Contact: Maridith Geuder
Most Americans approve in principle of charitable choice. According to national opinion polls, however, most also admit they don't have a clue how--or if--faith-based initiatives will work in practice.
Drawing on a study of 30 religious congregations in rural Mississippi, sociologists John P. Bartkowski of Mississippi State University and Helen A. Regis have identified the promise and the peril of faith-based welfare reform. Formerly of MSU, Regis now is a teacher and researcher at Louisiana State University.
In "Charitable Choices--Religion, Race, and Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era," they examine the difficulties Mississippians, like other Americans, have in drawing broad-brushed conclusions about faith-based initiatives designed to relieve poverty. Recently published by New York University Press, the 200-page book is among the first to look squarely at the role of race in faith-based initiatives.
"While we focus on Mississippi, a state that ranks high in charitable giving and in poverty, our results have implications around the nation," Bartkowski said.
First introduced in 1996 as part of the post-welfare Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, charitable choice prohibits states contracting with local service nonprofits from excluding faith-based organizations in the competitive bidding process.
"Charitable choice assumes that religious organizations can compete on a level playing field with other nongovernmental providers, or that inequities between faith-based and secular providers can be easily corrected," the two authors write. Their research illustrate how complex issues--including the fact that nongovernmental providers have years of 'legs-up' experience--make the assumption problematic.
"One of our most important findings is that denominational structures vary widely, influencing the way that they provide relief," Bartkowski said.
Where larger congregations with adequate resources may provide ongoing meal, day-care or counseling programs, smaller congregations often are able to only offer intermittent relief through adopt-a-family and related community programs. Still others must work through area ministerial associations and other umbrella organizations.
"Also, because faith-based organizations must write proposals to compete for government grants, certain types of congregations may enjoy an advantage over others," Bartkowski said. He observed that congregations led by lay ministers clearly are at a disadvantage to those whose leaders have easy access to university expertise in the submission of state contract proposals.
Bartkowksi and Regis note that "because of economic inequality in our society at large, some of the most disadvantaged congregations are African-American. But they are often quite socially active as well, so they often are more connected to the people who are poor, but are more removed from the power brokers."
The book argues that government and social policymakers often are wrong to assume that dominant congregations can best serve those in need.
"Policies need to provide a mechanism for inclusiveness," Bartkoswki said. "We need to be aggressive and to take extra steps to reach all congregations."
While the level-playing field concept is a laudable objective of charitable choice, Bartkowski admitted that "it will be difficult to obtain." Yet despite concerns, he said he remains "cautiously optimistic that faith-based initiatives can work."
For more information about the research, telephone Dr. Bartkowski at (662) 325-8621. For more about "Charitable Choices," visit http://www.nyupress.org.