Charitable choice has focused policy attention on the oft-neglected universe of faithrelated 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 constructively 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 coalitions and organizing networks; (b) contradicts a simplified understanding of faithrelated organizations as agents for “instilling virtues and character in the poor,” recognizing 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 regulatory, instead drawing attention to the difficult local work of integrating the resources of faith-related organizations with other public, private, and voluntary organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ammerman, N. T.
(1997). Congregation & community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
Anderson, S.
, Orr, J., & Silverman, C. (2001). Can we make welfare reform work?: The California Religious Community Capacity Study. Sacramento: California Council of Churches.
3.
Berger, P.
, & Neuhaus, J. (1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute.
4.
Berman, E. M.
(1996). Local government andcommunity basedstrategies: Evidence from a national survey of a social problem. American Review of Public Administration, 26(1), 71-91.
5.
Boyte, H.
(1985). Community is possible. New York: Harper & Row.
6.
Campbell, D.
(1987). Church-state separation andcompeting political ideals: The promise of value-based community organizing. Christian Scholar’s Review, 17(1), 25-35.
7.
Campbell, D.
(1997). Community welfare reform planning: Early indications from six California counties (Working Papers Series). Davis: University of California, California Communities Program.
8.
Campbell, D.
(1998). Welfare reform, workforce development, and the challenge of job creation (California Community Topics, No. 3). Davis: University of California, California Communities Program.
9.
Campbell, D.
(1999). Building the plane while flying it: Welfare reform and emerging patterns of community governance (California Community Topics, No. 4). Davis: University of California, California Communities Program.
10.
Campbell, D.
(2000). Welfare reform shines a light on workforce development challenges. California Agriculture, 54(1), 35-40.
11.
Carlson-Thies, S. W.
, & Skillen, J. W. (1996). Welfare in America: Christian perspectives. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
12.
Castelli, J.
(1997). Faith-related social services: A blessing, not a miracle (Policy Report No. 27). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
13.
Center for Public Justice. (1997). Aguide to charitable choice. Available from Center for Public Justice Web site, http://www.cpjustice.org
14.
Chaves, M.
(1999). Religious congregations andwelfare reform: Who will take advantage of “charitable choice?”American Sociological Review, 64, 836-846.
15.
Cnaan, R. A.
(1997). Social and community involvement of religious congregations housed in historic religious properties: Findings from a six-city study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, Program for the Study of Organized Religion and Social Work.
16.
Cnaan, R. A.
(with Wineburg, R. J., & Boddie, S. C.). (1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York: Columbia University Press.
17.
Davis, D. H.
(1996). The church-state implications of the new welfare reform law. Journal of Church and State, 38(4), 719-731.
18.
Glenn, C. L.
(2000). The ambiguous embrace: Government and faith-based schools and social agencies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
Graf, A.
(1980). Integrating the discussion of values into the organizing process. San Francisco: Organize Training Center.
20.
Hall, P. D.
(1992). Inventing the nonprofit sector. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
21.
Harris, M.
(1995). Quiet care: Welfare work andreligious congregations. Journal of Social Policy, 24(1), 53-71.
22.
Hodgkinson, V. A.
, Weitzman, M., & Kirsh, A. (1988). From belief to commitment: The activities and finances of religious congregations in the United States: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
23.
Jeavons, T. H.
(1998). Identifying characteristics of “religious” organizations: An exploratory proposal. In N. J. Demerath, P. D. Hall, T. Schmitt, & R. H. Williams, Sacred companies: Organizational aspects of religion and religious aspects of organizations (pp. 79-95). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Lemp, C.
, Campbell, D., & Wright, J. (1999). Nonprofit involvement in welfare reform: Fresno County and Proteus, Inc.Davis: University of California, California Communities Program.
25.
Miller, M.
(1978). The ideology of the community organizing movement. San Francisco: Organize Training Center.
26.
Netting, F. E.
(1982). Secular andreligious funding of church-relatedagencies. Social Service Review, 56, 586-604.
27.
Orr, J.
(2001). Religion-based employment discrimination in charitable choice: A guide for the perplexed. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Religion and Civic Culture.
28.
Pierce, G.
(1984). Activism that makes sense. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist.
29.
Printz, T. J.
(1998). Faith-related service providers in the nation’s capital: Can they do more? (No. 2 in Charting Civil Society, a series by the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
30.
Salamon, L. M.
(1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
Sherman, A. L.
(1995, Fall). Cross purposes: Will conservative welfare reform corrupt religious charities?Policy Review, 74, 58-63.
32.
Sherman, A. L.
(2000a). The growing impact of charitable choice: A catalogue of new collaborations between government and faith-based organizations in nine states. Washington, DC: Center for Public Justice.
33.
Sherman, A. L.
(2000b, July 5-12). Churches as government partners: Navigating “charitable choice”. The Christian Century, pp. 716-721.
34.
Smith, S. R.
, & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonprofits for hire: The welfare state in the age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
Smith, S. R.
, & Sosin, M. R. (2001). The varieties of faith-relatedagencies. Public Administration Review, 61, 651-670.
36.
Wineburg, R. J.
(1993, Spring). Social policy, community service development, and religious organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 3(3), 283-297.
37.
Wineburg, R. J.
(1994, Summer). A longitudinal case study of religious congregations in local human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(2), 159-169.
38.
Wolch, J. R.
(1990). The shadow state: Government and voluntary sector in transition. New York: The Foundation Center.
39.
Wolfe, A.
(1989). Whose keeper? Social science and moral obligation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
40.
Wood, R. L.
(1994). Faith in action: Religious resources for political success in three congregations. Sociology of Religion, 55(4), 397-417.
