c. 2005 Religion News Service
(UNDATED) In a major speech March 1 to community leaders and policy-makers, President Bush outlined new priorities for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative for his second term. Absent from these priorities, however, is any plan to increase overall social service spending. In fact, the president’s budget proposes cuts to many social programs, citing the need for fiscal discipline. Could it be then, as some critics suggest, that the faith-based initiative is really only smoke and mirrors after all, big talk but little action to help the poor?
No, the real story is more complicated than that.
It is true, of course, that faith-based organizations (FBOs) can do their transformative work only if they have access to sufficient public and private resources. A closer look at the budget shows that funding levels for many programs remain constant. Some programs face deep cuts. Certain programs for the homeless and refugees receive modest to significant increases. Congress, too, will soon have its say.
Bush’s four priorities show that the real genius and impact of the initiative cannot be measured only in dollar figures. As necessary as funding is, equally important and perhaps more ambitious is the initiative’s ultimate intent _ revolutionizing how government works with community groups to meet the most pressing needs in our communities. We must ask not only “How much?” but also “In what way?” government should do its vital, irreplaceable work.
The president’s priorities are timely and on target. The lion’s share of federal funding is administered by state and local officials who bear responsibility to ensure that FBOs now have access to funds under the administration’s new, equal opportunity guidelines. However, most states still lag behind in implementing these new regulations that prevent discrimination against religious groups and guarantee a level playing field.
The White House will work more closely with state and local governments to ensure that faith-based organizations have an equal chance to obtain public funds designed to help the homeless, heal the drug-addicted, and transform broken lives, families and communities. Greater coordination and accountability are urgently needed and are long overdue.
Second, the president advocated the greater use of vouchers in after-school programs and services for youth and the homeless. Some critics have a visceral reaction against the V-word. Yet for over a decade parents have used vouchers to choose child care by FBOs and secular organizations. Vouchers maximize the freedom of organizations to be fully faith-based without raising constitutional red flags under the Supreme Court’s current and often incoherent rulings. Vouchers also empower the needy to make their own choices on their path to greater independence.
Third, the administration advocates tax incentives to stimulate greater charitable giving to grass-roots groups. The president’s budget includes provisions that promote giving to food banks and permit citizens to donate a portion of their retirement accounts to charities without incurring tax penalties. This priority properly reflects that the government can use several means at its disposal to encourage the work of the “Armies of Compassion,” including tax reform and not only direct government funding. The lessons of the first four years of the initiative teach that fighting poverty and meeting human needs require both major government investment and major community involvement to make a lasting impact. A “both-and” approach is needed, not an “either-or.”
Finally, the president committed himself to defend FBOs against the misguided attacks of some members of Congress who argue that religious organizations should no longer be permitted to use religious criteria in hiring staff to run their programs when they receive public funds. Here again, the “How” details of government partnerships are crucial. When considering whether or not to partner with the government, many leaders of faith-based organizations say the concern they bring to the table is not just whether government will “show me the money,” but also what conditions or “strings” will attach to those dollars.
The real innovation of the initiative is to add new protections for the independence and religious character of faith-based organizations, so they will no longer be forced to choose between faithfulness to their mission and accepting public funds. Without this freedom to hire like-minded staff, which Congress recognized in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many faith-based organizations could easily lose their distinct Jewish, Christian, Muslim, interfaith and other identities and the shared sense of religious mission that helps their staff provide effective services. Faith-based leaders of many faiths last week cheered the president’s renewed promise to ensure that he will honor the principle that they and not the government should control their hiring policies.
Congress should have a vigorous debate about the budget and appropriate spending levels. The president, to his credit, has now launched a vigorous debate about how to fix the way government works to promote justice for people of all faiths in the public square.
MO/PH RNS END
(Stephen Lazarus is senior policy associate at the Center for Public Justice, a nonpartisan public policy think tank in the Washington, D.C., area that advises state governments on the implementation of charitable choice and the faith-based initiative.)
