| Table of Contents Promise Keepers
Religion and the Post-Welfare State
McCaughey Babies
Islam in Virginia
The Pope in Cuba
Patriarch's Visit
Religion in a Cold Climate
Clinton Scandal
|
Missing the Boat on Charitable
Choice
by David Weiner
Over the past three years, reporters have produced literally thousands of stories on the
landmark 1996 federal welfare reform law-the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Act. But Section 104-a key provision that significantly reduced the separation of church
and state at the behest of Republican reformers-flew in under the media’s radar.
Altogether, major newspapers, wire services, broadcast networks, and magazines ran a scant
30 pieces on this "charitable choice" section, with a miniscule three articles
published in the period before the bill’s passage. The sole substantial piece
published prior to passage appeared in USA Today nine months before final
legislative action. And Cathy Lynn Groomsman’s 465-word story, headlined
"Lawyers not swayed by ‘Charitable Choice’," appeared deep in the
paper on page 11D.Charitable choice gives religious organizations the right to compete
for state social service contracts, even if their programs are distinctly sectarian. It
allows states to distribute welfare money to churches, mosques, and synagogues to provide
services just as long as the money is not spent for "sectarian worship, instruction,
or proselytization." It also permits the hiring of staff on the basis of religious
tests. The bill’s first anniversary in the fall of 1997 spurred a handful of
reporters to examine charitable choice more carefully. They uniformly identified it as
significant legislation and provided well-balanced and probing coverage of the web of
issues associated with the law. Jan Ferris of the Sacramento Bee, for example,
reported on November 4 that "unprecedented overhaul of the nation’s welfare laws
has prompted county officials...to lean on the religious community like never
before." Most of these articles focused on the array of perceived risks to both the
recipients and religious groups, including entanglement of church and state, the lack of a
clear definition of proselytization, accountability problems, and the creation of
safety-net loopholes for welfare recipients. In a USA Today commentary on
Sep-tember 3, 1997, Stephen Burger argued: "The new law allows faith-based charities
to retain ‘control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its
religious belief.’ However, the devil (if you will) is in the details. A
‘limitations’ clause states that ‘no funds provided directly to
institutions or organizations to provide services...shall be expended for sectarian
worship, instruction or proselytization.’ Now, what exactly does that mean?"
Such exceptions notwithstanding, the coverage of charitable choice has not been sufficient
to register even a blip on the radar screen of public awareness. Worse, nearly two years
after the fact, few local governments and religious organizations are yet aware of federal
policy changes that could drastically alter the ways they function.
David Weiner, a member of Trinity College's Class of 1998, was editorial
assistant for Religion in the News.
|