Introduction

The recently enacted welfare reform law allows state governments to contract with religious organizations to provide certain welfare services with public funds on behalf of the government. Although part of the rationale for authorizing these contracts is to encourage religious institutions to provide welfare services in their communities, many individuals and organizations were already aware of religious mission to aid the poor and have provided these services very well.

For example, "religiously affiliated" organizations (such as Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services in America and Jewish Family Services) currently provide social services within many communities. These services are funded with both private and public dollars. These organizations, which are associated with religious denominations, may already compete for or receive government funds for their programs. These programs are provided without a religious message and with appropriate constitutional safeguards.

In addition, "pervasively sectarian" institutions (such as churches and other houses of worship, and organizations where religious practice is included in the programs) currently provide social services in their communities. These services are funded with private dollars. These institutions may administer programs with a religious character and currently operate free from most government oversight or regulation.
Guidelines for Implementation

Guidelines for Implementation

One

It is recommended that every denomination, at both national and judicatory levels, develop a specialized board or committee structure to facilitate effective participation in the increasingly sophisticated voluntary planning bodies now emerging at the national, state and community level. In relation to the comprehensive planning units emerging in federal, state and municipal government, the denominational jurisdictional units also have a responsibility and are encouraged to participate in an advisory capacity.

To be effective, denominational planning units at national and judicatory levels should be staffed by persons with professional specialization in social work, nursing, medicine, and/or related disciplines.

To be effective, denominational planning boards or committees should devote substantial funds to the financing of an adequate nationwide system of community organization and planning offices within selected state and metropolitan councils of churches. Coordination of planning within the Protestant and Orthodox subcommunity is vital to effective participation in overall planning at the federal, state and metropolitan level.

In addition, denominational planning boards devoted to human development services at the national and judicatory level should be closely coordinated with other denominational planning units devoted to congressional extension, Christian education and social action.

Two

Local churches, including their denominational and ecumenical instruments for regional and national planning and action, can serve uniquely as lay centers of open discussion, study and action on social problems.

Based on this objective, it is recommended that every local church develop a committee devoted to study, discussion and action on social problems and attention to such social welfare problems as economic dependency, family breakdown, separation, divorce, delinquency, alcoholism, mental illness and problems of aging. From such study, the need for a balanced range of preventive and treatment services will become apparent; support for the development of needed services can follow including support for needed changes in public social policy.

Three

Church-related service agencies and institutions also have responsibility to help shape sound public social policy.

Every church-related service agency and institution should activate within its board, staff, supporting constituency and the people it serves specific attention to questions of public policy affecting those family and social problems with which it is most concerned.

Four

Church-related service agencies offering social, psychiatric, health, rehabilitation, housing and neighborhood development services may accept public funds for such services provided there are established safeguards in the following areas:

1. The service should meet a genuine community need not adequately met, or capable of being met, by public or non-sectarian private agencies.
2. The service should be open and available to all.
3. The service should be conducted in conformity with accepted standards or licensing organizations.
4. Opportunity should be provided for free exercise of religion by staff and clientele. The service should not be used by the agency for the propagation or extension of religious faith or practice. Staff and clientele should not be subjected to sectarian regulations in agency practices.
5. Normally, such agencies should be developed by corporations whose charter specifically provides that it be a health for social welfare agency.
6. The Churches and agencies involved should be alert to the need which may arise for the discontinuance of such programs in the interest of the public good on the freedom of the church.

Five

Church-related social, psychiatric, health, rehabilitation, housing and neighborhood development service agencies should be legally accountable to the sponsoring religious body (local church, denominational judicatory or council of churches) with regard to initial authorization, dissolution, broad social policy and integrity of administration. Such accountability can be provided for by:

1. Nominating a majority of the agency board
2. Retaining the right to approve the membership of the board
3. Requiring a periodic review and approval of the basic program of the service agency.

Six

Church-related service agencies should have the same privileges with respect to available tax funds as other private, non-profit social and health agencies in the United States.

Seven

The acceptance of public funds by a church-related services agency whether on purchase-of-service, capital grant or contract basis should not be initiated when it would affect adversely the development of high quality, publicly administered services.

Eight

When a church-related agency does enter into contract with a public department to provide a service, the contract should provide for financing at the full cost of the service provided.

Nine

The church-related agency which chooses to sell some service to a public body or to contract with government should recognize an obligation to operate within salary ranges and other personnel standards which are comparable to those under which the public agency counterpart must operate. When civil service ranges are below standard in respect to a church-related agency, the agency and the churches as well have an obligation to work for an improvement in civil service ranges.

Ten

Existing tax exemptions for unrelated business income of a church-related service agency or by any other non-profit agency should be discontinued.

Income from "feeder organizations" owned by non-profit service agencies and other non-profit agencies should be subject to federal corporate income taxes and to state and local taxes.

Eleven

Church-related service agencies should not be exempt from social insurance contributions such as old age, survivors and disability insurance, unemployment compensation, and workmen's compensation.

Twelve

Church-related service agencies which accept capital grants or service contracts from government should make their services available without regard to religious affiliation.

Thirteen

Skill and competence in performance of specific duties should be the principal consideration in the employment of personnel.

Church-related agencies which choose to accept capital grants or service contracts from government should not discriminate on the basis of religion in the employment of personnel.

Fourteen

Appropriate government bodies do have the right to set standards for social and health agencies, and on the basis of such standards to license such agencies.

There should be no exemptions in state law or regulations for any church-related agency because of its relationship to a religious body.

Background

The new welfare law purports to allow churches and other houses of worship to receive government funding for their programs without forcing them to alter their religious practices or character. However, the law raises problems in this area. Although it is an unintended consequence of the law, government regulation will unavoidably follow government dollars. For example, the law requires government audits, oversights of funding of religious activity, and a myriad of other regulations. Therefore, if religious programs are funded, the government will inevitably become entangled in the affairs of otherwise autonomous religious groups, thereby jeopardizing their religious liberty.

Furthermore, the religious provider provisions could adversely affect the religious mission of many houses of worship. If the government begins funding services traditionally funded by the church community, the natural result may be a drop in voluntary contributions by church members, making them dependent on government funds.

Accordingly, in order for religious organizations to participate in government funded programs without violating their religious liberty, certain guidelines should be followed. First, churches and other houses of worship should only provide publicly funded services in a manner that is discrete and institutionally separate religiously-affiliated non-profit to administer, operate, and perform the welfare programs.

In addition, several other issues should be considered. For example, the environment within which the publicly funded services are provided should not be sectarian, and religious icons or messages should be avoided. Employees paid with public funds should not be hired or fired on the basis of religion. Public funds should not be commingled with private funds. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, religious organizations should guard against all forms of proselytization of the beneficiaries of the government funded benefits. In other words, services provided under the act cannot be religious in character. This should be in addition to the prohibition on the use of public funds for religious purposes that is already contained in the welfare law.

It is important, however, that religious organizations consult an attorney before entering into the contract with or accepting funding from the government. While these guidelines are intended to address common concerns, many additional considerations could arise.

*The 1988 General Assembly Policy "GOD ALONE is Lord of the Conscience" states that: "Service ministries operated by or related to Presbyterian governing bodies, whether or not they receive public funds, should offer all services without restriction based on race, sex, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation, and should conform to requisite health and safety requirements and standards regarding licensing and personnel qualifications. Where such programs are expected to continue for considerable time, placing them under the control of independent community-based bodies should be carefully considered."

The fourteen guidelines were adapted from the National Council of Churches 1967 policy.

Faith-Based and Community Initiative Contacts — by Department

Jim Towey, Director
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20502
(202) 456-6708

White House main switchboard
(202) 456-1414

Cabinet Centers

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ryan Streeter, Director
Linda Thigpen Marshall, Special Assistant and Public Affairs Liaison
Cheryl Appline, Program Specialist
Michael Harrison, Project Manager
Emmett McGroarty, Project Manager
Jovette Gadson, Program Support Specialist
Angela Harris, Staff Assistant
451 7th Street, SW, Room 10286
Washington, D.C. 20410
(202) 708-2404
(800) 308-0395
talk_to_us@hud.gov

HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Bobby Polito, Director
200 Independence Ave, SW, Room 118 F
Washington, D.C. 20201
(202) 358-3595
CFBCI@hhs.gov

U.S. Department of Labor
Brent Orrell, Director
Juliet McCarthy
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 693-6450
contact-ofbci@dol.gov

U.S. Department of Justice
Patrick Purtill, Director
Scott J. Bloch, Associate Director
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20503
(202) 514-6702

U.S. Department of Education
John Porter, Director
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202
(202) 401-0003
faith.cbo@ed.gov

Department of Agriculture
Juliet McCarthy, Director
14th and Independence Avenue, SW
Office of the Secretary, Room 200-A
Washington, DC 20250
(202) 720-3631

Agency for International Development
Mike Magan, Director
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
(202) 712-4080