CORRUPTING CHARITY.

• Author: TANNER, MICHAEL
• Position: Faith-based charities

"As they become increasingly dependent on government money, charities could find their missions shifting, their religious character lost, and the very things that made them so successful destroyed."

FAITH-BASED CHARITIES have a long history of transforming individual lives and helping raise people out of poverty and despair. Indeed, private charities are far more effective than government welfare programs at fulfilling those roles. They do more with less, and their success can be seen in tens of thousands of former addicts, self-sufficient families, and others who have turned their lives around.

In light of this record of success, it seems natural for Pres. Bush to want to encourage those groups. However, in proposing that the Federal government distribute billions of dollars directly to faith-based charities in the form of grants and contracts for providing social services, he risks undermining the very things that have made private charity so effective.

Today, private charities receive about 30% of their funding from government. Religious charities are far less likely than their secular counterparts to obtain government funds. Nevertheless, such financing is extensive.

On the front lines are local churches, synagogues, and mosques. There are more than 350,000 religious congregations in the U.S., and a majority are involved in some type of charitable work. A 1998 survey of more than 1,200 religious congregations found that 57% were engaged in social service delivery, most commonly food-related projects, housing and shelter programs, and clothing distribution. Less frequently cited were health, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, job training, and mentoring initiatives. Only about three percent of local congregations receive government funding for their charitable operations.

Beyond local churches are large national organizations with sectarian affiliations, such as Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federations, Lutheran Social Services, and the Salvation Army. Those groups have been recipients of public funds for many years and have often set up separate nonsectarian enterprises for their charitable endeavors. Government grants provide two-thirds of the funding for Catholic Charities USA, and the Jewish Board of Family and Children Services receives 75% of its funding from the government.

Finally, there are organizations that have a religious orientation, but are not affiliated with any particular group. Some of them are large, though loosely knit, nationwide organizations, such as the International Union of Gospel Missions. Others are small and community-based. There is little reliable information available on government funding of those groups. However, general indications are that they receive more than do local religious congregations, but less than the nationwide sectarian organizations.

Bush has called for "putting the Federal government on the side of [these] vast armies of compassion" by allowing faith-based charities to become eligible to receive billions of dollars in additional Federal grants. His proposal, though, raises serious questions about the separation of church and state.

The 1996 welfare reform legislation contains a provision that allows states to contract with religious organizations, or to "allow religious organizations to accept certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement ... on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider without impairing the religious character of such organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries of assistance funded under such program." That provision, which became known as Charitable Choice, applied to four government programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the successor to Aid to Families with Dependent Children; Supplementary Security Income; Medicaid; and food stamps.

Specifically, states could involve faith-based organizations in the provision of subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, job-search and -readiness assistance, community service positions, vocational educational training, job-skills training, and general-equivalency diploma programs. They also could provide meals and run food pantries. In addition, states could place unmarried minor mothers and expectant mothers who could not remain with their parents in maternity homes, adult-supervised residential care, second-chance homes, or other facilities operated by faith-based organizations. Moreover, they could provide abstinence education and drug counseling and treatment, and operate health clinics.

Charitable Choice goes much further than simply making faith-based organizations eligible for government funding. It explicitly attempts to eliminate many of the restrictions and conditions previously imposed on government grants to religious organizations. Specifically, it permits provision of government services in actual houses of worship; contractors to display religious "art, icons, scripture, and other symbols" in areas where government services are provided; and religious contractors to discriminate against employees on the basis of their religious beliefs.

The legislation, however, continues to ban the use of government funds for "sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization." It requires as well that states provide an alternative secular provider for any aid recipient who does not wish to receive services through a religious institution.

Bush has sought to build on Charitable Choice in several ways. He has established a...