Nick Smith, August 24, 2003

Since the beginning of the so-called "war on poverty," the government has spent trillions of dollars on programs such as AFDC, Food Stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Title I, and Head Start. For most of their existence, these programs had little effect on the poverty rate. But in 1994, Congress enacted welfare reform, which both required the able-bodied to work for benefits and put time limits on benefits. This cut the welfare rolls between one-third and one-half and greatly increased the rate of employment among the poor.

To follow up on that success, President Bush proposed allowing secular and religious charitable organizations to compete for government funds to provide help for those still needing assistance. The idea was simply common sense. Many religious and secular charities have better records treating social pathologies such as drug and alcohol addiction, prison rehabilitation, and spouse and child abuse than traditional government agencies. So long as the charities' programs, such as soup kitchens, offer the same services to all regardless of religion, why shouldn't the government consider contracting out social welfare work to such operations? Faith-based organizations, by employing motivated workers and sometimes using a spiritual perspective on people's problems, can help some people who cannot be helped through traditional government programs.

On August 15, I attended the Michigan Faith-Based Summit in Jackson to promote these ideas. The summit brought together some of the faith-based community to explore ways to get resources and services delivered efficiently and effectively to those people who desperately need them. It took place at the Greater Bible Way Temple, whose pastor, Ira Combs Jr. has been an articulate advocate for the involvement of faith-based organizations in federally-funded social services.

In Congress, the House passed legislation to facilitate faith-based initiatives two years ago but the Senate took no action. The legislation allowed faith-based organizations to provide government-funded services on several conditions. There has to be a requirement that beneficiaries are not forced into any religious programs. Of course, the faith-based organization also cannot use government funds for religious programs or proselytization. President Bush implemented much of this program through Executive Order 13279, after the last Congress adjourned without the Senate taking action.

A controversy is now brewing over one last and essential change necessary to make faith-based initiatives a significant part of government social programs. Under current law, religious organizations can make religious belief a condition of employment. That means that a church can choose to employ only people who are compatible with its beliefs. Most faith-based organizations insist on an extension of this exemption from employment discrimination law for employees hired to provide government-funded social services. Understandably, a particular faith-based group does not want to be forced to employ atheists or people who have radically different religious views from their own.

Providing such an exemption is controversial, but I think it will pass the House as it did in 2001. We need to provide the best services we can for the money we spend on social programs. Harnessing the expertise and effectiveness of faith-based organizations to transform lives and benefit America's communities is reasonable.

Congressman Nick Smith represents Michigan's Seventh Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.