Spring, 1998, Vol. 4, No. 2

Tender Mercies:

Does Religion Have a Place in Social Work?

By Eun M. Neyer, a second-year SSA student with a concentration in administration. Her field placement is at the Office of the Inspector General.

In the fall of 1993, the president of the local chamber of commerce in the north side neighborhood of Anderson-ville noticed a small group of men and women picking up trash from the streets. After a quick investigation, she learned that they were guests' of a homeless center located just blocks away. Because the staff at Breakthrough Urban Ministries believe it is more dignifying to provide pay for work than a handout, the men and women were asked to help around the center and pick up trash in return for cash assistance. The president was so impressed by the program she asked Breakthrough staff if the Chamber could hire the men and women to clean on a regular basis. Breakthrough's executive director quickly accepted the offer, and the Cleanstreet project was born. Today, Cleanstreet has six street cleaning contracts from Rogers Park to Hyde Park. It is the most publicized program at Breakthrough, and its success is giving birth to other job programs that teach skills and promote self-sufficiency.

Breakthrough is one example of numerous faith-based organizations and church programs providing social services in the city and throughout the country. Like Breakthrough, most organizations started out as church programs responding to the needs of their communities. Although many have formed separate nonprofit status, they retain close ties to their churches and their religious mission. It is this religious mission that has drawn criticism from many, including the social service profession which contends the purpose of these programs is to push religion rather than address the physical and emotional needs of the disadvantaged. Furthermore, many social service professionals and academics believe that religion is not relevant to the concerns of their profession, and consequently, social service delivery by churches and faith-based organizations is generally ignored or dismissed.

Whether these criticisms are warranted, the fact is that faith-based providers are growing in number, and their success in meeting the needs of their communities is drawing increasing recognition. The west side of Chicago, generally known for its high poverty and high crime rates, is home to three of these providers: Bethel New Life in West Garfield Park begun by Bethel Lutheran Church, Lawndale Christian Development in North Lawndale begun by Lawndale Community Church, and Circle Urban Ministries in Austin begun by Rock of Our Salvation Evangelical Free Church. In the last two decades, all three have had tremendously positive impacts in their communities through serving and building long term relationships with individuals and families. Today, they provide numerous services including jobs, youth, health, education and community development programs.

Many other successful faith-based programs are relatively unknown and have remained small and anonymous by choice or due to lack of funds. Although many larger providers receive public funds, many smaller providers do not because of legal restrictions. However, a provision incorporated in the social welfare reform may weaken these restrictions and potentially give faith-based providers the ability to receive government funding in return for the delivery of welfare services.

The Charitable Choice (CC) provision was incorporated in Section 2104 (H.R. 3734) of the 1996 federal welfare legislation. The purpose of the provision is to encourage states to involve community and faith-based organizations as providers of services funded under the federal welfare law, while protecting the religious character of the participating organizations and the religious freedom of beneficiaries. This law aims to help beneficiaries become self-sufficient through services, many of which can be effectively provided by faith-based organizations. Examples include job search and job skills training programs,community service positions, drug treatment services and health clinics.

The provision applies when states enter into contracts or voucher arrangements with independent sector organizations under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). A state that chooses to involve nongovernmental organizations must allow faith-based organizations to compete with secular organizations for contracts and may not discriminate against faith-based providers due to their religious character. However, the state must then utilize its usual criteria in order to decide whether a particular organization will be awarded a contract or allowed to redeem vouchers.

To protect the religious integrity of faith-based providers, those that accept government funds have the right to maintain a religious environment; to use religious criteria in employment decisions subject to other anti-discrimination laws; and to limit the scope of fiscal audits by segregating federal funds into separate accounts. However, providers cannot require beneficiaries to actively participate in religious activities in order to receive services, nor can they use contract funds to pay for worship services, sectarian instruction or to proselytize.

The chief protection for beneficiaries exists in their choice of providers. Under the provision, states that contract with aith-based providers need to inform beneficiaries of the religious or non-religious character of each provider, and of their right to an alternative should they object to the religious character of a provider. In addition, the state must ensure that a comparable service is available in a timely manner from another provider. Beneficiaries who receive vouchers can make their own decision about which provider to utilize.

As expected there are many opponents of this provision who contend that CC violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Opponents call CC "government sponsored religion" and claim the provision breaks down the delicate balance between church and state, harms religion and individual religious liberty, and forces states to enter into contracts with religious organizations.

Proponents of CC claim there is no violation of the Establishment Clause if government funds are expended for general public purposes, even if the provider of the services is a faith-based organization. They claim government is not aiding religion; rather it is aiding beneficiaries by means of nongovernmental organizations, some of which may be faith-based. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has never ruled against a social welfare program on the grounds that some religious organizations participate in the program.

The theory behind CC is based on the reasoning of such scholars as Stehpon Monsma, a professor of Political Science at Pepperdine University. Monsma believes that non-profit organizations, and in particular religious non-profits, are key to fighting poverty and helping the needy rather than a large centralized public bureaucracy. Because poverty-fighting programs must work with the poor on a personal and individual level, religiously based non-profits have the potential to play an important role. Monsma contends these religious organizations have the flexibility, the community and neighborhood roots to relate personally to those in need and build on existing structures. Therefore, religiously based organizations should not be limited and restricted in the services they can provide due to certain legal interpretations by the Supreme Court. It is their autonomy (i.e. their freedom to live out their religiously rooted beliefs), which includes control over the practice and development of their programs, that make these organizations a success. If they lose their autonomy, they are stripped of the religious identity that enables them to succeed.

In the past 25 years, the Supreme Court appears to have shifted towards a requirement that government remain neutral towards religion and religious organizations. But, as Monsma posits, the current legal interpretations are not neutral. To be truly neutral means government should not recognize, accommodate or support any particular religion over any other, nor should it support either religious or secular world views and organizations over the other. In other words, government should not help or hinder any particular religion or religion in general, but neither should it promote secular belief systems.

It remains to be seen whether the partnership between government and nongovernmental organizations outlined in the CC provision will survive under the Establishment Clause. Most states have been proceeding slowly with implementation of the provision while determining whether it violates the Clause. At a time when the needs of welfare recipients are increasing due to changes in family structure and recent welfare cuts, what better entity than the church to deliver services? Scores of churches and other religious institutions exist in almost every community-established, respected entities, traditionally known for helping the disadvantaged. Many are already providing services whether formally or informally. They have the required facilities, the available manpower, and the desire to fulfill their mission to help the poor and needy. Furthermore, although many faith-based providers will not ignore their religious mission, contrary to many people's perceptions, most do not require beneficiaries to join in religious activities in exchange for services.

A recent study published in the fall of 1997 gives empirical support to these assertions. The study, conducted by Dr. Ram Cnaan at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, consisted of 111 local religious congregations in six cities across the country including 16 congregations in Chicago. Of the 111 congregations, 92.8% reported providing at least one social service. These results are similar to those found in 1993 by the Gallup organization that found nearly 92% of congregations reporting one or more programs in human services and welfare. All 16 Chicago congregations in the sample reported at least one program and 13 (81.3%) reported five or more programs. The study also found that the majority of beneficiaries receiving services were nonmembers. In Chicago the ratio of nonmember beneficiaries to member beneficiaries was 3.19:1 in favor of serving others outside church membership. Congregations were also found to rovide greatly needed facilities for use in the communities as well as high use of volunteers.

The social service profession should welcome collaboration with faith-based providers for several reasons. First, in light of growing emphasis on community based services and because of the trend towards state and community relationships, existing community entities such as the church are tremendous resources in assisting overburdened social service agencies. Second, faith-based providers, unlike many in the social service profession, have the ability and desire to provide for the spiritual aspect of clients who ask for it. Third, this is an opportunity for reciprocal relationships as faith-based providers can benefit from professional social work knowledge. Finally, both the social service profession and faith-based providers have a common purpose: to advocate for and to assist the disadvantaged.

In a time when need is increasing, the emphasis of social service professionals should be to advocate for the well-being and empowerment of the disadvantaged, and less on the legal aspects of CC which may infringe on personal or academic biases. If the provision works the way it is written and both providers and beneficiaries are protected, it's a win-win situation, with the poor being the ultimate winners.

REFERENCES

1. Blummer, R. (1997). Choose to Rescind Charitable Choice. [On-line]. http://www.aclufl.org/r-char.htm
2. Cnaan, R., (1997). Organized Religion and Social Work-A Final Report to Partners for Sacred Places, December 2, 1997. University of Pennsylvania.
3. Carlson-Theis, S. & Skillen, J., E.D. (Ed.) (1996). Welfare in America. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
4. Center for Public Justice, Washington, DC. (January, 1997). A Guide to Charitable Choice: The Rules of Section 104 of the 1996 Federal Welfare Law Governing State Cooperation with Faith-based Social-Service Providers.
5. Gordon, W. & Frame, R. (1995). Real Hope in Chicago. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.
6. Loewenberg, F. (1988). Religion and Social Work Practice in Contemporary American Society. New York: Columbia University Press.
7. Monsma, S. (1996). When Sacred and Secular Mix. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. People for the American Way Action Fund. (1996). "Charitable Choice" and Welfare Reform: Government Sponsored Religion. [On-line]. http://www.pfaw.org/actfund/welftlk2.htm
8. Weaver, J. (1997). Charitable Choice: Will this Provision of Welfare Reform Survive Constitutional Scrutiny? [On-line]. http://www.urich.edu/~perspec/issue3 weaver. htm

Eun M. Neyer is a second-year SSA student with a concentration in administration. Her field placement is at the Office of the Inspector General.

Return to the Table of Contents

Back to Adovocate's Forum