Rethinking ‘Charitable Choice’

To the Editor:

In light of the House of Representatives’ passage of a bill supporting President Bush’s faith-based initiative and signs that the Senate will modify the House version, the need to rethink charitable choice — the term used for direct government funding of social services provided by religious congregations — is more imperative than ever. The focus ought to be on this question: How can government, religious congregations, faith-based and secular nonprofit organizations, and foundations all play a constructive role in addressing the needs of children and families in poverty?

At a recent meeting of Independent Sector and the Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy Program of the Aspen Institute, attended by 150 nonprofit leaders, one of the primary conclusions was that there is a need to broaden the discussion beyond charitable choice.

If we begin with the notion that the faith-based initiative is intended to address the needs of vulnerable populations in this country, then our attention must focus on what is needed to bring children, families, and communities out of poverty. Increasing the flow of resources, from both government and private sources, is a necessary but not sufficient step to address the persistence of poverty. Adding new players to the battle against poverty without increasing the flow of resources is also an inadequate response. Both are necessary. Building new partnerships and learning from effective solutions are also necessary.

There are several ways in which this agenda should be moved forward now. For example, there are no constitutional impediments barring government from channeling its funding to secular community groups providing social services — but there are bureaucratic hurdles and capacity issues that must be overcome. This is one area where government could do more right now.

Second, there is no church-state issue preventing increased support from foundations or corporate grant makers to faith-based service providers, when those programs are effectively addressing community needs. But, to make a real impact, government, foundations, and corporate philanthropy need to dedicate additional resources to meeting the needs of vulnerable populations.

There are also serious gaps in our knowledge about the role, capacity, and effectiveness of religious congregations in providing social services. We need to know more before we rush headlong into supporting one approach or another. We should also acknowledge that the question is not whether one approach, secular or faith-based, is necessarily more effective than another, but rather what are the strengths and weaknesses that different social-service providers bring to various problems and population groups.

Finally, there is a need to bring new voices to the table, including minority faiths, African American and Hispanic church leaders, and community activists.

On the more narrow issue of charitable choice itself, a frank discussion of opposing views reveals several points on which all parties probably concur. First, the issue has been thoroughly politicized. Second, charitable choice raises much larger issues for many of the key protagonists involved. These range from legal precedents that may be set regarding treatment of federal support for parochial schools, to fundamental questions of separation of church and state.

There is also, however, broad agreement on a number of points related to charitable choice. Do religious congregations have an important role in meeting community needs, and should that role be expanded? Yes. Should the government do more to address poverty and the needs of vulnerable populations in this country? Yes. Can the government enact some tax-policy changes that will increase the flow of private resources to religious congregations and nonprofits generally? Yes. Do faith-based organizations that receive government funding also need to use their prophetic voice to speak out against injustice? An unequivocal yes. Do there need to be new mechanisms put in place to provide increased government funding to nontraditional social-service providers? Yes. Is direct government funding of religious congregations the way to do that? Here, views differ.

On charitable choice, it may not be possible to forge an agreement acceptable to all. However, the challenge to the nonprofit, philanthropic, and religious communities is to develop workable proposals in the areas of agreement that will serve to bring new resources, players, and solutions to the fight against poverty. Then, the bigger challenge will be to translate these proposals into policy, with resources included. But the issue is much broader than charitable choice.

Peter Shiras
Senior Vice President for Programs
Independent Sector
Washington