Church, State and Money

Both Al Gore and George W. Bush promised during last year’s campaign to involve religious organizations in delivering social services. Bush, in putting forth a broad plan Monday to help churches and charities get a piece of the federal pie, signaled his seriousness on the issue. However, as the experience of the states has already shown, there’s no easy path through America’s sectarian thicket.

The controversy over attorney general nominee John Ashcroft’s religious beliefs and their effect on his secular work should serve as a warning about how divisive this issue can be if it is mishandled by the new administration.

The work of funneling federal dollars to faith-based communities currently is done at the state level under the Charitable Choice provision of the 1996 welfare reform law. In Los Angeles, for instance, First AME Church operates a welfare-to-work program funded by Charitable Choice dollars. There is a longer history of religious involvement in federal spending for social services ranging from subsidies to Catholic hospitals to money spent in low-income neighborhoods during the war on poverty.

Most religious groups involved in this work understand and support the importance of separation of church and state, but abuses can occur, especially where Christian evangelicals see opportunities to make converts of those who need services. A number of states, including California, have not even implemented some Charitable Choice regulations or have been slow to embrace the program in part because they still are sorting out complex questions about how to protect civil rights and prevent proselytizing.

The White House initiative would get in trouble quickly if its approach were to sweep aside constitutional questions in favor of cutting red tape. Bush showed sensitivity to this issue in naming John J. DiIulio Jr., a University of Pennsylvania political scientist who has done research on religion and criminal justice, to head the White House office and former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith as chairman of the new Corporation for National Service. They can start with important guideposts--the Supreme Court’s long-standing instruction that social programs administered by faith communities be secular in intent and the congressional prohibition against proselytizing by programs using Charitable Choice dollars.

It is a line easily crossed, as suggested by several court tests of state programs. In President Bush’s home state of Texas, the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project are challenging a grant to a church-run jobs program that they say has required Bible study and otherwise pressured participants.

It will be important for the new White House office to insist on common standards for ensuring that money is well spent, that employees and applicants face no discrimination on religious grounds and that the broad range of faith groups now involved in social work is represented.

The administration should enlist university-based groups like USC’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture and Harvard Divinity School in formulating any expanded federal reach. These academic institutions understand the complexity of 1st Amendment issues in a diverse society, are familiar with legislative and judicial history and know what sorts of programs work and what don’t.

As tempting as it may be for the Bush team to think in grand terms about unleashing the power of religious communities, the greater need now is for care and restraint. Religious charities, if they understand the civic nature of their work, could be a vibrant addition to secular social welfare. But they cannot substitute for a broad nationwide safety net.