or fail to connect warnings and needs to competent responders.

The CECIQ measured institutional and interfaith collaboration (IIC) through five indicators: coordination among Christian bodies, sustained partnership with Muslim/other religious actors, cooperation with government and authorized security agencies, partnership with civil-society/professional providers, and clarity/continuity of joint roles and review arrangements. This article examines the fifth prespecified objective of the FCT study.

1.1 Aim and hypothesis

The article addresses the prespecified question: what relationship exists between institutional and interfaith collaboration and PRCI among adult residents of the FCT? The null hypothesis stated that IIC had no adjusted relationship with PRCI after simultaneous entry of the five Church-engagement constructs and prespecified covariates.

2. Materials and Methods

The parent doctoral study used a stratified multistage household survey across all six Area Councils of the Federal Capital Territory (Abaji, AMAC, Bwari, Gwagwalada, Kuje and Kwali). Area Council was the explicit stratum and four communities or enumeration-area equivalents were selected within each council, giving 24 field clusters. Within clusters, households were selected systematically from fresh or verified listings, and one eligible adult was selected within each participating household using a Kish-style random procedure. Eligibility required age 18 years or older and at least 12 months of residence. The sample was not restricted to Christians because the public consequences of Church action were intended to be judged by residents across faith positions and levels of Church contact.

The Church Engagement and Community Insecurity Questionnaire (CECIQ) measured five Church-engagement domains with five items each: theological peace education and moral formation (TPEMF), mediation/dialogue/public advocacy (MDPA), socioeconomic empowerment/humanitarian relief/psychosocial care (SEHPC), community-security engagement/early-warning support (CSEW), and institutional/interfaith collaboration (IIC). Perceived reduction of community insecurity (PRCI) was measured with seven items covering everyday safety, fear and tension, cohesion, access to help, incident response, protection of vulnerable persons and recovery/resilience. Items used a 1–5 agreement scale with separate 0 = not observed/not applicable and 9 = prefer not to answer codes; 0 and 9 were excluded from scale means. Three optional open-ended questions captured helpful actions, weak or unsafe practices and priority improvements.

Instrument development included expert review by a seven-member multidisciplinary panel, cognitive pretesting with 12 adults, and a separate 60-person pilot in communities excluded from the main study. The pilot showed McDonald’s omega values of .79–.89 and Cronbach’s alpha values of .78–.88 across the six scales and prompted targeted wording/translation revisions, including clearer distinction between lawful early-warning reporting and rumour circulation. In the main data, alpha ranged from .796 to .875 and omega from .798 to .879.

The field target was 642 household contacts. The analytical file contained 586 questionnaires (578 complete and eight partial), an operational response rate of 92.4% after exclusion of eight ineligible contacts. Scale-specific valid samples ranged from 524 to 569; the survey-weighted simultaneous model used 366 respondents with all required scales and covariates across the 24 clusters. Weighted Spearman correlations described bivariate relationships. The primary inferential model regressed PRCI on all five Church-engagement scores simultaneously and adjusted for Area Council, years of residence, age, sex, Church contact and insecurity exposure. Supplied final weights and cluster-robust standard errors were used, and the family of five prespecified hypotheses was controlled with Holm’s sequential adjustment. An equal-weight model was retained as a sensitivity analysis.

The study was designed to avoid collection of operational intelligence or identifiable victim information. Fieldwork proceeded only after written institutional clearance and required permissions. Consent was documented before participation; research assistants were trained in neutral administration, distress recognition, confidentiality, referral and safe handling of security-sensitive material. Exact household locations were not retained in the analytical dataset.

3. Results

IIC produced a weighted mean of 3.753 (SD=0.909) and satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.858; McDonald's ω=0.860). The scale's item pattern shows where the practice was visible and where public reach remained uneven.

Table 1. IIC item-level response pattern

Note. Agree % uses valid 1–5 responses for agreement/strong agreement; not-observed % uses all 586 response records.

Figure 1. Item-level profile of institutional and interfaith collaboration.

3.1 Relationship with PRCI

The weighted Spearman relationship between IIC and PRCI was positive (ρ=0.450; n=492). In the primary survey-weighted simultaneous model, IIC retained an adjusted coefficient of B=0.157, 95% CI [.031, .283], standardized β=0.174; Holm p=.050. Its incremental contribution was ΔR²=0.020. The result was interpreted as an adjusted association, not as proof that the practice caused a reduction in recorded crime.

Table 2. Statistical summary for IIC

Figure 2. Researcher interpretation of the IIC pathway to human-security outcomes.

Interfaith and institutional collaboration appeared in 147 respondent references (25.1%) in the structured open-ended categories. Priority responses emphasized regular inclusive coordination with clear feedback and review, while negative categories warned that partnerships sometimes weakened after immediate crises.

4. Discussion

IIC had the highest weighted construct mean in the CECIQ study and the strongest bivariate relationship with PRCI. Its adjusted coefficient remained positive and narrowly met the prespecified Holm decision rule. The combination of strong descriptive visibility and borderline adjusted inference warrants a balanced interpretation: collaboration appears important, but the unique effect is more modest than the bivariate association because collaborative practice overlaps substantially with early warning, mediation, welfare and formation.

The item profile is instructive. Cooperation with government and authorized security agencies recorded the strongest agreement, followed by clear roles/protocols and interfaith partnership. Coordination among Christian organizations had the highest not-observed rate. This suggests that the public value of collaboration is not simply a function of elite meetings; it depends on whether residents can observe coherent, sustained arrangements that connect information, assistance and responsibility.

The result fits the distinction between bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Congregations possess bonding resources, but human-security problems often require bridging relationships with other religious communities and linking relationships to institutions with legal authority or professional competence. Lederach's multi-level peacebuilding framework similarly links grassroots knowledge, middle-range conveners and formal authority rather than expecting one level to act alone.

Abuja-specific scholarship on zones of peace and interreligious coexistence also cautions that institutional cooperation interacts with governance and practical interests. Collaboration should therefore be judged by inclusion, continuity, transparency and conflict-of-interest controls—not by the number of organizations listed on a programme banner (Ossai, 2021).

4.1 Practical implications

Create standing interfaith/community-security forums with defined terms of reference, safeguarding rules and scheduled review rather than ad hoc crisis coalitions.

Map the distinct competence of congregations, Muslim institutions, government/security agencies, civil society, health, legal and psychosocial providers before incidents occur.

Use written referral and information-sharing protocols that protect confidentiality and do not transfer coercive authority to religious actors.

Require transparent needs-based criteria for joint relief and public communication to prevent perceptions of denominational favoritism.

Evaluate collaboration through continuity, response quality, inclusion and feedback—not only meeting frequency or memoranda of understanding.

4.2 Limitations

IIC was measured through public perception of observable collaboration rather than through a complete administrative census of agreements or joint operations. The adjusted p value lay at the study's decision boundary (Holm p=.050), so effect language should remain modest. Cross-sectional same-source measurement limits causal inference, and unobserved institutional quality may confound the relationship. Nevertheless, the result was directionally consistent across weighted and unweighted analyses and was supported by item-level and category-level evidence.

5. Conclusion

Institutional and interfaith collaboration was one of the strongest public-facing dimensions of Church engagement in the FCT study. Its value appears to lie in bridging religious boundaries and linking community trust to authorized or professional capacities through clear roles, protocols and review. The evidence supports sustained, accountable collaboration—not institutional substitution—as a credible component of the Church's complementary human-security role.

Declarations

References

Afrobarometer. (2025, May 29). Kidnapping and insecurity weigh heavily on Nigerians, Afrobarometer survey finds. https://www.afrobarometer.org/articles/kidnapping-and-insecurity-weigh-heavily-on-nigerians-afrobarometer-survey-finds/

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2023). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (10th ed.). https://aapor.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Standards-Definitions-10th-edition.pdf

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques (3rd ed.). Wiley.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943

European Union Agency for Asylum. (2026). COI report—Nigeria: Security situation. Publications Office of the European Union. https://www.euaa.europa.eu/nigeria-security-situation/212-fct-abuja

Federal Republic of Nigeria, Office of the National Security Adviser. (2019). National security strategy 2019. https://nctc.gov.ng/ova_doc/6456/

Institute for Economics & Peace. (2026). Global Terrorism Index 2026: Measuring the impact of terrorism. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2026-Report.pdf

Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. Wiley.

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.

Mbaegbu, R. (2024). Nigerians view religious leaders as more trustworthy, less corrupt than public institutions (Afrobarometer Dispatch No. 900). https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AD900-Nigerians-see-religious-leaders-as-more-trustworthy-than-public-institutions-Afrobarometer-14nov24.pdf

Osmer, R. R. (2008). Practical theology: An introduction. Eerdmans.

Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199

United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New dimensions of human security. Oxford University Press. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-1994

United Nations General Assembly. (2012). Follow-up to paragraph 143 on human security of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (Resolution 66/290). https://undocs.org/A/RES/66/290

Wasserstein, R. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038006003

Bouta, T., Kadayifci-Orellana, S. A., & Abu-Nimer, M. (2005). Faith-based peace-building: Mapping and analysis of Christian, Muslim and multi-faith actors. Clingendael Institute.

Clarke, G. (2006). Faith matters: Faith-based organisations, civil society and international development. Journal of International Development, 18(6), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1317

Ossai, E. C. (2021). Impact of religion on interreligious peace: Evidence from zones of peace in Abuja, Nigeria [Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh]. Edinburgh Research Archive. https://era.ed.ac.uk/items/90cff6a3-2f57-4252-ae68-6866b9a3e1f5

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7s8r7

Sampson, I. T. (2012). Religious violence in Nigeria: Causal diagnoses and strategic recommendations to the state and religious communities. African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 12(1), 103–133.