Charitable Choice:
Discerning Its Impact on Poverty and on the Faith Community

By Cathlin Siobhan Baker

Our current presidential election will go down in history for its overwhelming focus on religion. As the major candidates tried to out-Christian each other during the primaries, many of us wondered how it all related to politics. They have gambled that wearing a religious label gets votes, and as part of that strategy, they have embraced a provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform) known as Charitable Choice. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore claim that the contributions of faith-based organizations (FBOs) have been ignored for too long and that Charitable Choice is the answer to our country's social problems. But before religious organizations accept that rhetoric, they should seriously examine its implications.

The Charitable Choice provision of the 1996 welfare reform legislation (The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act) requires states, if they contract with non-profit organizations for social service delivery, to include religious organizations as eligible contractees. Many faith-based 501(c)(3) organizations, particularly in urban and rural impoverished areas, have received government funding for decades whether for emergency food service, child care, youth programs or housing. The difference in this legislation is that religious congregations, such as churches, synagogues, and mosques no longer have to establish a separate 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in order to receive funds. Gone are the prohibitions regarding government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations. Churches and other religious congregations that provide welfare services on behalf of the government can display religious symbols, use religious language, and use religious criteria in hiring and firing employees. Funds flow directly into the church budget; however, they must be used exclusively for the provision of social services and not for religious activities.

Since 1996, Senator John Ashcroft (R--MO) and such organizations as the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Christian Legal Society have promoted the expansion of the Charitable Choice provision from welfare services to other public services, such as after-school programs, food aid, juvenile justice, substance abuse, and fatherhood initiatives (i.e., child-support enforcement). Some predict that education is the next sector to be permeated by Charitable Choice provisions, thereby smoothing the way for voucher programs and religious education, predominantly Christian education. Generally speaking, this is the same coalition that created welfare reform as we know it, with its emphasis on personal responsibility and assertions about how single-parent families and out-of-wedlock births are the root causes of poverty.

Even though there has been little public outcry about Charitable Choice, many national denominational bodies, as well as secular advocacy groups, have strongly opposed the legislation. These groups have been primarily concerned about the erosion of the separation of church and state. They include: American Baptist Churches, USA and the Baptist Joint Committee; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Friends Committee on National Legislation; General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church; Presbyterian Church, USA; Unitarian Universalist Association, Washington Office; United Church of Christ, Office for Church in Society; American Civil Liberties Union; and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

A Split with the Grassroots

On the national policy level, conservatives have largely backed Charitable Choice and liberals and progressives have expressed deep concern about the provision. This is fairly predictable. However, at the grassroots level, it is a different story, one that reveals a confusing set of alliances. A 1998 study of more than 1,200 congregations by sociologist Mark Chaves of the University of Arizona reflects some of these surprises. Chaves explains that congregations that interact freely with the secular institutional environment appear more likely to be willing to apply for government funds, and congregations that keep to themselves are less likely to be willing to apply for government funds. Overall, Chaves discovered that politically conservative congregations are much less likely to apply for government funds than are middle-of-the-road or liberal congregations. There is clearly a disconnect between national conservative policy groups and conservative congregations and between national liberal and progressive policy groups and liberal congregations.

In addition, race and class affect which congregations express the most interest in applying for government funding. Predominantly black congregations are substantially more likely to be willing to apply for government funds than are white congregations. Chaves's survey also shows that congregations in which more than 20 percent are poor are more likely to express a willingness to apply for government funding for social services activities. It is no surprise that African-American and Latino churches, which have historically served their own community in an effort to augment limited government services, would be more comfortable taking on broader social service responsibilities.

Charitable Choice raises immediate concerns for those interested in preserving the separation of church and state. It appears to be a clear-cut threat to religious liberty and religious pluralism, but the complex alignment of groups around this issue makes it hard to formulate resistance strategies. In addition, I suspect that we have heard little discussion of this issue exactly because there is more at stake than just the crumbling of the separation of church and state. Behind the Charitable Choice provision lurks a panoply of issues involving morality, ideology, race, and class.

The Moral Framework

Welfare reform and the Charitable Choice provision embedded within it cannot be separated from the particular agenda that initiated these policies. One of the intellectual fathers of welfare reform is Marvin Olasky, a libertarian associated with the Cato Institute and Gov. George Bush's key advisor on "compassionate conservatism." Olasky was very influential in setting the stage for the renewed role of voluntary and religious organizations in social welfare. The 1995 version of welfare reform that was vetoed by President Clinton contained Olasky's call for complete government withdrawal from welfare services and for the immediate devolution of the welfare system to the states and civil institutions. While Olasky's reforms were too radical for President Clinton, he paved the way for the more moderate Charitable Choice provision, which gives government a minimal role.

The current rhetoric tied to poverty also cannot be separated from any discussion of welfare reform or Charitable Choice. Language about the necessity of two-parent families, the epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, and the lack of personal responsibility among the poor is written into the 1996 legislation and keeps any discussion of poverty within a moral framework. For example, the first three findings, which are the basis of the historic Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, read:

The Congress makes the following findings: 1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful society; 2) Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children; 3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.

The findings continue on for nearly three pages and focus on the dubious connections between poverty and out of wedlock births. Farther along in the legislation, the general purpose of welfare reform is articulated. It reads:

The purpose of [this legislation] is to increase the flexibility of States in operating a program designed to Ð 1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; 3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and 4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two parent families.

Such moralisms are integrated throughout the legislation and today this language is pervasive, effectively clouding the public's conception of the economic reality of families living in poverty. The moralistic tone of the legislation serves a purpose. According to this logic, religious congregations, the bearers of morality, are best suited for the task of addressing poverty.

Some advocates of Charitable Choice have attempted to distance themselves from these strict moralisms targeted at the poor. They try to avoid blaming the poor for their poverty and claim that they are above polarizing poverty as an economic problem or a personal responsibility crisis. Rather they claim a third cause of poverty -- a general moral breakdown in our society. However, this logic also calls for limited government involvement in providing for the general welfare. Simply put, Charitable Choice is seen as a way to activate the civic sector, particularly the faith community, in restoring our society to a romanticized vision of the way it was before the welfare state. In the "good old days," before the welfare state intervened, people just took care of each other.

The rhetoric of welfare reform and Charitable Choice also emphasizes the importance of strong local communities, and this may be what attracts liberal congregations and congregations of color. But what is neglected is any discussion of the economy, politics, or social change. Personal moral aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition are emphasized and its liberative elements ignored. Without a critique of the economy or a call for the political empowerment of those who are poor, this rhetoric not only maintains the status quo but leads to serious questions concerning the role of religious institutions.

Why Talk About the Economy?

Any discussion of poverty that neglects our current economic reality should be questioned. In contrast with welfare reform rhetoric, people are not simply impoverished because of bad personal choices or non-traditional family structures. Of course, single parenthood, mental illness or drug and alcohol addiction, along with lack of education, job skills or job experience can increase one's chances of living in poverty. But the systemic poverty we witness in both urban and rural America, that reflects permanent unemployment, underemployment and the conditions of the working poor, has more to do with structural changes in this country's economy over the past two decades.

The nature of work has changed dramatically as corporations have downsized, manufacturing jobs have been automated, and jobs have moved overseas. In general, middle class and working class families have seen their jobs in the manufacturing sector disappear for service sector jobs in the food service and health care industries. Many families' wages have not increased with inflation and in order to maintain their prior standard of living and avoid poverty both parents are required to work. Fathers, unable to support their families, suffer a deep blow to their traditional breadwinner identities. Loss of the male breadwinner, the necessity of two incomes, and overwork and underpay have wreaked havoc on the traditional two parent family. This is a common scenario in many of our communities and is best understood in a macro-economic context. To interpret the daily struggles of poor families as a personal problem or as a symptom of moral and spiritual deficiency encourages self blame and does not give families the opportunity to reflect on the illusive quality of the American dream.

Where Will Charitable Choice Lead?

Following are just some of the major implications of this new social policy:

Charitable Choice Undermines the Notion of Common Good
Since 1996, responsibility for welfare services has shifted from the federal government to the states, from the states to the counties, from the counties to for-profit corporations, and increasingly to faith-based organizations and religious congregations. This devolution of responsibility can be attributed to an aversion to big government, but has more to do with macro-economic changes that are reducing government responsibility and promoting privatization in all areas of the public sector. Indeed, this is a global phenomenon. While many people of faith may honestly believe in the potential of religious organizations to deliver better social services, welfare services are another matter. Cash benefits, food stamps, and rent allowances are essentially a means of wealth distribution, a function of government responsibility to the common good. Although in some countries such redistribution is perceived as an entitlement to all in society, in the United States welfare involves a complex eligibility system. Do congregations want to be in the business of determining eligibility and further eroding the government's commitment to the common good?

Charitable Choice Threatens Decades of Progress on Ecumenical and Interfaith Coalition Building
The United States contains a diversity of faith expressions including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism among others. Acknowledging the reality of religious pluralism, Charitable Choice regulations stipulate that there be no discrimination in the provision of service on account of religious belief and also that the state must arrange for an alternative service provider if a client objects to receiving help through a church. However, there has been no government outreach to alert welfare recipients of their right to alternative welfare services. In many areas, an alternative may not even exist. But perhaps the most disturbing issue here is the unwillingness of some evangelical congregations to offer interfaith social services. At a recent Call to Renewal summit, a proponent of the Charitable Choice provision claimed that interfaith work would "water down" the Christian message. This person suggested that Jews go to Jewish social service agencies and Muslims go to Muslim agencies. It became clear to me that many people are interpreting this legislation as a way to promote Christian morality alone. Another concern is related to the contracting process. If Charitable Choice contracts are determined on a local level, how can the public be sure that religious pluralism is reflected in regions where one or two particular sects are in decision-making positions?

Charitable Choice Threatens the Fragile Network of Overworked, Faith- Based Emergency Shelter and Food Providers
Recent studies have shown that welfare reform has increased the demand for emergency shelter and food services, the majority of which are faith-based organizations. These groups have been forced to turn families away because they cannot handle the demand. Religious congregations simply cannot take on much more responsibility for service to poor families. Such efforts have been transformed from emergency services to a permanent safety valve because the government has neglected its responsibilities. Do congregations want to perpetuate an environment in which they do not have the time or energy to address systemic issues that cause poverty?

Charitable Choice Jeopardizes Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Measures
The provision enables religious congregations to use religious criteria in the hiring and firing of employees. Does this mean a qualified Catholic social worker can be discriminated against by a Protestant social service organization? This is a major concern of ecumenical organizations and may lead to a flurry of lawsuits. And if religious affiliation affects equal access to employment, how will a welfare recipient seeking services fare in such a purist religious setting? Will the churches be willing to serve even those with whom they disagree? Can a church with a strong position against homosexuality serve homosexual clients without prejudice? As Charitable Choice contracts are established, will programs be monitored with respect to equal access to social services?

Charitable Choice Erodes Leadership and Empowerment of People Who Are Poor
The rhetoric of welfare reform emphasizes not only individuals' responsibility to move themselves and their family off of welfare, but also suggests that individuals are personally responsible for their poverty in the first place. In fact, they are so morally bankrupt that a religious community must be brought in to "fix" them. Will congregations move away from acknowledging the sinfulness of social structures that perpetuate injustice and from recognizing the leadership capacity of people who are poor?

Charitable Choice May Silence the Prophetic Voice of Religious Communities
In recent decades, community development corporations (CDCs) have lost government funds or experienced a slowdown in funds as a result of speaking out against certain policies. Faith-based CDCs with separate 501(c)(3) status have not been immune to this kind of punishment. Even proponents of Charitable Choice acknowledge that government control and intervention are inevitable. They recommend that concerned congregations establish a separate 501(c)(3). Congregations that have operated on a shoestring budget may be enticed by more funding, only to find out down the road that they have become a welfare agency rather than a house of worship. Can a religious congregation speak truth to power and still receive government funds?

Strange Alliances

So how does one proceed to work on this issue? Education is certainly a priority. As congregations come to understand the moral, political, and economic agenda behind welfare reform, they must determine whether this is an agenda they want to support. Is Charitable Choice an effective policy for overcoming poverty? How does the Charitable Choice option affect the relationship of churches to the issue of poverty? Many churches, struggling to identify a way to serve their communities, see Charitable Choice as a remarkable opportunity. Charitable Choice funding provides an entrance for churches into the provision of welfare services, particularly welfare-to-work or workforce development services such as mentoring, job training, job readiness, and placement Ð a major emphasis of the 1996 reforms. While some welfare-to-work services have enabled the best-qualified welfare recipients to find work, the vast majority of poor families are caught in crises that make work difficult and then are penalized by punitive welfare regulations. Congregations would not be immune from enforcing these punitive regulations. Thus this funding may alter the church's relationship to poor families. Will the churches that once stood in solidarity with families who are poor and fought for economic justice become the new "policers" of the poor?

It is urgent that faith communities engage in a critical assessment of welfare rhetoric and the Charitable Choice provision. As they navigate through this rhetoric, they can discard what is misguided and false in favor of the courageous, restorative, and liberative elements of their traditions. The language of welfare is enmeshed in a discussion of personal responsibility and morality, thereby masking the massive social and economic changes confronted by the vast majority of people in the world. The faith community, as ecumenical and interfaith, must chart a new direction in solidarity with the poor and oppressed, in judgment of racial and economic injustice, and that grapples positively with the new realities of family and work. Such critical voices will be attacked as naive, idealistic, and elitist and these congregations should respond with their own definition of what constitutes moral decency and fairness. This battle quite literally is one of who can shout the loudest; too many lives are at risk to remain silent.

---

Cathlin Siobhan Baker is Co-Director of The Employment Project. The Employment Project's Do Justice program serves the religious community by offering popular education workshops on issues of economic globalization, privatization, welfare reform and Charitable Choice, and by connecting congregations to community organizing efforts focused on ending poverty. economicjustice@mindspring.com

Back to Top

Return to Position Papers