The value of choice the dilemma of charitable choice and the further funding of faith-based initiatives.

Whose and what values are served through this public policy initiative? Is it simply a value of economics (Bentham), in which we are attempting to maximize utility of society? Or is it a value of belief and assumption that these faith-based organizations inherently serve people better due to the “higher call” of their mission? Either way, it is important that we analyze the reasoning behind these decisions and focus on the ultimate goal of serving society.

Analytical Frames

Philosophy        

Charitable Choice, and in the broader sense Welfare Reform, is at its root a discussion of social relationships. How should society interact and coexist? Philosophers have espoused ideals from natural law to Communism; however, I propose the particular example of the funding of faith-based initiatives brings us to a distinction of contractual relationships and religious covenant.

With the onset of Enlightenment philosophy we gained the insights of utilitarian thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. Unlike utilitarian Jeremy Bentham, who argued for the greatest good for the greatest number, these great minds were advocates of individual utility and self-interest. They argued that the ability of man to weigh the costs and benefits of a decision and select that which maximizes their utility is of utmost importance. However, they both agreed that this ability of man must be checked. Total self-interest in society was dangerous. 

Hobbes, in particular, believed that the ultimate check against the corruption of self-interest was the development of a social contract. Through this contract, citizens traded some of their freedoms and rights in return for an orderly and governed society.

Contrasting Hobbes, Locke, whose work inspired many of the Founders of the United States, claimed that the natural state is one of people’s liberties to do what they please without requiring permission of anyone else. This is only checked by the law of nature, which is “no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions.” Therefore, decisions must be made only in judgment of what is good for the people. There is not right and wrong, only what is best. Charitable Choice and President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative represents a social contract. As such, citizens surrender a portion of their rights separating church and state for the improved provision of public services and entitlements, or the betterment of society.

  Most arguments presented for and against Charitable Choice and the Faith Based Initiative focus on the threat posed to government and tax dollars by prostelityzing religions. However, we must also look at the values being used on the religion side.  Most religions contain some aspect of ministry within their doctrine. Believers called to convert and attract nonbelievers are a common thread among religions. This is a part of their covenant of faith. It is not the end result that matters, but the act itself that illustrates their devotion. Therefore, we can easily see that the funding of faith-based groups could endanger the integrity or mission of these organizations. In order to utilize government funds, the agencies must open their books, records, and offices to the inspection of the American taxpayer. The simple act of goodwill is no longer sufficient proof of success. Faith-based organizations will now be called upon to show outcomes and results.

Thus, the question remains: Which contract will government and (these) organizations follow? Will they choose the most efficient and effective contract which will supply the necessary goods, or will they subscribe to the natural covenant of morality and that of their faith?  

Law

When analyzing the value judgment regarding the funding of faith-based initiatives with federal monies in regard to law we must look at two things. First we must look closely at the goals of the regulations themselves, and second we must look at the constitution and the legality of the proposed actions. Law provides society with a standard of conduct and a structure from with we can achieve equal protection, equal access, and impose transparency and reliability upon our government. Do these provisions fit within this proposal?

On January 29, 2001 President George W. Bush issued Executive Orders 13-198 and13-199, creating the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and directing Executive Branch agency heads to create OFBCIs within their agencies. The stated purpose of the Executive Order was to enable religious organizations to compete for federal grants on an equal footing with secular social service organizations providing the following services:

• Child care services and protective services for disabled adults and children;
• Transportation services;
• Job-training services;
• Information, referral, and counseling services;
• The preparation and delivery of meals and services related to soup kitchens or food banks;
• Health support services;
• Literacy and mentoring programs;
• Juvenile delinquency, domestic violence, and substance abuse prevention and treatment services;
• Services related to the provision of assistance for housing under Federal law.

The following specific guidelines for funding Faith-based and Community Initiatives were laid out in the Executive Orders:

• Financial assistance shall be distributed in the most efficient method possible;
• Faith-based and Community Organizations must compete on an equal footing with other social service agencies;
• No organization may be discriminated against on the basis of religious belief or practice;
• All organizations receiving federal funds are barred from discriminating against program beneficiaries (or potential beneficiaries) on the basis of religion or religious belief;
• Organizations that engage in inherently religious activities must offer those activities at either a separate location or at a separate time from federally funded activities;
• Federal funds may not be used for religious instruction, proselytizing, or worship.

While the involvement of Faith-Based and Community Organizations in the provision of social services was extended throughout the Executive Branch by Executive Order in 2001, the groundwork for federal funding of these organizations was laid in section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) signed by then-President Bill Clinton on August 22, 1996. Dubbed “Charitable Choice” by its creators, section 104 covered only four (albeit large) program areas: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs, substance abuse and mental health programs, all overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Welfare-to-Work programs (overseen by the Department of Labor). 

The Charitable Choice provision has three professed goals:

1. It seeks to encourage states to expand the involvement of community and faith-based organizations in the public anti-poverty effort.
2. Through a range of measures it protects the religious integrity and character of faith-based organizations that are willing to accept government funds to provide services to the needy.
3. It safeguards the religious freedom of beneficiaries, both those who are willing to receive services from religious organizations and those who object to receiving services from such organizations.

Beyond the scope of these goals and the form of the legislation, we must also look at the origins and history that will regulate this proposal, which leads us to the Constitution and the separation of church and state. Interestingly enough, the phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or its amendments. This phrase was first seen in a letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson in response to a congratulatory note from a Baptist group. Jefferson's letter, dated January 1, 1802, contained this sentence:

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach action only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black paraphrased this letter in a summation of the purpose of the Establishment Clause: "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment was intended to erect a 'wall of separation' between church and State." "That wall," he added, "must be kept high and impregnable." The case signaled the Supreme Court's belief that the opening words of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .") requires nothing less than the separation of church and state. Indeed, most of the Supreme Court's church-state decisions in the last fifty years, with occasional exceptions, have been grounded in a fundamental commitment to the Everson standard and the "wall of separation" approach.

The Charitable Choice Act and ensuing regulations tread a thin line in regards to this “wall of separation.” Arguments abound as to whether the wall is there to simply protect religion from government, or government from religion, or the people from the merging of the two. On a more concrete note, does Charitable Choice violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution? Most would argue yes, it does. Courts have previously argued that pervasively sectarian institutions, such as houses of worship, cannot receive taxpayer dollars because government funding and monitoring of these institutions would violate the Establishment Clause. There is also a danger in allowing pervasively sectarian groups to take the place of government in providing essential services; there is a propensity for coercion and line-blurring between religion and social service.

Economics

With the discussion of faith based initiatives, we also see the argument for the “good of the people.” Throughout 2000-2002, I worked as the manager of a county-wide coalition of state-funded after-school programs. These programs were part of an initiative started at the federal level and funded through TANF dollars. After September 11, everything changed. Government funds began to trickle, and for many groups they stopped altogether. In order to manage our position, the State of Illinois created a committee of providers whose purpose was to develop innovative methods to ensure the survival of the after-school program on limited funds. I was asked to serve on this committee.

Our group soon came to an impasse. As providers, we were insistent on producing the best product possible, in essence providing for the children at any cost. As managers, and realists, we understood the important economics at play and the urgency of the program’s survival. In the end, our question boiled down to how we could provide these services and maximize our utility at the most efficient rate. Our solution came in the form of faith-based organizations.

Most of our programs revolved around subcontracted agencies, each associated with a particular specialization such as volunteer recruitment, community outreach, curriculum, and fund-raising. Our committee did exactly what many states are doing today at President Bush’s prodding; we put aside our reservations regarding church and state and simply focused on who could provide the best, most economical services. Churches, we argued, had an inherent volunteer base. They also had a base of donors and contacts to the community that other agencies did not have access to. Churches, by design, had credibility, physical presence, and were willing and excited to become involved. They seemed the perfect answer.

This example illustrates the ease in which government and nonprofits can be convinced to focus on utilitarian and economic values. Although we did not completely disregard ethical reservations, we were convinced that the survival of the program would ultimately do the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Religion, Culture, and Demography

Historically, the United States government has actually had a very close relationship with religion. The term “separation” is vague. Until fifty years ago, religion in the classrooms, courtrooms, and government was not uncommon. Many attribute this to the homogeneity of American ideals. Christianity was, and to some extent still is, thought of as the religion of choice for Americans. This allowed policy and law makers the luxury of assuming what would and would not offend any particular citizen. However, demographics today point to a much different and diverse society.

Just as the racial demography of our nation has changed, so has the diversity of our religions. We have seen a significant expansion of non-Protestant, non-Catholic Christian denominations, as well as the rise of non-Christian faiths. In the past century, membership in the Eastern Orthodox Church has grown from 400,000 to nearly 4 million, and the Mormon Church from 200,000 to over 5 million. Major Jewish denominations have more than tripled, while major faiths, such as Islam and Buddhism, have experienced tremendous growth in the last 25 years.

The danger today lays in the possibility that President Bush and the impedance behind the Faith Based Initiative is culturally motivated. Are conservatives comfortable with this notion simply because they assume the bulk of the federal funding will go towards similarly minded Christian organizations? Would they vote the same way if Muslim organizations receive an equal or greater share? The possibility of the latter is highly suspect and calls to attention the values utilized in their decision.

Corruption

Corruption deals with the misuse of power for private gain. When first looking through this lens, I initially suspected the misuse of power by President Bush and other politicians. In essence, I questioned the motives for their support on this legislation. Was it value based or simply a tool to gain votes? In the end, I concluded that this issue is not entirely relevant to the Charitable Choice and Faith Based Initiative discussion. Too many assumptions are needed for any substantive analysis.

Politics

Politics revolve around power. Who has it, who wants it, and who gets it? In this situation, power is actually dispersed instead of gathered. Indeed, some additional power has been allocated the faith based organizations; however, this power is checked by the overwhelming presence of secular nonprofits and social service providers. Government is not growing more powerful, but simply casting a bigger shadow of influence.

Science and Technology

It is very difficult to develop a thesis on faith based initiatives in regards to technology and science due to lack of mechanization and the abundance of principal involved. We can, however, briefly touch upon the investment in technology or ability of faith-based organizations to get results.

A study by JoAnn Rock of the effect of Charitable Choice as implemented in New York City in 2000 draws more conclusions about faith-based organizations which vary by size. In the New York project, local religious organizations were contracted to contact TANF clients who were in sanction status and work with them to remove the status. Major findings of this study relevant to this proposed research were that faith-based organizations saw their roles as shaping service delivery and not merely acting as vendors for hire. Differences were seen according to the intensity of the religious organization as well as its size relative to other organizations. Therefore, we can see that with continuous and increased efforts to fund the delivery and development of social and community services through faith based organizations, government is investing in the development of proven technology of provision.

Organization and Management          

In January of 2001, President George W. Bush, America's first President with an MBA, was inaugurated. Within six months, the new administration released the President's Management Agenda (PMA), which very specifically addresses the most troubling issues facing federal government. Contained within this agenda is a specific reform objective, The Faith-Based and Community Initiative. This initiative outlines general reform, centered around existing legislation (Charitable Choice), designed to encourage and expand the cooperation and funding flow between the federal government and faith-based organizations through the newly created White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. 

Although the President’s Management Agenda does use a “mixed bag” of organization and management tools, including Total Quality Management, Benchmarking, and Performance Management, the changes proposed in the Faith-Based and Community Initiative (FCI) seem to follow the ideals of Strategic Planning and Privatization.

        The PMA urges the continued devolution of government and the increased contracting out of functions previously completed by government agencies and workers to faith-based and community organizations. The nation’s religious and government institutions have a history of collaborating for the good of the people, yet until Charitable Choice was passed in 1996; the only faith-oriented organizations that were eligible to receive federal funds were those that kept religion separate from the social service programs they delivered. 

        Although both conservatives and liberals have championed the concept of the federal support of faith-based organizations, as seen in the campaign platforms of both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore in the Presidential Election of 2000, few states or faith-based organizations have taken advantage of the relaxed restrictions. As a result, the Presidential Management Agenda has initiated reforms, specifically through strategic planning, to address this underutilized resource.

The ability to enforce the Charitable Choice Act is hindered by two weaknesses. One is simply the inability of the federal government to supply fair and equitable choices to those that would prefer not to receive services from a faith-based organization. At this time, as tax dollars are shrinking, it is not economically feasible to expect that separate but equal programs will continue to be able to be funded in the same area for the same population. How, for example, can government indiscriminately fund an agency to serve a rural area, not realizing the possibility that a significant portion of those served would choose to receive services elsewhere? How will the government fund this other service? The second point is that this legislation and the Faith-Based and Community Initiative do not address the education of the states themselves. A majority of federal funding is funneled through state agencies. If this act is to be enacted fairly across the country, state departments and agencies must be educated on the necessary regulations.

Alternative Resolutions

While Charitable Choice is not entirely contrary to the concept of religious separation, I suggest that certain safeguards be designed to; (1) protect religious freedom, and (2) prevent government and religion from becoming entangled. The safeguards must ensure that:

• No program participant provided by government funding is subject to unsolicited or unwanted proselytizing;
• Taxpayer money does not fund religious discrimination in the hiring and firing of people who will deliver the services;
• Secular alternatives to religiously provided services are readily available, and that those who prefer secular alternatives are made aware of them and have realistic and convenient access to them;
• Proper firewalls between government-funded services and the core religious activities of a religious organization are developed, so that taxpayer dollars are not channeled into other religious activities of sectarian organizations;
• Extremist, terrorist, or hatemongering groups are not able to receive government money.

Summary and Conclusions

Why should these regulations become an issue? Cannot a suitable dichotomy exist within the faith-based organization? Obviously there is a reason for the faith in faith-based charities. These organizations believe that helping people requires more than material support. Whether it is Allah, God, or any other religious figure or notion, any success is ultimately attested to the spiritual. My fear is that, in the end, this collaboration may alter organizations from those that profoundly change people's lives to those that simply provide expanded government services at the lowest bid.

As we have seen in the above analysis, many factors are relevant. Should policy makers focus on natural law and societal contract theory of Locke and Hobbes or, should they rely upon the economics of utilitarianism? Politics, management, and culture also play a significant role in deciding the importance and relevance of this legislation. However, I believe the ultimate test of constitutionality should be the main focus as we gauge the appropriateness of the Faith-Based Initiative and Charitable Choice. In essence, can it pass the Establishment Clause? With the installation of the prescribed guidelines I believe it can. Although it is difficult to argue that this legislation does not blur the lines of separation, I see no precedent of it being unconstitutional.

If the legislation itself is appropriate, then we must now look at the dangers involved in implementation. The most dangerous threat to these organizations, and the success of the Faith Based Initiative, is the threat of dependency. Throughout the years, society has witnessed the development and funding of organizations by the government, only to see the demise of these once strong organizations as federal funding disappears. Faith-based organizations, who initially welcome funding as an added resource to their mission, may soon realize not only their own dependency, but also that of their community, upon this funding. As funding dwindles and pressure comes to bear, how will these organizations separate themselves from the politics and issues of their funding? Can they continue to be "prophetic critics of government?" Ironically, given that the focus of many faith-based organizations is the reduction in dependency upon welfare, government funding may quickly become the very thing that faith-based organizations themselves depend on.

Regarding this and other issues, I must concur with John Locke. Any decisions made by faith-based groups to apply and receive funding, is their choice and their responsibility. If they believe this opportunity is the best way to achieve their goal and utility, then they should participate. If they realize overwhelming danger to their mission and identity then they should abstain. The key issue here is choice, which relates back to the founding principals of Charitable Choice and the Faith-Based Initiative – to allow faith-based organizations the right to compete and choose without discrimination because of their beliefs. Then Sen. Ashcroft surmises this effort here:

One of my goals in proposing the charitable choice provision was to encourage faith-based organizations to expand their involvement in the welfare reform effort by providing assurances that their religious integrity would be protected. The charitable choice provision embodies U.S. Supreme Court case precedents to clarify what is constitutionally permissible when states and local governments cooperate with the religious and charitable sector of society. The provision protects the rights of faith-based providers as well as the religious liberty of the individuals they may serve."

Bibliography

1. Baumgold, Deborah. Hobbes's Political Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

2. Caplow, T.; Hicks, L.; and Wattenberg, B.J.  The First Measured Century, An Illustrated Guide to Trends in America, 1900-2000. (Washington, DC: The AEI Press, 2001).

3. Cauthen, Kenneth. The Ethics of Belief: A Bio-Historical Approach. (Lima, OH: CSS Publishing Co., 2001).

4. DiIulio, John. “In Defense of a New Partnership Between Government and Faith-Based Groups,” Chronicle of Philanthropy, March 22, 2001.

5. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. at 15-16 (1947).

6. Feinstein Center for American Jewish History, Temple University, “In Good Faith: A Dialogue on Government Funding of Faith-Based Services,” January 2001.

7. Goggin, Malcolm L. and Deborah Orth, “How Faith-Based and Secular Organizations Tackle Housing for the Homeless” The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2002.

8. Julian P. Bond, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950).

9. Light, Paul C. The Tides of Reform - Making Government Work. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).

10. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government, Book II. (1690)

11. Raspberry, William. ” The Washington Post, Friday, September 20, 1996.

12. Rock, JoAnn, “Stepping Out on Faith: New York City’s Charitable Choice Demonstration Program” The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2002.

13. The President’s Management Agenda, August 2001. ().

 

14. United States General Accounting Office. CHARITABLE CHOICE Overview of Research Findings on Implementation, January 2002.

15. White House Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith-Based Organizations – Why Religious Hiring Rights Must Be Preserved. June 2003.

16. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/prwora.htm.

17. .

18. Text of Executive Orders 13,198 and 13,199 may be found at .

---