Ten Good Questions About
Faith‐based Partnerships and
Welfare Reform
A little-known provision of the 1996 welfare reform law, Charitable Choice allows faith-based
organizations, including individual congregations, to provide social services using public funds,
while retaining their religious character and practices. States are encouraged to use these
organizations, as long as they provide secular alternatives. But how effective are these
programs? Can these organizations expand their participation? And if they do, what will happen
to the existing, secular-based programs now attempting to deal with the same social problems?
These are questions that researchers at The Polis Center pose, not only to policy-makers, but
also to faith-based organizations themselves and to those who would enter into partnerships
with them or advocate assigning public funds to them.

Ten Good Questions
Over the past decade, government and foundation programs have emphasized the development
of strong, supportive communities capable of helping all their members achieve self-sufficiency.
The federal AFDC program (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) has been replaced by
block grants to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). That money
eventually makes its way to local governments and even to neighborhood or community groups.
As part of this shift toward building strong communities and ensuring local control of resources,
leaders in government and in secular non-profit organizations are turning to religiously affiliated
organizations, including congregations. These organizations, in turn, are reexamining their role
in community life. Rhetoric from candidates in both political parties makes it clear that faith-based
welfare reform is a significant area for policy discussion.
The faith community has always delivered social services. And contrary to what many people
believe, it has long worked in partnership with government. Groups such as Catholic Charities
and the Jewish Federations work alongside government, sometimes with public subsidies, to
provide services to specific constituencies. These “religiously affiliated” organizations allowed
the faithful to keep their service activities—especially when subsidized with public
money¾separate from their sectarian practices. By receiving federal contracts or by cashing
vouchers, religious organizations were restricted from proselytizing and could not discriminate in
their hiring based on religious belief.
The faith community has always delivered social services. And contrary to what many people
believe, it has long worked in partnership with government. Groups such as Catholic Charities
and the Jewish Federations work alongside government, sometimes with public subsidies, to
provide services to specific constituencies. These “religiously affiliated” organizations allowed
the faithful to keep their service activities—especially when subsidized with public
money¾separate from their sectarian practices. By receiving federal contracts or by cashing
vouchers, religious organizations were restricted from proselytizing and could not discriminate in
their hiring based on religious belief.
But the 1996 federal legislation outlining welfare reform proposed a new role for faith-based
organizations. In a section referred to as Charitable Choice, Congress made clear that
government would try to remove barriers that hindered religious congregations or non-profits
from using government funds to provide services.
Under Charitable Choice, when states allow private groups to bid for contracts or cash vouchers,
they must allow religious groups to compete evenly, without restrictions on their religious
expression. Although religious groups are not permitted to use the block grant money to
proselytize or evangelize, they can offer religious teaching, display symbols of their faith, and
hire only those who agree with their doctrinal beliefs, if they wish. When this legislation was
passed, both the states and the federal government went to work to increase the faith
community’s involvement in welfare reform.
In Indianapolis, where The Polis Center studies the role of religion in urban communities,
evidence abounds of the new alliances. Former mayor Stephen Goldsmith, now domestic policy
adviser to George W. Bush, created the Front Porch Alliance to involve congregations further in
The Polis Center at IUPUI 1

Ten Good Questions
local community life. At the urging of the juvenile court judge, the county offices that support
the court contract with congregations and other faith-based groups to counsel juveniles as an
alternative to assigning them to parole officers. The state’s Family and Social Service
Administration (FSSA) provides technical assistance to faith-based groups hoping to receive
state contracts to deliver social services.
Clearly, partnerships between government and the religious community in Indianapolis have
moved beyond the hypothetical stage.
For some people, whether religious organizations should be eligible for public funds is primarily
a legal question. For them, Charitable Choice represents only the right of congregations and
other religious organizations to compete for grants or to cash vouchers. But the mayor and the
juvenile court judge went beyond a guarantee of equal access to enthusiastic recruitment of
religious organizations as preferable service providers. They backed up this preference by
shifting funds toward the faith community, especially congregations with an interest in urban
ministry.
While many congregations have long histories of helping the needy, these new sources of funds
have prompted some of them to consider partnerships with government to address problems that,
for decades, have been associated with secular social work. These new partnerships raise new
questions.
Having closely followed local trends toward recruiting and promoting faith-based service
providers, Polis Center researchers have uncovered a number of recurring themes that deserve
attention. And while we have no interest in choosing sides on the issues of welfare reform or
Charitable Choice, we have thought seriously about the national and local contexts in which
these reforms are unfolding and about the factors likely to influence their success or failure.
We believe getting the best information begins with asking the right questions. So rather than
suggest what governments, congregations, or local communities should do, we offer 10 questions
that they should askwhen looking at any program meant to involve the faith community as active
partners with government or secular non-profit groups.
1. Why do the partners believe an expanded role for faith-based providers is better than
current practices, and how will it work?
This question seems so obvious as not to merit asking, but answering this question can be an
invaluable part of the process.
Many groups do not clearly state their motives for forming new alliances among government,
foundations, and the faith community—even to themselves. In their proposals, potential partners
often operate under a set of assumptions that have little basis in fact. Some are suspicious of the
motives behind reforms or doubt they will work. So being clear is essential to success.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 2

Ten Good Questions
When the mayor of Indianapolis or the juvenile court judge actively solicit the faith community,
they are acting on three key assumptions about the advantages of expanded faith-based
participation:
· The ancient principle of subsidiarity. In modern terms, they are claiming that
congregations and other local groups are the smallest unit capable of carrying out
tasks such as counseling or neighborhood renewal. The congregations will do
good works efficiently, so the argument goes, with less bureaucracy than state or
federal programs.
· Faith-based groups are more attuned to their neighbors’ needs, a familiarity that
helps them to make judgments in their clients’ favor.
· Faith-based groups can provide moral teachings and spiritual values that the
poor are portrayed as lacking. The argument here is that traditional welfare, by
providing only material support, has failed to address the core problem of
character transformation. According to these reformers, the goal of faith-based
services is not only to improve someone’s financial position, but also to make her
or him a better person.
None of these assumptions is far-fetched and each contains some measure of truth, but each must
be supported with evidence. Before raising expectations about faith-based reforms, supporters of
reform should think hard about the realities of the local environment in which their assumptions
will be tested.
2. Do congregations have the necessary administrative capacity to work in the service or
development arenas with public funds? If not, what are the alternatives?
Advocates of welfare reform express confidence that faith-based providers will be able to
use public funds more efficiently than do government bureaucrats. Yet bureaucracy of some kind
is necessary for any provider of social services. Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army—both
successful faith-based providers of social services¾are highly bureaucratic.
Smaller faith-based groups, especially congregations, seldom write grant proposals or bother to
track their services or evaluate their programs effectively—tasks other types of non-profits must
do. The question is not whether congregations can develop this capacity, but whether they have
sufficient reason to do so. Are these skills important in their other ministries?
Many congregations have no computer access or use only rudimentary data processing tools on
outdated equipment. They have never had to account for their actions to any external agency
other than a denominational office, and that is largely to report membership, baptisms, and
offerings.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 3

Ten Good Questions
These shortcomings may disappear as congregations learn the ropes of bureaucracy, but few can
invest in the overhead to do so. Many grant programs pay only limited overhead, sometimes 10
percent or less¾a practice that favors organizations with bureaucracies already in place.
Too often the size of grants and scale of programs are determined by the needs and wishes of the
funder rather than the capacities of the providers. A congregation that does not have the capacity
to administer a $250,000 grant might manage $25,000 effectively. For instance, a congregation
might be capable of building two or three houses in a program such as Habitat for Humanity but
wholly incapable of administrating an ongoing transitional housing program. Both government
and foundations need to ask not only, “What is needed?” but also, “What can be effectively
provided?”
Some have argued that the work of congregations and other faith-based providers is so beneficial
that program sponsors should demand fewer records and forms from them. After all, many faith-based
providers deliver valuable services on shoestring budgets. But public funds require
accountability, as do most private funds. To date, most new joint programs between a
government agency or secular non-profit group and the faith community have discovered that
they need to hire a full-time mentor or program officer whose sole job is to help the
congregations adapt to administrative demands. In Indianapolis, the Mayor’s Office developed a
full-time staff for this task. The state’s Family and Social Service administration hired
contractors specifically for this task. While such costs may be justified, they should be
considered sooner rather than later.
3. What resources of potential faith-based partners match the needs of the new program?
This question is key because the answer depends on who gets to answer. Officials from
government and secular non-profits often think congregations have a pool of volunteers and the
ability to raise and direct funds. Congregations, on the other hand, believe they provide moral
support and spiritual content. Many hope to receive new funds to forward their social ministries.
National studies are just beginning to show the available capacity of congregations, but the
picture is still very sketchy. One of the more important facts we have learned in Indianapolis is
that even good numbers from serious research can be misleading.
For instance, the average, or mean, congregation in Indianapolis has about 400 members¾that is,
when we added up all the congregational members in Indianapolis and divided by the number of
congregations, we got 400 members per congregation.
The median number of congregational members, however, is 150—that is, when we lined up
every congregation from largest to smallest and found the middle of the list, that congregation
had about 150 members. Put another way, half of all congregations in our city have fewer than
150 members. A few large congregations make the “average” congregation seem larger.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 4

Ten Good Questions
This is especially important when looking at available funds. The mean, or average, budget of
congregations in our study is $270,000 per year, but the median, or middle, budget is only
$127,000, which does not suggest excess financial capacity.
We asked congregations directly how much they spent on social services. Here, the differences
between larger and smaller congregations are most apparent. The mean for all congregations was
$28,000 spent on social services, or about 10 percent of the mean budget. But the median
congregation reported spending only $4,000. In fact, in some poor, inner-city neighborhoods, the
single largest congregation with the most programs accounts for about 90 percent of all social
service money spent by congregations in the neighborhood.
Those who are looking to congregations as partners must realistically assess their resources. Too
often people envision the 10 or 12 largest congregations with multiple programs and ask, “What
would the world be like if all congregations could do the same thing?” But those 10 or 12 are not
the norm, and few congregations could duplicate their efforts.
Congregations have resources other than money, however, and many have ministries they hope
to expand. If these are worth having, someone else needs to bring the money. To provide
services effectively, most congregations will require considerable overhead funding at start-up.
Recognizing this at the outset would help all partners immeasurably.
Congregations need not start every conversation by disclosing their membership figures or
budgets. But they should ask themselves, “What do we offer this partnership that it cannot get
elsewhere?” and, “Given our time and talents, what is the best stewardship of our resources?”
4. Do congregations or other faith-based providers really offer a “local” advantage to the
new partnership?
In one sense, congregations appear to be quintessential “local” organizations. People who are
hungry or in trouble frequently knock on the door of the first church building in sight, which
makes congregations about as local as an organization could be. In some communities—
especially those with large blocs of ethnic or racial minorities—congregations serve as the local
touchstones that symbolize common experiences.
Despite this de facto local importance, government and foundation leaders should not assume
that congregations exist to serve the immediate neighborhood. Some civic leaders imagine
congregations to be mighty community-building pots brimming with caring members of the
neighborhood, dedicated community leaders, a pool of money and volunteers, and the spirit of
compassion.
Congregations have many of these resources, to be sure, but research from Indianapolis
challenges their image as uniquely local institutions. Typically, fewer than half of the members
live in the immediate neighborhood. Church and synagogue buildings may be permanent, but
congregations are collections of people who can and do relocate to new facilities. Often when
congregations have many members who live nearby, the emphasis on maintaining a “good”
The Polis Center at IUPUI 5

Ten Good Questions
community is linked to property values and can be exclusionary. Congregations cannot be
viewed as fixed resources, as collateral against which distressed communities may borrow.
Because African-American churches are in predominantly African-American neighborhoods,
many white people believe that the members of those churches live in or are tied to the
neighborhood. In fact, African-Americans are no more likely to live near their places of worship
than are whites. In modern America, houses of worship are places that people of all races drive
to, not places they walk to as they might a community center.
Civic leaders are also misguided if they assume that community service is essentially what
congregations do. Congregations are communities of worship and moral training grounds,
especially for the children of members. Most congregations do significant mission work, but
only some of this work is local, and not all is social service. Instead, many congregations view
evangelism as social service, and are as likely to support overseas missions as those next door.
Congregations are not under any obligation to be neighborhood organizations. Their best
stewardship of their resources may well lead them to a less geographic focus. But they should be
aware that others assume they are community centers, and they must decide for themselves how
closely they fit that model. Any emerging partnership should discover how local its various
partners are or intend to be.
5. Will congregations change individuals’ values—maybe even transform lives—and are all
the partners comfortable with that?
The assumption that religious service providers can transform the character of welfare recipients
is based on the belief that recipients have character faults. Doubtless this assumption is
sometimes true, and some welfare recipients need to accept personal responsibility. Many
congregations offer the caring community and strong role models that those people need. But in
other cases, people with strong work habits and high morals find themselves in a tight spot. What
they might need most are decent housing and stable childcare.
Some welfare reformers assume that poor people need to be embedded in a caring community
more than they need direct financial assistance. Most of us, so the logic goes, have family,
friends, and neighbors we can turn to in a pinch. People who cannot get the help they need are
assumed to lack this community. Once they are part of a caring congregation, the logic
continues, the caring atmosphere of the congregation will nurture in them the qualities necessary
to become independent.
But there is little indication that the faith-based providers now participating in Charitable Choice
intend to enlist their new clients as members. Although the fear of proselytizing concerns civil
libertarians most about faith-based providers, the evidence suggests that most clients are not
becoming members of the family, so to speak.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 6

Ten Good Questions
Congregations have always been segregated by race, and by class within race. This new
relationship is unlikely to change that. The poor may get a surrogate community, but joining a
congregation after receiving aid from it is rare for welfare recipients.
The biggest question about values has to do with theological expectations. Many Christians want
to change the values of those they serve by leading them to a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ. To them, transforming someone’s values requires converting them. They consider
sobriety or hard work or parental instincts worthwhile qualities, but their larger goal is to build
committed Christians, good disciples who exhibit these qualities as effects of their conversion.
While supporters of faith-based social services hope that people’s characters will be transformed
so that they display the habits of self-sufficiency, these supporters must recognize that many
religious groups link that transformation to a particular set of religious beliefs—beliefs that
might include a denunciation of others’ beliefs.
Critics of faith-based services use such issues to challenge the motives behind the reforms. Those
from the left of the political spectrum fear that government is trying to foist responsibility for
welfare into the private sector and that the faith community is the path of least resistance. Civil
libertarians fear that churches hope to break down the walls between church and state to get their
hands on government money for their own purposes.
Without question, this is one of the most sensitive areas to consider in forming faith-based
partnerships. When potential partners in faith-based reforms say they hope to change people’s
lives, it is important that they also say how they expect this to be accomplished.
Because many faith-based reforms have moved from proposal to institutional policy, it is
important to ask not only about assumptions, but also about practices. The remaining questions
deal with strategy and with reasonable expectations about the outcomes of these reforms.
6. How can the faith community best learn how government and civic groups operate, and
how can government and civic groups best learn about the faith community?
Civic leaders often know little about religious beliefs or practices beyond their own faith, and
people in the religious world know little about government or non-profit service groups.
Although new partnerships among these groups emerge daily, schools of government or public
policy still teach nothing about religion, and seminaries teach next to nothing about government
or community life.
The question for potential partners is not whether each knows enough about the other’s work:
they do not. The question is, who can teach them? Who can bridge the worlds of government,
secular non-profits, and the faith community?
In most places, a combination of teachers must serve this function. Few people have expertise
that spans all three. All partners must recognize how little their organizations are likely to know
about others, and they must seek to correct that deficiency. Sponsors from government or
The Polis Center at IUPUI 7

Ten Good Questions
foundations must seek to build collaboration among universities, seminaries, non-profit
organizations, and religious organizations to develop materials that bridge the knowledge gaps
among potential partners.
7. Who might best mediate and coordinate the interests of the partners and their
community?
Beyond this need for education, there is a need to coordinate strengths and interests. But
community leaders don’t always know one another or maintain good lines of communication.
Even in small areas, clergy from different congregations may not know one another. As often,
they don’t know their local political or non-profit service leaders.
Although everyone can agree to be helpful, cordial, and mutually supportive, any plan or project
requires someone to do the laborious job of making sure everyone communicates with each other
and coordinates efforts. Who can best do this?
Being neighborhood coordinator is often difficult for the clergy, who have other demands on
their time. Congregational issues will almost always come first. This varies from tradition to
tradition, to be sure, but there is widespread sentiment that pastors had better do a good job
preaching, counseling, and visiting, after which they are free to attend other needs.
Having a local professional civic leader—such as the head of a neighborhood association,
community development corporation, or community center¾do this job often works best. In
Indianapolis, community center directors have effectively bridged gaps among community
organizations if they were familiar enough with the disparate goals of the groups.
Such community leaders are rare, however, because they must know something about the
religious community and be capable of building relationships within it. A number of
neighborhood organizers are former clergy members themselves, but too few development
people know much about religious organizations. Given the historical separation of these
organizations that are now being asked to cooperate, the success of any venture hinges on the
ability of managers to understand and coordinate very different sets of interests.
When a central organization such as the mayor’s office gets involved, as it has in Indianapolis, it
can use its connections to smooth the bumps. But unless care is taken that the agenda appear both
non-partisan and neighborhood-led, it is unlikely to succeed. The more city government or local
foundations can disseminate information and promote programs that facilitate the efforts of
existing community leaders with strong neighborhood ties, the better.
8. What is the religious and political context in which this new partnership will operate?
The “religious” part of this crucial question is almost never asked. For people in government or
in the secular non-profit world, religion is religion. But the role of religious organizations varies
considerably from community to community.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 8

Ten Good Questions
If you were planning a citywide program in Providence, Rhode Island, you would need to start
with the Catholic diocese. More than two-thirds of all religious adherents in Providence are
Catholics. In many ways, other forms of religious life are influenced by their dominant presence.
But in Salt Lake City, Utah, the dominant tradition is Mormon, and other religious groups there
position themselves in relationship to the majority.
These two cities are anomalous in that one tradition dominates each. But they point to the
importance of religious context. It is crucial to know the religious landscape at the macro level of
the city and at the micro level of neighborhood or community.
For most Americans, the differences between Catholics and Mormons, or between Protestants
and Jews, are thought of as primarily theological. But for social service and community
development, the differences are organizational, as well. In religious groups with strong
denominational hierarchies¾say, Methodists¾tasks can be channeled through central offices and
descending management. But in traditions dominated by independent congregations—say,
Baptists—the approach to organizations and the services they will provide is much different.
Even in the same city, a program sponsor hoping to build faith-based partnerships must consider
multiple organizational approaches. It is appropriate to schedule a business meeting with the
bishop or executive officer in some denominations, but it makes no sense to try to locate the
same “higher level” players among independent congregations because they do not exist.
Working only with the pastors of the larger independent churches will surely alienate the pastors
from smaller ones. Better to begin with a multi-level approach that recognizes the great variety
among religious organizations.
At the local level, the differences can be even more striking. The most overlooked organizational
distinction among Christians is the one between Catholic parishes and Protestant congregations.
Most Catholic parishes are still arranged geographically; they have actual boundaries. Catholics
living within those boundaries are expected to worship at the parish church. More important,
they feel a direct sense of mission responsibility for everyone who lives within those boundaries,
whether Catholic or not. That is why urban parochial schools are often full of non-Catholic
children. In Indianapolis, for example, more than 75 percent of students in some inner-city
parochial schools are non-Catholics.
While it is true that these boundaries are observed less rigorously than they once were, Catholics
still think geographically in ways that many Protestants do not. Protestant congregations are
much more likely to link people with similar ethnicity, social class, or other interests. Geography
matters, but less so. Given that welfare reform is attempting to strengthen communities by
involving local institutions, this difference is compelling.
The second half of the question, concerning the political context, is also crucial. Is state or local
government taking an active role in soliciting faith-based participation, is it discouraging
religious groups, or is it committed only to equal access for all groups? States and cities that
change their contracting procedures to accommodate Charitable Choice will likely produce
outcomes much different from those that resist or, as is more likely, make little
acknowledgement at all.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 9

Ten Good Questions
The best available data says that most religious groups know little about Charitable Choice and
are not inclined to apply for public funds. If they are discouraged, and even if they are treated
neutrally, few groups are likely to come forward to build partnerships. Moreover, inadequate
administrative skills will hamper their efforts to compete for grants and contracts against
traditional providers.
But if government and foundations encourage faith-based participation, many more religious
groups will respond. The faith-based partners now participating are, by and large, those that have
been actively recruited and offered new sources of funds for their ministries. Of course, the
decision to offer faith-based providers preferential treatment is a serious one likely to raise a host
of other questions. Program sponsors should face this issue squarely and state clearly their
intention to encourage faith-based partnerships, to discourage them, or to seek neutrality.
9. What will happen to the current organizational roles as these new partnerships develop?
As congregations provide welfare service and aid community development, many people
applaud what they see as a shrinking role for government. But not enough people—and certainly
not enough people outside churches, synagogues and mosques¾have asked what will happen to
religious organizations in this process.
A consultant once asked a group of pastors, “Can you remember when your study became an
office?” Most pastors cringe at the thought that they have become managers of organizations
rather than counselors or preachers. It is now easy to imagine congregation members being asked
one day, “Can you remember when your mission became a program?” There is no way for
congregations to build the administrative capacity necessary to write grants, administer
programs, and evaluate services without changing some of their internal dynamics.
Congregations engaged in new partnerships are typically optimistic about this. They insist that
they will hew to their original mission and cooperate with government only as long as
government does not cause them to lose their religious focus. But if a congregation subsequently
decides to drop a program the members feel is compromising their faith commitment, will they
be willing also to put people out of work and cut clients’ services?
Organizations that compete in the same environment gradually come to look like other
successful organizations in that environment. That is, after all, why people in civic life tout
“model programs.” The implication is that if you want to do the best job, and want to secure
future government or foundation funding, you should follow these “best practices.” The recent
trend toward emphasizing program evaluation with measurable outcomes is a very good
example. Even small organizations that had never quantified their output now routinely propose
evaluative measures by which they can be judged because both governments and foundations
have adopted this management practice.
Will congregations come to look like secular service groups? The Polis Center analyzed more
than 120 applications from faith-based groups to government and foundation programs intended
to build new partnerships. In these applications, most congregations tried to prove they could be
The Polis Center at IUPUI 10

Ten Good Questions
as open and unbiased in their approach as any secular provider, perhaps for fear of being
perceived as sectarian. This led a local civic leader to ask at a forum: “If churches do social
services, who will do what congregations used to do?”
A corollary to the principle that groups come to resemble successful groups in their field is that
gradually they embody the values and tenets of their funders. If an organization’s goal is to
secure funding to do its work, it will eventually espouse more and more of the values of those
who provide funds. Would it be detrimental for congregations to take on the values of
government or foundations? Will efficiency or fairness become more important values than love
or self-sacrifice? Put most bluntly, are the outcomes desired by secular sponsors the same
outcomes the faithful most desire?
Of course, the changes congregations face might be beneficial. The challenge of moving beyond
charity to mentoring, beyond a food pantry to welcoming the needy as part of the family, is
daunting, but many within the faith community welcome the prospect. Many pastors and lay
leaders see this as an opportunity to move their congregations beyond “check-book charity” into
hands-on community service. The risk of becoming dependent on public funds and bound by
legal restrictions is real, but so is the possibility of learning to see mission and ministry in a
different way. Congregations and those who would work with them must think ahead to the risks
and rewards. The fact that no partners can say with certainty what the outcomes will be does not
mean that they can avoid the question.
Because government is so much bigger than congregations, and support for it is compulsory, it is
easier to duck the question of what will happen to government in this new arrangement. But it is
possible to imagine a time when government is primarily a resource broker choosing openly
among proposals from various faith-communities. It is also possible to imagine large shifts in
what has become a substantial service bureaucracy. It is easy to tout the responsibilities
government will devolve, but too few have noted the new, or at least different, responsibilities it
may acquire as a result of these partnerships. If government is to choose among and between
faith-based proposals, for instance, it may find itself policing evangelism or proselytization and
judging the relative merits of various spiritual or moral values.
Secular non-profit groups could also change significantly. Contemporary social work
professionals, MSW’s in hand, are aware that a move toward service provision by the faith
community has meant their credentials have been devalued in favor of other values and beliefs
considered constructive or appropriate by some funding sponsors.
In the juvenile court, there was suspicion at first between the traditional counselors and the new
faith-based counselors. Both sides are adjusting, but the tension is understandable. The question
is not ultimately whether the groups can get along, but which kinds of values and skills will be
rewarded with contracts? As program sponsors promote the advantages of faith-based providers,
will they dismiss a generation of trained professionals as an unneeded bureaucracy?
The Polis Center at IUPUI 11

Ten Good Questions
10. Who will benefit and who stands to lose?
Many people see only benefits from congregational involvement in providing social services—
not only in reducing government welfare, but also in improving the lives of former welfare
recipients.
It is also common, however, to hear religious providers assess their contributions using
intangible measures. “Maybe we can help only two people a year,” they might say, “but if we
make a permanent change in the lives of those two people, isn’t that what it is really all about?”
The question is well put. But it also brings to mind another question: “What about the rest of the
people?”
Resources are limited, and many people need help. If the argument is that the government’s
approach is superficial but the faith community treats the whole person, does it follow that the
faith community can treat the whole person for the same amount of money per capita the
government now spends? And if not, where will the additional resources come from? Any
governmental or secular provider could show an improvement for 50 percent of its clients if it
simply doubled the money for that half and gave none to the other half. But surely this is not the
prescribed action.
And what about the clients who might not want faith-based social service? Not everyone will.
Current legislation requires that they have a choice between secular and religious service, but
surely their rights go beyond mere selection; they should have an equal right to quality of
service. Will the quality of secular social service be affected if funders prefer faith-based
providers? Will faith-based groups discriminate in the clients they wish to help, thereby leaving
other clients in less favorable circumstances?
If they do, service recipients who reject faith-based providers or who are themselves rejected
could be put at risk. The differences needn’t be stark, but a matter of degree: Christian providers
are not apt to reject Muslim or Jewish clients out of hand, but they may be less able to serve
them effectively. Moreover, those clients may not wish to receive services from Christian
providers. In Indianapolis, virtually all the current religious partners in welfare reform are
Christian. If funders favor Christian services, and secular services suffer as a result, where will
non-Christians turn?
This risk is especially great if, as some supporters hope, service from the government and secular
nonprofits is scaled back as faith-based service is increased. Every contract that goes from the
Juvenile Court to a religious provider is one that does not go to a secular provider. Only time will
tell whether the religious provider is more effective, though common sense indicates that they
will be better in some cases and not in others.
The Polis Center at IUPUI 12

Ten Good Questions
BETTER INFORMATION, BETTER ANSWERS
The world is glutted with information, and we are all swamped with statistics, model programs,
and best practices. No one could possibly organize all the available information and use it
effectively. Despite this, policies and programs are designed every day without the most
rudimentary information necessary to the task. Partially this is because we are entering new
territory. Sometimes it is that people do not know where to look for answers.
In considering the possibility of new programs, potential partners sometimes bring bad attitudes:
government officials who do not understand or appreciate the contributions faith-based groups
can make, or religious leaders who think government caused the problems in the first place. In
attempting to answer the questions we have posed, potential partners can face up to their own
prejudices and clearly state their expectations.
Given the publicity and enthusiasm surrounding the groundbreaking programs under Charitable
Choice, it is likely that religious groups will continue to form new alliances with governmental
and nonprofit agencies. Yet the available facts are sketchy and should not be used to make
sweeping changes in public policy. Indeed, most congregations know nothing about Charitable
Choice and express no interest in applying for public funds, even if they are available. At the
least, everyone should be clear about the true size of the pool of potential partners.
Some religious organizations can do a better job than some secular agencies in
some circumstances. Some religious organizations require less overhead than secular groups and
can handle administrative tasks at lower expense. Some congregations truly know their clients
and can transform the lives of some of those clients in ways that secular or governmental
providers never could.
But there is a great difference between recognizing that some religious programs are excellent
and deserve more support and declaring that, in general, religious options are preferable to
secular ones and therefore deserve substantial public or foundation support. The first claim is
true; the second has not been demonstrated.
Strategies differ according to context, but the relevant questions usually don’t. It may seem time-consuming,
even a little academic, to begin with questions that appear abstract at first glance.
But groups who ask one another these questions about both motive and method, and who do the
hard work of finding answers, will discover that whatever partnerships they eventually develop
will be stronger for having done so. When everyone is clear about their own—and others’
expectations, everyone benefits.
Author: Arthur Farnsley
The Polis Center at IUPUI 13