2016-07-27
This article has been adapted from the editorial of the 2001 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. The Yearbook is the most widely recognized and reliable source for information on churches in the U.S., Canada. Its Editor is the Reverend Eileen W. Lindner, Ph.D.

In 1996 the primary legislative basis for federal assistance to the poor was appreciably amended with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. Within this new and complex law section 104 was established which has become known as the "Charitable Choice" provision. At its heart this provision requires states to permit faith-based organizations (FBOs) to be eligible, along with other nonprofit organizations, in providing contracted social services. Moreover, the section forbids the states from requiring such a faith-based organization to "alter its form of internal governance or remove religious arts, icons, scripture or other symbols" as a condition for serving as a contracted provider of social services.

The political climate which nurtured the development of this Charitable Choice provision; the experiences of FBOs which have provided services under this provision; and, the initial research that has been undertaken to analyze various aspects of the consequences of this provision, together are the focus of this essay. The Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches seeks annually to identify trends, directions and degree of changes observable within the American religious landscape. The vigor of our present national debate over the appropriateness and potential for a public-private partnership in service provision qualifies as a major trend which emerged from the political arena to have as yet undetermined impact upon religion in America.

A Peculiar Lineage
The political will to formulate and enact the Charitable Choice provision of the welfare reform law came from a somewhat unexpected quarter. The Charitable Choice section of the Welfare Reform Legislation was sponsored by then Senator John Ashcroft, Republican of Missouri. Moreover prominent conservative organizations including the Christian Coalition and The Family Research Council actively supported its passage.

Some researchers including Mark Chaves of the University of Arizona have suggested that this support was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to see broader church involvement in meeting the needs of the poor as well as an interest in redirecting public resources to religious organizations.

Such potential motivating factors must be located historically in the context of discussions of welfare reform in the wake of the Newt Gingrich years in Congress and the contemporaneous concern for a private - public partnership with a resultant decrease in the overall size of governmental structures. The enduring legacy of the first Bush Administration with its emphasis on the "Points of Light" and the unbridled enthusiasm for the potential of voluntary service contributed more than a little to the move toward Charitable Choice. In 1996 the divisive mood within the nation made a rightward movement by the Clinton Administration a political necessity for the passage of the welfare reform legislation. President Clinton experienced substantial liberal fallout concerning the bill as a whole with many liberals condemning its provisions as punitive toward the poor. At the time religious organizations which are generally considered liberal leaning criticized the Charitable Choice provision of the bill in particular. Mainline churches and their allied religious liberty groups sounded a shrill warning note concerning the possibility of Charitable Choice's corrosive impact upon the wall of church-state separation. Ironically the religious right sought government involvement while the liberal left of the religious landscape opposed it.

The very American Christians whose life experience and theology have predisposed them to be wary of entanglement with government urged the provision's passage. Those mainline churches which have long, and until recently, enjoyed religious cultural hegemony were most persistent in their cautions concerning the dangers of public monies being expended through private sectarian channels. Thus it was, with this confusing political and ecclesial lineage that the Charitable Choice provision became law.

Choosing Charitable Choice
The origins of the Charitable Choice provision might well have led one to predict that congregational behaviors would mirror the national religious leadership in this debate. One would have predicted religious conservatives would enthusiastically give leadership to congregational participation in local social service provisions while liberal leaning congregations demurred. Such a prediction emerging would have been roundly repudiated by the experience now observable in the first four years of operation. Not only is the emerging pattern contrary to the prediction but it is now clear that other factors beyond church-state theory and liberal vs. conservative social thought is determinative. While no nationwide study to date has thoroughly investigated the demographic profile of all participating congregations, much less examined the correlation of belief and practice, some compelling early work has been done.

Mark Chaves' work, reported by The Urban Institute, concluded that "large congregations and especially predominantly African American congregations are most likely to seek public monies." This finding is corroborated by the work of Arthur E. Farnsley updated through The Polis Center of Indianapolis.

At least two other studies confirm and extend the findings that while many congregations provided some form of social service ministry only a small percentage do so in a manner and degree sufficient to obtain public monies and conform to the requirements thereof. Susan Grettenberger, a Michigan State University investigator, studied 400 United Methodist Churches and found the type and extent of social services provided to be limited in scope and directed particularly to specific populations. Earlier work by Robert Wuthnow found that congregations' capacity to provide social services were enhanced and often made possible only through their association with nonprofit agencies possessing the requisite financial and administrative capacities congregations often lack. In the wake of today's debate such intermediating structures might well be predicted to proliferate.

Amy Sherman's overview of the early years of implementing Charitable Choice was published in July 2000 in "The Christian Century." (Click here to read a version of this piece, published on Beliefnet.)Her own conclusion that opponents' worst fears about Charitable Choice have not been realized might well have been accompanied by similar assertion that neither have its proponents greatest hopes been fulfilled. Provisions in the law itself contain potentially confusing directives concerning FBOs which only time and greater experiential learning are likely to correct. Even with such evolving clarity few observers doubt that a host of church-state implications will ultimately require attention.

Re-financing Mission
The early research which has been published gives ample evidence of the importance of careful analysis of the consequence of the now five year practices of the states. Through this provision and its aftermath local congregations (and other local religious agencies) have been "discovered" by governmental agencies, philanthropic foundations and researchers alike. It is not certain that they will ever be the same again. Few have made note that congregations in poor neighborhoods are often poor themselves and lacking in infrastructure. The churches with the requisite space, financial accounting ability and wherewithal to maintain such programs are most commonly in affluent communities. In such settings job training, drug counseling etc. are generally purchased privately.

The investigations of Ram Cnaan within John DiLulio's own department at the University of Pennsylvania contribute much to the discussions. In particular Cnaan points out the lack of knowledge regarding FBOs on the part of the social work profession. He calls for a new engagement across the professional disciplines of social work, clergy, researchers and governmental agencies. In an earlier study of nearly 900 congregations in Philadelphia, Cnaan found only 7% of clergy were familiar with the Charitable Choice provisions while nearly two thirds thought their congregations would be willing to apply for such funds. Mark Chaves similarly found three quarters of clergy unfamiliar with the Charitable Choice provisions in the law with only about 36% expressing the willingness on the part of congregations to apply to use such governmental funds. Such findings will surely influence John DiIulio as he takes up his White House duties. Communication with FBOs appears to be job one.

No area of consideration is more significant than the willingness and capacity of local congregations to respond. While most churches take pride in their commitment to serve the indigent at their doorstep they lack the capacity for sustained work with large numbers of persons on an indeterminate basis. The present research points up the need for government planners to take cognizance of these congregational realities when projecting the ultimate capacity of FBOs to provide services.
The establishment of a White House office on Faith Based Initiatives may well signal a completely unfettered approach with further expansion of expectations of FBOs projected. Such governmental expectations may well outstrip FBO's willingness and capacity for such service. Charitable Choice is apt to have long-term consequences for governmental agencies, FBOs, and the poor themselves. Our current national debate must be tempered by careful longitudinal research to gauge the very real outcomes of this public -- private partnership.

Much is at stake in this debate -- options for the poor, the role of government, the faithfulness of religious bodies and the character of our society. Such great consequences merit careful consideration. For the well-being of all such inquiries are urgently needed.
more from beliefnet and our partners