January 30, 2001

Action Summary

Yesterday, as you know, President Bush announced establishment of a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that could potentially facilitate the distribution of billions of dollars over the next 10 years to religious groups and charities for the provision of social services. The legislative portion of the plan, sent to Congress today, includes support for measures that would expand the ‘charitable choice’ option to encompass a broad array of government programs. The package would allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal dollars to pay for after-school programs, drug treatment counseling, meal assistance and other programs. In addition, the President proposed a number of tax deduction and credit incentives to encourage increased financial giving to charitable groups and poverty-fighting organizations by individuals and corporations.

Recommended Action: Contact your legislators to make them aware of our concerns regarding charitable choice measures. Tell them that while we value their recognition of the role community and faith-based groups play, we are concerned that taxpayer dollars not be used to fund social services without necessary constitutional protections. Urge them to ensure that meaningful, effective measures to safeguard First Amendment church/state protections and prevent religious discrimination are included in any legislation they enact.

The Presidents’ Proposal

• In his announcement, the President said faith-based charities ought to be able to compete for financing on an equal basis with secular charities without sacrificing their mission.

• The President’s directive instructs his administration to seek ways to remove "barriers" to funding faith-based programs. It calls for eliminating "unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems"

• A priority of the new office is to build on the "charitable choice" concept embodied in numerous recent legislative proposals, to permit churches, synagogues, and other religious institutions to receive direct government funding for on-site services without requiring essential measures to safeguard First Amendment constitutional protections and prevent religious discrimination.

• The President has instructed five Cabinet-level agencies -- the Departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor -- to create entities to "coordinate department efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social services." This includes:

• conducting a comprehensive review of policies and practices affecting existing funding streams governed by so-called "charitable choice" legislation to assess the department's compliance with the requirements of charitable choice; and

• promoting and ensuring compliance with existing charitable choice legislation

JCPA Policy: Current policy with regard to ‘charitable choice’ measures is applicable to this discussion. The JCPA 2000-2001 Agenda for Public Affairs states the JCPA’s position with respect to charitable choice initiatives as follows: "The JCPA reaffirms its opposition to any [charitable choice] legislation that does not contain meaningful and effective First Amendment safeguards such as those that prevent proselytization, coercion or indoctrination and that safeguard clients and service provider employees against religiously-based discrimination."

Talking Points:

1. The Administration’s focus on the need to increase efforts on behalf of the most vulnerable among us is indeed an important move. Recognition of the valuable contributions made by community and faith-based groups is also welcome. However, proposals to facilitate the work of these organizations by expanding support for so-called ‘charitable choice’ provisions provoke serious church-state concerns, which require careful attention.
   
   
2. Charitable choice as provided for in current proposals violates church/state separation as mandated by the First Amendment, by creating situations in which there is the potential for religious coercion or indoctrination because:
   • clients of social service and other government-funded programs may receive services in a pervasively sectarian environment, replete with religious symbols and literature;
   • clients may receive services from religious workers whose primary mission may be to promote religious belief and practice;
   • service providers may not be mandated to advise clients of their right to request a nonsectarian service provider; and,
   • alternative non-sectarian service providers may be unavailable.
     
     
3. Current charitable choice proposals would allow pervasively sectarian government contractors to discriminate in hiring for government-funded programs based upon religious belief.
   
   
4. If houses of worship are allowed to serve as government contractors, they will inevitably have to subject themselves to government regulation and scrutiny. Such government involvement with the daily operation of a house of worship could compromise that institution's religious autonomy.
   • This type of involvement could result in unconstitutional entanglement of government with religion; and,
   • could result in institutions "'watering down" their religious message in order to comport with federal restrictions, thereby removing the very components of their programs that are believed by many to be crucial to their success in providing social services.
     
     
5. Allowing houses of worship to compete for government contracts will necessarily increase competition among all service providers for scarce resources and will create intensified competition among different religious groups.
   
   
6. Charitable choice provisions could allow extremist religious groups that preach hatred, such as the Nation of Islam and Christian Identity churches, to compete on an equal basis for government contracts, thereby possibly resulting in the use of public funds to promote anti-Semitism, racism, and other harmful ideologies.