CONTENTS: Introduction Faith Based Providers of Social Services Key Legal Issues Types of Services That Can Be Funded Principles of the Bill Most Affecting Faith-Based Organizations Conclusion: Some Recommendations

Introduction

The Welfare system in America is changing dramatically as a result of the new federal welfare legislation signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. The intention of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWOR) is to move the bulk responsibility for administering welfare funding from the federal level to states. A major feature of this law, known as the "Charitable Choice" provision of Section 104, encourages public welfare services to work more closely with faith-based organizations to meet social needs in their communities. States that accept federal welfare block grants are required to abide by rules that protect the spiritual integrity of faith-based organizations that accept government money to fund their social programs.

This effort to move past the traditional notion of the "division between church and state" is a significant shift in government policy. In the past, public officials have used a mistaken notion of Constitutional law to exclude faith-based organizations from eligibility for government welfare monies. Even when faith-based organizations have participated in government-funded programs, they have found themselves subject to governmental pressures to downplay or discard their religious emphases. They were required to strictly separate their spiritual activities from their social programs. Some public officials have even demanded that they even remove all religious symbols, such as crosses and framed Bible verses from the walls of their facilities.

Faith-based organizations are among the most effective providers of much-needed social programs. For example, in 1997, the 270 faith-based shelters that make up the International Union of Gospel Missions served over 30 million meals and provided over 15 million nights of lodging to the homeless and poor.¹ Often, groups like these are the only ones who are willing to reach out to the most troubled families and neighborhoods. Such organizations are usually much more creative and flexible than government agencies that provide similar services and tend to take a much more personal approach to helping those in need. Because of their spiritual and moral foundations, they place a speical emphasis on the personal responsibility of the individuals they serve, which has proven to be especially effective in helping people to break out of long-term poverty and self-destructive patterns of behavior.

Fear of government intrusion in their spiritual affairs is the main reason faith-based organizations have tended to reject government funding all together. As recent as 1995, almost 70% of the rescue missions involved with the   International Union of Gospel Missions stated that they had never taken government funds to support their programs. Of those who did, 20% reported having a negative experience. These comments illustrate their frustration:

"They began to put in rules against the use of Bible Classes, religious pictures, and programming."

"We were told we had to stop all religious service requirements, so we stopped taking money for women staying in shelter, men in recovery. "

"Government wanted to control program content. "

"The ACLU threatened to sue the county if they paid us because of our mandatory chapel." ²

In 1997, syndicated columnist, William Raspberry wrote a piece on Welfare Reform he called "'Partnership' With Strings Attached?" In it he quotes, Rev. Stephen Burger, executive director of the IUGM. Speaking on behalf of rescue missions, he said:

If it's a choice between government funding and doing what we know how to do, there's just no choice. I mean if we have to strip our programs of their moral and spiritual aspects, then they wouldn't be worth doing. Even things like our computer-skills programs and other training programs don't work unless we first confront people spiritually and get them to accept responsibility for their choices. ²

With some of these considerations in mind, Missouri Senator, John Ashcroft became the prime mover behind the "Charitable Choice" initiative. He offered the following comments in December 1996:

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."³

The provisions of Charitable Choice recognize recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions that allow states to fund faith-based programs that are working to better society, as long as these programs are equally open to all providers, faith-based and nonreligious. To protect the religious liberties of those who would benefit from such programs, states are required to make sure that a comparable alternative to the faith-based assistance is available to those who object to the religious nature of their programs. However, there is no requirement for a state to ensure that a beneficiary has access to a provider sharing his or her faith. Additionally, faith-based providers may not exclude individuals from taking advantage of their services if they are from other denominations, churches, or religions. They also cannot require a beneficiary to adopt a particular religious creed or tenet of faith as a prerequisite for receiving help.

Additionally, faith-based organizations are still subject to nondiscrimination and civil rights laws such as those regarding age, sex, disability, race, color, and national origin. Other state and local anti-discrimination laws also still apply, unless they infringe the religious autonomy of providers secured by Section 104.

The provisions of Section 104 apply mostly to state programs implemented under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which replaces the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The is accomplished by giving federal funds to the states through block grants. The states, in turn, design and operate their own welfare programs. TANF’s design allows for extensive involvement by nongovernmental organizations, including churches and other faith-based organizations, that have been successful in moving people from dependence to self-reliance. Section 104 also applies to the food stamp, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs when they are implemented by the states through purchase-of-service contracts or voucher arrangements with nongovernmental service providers.

Under the Charitable Choice provision, states may use direct contracts or voucher systems to provide fundingn to both secular and faith-based organizations for a wide range of services. These may include such programs as:

• Work Programs - Subsidized jobs, community service positions, on-the-job training, job-search help, job-readiness preparation, job-skills training, vocational education training, or GED programs.
• Food Programs - subsidized meals, food pantries, or training in nutrition, shopping, or food budgeting.
• Maternity Homes - unmarried minors and expectant mothers who cannot stay with their parents, and adult-supervised residential care, second-chance homes, or other suitable living arrangements.
• Medical & Health Services - abstinence education, drug- and alcohol-treatment programs, vocational rehabilitation services, or health clinics.

The welfare funds are intended to help families become independent, not to promote religion. Ministries need a good plan of action, adequate staff, accountability procedures, and a solid prospect of success. They may not discriminate because of a client’s religion. Clients have the right to sit out religious activities or to choose another provider. If the services are funded by a government contract, then the money may not be used for worship services, doctrinal instruction, or proselytization (evangelism). This makes it clear that government is not endorsing any particular religion. By contrast, when clients bring a voucher to pay for a service, there is no religious restriction on the provider’s program.

Explicitly Christian ministries and even churches without separately incorporated programs are eligible to compete for welfare contracts or to redeem vouchers to provide welfare services. Christian principles and language may be used in working with clients. Ministries may keep their religious standards for hiring and disciplining staff. Religious symbols do not need to be hidden. Fiscal audits can be limited by keeping a separate account to receive and disburse the welfare funds.

Each state can decide what welfare services it will obtain from nongovernmental organizations, so there is no general rule about what opportunities will be open to Christian ministries. However, families will need many kinds of assistance, e.g., job-readiness and job-search programs, extended childcare, budgeting and nutrition advice, drug-treatment services, community service slots, GED and ESL programs.

If a state chooses to use federal welfare funds to contract with, or to provide vouchers redeemable by, any nongovernmental social-service provider, then the state must comply with the Charitable Choice requirement not to discriminate against faith-based providers. The provision applies when states enter into purchase-of-service contracts or voucher arrangements with independent-sector organizations under the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (the replacement for AFDC). Charitable Choice also applies to the Supplementary Security Income (SSI) program. ⁴

Conclusion: Some Recommendations

Because Section 104 is a new law untested in the courts and because the applicable constitutional law is developing, it is essential that faith-based providers consult legal counsel. It is prudent for such providers to maintain a separate account for the federal funds, as permitted by subsection (h) and to use careful accounting procedures to track how these funds are used. A very conservative approach is to create a separate corporation to receive and expend the government funds. It should be noted that the most restrictive reading of current constitutional law disqualifies from participation in government programs all "pervasively sectarian organizations—an undefined term.

However, many legal authorities believe the key difference is that the flow of federal funds to a faith-based provider is direct in the case of contracts and indirect when it is due to a beneficiary’s decision to redeem a voucher with such a provider.

Here’s Steve Burger’s take on the situation:

Much will be said and written in the months ahead [about recent welfare reform legislation]. Already predictions about homelessness and poverty, especially affecting children, are being made. As I talk with rescue mission leaders and other social service workers, there are no clear facts or knowledge of just what the impact will be, but everyone agrees there will be an impact. Now, after our criticism and our belief in a better system, we are being asked to provide that help and those answers. Our analysis has been heard by policy makers and the question now is, "How will the community and church leaders respond?"

My belief is that the church and the Christian community have an opportunity to make a difference in lives, an opportunity that may not be available again. We say we have the solutions to life's problems. Now we are being called upon to share those solutions at a critical time. We can make sure that the future does not become "The Worst of Times." he church needs to be a catalyst for change and use what it does well to help transform the community. ⁵

The new opportunities provided by Charitable Choice may give us the opportunity to do just that.

- Developed by Michael Liimatta, IUGM Director of Education