Think Tanks Tackle Faith-Based Funding

Scholars and researchers are weighing in with their opinions, but this issue is fraught with many unanswered questions.

"What's most fascinating about this is that it's a reopening of the question of what's the proper relationship between government and religious institutions," says John Farina, a senior fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Farina sees a gradual change over the last ten years from the predominantly secular mindset of the 1970s. Court decisions of recent years have broadened the definition of what constitutes separation of church and state, he maintains.

The administration's new proposal is not being taken at face value. A chorus of scholars and researchers is praising, damning, or simply raising questions about the creation of a White House office to deal with faith-based initiatives and the President's proposal to allow federal money to assist these organizations in their activities.

Some opponents of Bush's faith-based initiatives claim they will lead to race and gender discrimination in federally funded programs. Others argue that support of faith-based initiatives could lead to support for religious proselytizing. At the same time, some supporters of the religious efforts worry that federal support could water down the original religious impulse behind many of the initiatives.

The arguments have little merit legally but may pay off politically, says Farina. Many opponents of government support for religious-based anti-poverty measures also oppose its "constitutional cousin," vouchers for use at private schools, says Farina. While national polls show that Democratic voters support faith-based initiatives more than Republicans by a 61 percent to 49 percent margin - and that 87 percent of black voters also favor them - national leaders of the groups which make up the Democratic coalition are skeptical, he says.

Farina says the Bush initiative has its roots in section 104 of the Welfare Reform bill of 1996, a measure embraced by both Bill Clinton and Republican leaders of Congress. That legislation allows states to contract with religious organizations or allow religious organizations to accept money under Titles I, II, and IV of the Social Security Act. Farina says that faith-based organizations can compete on the same basis as any other non-government provider, without diminishing either constitutional freedoms or their religious identity.

On Jan. 29, the day Bush announced the establishment of the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, an active voice of what both critics and friends refer to as "the religious left," raised a number of questions about the initiative, but also struck a conciliatory note. "There is a positive and very significant role for our religious institutions to play in our national life, hand in hand with the government," he said.

At the same time, Saperstein cited concerns about the constitutionality of the proposal, as well as the effect it might have on the religious groups involved. Religious groups, he noted, "must realize that with government money come government rules and regulations, regulations that will entice religious groups to compromise their consciences for the sake of the public dole."

This concern can be heard in many quarters. The Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute, a leading libertarian think tank, has stepped to the forefront as a platform for scholars who oppose Bush's initiative. Under the President's plan, "charities will have to prove they're not using government funds to proselytize," says Michael Tanner, Cato's director of health and welfare studies. Tanner says this will require charities to spend valuable resources coping with the disclosure requirements. He also believes that government will gradually exert control over the faith-based institutions. "Government funding may quickly become a source of dependency for the charities themselves," he says.

Some others believe the dispute will not play out gently. "I don't think the critics are going to let up," says Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "I think it's going to get nasty." Cromartie says that Saperstein has offered conciliatory words because the rabbi "is a decent man." Other opponents of Bush's plan will not echo Saperstein's words, says Cromartie.

At the same time, many voices citing the benefits of faith-based institutions can also be heard. Think tank scholars are reluctant to openly attack the initiative, largely because of the respect John Dilulio, the scholar tapped by Bush to head the White House office, enjoys in the think tank community.

"Dilulio's a great empirical social scientist," says Cromartie. Dilulio, a registered Democrat who teaches at the University of Pennsylvania, has a strong background with think tanks of different political leanings. He is a former fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, and has been published by the conservative Manhattan Institute.

In a recent interview with researchers at the National Institute for Healthcare Research, before he was tapped for the White House post, Dilulio said that those who question faith-based initiatives were right to question assumptions.

"I would say be skeptical because I am too, but don't ignore the relevant empirical data," he said. Dilulio cites such data from political scientist John Q. Wilson of UCLA, who has said there is a "small but significant" body of research indicating that "religion, independent of other factors, reduces deviance." He also points out a research project conducted in the early 1990s by the National Congress for Community Economic Development, which concluded that African-American church-based community development projects had positive impact on the inner city.

There are other links between think tanks and those active in faith-based initiatives. Eugene Rivers, the pastor of the Azusa Christian Community in Dorchester, Massachusetts and founder of the National Ten Point Leadership Foundation, is director and co-founder of the Seymour Institute for Advanced Christian Studies. The Ten-Point Leadership Foundation promotes Rivers' "ten-point plan" to mobilize churches to combat black-on-black violence. Rivers, an ex-gang member and Harvard graduate, has worked with the World Council of Churches - not a favorite among many religious conservatives - in AIDS reduction efforts. His ten-point program has been the focus of serious attention among urban policymakers.

In an interview with the Jesuit magazine America, Rivers said that during the first half of the 1990s, Boston experienced a 61 percent drop in crime, "attributable to a number of factors, not the least of which was the partnership between the largely black clergy and the white law enforcement establishment in the Boston area."

While these figures may sound impressive, it's not clear that the battle over Bush's proposal will be fought in this area. "It's my impression that critics don't usually object to the religious institutions," says Cromartie. "They focus on the constitutional question," of whether funding their activities is legal or not.

So there is room for both constitutional scholars and social scientists in this debate. Right now a key issue is that people on both sides hope that at some point a critically needed, serious analysis will be done on the effectiveness of faith-based institutions in solving the problems that Bush proposes they address with federal funds.

"There are still some objective social scientists out there," says Cromartie. "And I'm hopeful we can get some answers.''