Bush Faces Big Hurdles in Carrying Out ‘Compassionate Conservatism’

By LESLIE LENKOWSKY

When Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, and Jesse Helms all agree, either a real consensus has formed, or somebody’s confused.

All four of those people — and many of their supporters — now firmly believe that government should rely more heavily on religious groups and other charities to provide services. But as President Bush will quickly discover, turning the relationship between philanthropy and government into an effective one is far more challenging than many in Washington and elsewhere seem to realize. It will require big changes by government and new approaches by many charities that neither has been able to accomplish very well in the past.

During his campaign for the White House, Mr. Bush made no secret of his desire to enlist what he called the “armies of compassion” to deal with the nation’s most difficult social problems.

“In every instance where my administration sees a responsibility to help people,” he said in an Indianapolis speech at the beginning of his bid for the presidency, “we will look first to faith-based organizations, charities, and community groups that have shown their ability to save and change lives.”

Reports from those working on plans for the new administration indicate he intends to make good on that pledge, including his promise to appoint a faith-based adviser to serve in the White House.

Not as widely known is that just such an effort had been under way during the Clinton years. Indeed, according to “Partnerships for a Stronger Civil Society,” a report by the Interagency Task Force on Nonprofits and Government issued this month, the past eight years have seen dozens of examples of “new ground” being broken in the creation of partnerships.

Among them were a variety of efforts with religious groups, including the creation of the Center for Community and Interfaith Partnerships at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The result, the report asserts, has been “a dramatic difference” in how the federal government does its work.

And it has not just been those in the White House who have been looking for ways to make charities more influential. Less than two weeks before President Bush was sworn in, Senator Helms proposed that foreign-aid money be distributed by charities, instead of through the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“Those who know me are aware that I have long opposed foreign-aid programs that have lined the pockets of corrupt dictators, while funding the salaries of a growing, bloated bureaucracy,” said Mr. Helms, a North Carolina Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But, he declared, he would even back an increase in support, if the assistance were spent in a manner consistent with “President Bush’s compassionate conservative’ vision.”

The public seems to back the efforts in Washington to pay more attention to faith-based groups. A new survey by the Public Agenda Foundation found that a majority of Americans support increased financing of religious organizations.

Even with so much political and popular support, however, President Bush has many challenges ahead as he seeks to place charities on center stage.

One big question is whether faith-based and community groups are capable of taking on broader responsibilities. Many are small and intimate, unaccustomed to working with people who may not always share their values. They often have difficulty attracting commitments from private donors and foundations, and, as a result, have trouble expanding their operations.

Some have had a hard time retaining members and volunteers as well. Indeed, there is a bit of a paradox in the calls for more assistance from voluntary associations just when the evidence suggests that fewer Americans are willing to reach out and help each other, as was noted in a report just issued by a prominent group associated with Robert Putnam, the Harvard University scholar who wrote Bowling Alone.

Perhaps a greater obstacle, however, is the difficulty facing nonprofit groups, especially those not versed in the ways of Washington, that want to work with government. Among the barriers enumerated in the Clinton administration’s report are a variety of legal issues, such as rules governing contract and payment requirements; complicated financing and reporting procedures; and a lack of familiarity or openness on the part of government bureaucrats toward philanthropic groups. Persistent involvement by high-level managers, both from government and charity, seems to be such a common requirement for success that creating additional partnerships appears to be a daunting task.

Faith-based organizations must overcome additional hurdles. They must deal with uncertainty over the ground rules for government support of religious groups. In at least two states (Texas and Wisconsin), court cases are pending, challenging the legitimacy of existing laws allowing faith-based groups to compete for government grants. Just as important, many religious groups have not been welcomed by government for so long that they have erected a psychological barrier that often prevents them from even considering any kind of partnership.

President Bush’s desire to mobilize “armies of compassion” reflects a desire to break down such barriers. But for at least the past four decades, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed similar hopes, believing that such partnerships would be more flexible, innovative, efficient, and accountable to local leadership than government bureaucracies were.

The results, however, have often been disappointing. Particularly troubling is that government partnerships seem to force charities to sacrifice much of what makes them valuable. Religious charities have often found that they must mute their spiritual aspects as a cost of doing business with the government, and other charities have had to give up the qualities that make them best able to mobilize citizens for a common purpose.

Although it is far from clear that faith-based organizations and community groups can respond effectively to this latest call to work with government, an even bigger challenge may be awaiting the federal bureaucracy. For if “compassionate conservatism” is to get a fair test, let alone succeed, the Bush administration will have to overhaul the way government collaborates with the philanthropic world, and especially the faith-based and grassroots organizations that are such a valuable part of it.

Leslie Lenkowsky is a professor of philanthropic studies and public policy at the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and a regular contributor to these pages. His e-mail address is llenkows@upui.edu.