new report from the Center for Public Justice indicates that over 100 different religious groups in nine states are now using government funds to deliver a battery of social services thanks to changes enacted under the 1996 welfare reform law.

   That legislation opened the door for faith-based groups to apply for federal money in order to become social service providers. Under the statute, religious groups are not permitted to use the funds for proselytizing, but critics charge that there are few controls and oversight procedures, and that the program still violates the establishment clause.

   According to the Center's Charitable Choice Tracking Project, public money is now reaching faith-based outreaches in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin. Project director Amy Sherman, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, reported that she found 125 "collaborations" involving religious organizations and government funding agencies since the program began in 1996.

   "Eighty-four of these collaborations involved direct or indirect funding, with the government awarding contracts that ranged from $5,000 to more than $500,000 to faith-based groups," noted the Washington Times newspaper.

   The other "collaborations" involved non-financial transfers. Ms. Sherman noted that Wisconsin had the most projects underway, with 42, and Virginia had 11. More than half of the 125 organizations were working with government for the first time.

   The 1996 legislation included controversial provision which encourage cooperation between government funding units and faith-based groups, A key element was the "charitable choice" provision, which not only sought to involve sectarian groups in the social welfare process, but protect the "religious integrity and character" of such groups as well. Churches or other faith-based groups accepting public money, in theory, may not use religion as a qualification for accepting clients, and may not use the funding to promote their sectarian doctrines.

   Critics charge that it is often difficult if not impossible, though, to separate the "secular" funding and outreach component from the overall mission of religion-based organizations, and that public money is being used to indirectly benefit churches or other groups. Some argue that the funding enhances the stature and image of sectarian groups, and religion in general. Even some religious organizations fear that with government money will come regulation, controls and, ultimately, demands for strict accounting procedures.

   The Tracking Project study found that most of the religious groups encountered difficulty in navigating the application process to obtain public funding. "The lone exception was Texas, which has simplified its application process," noted the Times, "and assigned staff members in each region to act as faith-community liaisons..."

   Another controversial element of the "charitable choice" legislation is that faith-based providers may still discriminate in their employment practices. A Center for Public Justice "Guide To Charitable Choice," aimed at prospective faith-based social welfare providers notes: "Participating faith-based organizations, notwithstanding their receipt of federal funds, retain their exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which permits employment discrimination on the grounds of religion."

   Presumably, potential beneficiaries of social services which are funded and delivered by churches or other religious groups may seek secular alternatives -- if there are any.

   The Center's "Guide" informs prospective sectarian groups, "There is no violation (of the establishment clause) if government funds are expended for general public purposes, even if the provider of the services is a faith-based organization. Government here is not aiding religion. Rather, it is aiding beneficiaries by means of nongovernmental organization..."

   The line between church and state in the "charitable choice" issue, though, is blurred. CPJ Director of Social Policy Studies Stanley Carlson-Thies admits that choice "obligates government to respect the religious character of faith-based providers that accept public money by affirming that: the organizations can retain religious symbols and items in the place of service (and) faith-based concepts and language can be used in providing the welfare services; (and) the organizations retain their right to use religious criteria in hiring and firing of staff..."

   "Charitable Choice" was eagerly promoted and signed into law by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. Since then, the notion of crafting further government-religion "partnerships" has become a fad in the year 2000 election campaign, with both Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush calling for more funding of sectarian groups in order to deal with an array of social problems.

[text only]