2 of 3

Kennedy is also worried that faith-based organizations lack the "constitutional competence" for implementing government-funded programs under charitable choice. But her claim is not based on an assessment of those FBOs actually operating programs under contracts with government. Rather, she conducted a random survey of 103 congregational leaders in South Bend, Indiana, quizzing them on the ins and outs of the First Amendment. She finds the fact that most received "Ds" on this civics exam profoundly disturbing. But that lack of constitutional knowledge should not be a big surprise. And it would be a worry only if these leaders received government contracts without also receiving training in the rules.

What we should be concerned about, instead, is whether FBOs actually contracting with government know how to comply with constitutional requirements under charitable choice. And here the evidence is reassuring. John Green of the Bliss Institute, a leading researcher on questions of religion and public life, and I surveyed nearly 400 leaders of faith-based organizations holding government contracts for social service programs in 15 states. We found strong compliance. Overall, the vast majority of faith-based contractors segregated public funds from money used for inherently religious purposes. Most provided special training for staff, to help them understand what kinds of activities could and could not occur on the government's nickel. Among the most robustly faith-filled groups, 70 percent held their inherently religious activities at special times, separating them from government-funded services. Others held them at separate locations.

Our survey also found that these faith-based contractors take protecting clients' civil liberties very seriously. Approximately three-quarters indicated that they intentionally reassure clients that their participation in any inherently religious activities is voluntary and that service provision is in no way contingent on such participation. Nearly as many inform clients of their right to an alternative provider (even though technically, under most versions of charitable choice, this is the responsibility of government, not of the FBO). Apparently, most clients of faith-based programs are satisfied: overall, only nine percent of the faith-based contractors reported any clients leaving their programs to opt for an alternative, and all these said that the number of clients who had left was five or fewer.

All this evidence—based on religious leaders actually working with government—suggests Kennedy's worries about "constitutional competence" are misplaced. The bottom line from the frontlines is that charitable choice is working and is broadening the social safety net with new faith-based providers. That means that people in need—who are sometimes people of faith—have more choices. And that just makes good sense.

Amy L. Sherman is Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute's Welfare Policy Center.

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

June (Web-only) 2003, Vol. 47