Charitable Choice: Bringing Religion Back into American Welfare

Journal of Policy History

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 109-132

  Carlson Thies, Stanley ^a  

^a Center for Public Justice   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012480569     PISSN: 08980306     EISSN: 15284190     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jph.2001.0020     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. See, for example, Michael Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986)
2. Ram A. Cnaan, with Robert J. Wineburg and Stephanie C. Boddie, The Newer Deal: Social Work and Religion in Partnership (New York, 1999), 86-87, and
3. Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass. 1995), 3ff.
4. Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Washington, D.C. 1992).
5. See also James L. Payne, Overcoming Welfare: Expecting More from the Poor—and from Ourselves (New York, 1998).
6. Martin E. Marty, The Modern Schism: Three Paths to the Secular (New York, 1969), 98.
7. On the concept of “deprivatization,” see José Casanova, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago, 1994).
8. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, 14.
9. In addition to Katz, particularly useful overviews of American welfare history for present purposes include Walter I. Trattner, From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 4th ed. (New York, 1989), and
10. June Axinn and Herman Levin, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need, 3d ed. (New York, 1992).
11. These examples are drawn from Diana S. Richmond Garland, Church Agencies: Caring for Children and Families in Crisis (Washington, D.C. 1994)
12. Norris Magnuson, Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social Work, 1865-1920 (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1990)
13. Diane Winston, Red- Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of The Salvation Army (Cambridge, Mass. 1999)
14. Olasky, Tragedy of American Compassion
15. Elizabeth McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us: Catholic Charities and American Welfare (Cambridge, Mass. 1997).
16. For the struggle of Catholic organizations to be able to collaborate with public agencies, see Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us.
17. See, for example, C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience (Durham, 1990), and
18. Andrew Billingsley, Mighty Like a River: The Black Church and Social Reform (New York, 1999).
19. Cnaan, Newer Deal, 58ff.;
20. Andrew W. Dobelstein, Moral Authority, Ideology, and the Future of American Social Welfare (Boulder, Colo. 1999), 60-75.
21. Theda Skocpol quotes the “big bang” characterization from Christopher Leman, albeit by way of criticizing the notion for minimizing earlier federal action and the complexity of American welfare history. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 4.
22. Axinn and Levin, Social Welfare, 185–201; the rule is reprinted at 204-5. See Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us, chap. 5, for Catholic Charities’ battle to retain a public role despite the new rule.
23. Axinn and Levin, Social Welfare, 198.
24. Steven Rathgeb Smith and Michael Lipsky, Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting (Cambridge, Mass. 1993), 53ff.;
25. Lester M. Salamon, Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State (Baltimore, 1995).
26. Cf. Smith and Lipsky, Nonprofits for Hire.
27. Joe Loconte, Seducing the Samaritan: How Goverment Contracts Are Reshaping Social Services (Boston, 1997).
28. For more nuanced views, see Stephen V. Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money (Lanham, Md. 1996), and
29. especially Charles L. Glenn, The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies (Princeton, 2000).
30. Dobelstein, Moral Authority, chap. 3;
31. Cnaan, Newer Deal, chap. 4.
32. Cf. Dobelstein, Moral Authority, chaps. 3-4;
33. Axinn and Levin, Social Welfare, 199–200.
34. James W. Skillen, “The Question of Being Human in Assessing the Requirements of Welfare Policy Reform,” in Welfare in America: Christian Perspectives on a Policy in Crisis, ed. Stanley W. Carlson-Thies and James W. Skillen (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996), 119-44;
35. Lawrence M. Mead, Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship (New York, 1986)
36. Neal Gilbert, Welfare Justice: Restoring Social Equity (New Haven, 1995).
37. Mary Jo Bane and David T. Ellwood, Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform (Cambridge, Mass. 1994), 2-7.
38. See, for example, Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United, States and Canada (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1992), chap. 14.
39. David O. Moberg, The Great Reversal: Evangelism and Social Concern, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1977).
40. Robert T. Handy, A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities, 2d ed. (New York, 1984), 142.
41. Presbyterian Church (USA), “God Alone is Lord of the Conscience”: Policy Statement and Recommendations Regarding Religious Liberty, Report of the Committee on Religious Liberty and Church/State Relations (adopted by the 200th General Assembly, 1989), 31.
42. Robert T. Handy, Undermined Establishment: Church-State Relations in America, 1880-1920 (Princeton, 1991), 7.
43. Charles Leslie Glenn Jr. The Myth of the Common School (Amherst, 1988)
44. Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us.
45. Useful dissections of no-aid separationism include Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix;
46. Idem, Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring (Westport, Conn. 1993)
47. Carl E. Esbeck, “A Constitutional Case for Governmental Cooperation with Faith-based Social Service Providers,” Emory Law Journal 46, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 1-41
48. Douglas Laycock, “The Underlying Unity of Separation and Neutrality,” Emory Law Journal 46, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 43-74.
49. The case is Bowen v. Kendrick (1988). For commentary on the case and dispute about its outcome and about the validity of the “pervasively sectarian” concept
50. see, for exmple, Carl H. Esbeck, “The Neutral Treatment of Religion and Faith-based Social Service Providers: Charitable Choice and Its Critics,”
51. Alan Brownstein, “Constitutional Questions About Charitable Choice,” both in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Derek Davis and Barry Hankins (Waco, Tex. 1999), at 173-217 and 219-65, respectively.
52. This is the strong argument of Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix.
53. Cnaan, Newer Deal, 181.
54. Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix, chap. 3.
55. Mead, Beyond Entitlement
56. Lawrence M. Mead, The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America (New York, 1992).
57. United States General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence, GAO/HEHS-98-109 (Washington, D.C. June 1998)
58. Richard P. Nathan and Thomas L. Gais, Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1999: A First Look (Albany, N.Y. 1999).
59. Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 (New York, 1984)
60. David T. Ellwood, Poor Support (New York, 1988).
61. Michael Novak et al. The New Consensus on Family and Welfare: A Community of Self- Reliance (Washington, D.C. and Milwaukee, 1987).
62. Peter L. Berger, and Richard John Neuhaus, To Empower People: From State to Civil Society, ed. Michael Novak, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C. 1996)
63. Don E. Eberly, ed. Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the 21st Century (Lanham, Md. 1994)
64. E. J. Dionne Jr. ed. Community Works: The Revival of Civil Society in America (Washington, D.C. 1998).
65. For a summary of the law, see Congressional Quarterly 1996 Almanac (Washington, D.C. 1997), 6-13-6-21;
66. Congressional Quarterly 1997 Almanac (Washington, D.C. 1998), 2- 57-2-58, 6-31-6-36.
67. The “help and hassle” idea is from Lawrence M. Mead, “Welfare Employment,” in The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, ed. Lawrence M. Mead (Washington, D.C. 1997), 61-63.
68. Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, “‘Don’t Look to Us’: The Negative Responses of the Churches to Welfare Reform,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 11, no. 2, “Entitlements” special issue (1997): 667-89.
69. Charitable Choice was section 104 of the federal welfare reform law, P.L. 104-93. The section is reprinted, with extensive commentary and guidance, in 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 (Washington, D.C. and Annandale, Va.: Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society and Center for Public Justice, January 1997).
70. Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, “Faith-based Institutions Cooperating with Public Welfare: The Promise of the Charitable Choice Provision,” in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Derek Davis and Barry Hankins (Waco, Tex. 1999), 34-35.
71. Quoted in Carlson-Thies, “Faith-based Institutions Cooperating with Public Welfare,” 38.
72. See also Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix, chaps. 3-5;
73. Loconte, Seducing the Samaritan
74. Carl H. Esbeck, The Regulation of Religious Organizations as Recipients of Governmental Assistance (Washington, D.C. 1996).
75. See, for example, Esbeck, “A Constitutional Case”
76. Esbeck, “Neutral Treatment of Religion and Faith-based Social Service Providers”
77. Monsma, Positive Neutrality
78. Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper, eds. Equal Treatment of Religion in a Pluralistic Society (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1998).
79. For example, Marvin Olasky, Renewing American Compassion (New York, 1996).
80. For other views, pro and con, on Charitable Choice, see esp. Davis and Hankins, eds. Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations. Differing viewpoints are summarized in Carlson-Thies, “‘Don’t Look to Us,’” and in
81. Martha Minow, “Choice or Commonality: Welfare and Schooling After the End of Welfare As We Knew It,” Duke Law Journal 49 (1999): 493-559.
82. “Remarks As Prepared for Delivery By Vice President Al Gore On the Role of Faithbased Organizations,” 24 May 1999 (www.algore2000.com campaign website).
83. Particularly noteworthy is how Charitable Choice has encouraged some in the Salvation Army to reconsider the acceptability of past government regulations. See Diane Winston, Soup, Soap, and Salvation: The Impact of Charitable Choice on the Salvation Army (Washington, D.C. 2000).
84. The Army's constant emphasis on maintaining its integrity is emphasized in Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace, “Interlude: The Salvation Army.”
85. Senator John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) introduced this measure in both the 105th and 106th Congresses.
86. Gore, “Remarks” George W. Bush, “The Duty of Hope,” speech delivered in Indianapolis, 22 July 1999 (www.georgebush.com campaign website), and
87. “‘The Duty of Hope’ Fact Sheet,” 22 July 1999.
88. Mark Penn, “The Community Consensus,” Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century (Democratic Leadership Council) 3 (Spring 1999), 52–53.
89. Jim Wallis, “Overcoming Poverty: A New Era of Partnership,” in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Derek Davis and Barry Hankins (Waco, Tex. 1999), 160-61.
90. Marshall Breger, “The Jewish Community and Its Liberal Allies Are Prepared to Sacrifice the Needy and Indigent on the Altar of Church-State Ideology,” Moment, August 1998, 18–19;
91. Nathan J. Diament, “The Debate over ‘Charitable Choice’: The Case for Gore's Proposal,” New York Jewish Week, 18 June 1999.
92. Amy L. Sherman, The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of New Collaborations Between Government and Faith-based Organizations in Nine States (Washington, D.C. March 2000).
93. For these and other concerns, see Davis and Hankins, eds. Welfare Reform and Faithbased Organizations;
94. Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace;
95. Amy L. Sherman, Restorers of Hope: Reaching the Poor in Your Community with Church-based Ministries That Work (Wheaton, Ill. 1997), part 3.
96. Rockne M. McCarthy, James W. Skillen, and William A. Harper, Disestablishment a Second Time: Genuine Pluralism for American Schools (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1982)
97. James W. Skillen, ed. The School-Choice Controversy: What Is Constitutional? (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1993)
98. Joseph P. Viteritti, Choosing Equality: School Choice, the Constituion, and Civil Society (Washington, D.C. 1999)
99. Minow, “Choice or Commonality.”
100. James W. Skillen, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1994)
101. Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, “The Meaning of Dutch Segmentation for Modern America,” in Sharing the Reformed Tradition: The Dutch- North American Exchange, 1846-1996, ed. George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam (Amsterdam, 1996), 159-75;
102. Stephen V. Monsma and J. Christopher Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies (Lanham, Md. 1997).
103. The “equal partners” concept valuably emphasizes that faith-based providers are of no lesser value than government agencies, but it de-emphasizes the enormous difference in power between the two kinds of institutions. An alternative term such as “collaborators” usefully connotes both working together and the potential for faith-based organizations to be co-opted (note that “collaborator” was the term in World War II for citizens who aided the enemy). Charles Glenn's notion of an “ambiguous embrace” is intended also to highlight both possibilities and dangers (Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace). Of course, the whole point of the Charitable Choice concept is to limit the government's distorting impact on faith-based organizations when the two sectors work together. In that sense, Charitable Choice is but one example of a global movement to recast the relationship between government and nongovernmental organizations. On that global trend, see Lester M. Salamon and Helmut K. Anheier, The Emerging Nonprofit Sector: An Overview (Manchester, England, 1996).
104. Luis E. Lugo, Equal Partners: The Welfare Responsibility of Governments and Churches (Washington, D.C. 1998), 15, 18, 19.
105. Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1984).