Column Missed a Key Point

To the Editor:

Leslie Lenkowsky’s column (“Bush Faces Big Hurdles in Carrying Out ‘Compassionate Conservatism,’” Opinion, January 25) misses a key point in the development of practical, effective relationships and public-private partnerships between government and charitable and religious organizations.

There are already a number of highly effective religious-based organizations that have learned how to work with federal, state, and local governments in ways that are effective for clients and accountable for public funds, and are still true to the charter and mission of their organizations.

The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services, Goodwill Industries, Volunteers of America, and Lutheran Social Services are all organizations that have operated for years and have included public-private partnership within their larger scope of responsibilities.

What is needed is not a debate about whether a faith-based organization can provide quality, noncoercive services with dignity for all participants and provide additional value because of the faith-based nature of the providing organizations. Instead, what is needed is an examination of “best practices” among the organizations that have longtime track records in providing such services. That is needed in order to determine a common group of standards that should be adhered to by new faith-based and charitable providers that seek to work in partnership with government agencies.

I suggest that a careful review of these organizations, which have differences in religious beliefs but share similarities in structure and service delivery, might include at least the following three key strengths that new faith-based charitable organizations might seek to emulate:

First, the organization must have a clear sense of its own mission and purpose, so that it can understand what contracts to engage in and what contracts to avoid.

Second, the organization must have strong internal audit systems, or must purchase similar audit services, that are stricter than the audits that would be expected from the agency that provides the funds.

Third, the faith-based organization or other charity that aspires to utilize public funds for the public good must see itself as a team member within the existing fabric of public and private agencies, rather than as a sole Don Quixote who tilts at windmills without reference to other participants in the continuum of care in a given local community.

The issue is not whether the provision of public services by faith-based organizations is a good thing or a bad thing. That is a useless debate. The right question to ask is how these services are best provided by those who have spent years and years developing internal controls, systems and supervision, and integrity of program commitment, so that new organizations can develop similar approaches to effective quality assurance.

Of course, practical examination is never as much fun as the exercise of polemic. However, that practical examination is what is needed if we are going to expand care for our most fragile citizens and facilitate independence in all citizens who are capable of achieving that goal.

John R. Cheydleur
Captain
Territorial Social Services Secretary
Salvation Army
West Nyack, N.Y.

***

To the Editor:

Thousands of welfare recipients across the country have been assisted in the transition to work by the personal care and time-intensive support of church members and religious nonprofit workers. Many of those providing this social aid have been able to expand existing ministries or establish new programs because of the “charitable choice” provision that was part of the 1996 federal welfare reform act.

Leslie Lenkowsky correctly asserts that faith-based organizations still face considerable barriers. But his piece does not mention charitable choice, which removed the most significant barrier: government discrimination against faith-based providers. The law finally leveled the playing field for all groups seeking state procurement of welfare services. Now what we most need is compliance of states with federal law. States are required to dismantle old restrictive policies and practices that keep faith-based groups from competing equally.

A recent study by the Center for Public Justice, a public-policy and civic-education group, shows that only 12 states received passing grades for their implementation of charitable choice. The other 38 states and the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands all failed to comply with the law.

The charitable-choice concept is a revolutionary paradigm of partnership between government and the faith-based sector of civil society. President Bush is not venturing into any new territory. In fact, as governor of Texas he aggressively implemented charitable choice. His Office of Faith-Based and Community-Based Initiatives in the White House will advocate the application of charitable choice to all federal laws that authorize the government to use nongovernmental entities to provide services to beneficiaries with federal dollars.

Houses of worship and religious ministries are sometimes the only ones that reach out to the poor in America’s inner cities. Research indicates that religious groups are among the most effective agents in helping people transform their lives and become self-reliant, productive citizens. President Bush is to be commended for wanting to advance charitable choice, and states that have not complied with federal law should do so.

Michelle Voll
Development Director
Center for Public Justice
Annapolis, Md.