July 2001

Alternatives to Charitable Choice 

Some supporters of the president's initiative have urged the administration and Congress to focus on the tax provisions of Bush's plan. On March 25, YMCA executive director Kenneth Gladish told the House Ways and Means Committee, "Our tax code is the most powerful tool available to send a message that we, as Americans, highly value and support charitable giving, but today this message goes only out to the 30 percent of taxpayers who itemize their deductions."

Writing in the Christian Science Monitor, Sara E. Meléndez, president and CEO of Independent Sector, and Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ of the USA, echoed Gladish's words. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee in June, Meléndez also advocated allowing IRA holders to make untaxed charitable contributions from their accounts.

Other proponents have suggested that the government provide vouchers to individuals in need. Each recipient would use the vouchers to pay for social services, deciding for him- or herself whether to seek assistance from a secular or faith-based organization. John DiIulio terms vouchers the "more appropriate" way for faith-based organizations to receive federal funds.

Actions Outside Washington 

Bush's proposals have stimulated several states to act on charitable choice. Virginia officials have encouraged faith-based organizations to compete for state funds. A Florida state representative proposed that each state agency be required to develop procedures for providing money to faith-based organizations. In California, a hate-crimes bill called for funding faith-based as well as secular programs, and in Ohio, the legislature created a task force to study ways to get state and federal money to religious and secular social-service organizations.

Oklahoma's Office of Faith-Based Liaison surveyed 7,000 churches, congregations, synagogues, mosques, and community outreach ministries in the state. Barely 1 percent of the 749 organizations that responded had known about charitable choice before the survey, and only 0.6 percent reported that they were already receiving federal funds. An overwhelming 75 percent said they would work in partnership with the government to provide social services, and 68 percent indicated that they would accept federal money.

In May, Oklahoma governor Frank Keating signed an executive order instructing the appropriate state agencies to implement charitable choice. The state also sponsored two "Faithlinks" conferences to teach Oklahoma faith-based organizations how to compete for federal grants.

Even local governments are getting in on the act. Rather than hire two new employees, Cincinnati, Ohio, leaders decided to contract with faith-based or nonprofit organizations to provide maintenance at city parks and playgrounds.

Conclusion 

Although the fate of the president's proposal remains in doubt, his initiative has brought philanthropy—particularly secular and religious social-service organizations—into the limelight. Perhaps, as House Judiciary chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) told Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration did indeed fail to do "its homework broadening its base so that it had broad bipartisan support" for the plan. Or perhaps Murray Friedman of Temple University is right when he says that the debate merely reflects "the growing pains of a new idea."

Time will tell.

Suzanne E. Coffman, July 2001
© 2001, Philanthropic Research, Inc.