Taking government funding through charitable-choice provisions may be the right thing for some faith-based organizations, but it is not for everyone, a panel of speakers said during the Faith in Action conference.
The group of charitable-choice experts was assembled for a standing-room-only workshop during the Oct. 2-3 conference in Houston, sponsored by the Texas governor’s office and Leadership Network.
Just because charitable-choice funding is now available in Texas “does not mean every church should go hunting for funds,” said Stanley Carlson-Thies, regarded as one of the nation’s leading experts on government funding of faith-based organizations. “It also does not mean only services funded by government are worthwhile.”
Charitable choice is a general description applied to funding made available to faith-based organizations through welfare-reform legislation passed beginning in 1996. It is “a new set of rules that apply when a state or local government uses certain federal funds to buy services for poor families,” explained Carlson-Thies, director of social policy studies at the Center for Public Justice.
“Past rules often required services to be secularized and excluded many faith-based organizations from contracting,” he continued. “Charitable choice ensures that faith-based providers have a chance to compete to provide the services, and it protects their religious character if they accept government funds.”
Put another way, “When you stand before us, we’re going to treat you just like everybody else. We’re going to try to ignore the fact that God is standing behind you,” explained Debby Kratky, welfare-to-work manager for the Tarrant County Workforce Board.
Charitable-choice dollars currently are available for welfare services, welfare-to-work programs and community-services block grants.
Although the U.S. Congress has mandated the charitable-choice provisions, Texas is among only a handful of states to have implemented the requirements, Carlson-Thies said.
Almost 40 states have not changed policies that limit or prevent faith-based groups from providing welfare services to the poor, according to a recent report from the Center for Public Justice.
The center has commended Texas, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin as the only states to fully implement charitable-choice guidelines.
Although charitable-choice legislation prohibits government from discriminating against religious organizations in awarding social service funding, it likewise prohibits religious organizations receiving those funds from discrimination in determining whom to serve.
Religious organizations receiving government funding may display religious symbols, may use faith-based concepts and language and may use certain religious criteria in hiring, Carlson-Thies said. However, they may not discriminate against recipients of aid, may not require recipients to participate in religious activities in order to receive aid and must be willing to provide an alternative source of aid if a recipient objects to working with the religious provider.
Further, the government funds may only be used for assisting needy families, not to support inherently religious activities such as worship.
For example, these restrictions would prevent a church from using charitable-choice funds to build or remodel a chapel. Faith-based organizations drawing on public funds also could not require recipients of a meal to participate in a religious service first — a common practice in many Christian ministries to the homeless.
Churches must be accountable for their use of charitable-choice dollars, both Kratky and Carlson-Thies emphasized.
And recipients of government funding must be flexible to meet the current needs of government agencies, Kratky said. “If you cannot be flexible, find another funding source.”
Faith-based organizations seeking government funding must find out what service government needs and then determine if they are willing to provide that service, she said. “Do your homework.”
Even then, no church or faith-based service agency should become totally dependent upon government funding for its services, Carlson-Thies advised. “Plan ahead what you will do if government funding dries up or an unacceptable condition becomes the price of continued funding,” Carlson-Thies said. (ABP)
Share with others: