February 20 , 2001

While there are still very few programmatic and legislative details regarding the parameters under which the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives will operate, we hope the following information will help clarify some questions surrounding this issue.

Charitable Choice Already Exists.

It first passed as a provision of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and has subsequently been added to other pieces of legislation. The provision stipulates that states must consider religious organizations on an equal, non-discriminatory basis with other groups when deciding to contract with private institutions for the provision of government-funded social services (such as job search, training, and readiness programs). It further stipulates that:

• Faith-based organizations retain their independence from federal, state and local governments, and do not have to remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols from their premises.
• A religious organization may receive government funds for provision of social services while at the same time retaining its exemption from civil rights prohibitions against discrimination in hiring practices.
• Faith-based providers may not discriminate against a beneficiary on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice.

• If a beneficiary objects to receiving services from a faith-based organization, the state must find another accessible, substantially equal, non-religious program. (However, states are not required to notify beneficiaries of this option, are not required to provide transportation, and in less populous and rural areas, are unlikely to be able to provide accessible alternatives.)
• Finally, the measure stipulates that no funds provided for the purpose of administering federal programs and services shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. However, the law makes no provision for monitoring or oversight.

The President’s Faith-Based Initiative would:

Expand "charitable choice" to all federal laws that authorize the government to use non-governmental entities to provide services to beneficiaries with federal dollars.

• Identify and remove federal regulations that bar faith-based organizations from participating in these programs, and encourage the states to establish similar offices for the same purpose.
• Expand tax deduction and credit incentives to encourage increased financial giving to charitable groups and poverty-fighting organizations by individuals and corporations.

JCPA Policy

The JCPA opposes 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.

The Administration’s focus on the need to increase efforts on behalf of the most vulnerable among us is an important move. Recognition of the valuable contributions made by community and faith-based groups is also welcome. However, the effectiveness of pervasively sectarian religious organizations as social service providers often depends on their ability to operate in an environment where religious values, teachings, and prayer are a fundamental part of the program. Proposals to facilitate the work of these organizations by expanding support for charitable choice provisions provoke serious church-state and other concerns.

1. Charitable choice as provided for in current proposals creates 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.

1. Current charitable choice proposals would permit discrimination in hiring for government-funded programs based upon religious belief.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Finally, in many states, in order to protect their privacy, houses of worship are not required to comply with the same standards and regulations that govern social service agencies. Such standards may include accreditation, teacher-student ratio, and even some health, safety and fire standards. There is a risk, therefore, of substandard care in some instances.