Legislation & Politics

AFSCME's Position – Charitable Choice/The Faith-Based Intitiative

Background

Shortly after taking office, President Bush initiated an intense debate in Congress over the appropriate role of religious organizations in government-funded programs.

Traditionally, religious organizations that wanted to expand their charitable work and provide social services, without a religious mission, established separate non-profit entities in order to receive government grants. Establishing a separate entity not only protects the house of worship from government interference in its religious mission, but also protects the public by ensuring that government funds are not used to advance a particular religion. Notable examples of non-profit entities established by faith organizations are Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services and Lutheran Social Services, which receive millions in federal, state and local government funds each year.

Under "charitable choice" or the President's faith-based initiative, houses of worship could receive federal funding directly and without the need to establish non-profit entities. Charitable choice advocates claim this new arrangement is necessary because government funding policy discriminates against houses of worship. However, many in the religious community have expressed concerns that charitable choice will lead to intrusion into their ministries. In addition, civil rights organizations and civil liberties groups oppose charitable choice because it would allow employment discrimination on the basis of religion in federally-funded programs.

Furthermore, a recent study by the Urban Institute found that there is almost no oversight of the presence of religious content in social programs operated by faith-based organizations that are funded by the government.

Summary of legislation

Charitable choice provisions currently exist in three federal programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration program and the Community Services Block Grant. In all three cases the provisions were quietly added to bills without hearings or significant debate.

Since taking office, President Bush has pushed for a bill to expand charitable choice to all social programs. If such legislation were to be enacted, it would roll back a 60-year federal commitment to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of religion in government-funded jobs. Currently, there is no new federal funding for social programs. Funding directed to houses of worship would force cuts to public and other non-profit social service agencies that currently provide social services. Also, local government officials have raised concerns that charitable choice could direct precious government resources away from experienced public and non-profit agencies now carrying out social services to religious grantees with little experience or capacity to do the work.

So far, the Congress has declined to enact a broad-based expansion of charitable choice. In response, President Bush has moved aggressively to advance charitable choice through executive order and administrative policies where there are no statutory prohibitions. However, laws that authorize some federal programs, including Head Start, the Social Services Block Grant, and job training under the Workforce Investment Act include provisions which specifically prohibit government grantees from engaging in religious discrimination when hiring individuals to work in a federally funded program. President Bush and his allies in the Congress have repeatedly tried to strip these anti-discrimination provisions from these laws. While their efforts have met with success in the House, the Senate has generally been reluctant to strip civil rights protections from these social programs.

AFSCME position

AFSCME opposes "charitable choice" because it allows job seekers who meet job qualifications in all respects to be turned away from government-funded employment solely because they practice the "wrong" religion. In addition, the Administration's proposal would:

  • Undermine the existing social service infrastructure of public agencies and non-profit organizations by directing government funding away from them and to houses of worship and other faith-based groups.

  • Give religion precedence over proven experience and effective service delivery in the selection of social service providers.

  • Expand the application of religious exemptions from various worker protections, including organizing and collective bargaining rights; laws providing unemployment insurance benefits; and health benefits under COBRA. Broad-based charitable choice legislation would allow houses of worship and other faith-based organizations to continue to be exempted from these laws even when operating a government-funded service.

  • Lead to government interference in religion.

What you can do

Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you oppose Charitable Choice and the Bush Administration's Faith-Based Initiative.

Department of Legislation
September 2005

Print Version