Search

More than two decades after the passage of welfare reform law and Charitable Choice, what is known about faith-based initiatives? What questions remain to be addressed, and how might we benefit from a reconsideration of critical issues on this topic? In this chapter, we seek to shed light on these questions. We begin by reviewing research that is most germane to the focus of our study, namely, service provision dynamics in faith-based and secular organizations. Given the rather sizable research literature on faith-based initiatives, we do not aim to provide comprehensive coverage when reviewing previous work. Rather, we select the more limited body of studies that bears directly on our efforts to contrast faith-based and secular social service provision.

Faith-based initiatives first entered the American lexicon over two decades ago, and the practice of government has been significantly altered ever since. This initiative’s genesis, effectively Faith-Based 1.0, formally began under Charitable Choice, a provision in 1996’s Welfare Reform Law. This provision offered clients of government funded job placement, housing, food distribution, and other programs the choice of receiving services from a faith-based or secular provider. It also reversed the longstanding requirement for faith-based organizations to secularize themselves before becoming eligible to bid for government service contracts.

At a time when boundaries between the nonprofit, business, and public sectors have grown increasingly confused and contested, this volume by leading experts on nonprofit organizations offers new ideas and frameworks for understanding the terrain that lies between the state and the market. The chapters span a broad range of emerging issues including nonprofit commercialism, sector-bending hybrid organizational forms, increasingly sophisticated nonprofit advocacy activities, newly hatched forms of volunteerism and philanthropy, tensions in public-nonprofit contracting, and new roles for faith-based nonprofits in social provision. Contents include: Peter Frumkin, "Charity and Philanthropy After September 11th"; Joseph M. Knippenberg, "Faith, Hype, and Charity: Constitutional Controversies over Charitable Choice"; Leslie Lenkowsky, "The Bush Administration's Civic Agenda and National Service"; Mark E. Warren, "What is the Political Role of Nonprofits in a Democracy?"; Steven Rathgeb Smith, "Government and Nonprofits in the Modern Age: Is Independence Possible?"; Amy L. Sherman, "Faith in Communities: A Solid Investment"; Stephen V. Monsma, "Nonprofit and Faith-Based Welfare-to-Work Programs: Government's Partners or Government's Captives?"; Thomas H. Jeavons, "The Vitality and Independence of Religious Organizations: A Once and Future Trend"; Estelle James, "Commercialism--Does It Help or Hurt the Nonprofit's Mission?"; J. Gregory Dees and Beth Battle Anderson, "Sector-Bending: Blurring the Lines Between Nonprofit and For-Profit"; David Reingold, "Scaling-up National Service in an Era of Performance Measurement and Accountability." In Search of the Nonprofit Sector will be essential reading for scholars and practitioners interested in the pressing management and policy challenges facing nonprofit organizations today.

The welfare reforms initiated in the 1990s prompted increased discussion of the use of faith-based organizations for the provision of social services. This is the second of two articles examining the progress of this debate. The first article provides the scope of inquiry, defines specific characteristics of faith-based organizations, and outlines methods used to study them. This article discusses specific services provided by faith-based organizations and how these organizations are related to the government. Faith-based organizations compared favorably to secular organizations in the services they provided while providing a somewhat narrower range of services. The implementation of Charitable Choice and other faith-based initiatives as policy required consideration of constitutional and practical issues with the implementation of collaborations and partnerships between government and faith-based organizations along with increased government funding and contracting for these organizations.

President Clinton's charitable choice initiatives in 1996 and President Bush's faith-based initiatives in 2001 allowed faith-based organizations (FBOs) to apply for federal funds while maintaining ...

The paper reviews policies promoting faith-based organizations' (FBO) participation in publicly-funded programs since the Charitable Choice statute was enacted during the Clinton administration and then additional faith-based initiatives were implemented by the Bush administration. The paper focuses on research findings on FBO participation in publicly-funded human service programs under these policies. It then proposes a framework for evaluation to assess the appropriateness of public funding for behavioral health services delivered by FBOs, in order to address: (1) the programmatic and systemic effects resulting from the infusion of new players from the faith community, and the consequences to the profile of services and who gets served; and (2) the content and effectiveness of faith-infused services as a basis for identifying interventions appropriate for public funding. The analysis considers classification issues, theoretical bases of measured effects of faith-infused services, and the transferability of faith-based interventions across religious and secular applications in order to satisfy constitutional issues and client choice.

In the United States partnerships between government and (sometimes religious) nonprofit organizations provide assistance and resources to those in need. The 1996 Charitable Choice legislation reflects a longstanding and ongoing constitutional debate about the meaning of First Amendment religion clauses. It also reflects a practical question: whether religious organizations can effectively carry out the government's social welfare goals while respecting the liberty of recipients and preserving their own autonomy and authenticity. The arguments for and against Charitable Choice in the United States may be relevant to other nations, as a brief consideration of contemporary Vietnam illustrates.

A careful study demonstrates that President Bush has implemented the faith-based initiative as a method of governmentality, one which appears to be biased toward Christianity. This paper examines the definition of Foucaultʼs governmentality as it relates to the ever-expanding structure of contemporary American governance and justifies the categorization of faith-based initiatives as an example of pastoral power. Ultimately, these arguments characterize the current state of governmentality as “born-again,” and call specific attention to what appears to be a strong affiliation of “charitable choice” with evangelical Christianity. By relying on evangelical Christianity to govern, the pastoral-panopticon coupled with governmental resources has brought back an older method of regulation which is less obvious in its intrusion, and more dangerous for it.

Drawing on data from a study conducted in Wyoming about the community response to domestic violence, this article focuses on an unanticipated finding: how religion is paradoxically both a source of assistance and a barrier to women surviving domestic violence. The results indicate that although religious institutions are a resource for emotional comfort and provide practical assistance, they may also perpetuate silence. The article concludes that many religious communities are not adequately equipped to respond to the problem of domestic violence in a way that is safe for women. Implications for social work, particularly for recent faith-based initiatives, are discussed.

Several recent policies encourage the involvement of faith‐based organizations (FBOs) in the delivery of social services to the poor. Relying on data from Indiana’s randomized welfare reform experiment, this article analyzes the characteristics of clients who seek and receive help from FBOs, particularly focusing on how exposure to the effects of welfare reform affects help seeking and the receipt of help. A separate analysis examines cross‐sectional data from social service agencies to compare matched FBOs with nonreligious organizations (NROs). In general, results suggest that the most disadvantaged welfare recipients are more likely to receive assistance from FBOs than from NROs; however, welfare reform has inconsistent effects on the receipt of social services from these organizations. Results also suggest that FBOs are significantly more likely than NROs to have tightened service eligibility criteria.

This paper provides an overview of assessing the effectiveness of newly legislated social policies. In an era of growing public reliance on faith-based social services, it is imperative to be accountable and assess the efficacy and effectiveness of this set of providers. It discusses the paucity of such attempts and the complications involved in measuring effectiveness of social programs, especially when religion is involved. It then reviews the contributions provided in this volume and draws conclusions for future Studies.

This paper reports on a project to investigate the implementation of charitable choice in TANF-funded job services in Indiana, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. A number of issues needed to be addressed in the course of the research project. State-level government responses to charitable choice were found to vary widely, making comparisons across states difficult. In Indiana, job training providers and clients were also interviewed. For providers, a major research issue was the assessment of the degree to which they were faith-based and the impact of this. To measure the impact of provider faith orientation on clients, a pre-and post-service study was designed. Providers were to administer the tests, but in many cases failed to do so correctly, thereby limiting the utility of the results. Finally, during the last year of the study, the state changed its funding priorities, thereby altering the provider system. A number of the providers changed their programs or stopped providing services, thereb...

The U.S. federal government, through Charitable Choice, has opened public funding for the delivery of social services to faith-based organizations (FBOs) more than ever before. This increased access to governmental funding at all levels has led to a closer examination of the evidence base on the effectiveness of the services provided by FBOs, and the capacity of FBOs to respond to data needs for accountability and program improvement efforts. This paper discusses the current status of evaluation research on FBO services and the emerging data needs among faith-based providers. Promising avenues for enhancing the current understanding of outcomes of FBO services are explored such as (I) adopting outcome measurement practices in use within the current nonprofit sector, and (2) developing more rigorous research designs tailored to the special contexts of faith-based services. The paper suggests an agenda in which FBO operators, finders, and evaluators work together to move forward in improving the evidence base on faith-based services.

Community-based and faith-based programs are on-going partners in the social welfare mix which characterizes U.S. welfare provision. In the face of calls for more rigorous research on the capacity and impact of faith-based and community-based programs which use public funds, the research community must gain sophistication in addressing methodological issues inherent in participatory designs for the study of such programs. This article describes concerns which arose while implementing participatory research during a federally-funded, intensive 10-month long case study of a faith-based alternative education program for at risk youth. The project was funded through the Department of Health and Humans Services, Administration for Children and Family. The challenges to data collection are presented and suggestions for doing participatory research in similar settings are discussed.

Charitable Choice, a cornerstone of President Bush's domestic policy agenda, provides that faith-based organizations (FBOs) will have an opportunity to compete for government contracts. However, few empirical studies examine the impact of public funding to FBOs on individual charitable giving to FBOs. Using public opinion survey data and multivariate analysis to examine this relationship, we find that most financial supporters of FBOs report that they would not change their giving behavior in the wake of increased government funding to FBOs, contrary to the much- established crowding-out hypothesis. The policy and management implications of these findings are discussed.

Debate surrounding the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives draws both fire and praise as the Bush Administration continues to promote the federal funding of partnerships among state and local government and faith-based service providers. President Bush has endorsed religious groups as valuable partners in delivering services that address social problems through a series of Executive Orders. The intent of this article is to further our understanding of the history related to these executive decisions, the different conceptualizations for defining and classifying faith-based organizations, the issues surrounding faith-based organizations, and the legislative effort to make the faith-based initiative a permanent statutory feature.

Through interviews with coordinators of faith-based mentoring programs, a statewide study examined publicly funded efforts to widen the involvement of religious groups in welfare service provision. Analysis focused on front-line implementers' ability to function as boundary spanners in a complex, unsettled environment. The study identified three salient factors affecting implementation in this new faith-friendly arena: the employment background of the programcoordinators, the rural or urban setting of the program, and the limitations of a constrained state welfare apparatus. The experiences of these so-called early adopters of charitable choice indicate the scope, strength, and surmountability of institutional barriers confronting implementers.

Interest in faith-based organizations has increased substantially since the Bush administration made them a priority in the presidential campaign of 2000 and established a special office in the White House to promote their involvement in government supported human services. The primary goal of this initiative is to encourage faith-based organizations, usually understood to mean congregations, to engage their members in supporting services to those most in need. While most research on faith-based organizations is limited to the past decade or two, very little is known about how they operate. This case study of Community Ministries of Rockville, Maryland (CMR) is designed to address this issue. CMR differs from most faith-based organizations in that it neither represents a single congregation nor the traditional faith-related social service agency like Catholic, Jewish, or Lutheran Social Services. The case study features the twenty-five year history of the Executive Director of a faith-based human service organization supported by twenty congregations. It concludes with the identification of major challenges and lessons learned.

This article explores the privatization of social services from public to sectarian points of view while examining the implications of the Charitable Choice movement on the gay and lesbian community. The history of this movement is explored from a developmental perspec- tive outlining the socioeconomic makeup of gays and lesbians, the soci- etal perceptions and mythology of the economic status of homosexuals, and actual figures related to the number of gays and lesbians who rely on publicly supported social service providers. The article explores the his- tory as well as the positive and negative aspects this type of privatization movement involves. Finally, a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this movement on the gay and lesbian community is presented and future recommendations will be made. (Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: Website

In the contemporary policy-implementation process where policies in practice often reflect a compromise, public managers increasingly must consult with the relevant public to learn what that public wants. The purpose of this article is to argue that public managers might sometimes find public-opinion polls valuable as a source of information on public preferences. After explaining when and why this might be the case, the authors illustrate their argument using public-opinion data on the attitudes of Georgia residents toward the issue of Charitable Choice and provide examples of how these data might assist public managers in implementing the program.

The influence of faith-based prison ministries in the American criminal justice system is examined in the context of the Bush Administration’s efforts to subsidize the social service activities of religious organizations. Studies on the efficacy of prison ministries in rehabilitation are inconclusive; however, some evidence suggests that these programs may be effective in reducing rates of recidivism and improving prison behavior and inmates’ adjustment to life after incarceration. Preliminary reports have prompted politicians, social scientists, and religious leaders to recommend subsidization of prison ministries. Yet government funding in advance of more detailed analysis of effectiveness jeopardizes the voluntary spirit that invigorates such efforts and that may be a key to their success. Public funding also risks the entanglement of state and religious institutions, incentivizes faith groups to jettison doctrines or practices that impede the procurement of funds, and breaks down barriers established by the First Amendment to keep government out of American religious life.

What do the new provisions for Charitable Choice mean for faith-based African American charitable organizations?

In this article, I consider the claims made by those who advocate greater inclusion of religiously based organizations in the public realm. I examine two ostensibly "religion-blind" models-pluralist-accommodationist and noncognizant-used to justify inclusion, along with current jurisprudence, in the context of President Bush's faith-based initiative. I contend that corporate freedom of conscience in its state-sponsored applications often unfairly affects those who do not subscribe to the beliefs of religious organizations. I thus reject public funding of religiously based organizations, or those in which religious faith is a central organizing element, unless the recipients are required to adhere to the rules that govern secularly based organizations.

This pilot study represents an effort to implement and evaluate use of a curriculum module on Charitable Choice and social work practice in a faith-based organization. Using a nonequivalent control group design, repeated measures MANOVA showed significant differences between the treatment (n=54) and comparison groups (n=53) on knowledge and degree of comfort at posttest. Despite the use of a small sample (n=107) of MSW students at a public university in the Southeast, the findings provide initial support for further use and future evaluations of curriculum modules covering specific content on practice in faith-based settings.

Restorative Justice is coming into focus for many faith communities as an important shift in response to crime. This paper examines the history of our response to crime and describes the response of a number of faith communities. Extended treatment is given to the November 2000 statement by the United States Catholic Bishops, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. Their approach to crime and criminal justice is reviewed, including a special emphasis on the Catholic Church's teaching on the option for the poor and includes policy recommendations for church and society. Examples of activity at the local, state and national levels are given. The paper documents some effects of the bishops' statement on community and legislative activity at the local, state and national levels.

SUMMARY Legal advocates, clergy and politicians have all been challenged by the concept of the separation of church and state since the first European set foot on the American continent. Two schools of thought have been developed for this unique problem in the United States. Roger Williams took the position that there needs to be a separation of church and state in order to keep the church pure from the politics and every day work of the state. Thomas Jefferson, who is often attributed with developing this concept, took the position that the need for this separation was to protect the state from the church. Both positions often get articulated as if they are one concept in the United States. However, they are very different. This debate has carried itself in the current millennium into the work of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives as well as the legislation known as Charitable Choice.

SUMMARY In an effort to fully understand the role of the office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Drs. Netting and Ellor went to Washington, DC and interviewed the Director, Elizabeth Seale-Scott. This important dialogue is recorded here to further understand particularly the role of this office as it impacts the Administration on Aging and Aging programs.

SUMMARY Religious organizations have provided services for older adults for thousands of years. For the sons and daughters of Abraham, this is Biblically mandated. Charitable Choice and the President's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is only the most recent effort to bring this informal caregiving system into dialogue with the remainder of the formal social service system in the United States. At this time, religious congregations play a gap-filling role in the community service system. Their services range from informal volunteer-driven approaches to a local need, to large formal service systems. From the first draft of the Older American's Act, nutrition sites have specifically named religious congregations in partners with the service system. Today this system continues to be ready to support at least the seniors in their own congregations.

SUMMARY Charitable Choice legislation has traveled a rocky road since 2001, both when presented as legislation in the U. S. Congress, as well as in the court of public opinion. From the perspective of the large faith-based agencies, the original 1996 Charitable Choice legislation was an adequate foundation for their work. Since the announcement of the president's faith-based initiative, diverting issues having to do with hiring practices, church-state issues, tax cuts, and sufficient funds to do the job have taken prominence.

SUMMARY The historical development of the faith-related organization is examined in light of the terminology used to describe these nonprofit groups, beginning with sectarian, moving to religious affiliate, and more recently using the term faith-related as a subcategory of being faith-based. Historical and contemporary research on faith-related organizations is reviewed, including a distinction between these studies and the increasing amount of research on religious congregations. Research findings are examined in the context of a complex political environment beginning with the Reagan/Bush Administrations, continuing into the Charitable Choice provisions introduced under the Clinton Administration, and moving to the Bush Administration's faith-based and community initiative. Implications of this initiative for the delivery of elder services are explored, particularly in light of the long-standing relationship the aging network has had with local faith groups.

Interest in faith-based approaches to dealing with social problems appears to be increasing, as seen in the recent bipartisan charitable choice legislation, which is designed to remove barriers that prohibit faith-based providers from applying for government funds. In spite of this interest, relatively little research exists on faith-based providers. Accordingly, this exploratory study examines the characteristics of faith-based drug and alcohol treatment providers among a sample of Texan providers (N= 30). Data are provided on general program information, philosophical orientation, services, finances, staffing, and clients. The implications of the findings are discussed and directions for future research are suggested, particularly as they intersect the charitable choice legislation.

The charitable choice provision and President Bush's proposed Faith-Based and Community Initiative have spurred debates regarding government support of faith-based social service programs and their effectiveness. To address the issue of relative effectiveness, the logically prior question of what constitutes a faith-based agency and how they differ from secular providers must be answered. Utilizing data from a mailed survey, this study compares the organizational characteristics of faith-based and secular agencies that provide services to the homeless in Houston, Texas. Results indicate that the two agency types vary significantly across several dimensions including funding sources and preferences, decision-making tools, organizational culture, practices, leadership, and staffing characteristics. In addition, survey data and content analysis of mission statements reveal that 80 percent of faith-based agencies use religious imagery in some form of their “public face” to communicate their religiousness.

Partnerships between government and religious social service providers have long been a feature of government social service provision. Most such partnerships present relatively few constitutional problems. In the criminal justice arena, however, Charitable Choice raises thorny issues, because many drug rehabilitation programs and prison ministries are more than “faith based”—they are faith-infused. This article considers challenges faced by public administrators working in these sensitive areas.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the implications of the expansion of “charitable choice” legislation and the introduction of “faith-based initiatives” on human resource management issues in nonprofit organizations, particularly those organizations that are affiliated with religious congregations. Experience with state-level equivalent programs and some limited experience with federal programs have generated a number of court cases that demonstrate both the nature of the concerns opponents of such programs have and the limits still faced by those taking advantage of public contracting opportunities under various faith-based initiatives.

The “Charitable Choice” provisions of 1996 welfare reform legislation inaugurated a policy debate that continues with President George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiative.” Proponents of greater religious involvement in social service provision argue that faith-based organizations have untapped resources, have encountered unnecessary barriers to participation, and are more effective than are government or secular contractors. Opponents note the absence of evidence of greater efficacy, the historic involvement of religious providers such as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, and the Salvation Army, and the absence of additional funding, and charge that the new rules are merely an effort to erode the constitutional separation of church and state. Public administrators are left with a number of thorny questions: how to identify and recruit the faith-based organizations targeted by these initiatives, how to evaluate and augment their capacity to deliver services, and how to encourage their increased participation while adhering to constitutional principles.

"FBOs" ­­ faith­based organizations ­­ are hot. Politicians, religious leaders, and media talking heads have all weighed in on President George W. Bush's ambitious "faith­based initiative." This public discussion is useful, for the faith community has long been a major contributor in the national effort to fight poverty and rejuvenate distressed communities, but its role has frequently been neglected. The issue of the faith community's proper place in public square is not only hot, but controversial. Supporters of the Bush initiative assert that FBOs can do a better job than government agencies in curing some of the nation's social ills, such as drug abuse or teen pregnancy. Citing evidence indicating that FBOs are discriminated against or otherwise hindered by government policies, they are demanding reforms. They assert that FBOs often provide a disproportionate amount of social services, compared to the amount of government funding they garner. New public investment strategies should, in their view, be advanced to address this disparity. Many applaud the "charitable choice" guidelines, new rules attached to four federal social welfare programs since 1996, that seek to protect the religious character of FBOs doing business with government. They desire to see these "faith friendly" guidelines attached to other federal programs that underwrite such activities as housing for the low­income elderly and education for at­risk youth. Other supporters worry about direct government funding of FBOs through contracts, but in general do favor strategies aimed at directing greater public and private resources to faith­based "outposts of health and healing" (for example, through changes in the tax code). Critics charge that the faith­based initiative is misguided. Some worry that charitable choice breaches the separation of church and state. Others believe publicly funded FBOs should not be allowed­as charitable choice permits­to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion. Still others contend that congregations and faith­based nonprofits will suffer from excessive government entanglement under charitable choice. Some fear a secularization of FBOs' work on the frontlines if FBOs take government money. Supporters and critics both make valid points. But much of their discussion has been "Beltway­centric": too focused on the legislative fortunes of the Bush administration's faith­based initiative on Capitol Hill and neglectful of what is actually happening, "on the streets," across America. A look outside of Washington, away from the political discussions, sheds much­needed light on the issue of faith­based social action. It offers a compelling case for greater investment in "faith in communities" as well as important insights about how to construct government­faith collaboration in ways protective of FBOs and fruitful for the disadvantaged citizens they serve.

THE FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES discussion of the early months of the George W. Bush administration quickly gave way to what I term "faithbased inertia" as the war in Afghanistan unfolded. While the prewar legislative proposal caused enormous controversy over concerns about it giving carte blanche to religiously sanctioned discrimination, the war eclipsed all that. A critical look at this dynamic illustrates some of the difficulties faced by religious progressives as the default assumptions of twentieth-century religion are applied to twenty-first-century situations. The faith-based initiative was a Republican-led legislative drive that would channel federal money into religiously affiliated social service agencies. In its original form it left wide discretion to religious groups to use the money according to their principles even when those come into conflict with existing federal laws, for example, with regard to equal opportunity hiring. This dimension of the program raised serious ethical and political questions that went beyond partisan concerns. Andrew Walsh reports that the initiatives had their roots in the "charitable choice" policy passed during the Clinton administration in 1996. The policy was part of a major overhaul of the welfare system that promoted heavy reliance on religiously sponsored social service agencies as a kind of safety net where welfare used to be. Social critic Ellen Willis writes, "George W. Bush's creation of a federal office to coordinate public financing of euphemistically labeled 'faith-based' social services is a bold assault on the separation of church and state; it is also, ironically, a triumph of bipartisanship" (11). Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore, as well as vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, affirmed the policy during the 2000 campaign. They insisted that religious organizations are and

Prior to the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September, one of the major policy priorities of President George W. Bush was the government funding of Faith-based initiatives. He recognized the social and charitable efforts of religious organizations as a "major part of the American welfare system,"1 and a way to supplement government's re sponsibility to the poor and under-served in society. The original formulation of the president's faith-based policy was based on the unique ideas of several political strategists and academ ics,2 as well as the principles later advanced by others3 in the charitable choice provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconcilia

Rural African American congregations often have been pitted against their urban counterparts, with the urban churches viewed as superior social agents with a wider range of community services. An examination of social service provision in rural areas is necessary because both policy and programmatic responsibilities increasingly are delegated to state and local governance and ultimately to local communities. Legislation referred to as Charitable Choice encourages the government to contract with faith-based and community-based social service providers. This legislation also increases the importance of understanding the role that rural congregations play as the social service system favors private delivery of such services over public avenues. In this study, an in-depth examination of 17 congregations in an historically all-Black town revealed the distinct patterns of African American congregations providing a unified network of collaborative social services with secular organizations on behalf of their communities.

Charitable choice has focused policy attention on the oft-neglected universe of faith- related organizations but not necessarily on the corners of that universe that ought to matter most or the questions that are most important. We compare local welfare reform initiatives of eight faith-related organizations to suggest how the debate might be con- structively reframed. The evidence (a) argues for putting less focus on congregations as contractors and more attention to their role as sites and resources for church-based coali- tions and organizing networks; (b) contradicts a simplified understanding of faith- related organizations as agents for "instilling virtues and character in the poor," recog- nizing that many give equal or greater weight to convincing congregations to fulfill their social obligations; and (c) counters the view that the key challenges are legal or regula- tory, instead drawing attention to the difficult local work of integrating the resources of faith-related organizations with other public, private, and voluntary organizations. The advent of charitable choice 1 has focusedpolicy attention on the oft- neglecteduniverse of faith-relatedorganizations 2 but not necessarily on the corners of that universe that ought to matter most or the questions that are most important. Since welfare reform, the debate has been preoccupied with issues raisedby public funding of congregations or other small faith-related organizations whose service delivery activities emphasize moral suasion. Supporters claim that contracting with these organizations will increase the effectiveness of public social programs, because they offer "particularized care" and"are able to have a more powerful effect in shaping character and giving direction to lives than can institutions that must comply with a bureau- cratic rationality" (Glenn, 2000, p. 24). Detractors fear a coercive moralism that violates church-state separation andabrogates government responsibilities (Davis, 1996). Both sides in the debate portray contracting choices as a zero-sum game in which government andfaith-relatedorganizations represent alternatives rather

Charitable choice is another milestone in the transformation of the social services sector into a deliberate instrument of public policy, building on intentional federal appropriation of private social service capacity and skill that began in earnest during the Kennedy and Johnson presidencies. With private social services now predominantly financed by government, benefits accrue in part because public policy is more likely than private charity to ensure well‐financed, equitable, efficiently administered, and uniformly available social services. But voluntary social service agencies may find that sustaining the distinctive normative climates that ensure uniqueness and selectivity is increasingly difficult.

This census of congregational social services is the first attempt to identify all of the congregations in Philadelphia and their services. This article reports results from 1,376 of an estimated 2,095 congregations. It finds that 1,211 congregations (88 percent) have at least one social program. On average, each congregation provides 2.41 programs and serves 102 people per month. The primary beneficiaries are children (served by 49.2 percent of all programs). According to the census, 571 congregations (41.5 percent) collaborate with secular organizations, and 857 congregations (62.3 percent) are open to collaborating with government welfare programs. Conservatively, the financial replacement value of all congregational social services in Philadelphia is $246,901,440 annually.

Although some recent literature suggests religious social service agencies can help governments reach important social program goals, the true social organization and services of the agencies remain in dispute. This article interviews officials in the wide class of “faith-related” agencies in two cities to consider two aspects of this issue: the ties or “coupling” of agencies to faith, and the impact of coupling on agency structure and service programming. The results suggest that many sampled agencies are loosely tied to faith in terms of resources, more tightly coupled in terms of authority, and moderately coupled with respect to culture; that certain aspects of service-delivery technology are heavily secularized in many agencies; that faith is more influential in such matters as the agencies’ choices of services; and that the larger, potentially more secularized agencies that might be least likely to be characterized as faith based balance differing sets of resources and thereby can more fully deliver services that arguably express faith in action. Given this finding and that most agencies profess a focus on protecting the dignity and rights of clients rather than on individual responsibility or other themes that are stressed by some recent policy proposals, governments need to be extremely selective in funding agencies to promote those proposals’ themes.

On the heels of the 1996 Charitable Choice provisions, a variety of welfare reform measures are drawing smaller faith-based groups, especially congregations, into the social service arena. These newcomers face many difficulties as they learn to answer proposal requests and apply for funds. This research analyzes 105 applications for funds, 70 from faith-based groups, presented to the Indianapolis mayor’s office. It reports on which religious organizations are applying, the quality of their applications, the applications’ religious content, and the relationship between application quality and funding success. The discussion suggests differences between new initiatives meant to create a level playing field for faith-based groups and those meant to encourage their participation, and raises questions about what the data mean for each of these options.

According to the most influential metanarratives in American social-policy history, religion has been virtually irrelevant to the development of American welfare in the twentieth century. In crude terms, the main story line is that public welfare replaced religion—for good. The chief alternative story agrees that religion was replaced—but for bad. More carefully, the mainstream story portrays a “quasi-welfare state” supplanting the fragmentary assistance offered by local sectarian, voluntary, and municipal programs, and measures welfare progress by the growth of government provision at the expense of private and religious action. The competing interpretation regards the creation of the government welfare system to constitute, in Marvin Olasky's terms, “the tragedy of American compassion,” because effective, personal, and spiritual assistance was replaced by bureaucratic programs unable to address the deepest needs of the poor. Although the two stories evaluate the outcome differently, they agree about the disappearance or irrelevance of religion to American public welfare.

Faith-based organizations (FBOs) are a long-standing component of the social service landscape. Though they are primarily Christian, they include a range of other religious traditions. They are typically known as sectarian, church-based, congregation-based, and religious (or religious-based) organizations. Since the early 1990s, FBOs have become important government partners in the delivery of social services. This has raised awareness of the various ways faith-based settings, including congregations, serve clients, and the roles social workers play in this environment.

This entry presents the history of faith-based services, demonstrating that they are a long-standing component of the U.S. service delivery system. Recently, the reduction in financial support of some government social services and growing skepticism about the effectiveness of government services have led to an expansion in interest and sometimes in financial support of faith-based services. At present, faith-based services are delivered in formal agencies with varying ties to government, and also in many congregations.