Salt of the Earth: March 2001 News

Social justice news
March 2001

Is George Bush putting too much faith in government?
Who will take advantage of Bush plan?
Prosperity costs some families their homes
Catholic Charities backs better wages
Union membership declines in 2000

Is George Bush putting too much faith in government?
President George Bush's recent creation of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to oversee the flow of federal dollars into religious-based social services efforts is generating a lot of resistance among civil libertarians worried over church-sate conflicts, but the precedent for the creation of this new office goes back to the "charitable choice" provision of the 1996 federal welfare-reform law.

Kammer optimistic
on Bush initiative

While controversy continues to build over President Bush's faith-based initiatives, Catholic Charities USA President Fred Kammer dismisses critics’ fears and says, for now, there is reason to be optimistic.

Kammer says government can help churches do more than they have in the past without simply passing more responsibility to private agencies. “They’re not saying this initiative will replace the government, instead they say it will complement government.”

The outgoing Catholic Charities president also disagrees with critics who say Bush’s plans will increase competition between religious groups. “We’ve been competing with each other, in good humor, for years,” he says, “but we also do services with each other.”

Because Catholic churches have traditionally formed separate organizations to handle social services, Kammer thinks they’re likely to avoid excessive church-state entanglements. “You don’t co-mingle parish money with government money, but most parishes already know this,” he explains.

Overall the rhetoric sounds good, Kammer says, but he can’t be too enthusiastic until he sees one thing—money. “We need new [government support], otherwise I’m not sure how effective this will be,” he says.—Anne Graber

"Charitiable choice" encourages faith-based organizations to compete for the approximately $10 billion spent annually on U.S. government-funded welfare and social-service programs. According to charitable choice rules, if states open up welfare services to any private providers, religious charities must now also be allowed to apply.

The Bush plan's philosophical and policy basis stems from the belief that faith-based and other private organizations do a better job in providing social services than government bureaucracies or simpy doling out public aid. Proponents of this view say private agencies provide excellent services to clients without large bureaucracies, reduce administrative costs, and reach more people by using volunteers and lower-paid employees. In a July 1999 poll, 76 percent of Americans said they favored giving federal funds to private groups, including religious organizations, to deal with social problems.

In addition, says John J. DiIulio, Jr., the political scientist Bush has named as White House adviser on faith-based and community initiatives, faith-based organizations enjoy a "comparative advantage" over other social-service providers because they can directly address those in need as whole persons rather than making "deficit assessments" about the absence of healthy conditions. "Opening competition for federal funds to all," DiIulio says, "including tiny faith-based organizations, could usher in a new era of results-driven public administration."

In one sense government funding of social service agencies is not a new phenomenon. As historian and religion commentator Martin E. Marty points out, "For decades Catholic and Lutheran and Salvation Army and most other religious-institution-humanitarian agencies have dispersed funds gathered through tax revenues. They have done so virtually without controversy by having set up legally stringent measures to keep the 'faith' out of range of recipients."

But the possibility of deterioration of church-state separation, specifically the temptation to mix social service with what in effect might be government-sponsored proselytizing, is only one of the concerns of those critical of the Bush plan. They also note the potential for groups unqualified to provide real social service to obtain funding; the obscuring of government's own role in providing social services; and the possible drop-off of donations to charities if donors believe government money will cover an organizations' needs. Additional worries include a sharp increase in government regulation and paperwork for grant applicants; the chance that government will put greater demand on an organization's programs without adding sufficient financial resources; and the fear that funds will go to the largest and most politically connected ministers and groups.

Ironically, while many fear that Bush's plan is the creature of the Christian Right (fueled in part by the fact the charitable choice originated with conservative Christian members of Congress, including John Ashcroft, then senator from Missouri and now U.S. attorney general), according to political scientist Dennis R. Hoover, it actually represents the "rise of an activist religious center in American public life." The program appeals to the social activism of white Catholics and black Protestants, draws on certain elements of Catholic social teaching, and has drawn support from moderate and progressive evangelicals. In fact, it has been the voices of many Southern Baptists and conservative evangelicals who have expressed the most concern about the plan's potential threats to the independence of institutional faith-based efforts.

Among its provisions, Bush's executive order establishes a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in five federal agencies and urges Congress to make federal matching funds available to states to do the same. Bush proposes that Congress change federal regulations to more explicitly allow religious and other nonprofit organizations to compete for federal social service grants and contracts—in particular services to children, prisoners, and poor neighborhoods for the development of community technology centers. Bush's plan also limits the liability of businesses that make in-kind donations to faith-based groups and sets up a public-private fund to pay for management assistance to small community and faith-based agencies.

On the tax side, the White House is urging Congress to sweeten tax breaks on donations, most importantly allowing individuals who do not itemize deductions to write-off charitable gifts on their federal tax returns and increasing the annual limit on corporate charitable deductions from 10 to 15 percent of taxable income.—Joel Schorn
Back to page top

Who will take advantage of Bush plan?
While President Bush’s proposal to use government monies to fund faith-based initiatives has genererated a great deal of commentary and criticism, it's still not clear which groups will take advantage of the new grant funds, or what they will do with them. A 1998 study on congregations' social service activities may provide some clues.

The National Congregations Study, conducted by the Washington D.C. research organization The Urban Institute, found that while political and religious conservatives offer the strongest support for faith-based social services, they are less likely than liberal congregations to seek public support for their activities. Forty-one percent of liberal Protestant denominations and 40 percent of Catholic parishes said they would apply for government funds, while only 28 percent of conservative denominations said the same.

According to the study, the groups most likely to seek government help were predominantly African-American congregations. Sixty-four percent of those surveyed said they would apply for aid.

In addition, congregations are more likely to provide short-term emergency services than ongoing initiatives. Housing, clothing, and food programs were most popular with religious groups. Fewer than 10 percent had programs dealing with substance abuse, domestic violence, tutoring or mentoring, or employment.

The study also found that social services rank low among congregations’ financial priorities. On average, the groups surveyed spent only 2 percent to 4 percent of their budgets on service projects.

The Urban Institute surveyed 1,236 congregation leaders for the study. It measured religious groups’ commitment to social services in the wake of 1996 welfare reform. Lilly Endowment, Smith Richardson Foundation, The Louisville Institute, The Aspen Institute, and the Henry Luce Foundation all provided funding.—Anne Graber

Back to page top