Solutions to Poverty Must Be Based on More Than Faith

Appeals for “faith-based” solutions to serious social problems have become commonplace — even more among legislators, it seems, than among religious leaders. Along with those appeals have come cutbacks in government funds for programs that for years have provided a “safety net” for the neediest members of society.

By declaring that solutions to social problems are as much spiritual as material, politicians may be attempting to co-opt and misuse the best of religious idealism to relieve or lessen the government’s responsibility for alleviating poverty and the social woes that surround it. Religiously affiliated organizations, as well as other charities and the public at large, should carefully assess any role designated in government policy for faith-based groups, lest programs and policies gain credibility and political support they do not deserve.

The implication underlying recent legislative efforts like the federal welfare overhaul of 1996, which allows government funds to be directed to religiously affiliated social-services groups, is that if more such groups could get involved, they could make a major difference in reversing the negative effects of poverty and related problems. Lost in the debate is the fact that religiously affiliated organizations already are a huge presence in the human-services field, with many receiving significant financial support from government.

Catholic Charities USA, of which I was president from 1982 to 1992, receives more than 60 per cent of its budget from government grants and contracts. The same is true of Lutheran Social Services. And while religiously affiliated groups like the Salvation Army and the Y.M.C.A. receive far smaller percentages of their budgets from government, they nonetheless rely on tens of millions of dollars of government support for programs that provide much-needed human services.

That being the case, why such special attention now to faith-based groups? Could it be that it is meant to create the illusion that government programs are no longer needed?

From my experience at Catholic Charities, I know that social problems are far greater than what non-profit human-services providers, including faith-based groups, can realistically be expected to solve.

In 1982, Catholic Charities’ social-services network of affiliated charities had 3.5 million clients, 23 per cent of whom needed such basics as food and shelter. The majority of programs at the time were designed to provide either short-term, specialized services — such as adoption aid, resettlement support, or family counseling — or long-term residential care for frail elderly people or neglected children.

Ten years later, the Catholic Charities system was serving 12 million clients, of whom 68 per cent needed food and shelter. The demand for emergency services was so high that Catholic Charities had neither the resources nor the time to provide what was most needed by its new clientele: jobs, higher welfare payments, and economic investment in neighborhoods. Those clearly could most effectively be provided by government policies, as well as by corporate efforts.

Since that time, the situation has gotten more desperate for those at the very bottom of the economic ladder. One has to wonder whether in turning now to faith-based groups, legislators are trying to combat poverty — or merely trying to reduce welfare dependency.

The term “faith-based” itself arose out of partisan public-policy debates among politicians rather than from the religious or non-profit worlds. But a closer examination of the ideals of most religions would reveal that spirituality generally is not viewed as a substitute for overall community responsibility.

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, commitment to God is measured by the way adherents care for the weakest in a community and work to lessen the differences between rich and poor, strong and weak. It means working for the common good — which is perceived to be the will of God.

To allow the development of spiritual values to serve as a justification for providing less material assistance to the poor is a misreading of religious philosophy. Certainly, the spiritual aspect of religion is necessary to give people a sense of belonging and, with it, the ability to be productive and the means to cope with rejection, failure, and alienation.

But spiritual growth cannot compensate for material needs. While religious groups can feel honored to be identified by their government as a positive force in the solution of difficult social problems, they must be careful to choose appropriate activities consistent with their faith and traditions — and not those imposed by society and government expectations.

The authentic mission of religiously based social-service providers is to help people to live decently and independently in spite of a stressful environment. That consciousness allows many (though not all) faith-based groups to act with other individuals or organizations, including the government, in serving the greater good of society. It permits faith-based communities to reach those goals through direct service, social advocacy, and public education. It also requires adherents to insure that the programs and services they offer reflect the faith-filled conviction of God’s love for all people.

Thus, social-service providers at religiously affiliated organizations need not view any and all opportunities and resources that come from public policy as being good and altruistic. Some opportunities may rightfully be considered to be detrimental to the powerless in society and, therefore, inappropriate.

For example, there is little to be gained from programs to place people in low-wage, dead-end jobs that can never lift workers or their families above the poverty line. Instead, the efforts of religious people might better be spent trying to push for higher wages, moderately priced or subsidized housing, and other policies that would benefit their clientele. Only then will poor people truly have a fair chance to better their situations.

If public welfare policy is to be successful in changing lives, it needs direct input from people affected by the policies, as well as from the organizations that provide services to those people. Providing data and advocating in behalf of their clients is sometimes a more important role for faith-based groups and organizations than offering services that make it easy for government to withdraw from the responsibility of promoting the general welfare of all the people.

Programs and policies that come from a political process often reflect vested interest more than commitment to the common good. Real fidelity to faith demands the wisdom to know when that is true.

Thomas J. Harvey is president emeritus of Catholic Charities USA. This article is adapted from a paper he wrote while a visiting fellow at the Nonprofit Sector Research Fund at the Aspen Institute in Washington.