Drawing on a study of congregations in rural Mississippi, sociologist John Bartkowski, of Mississippi State University, and Helen A. Regis, cultural anthropologist at Louisiana State University and former MSU professor, have evaluated the pros and cons of faith-based welfare reform.
In their book “Charitable Choices: Religion, Race, and Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era,” Bartkowski and Regis examine the difficulties Mississippians, as well as others in America, have had 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 government initiatives.
The book, an ethnographic study of faith-based poverty relief in 30 congregations in the rural South, draws on in-depth interviews and fieldwork in Mississippi faith communities, examining how religious conviction and racial dynamics shape congregational benevolence.
The volume examines how congregations are coping with national developments in social welfare policy and reveals the strategies that religious communities utilize to fight poverty in their local communities. Through this, the book identifies both the prospects and pitfalls likely to result from the expansion of charitable choice.
While attending the University of Texas as a graduate student in sociology, Bartkowski heard a talk given by Marvin Olasky, author of “The Tragedy of American Compassion,” who said that faith communities could provide welfare services much more effectively than the government. Not wholly convinced by Olasky’s argument, Bartkowski decided, along with Regis, to investigate what congregations were doing to alleviate poverty after moving to Mississippi, the first state to implement a faith-based welfare reform initiative.
Their studies led to the subject of charitable choice, which is based on a provision in a 1996 welfare reform law called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Charitable choice forbids the government from discriminating against faith-based providers of social services on the basis of religion, now in essence prohibiting states from excluding faith-based organizations when contracting with local service nonprofits in the competitive bidding process.
“Charitable choice” assumes that religious organizations are able to compete on a level playing field with other non-governmental providers for government funding for social services and aid programs and that inequities between faith-based and secular providers can easily be corrected. Bartkowski and Regis’ research illustrates how complex issues–including the fact that nongovernmental providers have years of ‘legs-up’ experience–make this assumption problematic.
Bartkowski maintains that there are pros and cons to charitable choice. One advantage of the program, he states, is that “it outlaws the discriminatory treatment of faith-based organizations, which previously had to secularize to be considered a viable service provider by the government. At the same time, charitable choice prohibits faith-based organizations from trying to convert clients who use their services. So, another advantage is that the provision protects the religious liberties of welfare clients.”
However, Barkowski and Regis’ research also points out disadvantages in the program concerning possible problems with implementation. From this research, Bartkowski maintains that unless faith-based organizations are taught how to compete for government money with other providers, both religious and secular, they are unlikely to find government funds that they may need.
“Where larger congregations with adequate resources may provide ongoing meal, day-care or counseling programs,” Bartkowski pointed out, “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.”
Bartkowski also said, “Faith communities will also have to be sure that they understand the obligations associated with accepting money from the government if they compete successfully for such funds.
For more information on “Charitable Choices-Religion, Race, and Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era,” see www.nyupress.org. For more information on charitable choice studies, contact Bartkowski at 325-8621.