ith Congress beginning hearings on President Bush's plan to subsidize religion-based social programs, a growing number of academics and other policy makers are now admitting that empirical support for heady claims about the efficacy of such outreaches is wanting.

   "We've created an office out of anecdotes," declares University of Pennsylvania criminologist Byron R. Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania. He should know. Johnson is part of the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, a think-tank started by John DiIulio, who is now head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He has also served as adjunct fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, one of the private "civil society" organizations calling for a greater role by religious groups in the social welfare mix. Johnson also has in the past argued that religious belief is a proven and powerful tool in combating community problems, everything from drug use to violence; and he still sees a role for the "faith community" in prison rehab programs and other social services.

   Johnson, though, is also one of a growing number of academics who, notes the Times, admit that "there is little reliable research proving the effectiveness of religious programs."

   "They also add that there is scant evidence showing which religious programs show the best results and how they stack up against secular programs."

   This may have serious implications for a government experiment which, if Bush and DiIulio have their way, could cost taxpayers up to $8 billion in the first year in direct state grants and other incentives to religious groups wading into the complicated field of social services. That bill could skyrocket if the White House program is expanded to include grants to rehabilitate the physical infrastructure of "houses of worship" operating such programs. In Philadelphia, Pa. for instance, an estimated 200 churches are in serious disrepair. Mr. DiIulio has said that Americans need to consider religion-affiliated properties as "civic assets," especially if they house faith-based inner city social programs.

   What about the effectiveness of those programs, though? Are they really more efficient and less-costly than secular counterparts?

   "From the left to the right, everyone assumes that faith-based programs work," Johnson told the Times. "Even the critics of DiIulio and his office haven't denied that. We hear that and just sit back and laugh. In terms of empirical evidence that they work, it's pretty much nonexistent."

   Skeptics and legal critics of the Bush program have pointed out a legion of objections. Separationists argue that the White Initiative institutes a "Religion Tax" on Americans, and violates the separation of church and state. Many religious conservatives, once consider the backbone of support for the new proposal, now worry that with government funding will come a blizzard of rules and regulations which could threaten the independence of churches and other sects. Another wrinkle has emerged as well: which groups would receive funding? Some, such as televangelist Jerry Falwell, think that Muslims and fringe sects should be excluded from the White House initiative, with only "established" ministries qualifying for money. What happens when the Church of Scientology, or the Christian Identity movement applies for funding in order to operate religion-based social programs?

   About the only rationale which Bush and others supporting the faith-based initiative have offered in justifying the program is that churches and other houses of worship do a better job at producing results. They point to a handful of examples, particularly one operated in Texas by Teen Challenge which freely incorporates fundamentalist Christianity into its program and claims an impressive rate of success. While Governor of Texas, George Bush supported the Teen Challenge program, and even reigned in state governmental agencies seeking to impose regulations and accountability on the Christian outreach. One claim involving the group's success in treating drug and alcohol abuse is based on a 1995 study conducted by a doctoral student, which tracked 59 Teen Challenge clients who completed a one year residential program. These were compared with another group of addicts who had spent one or two months in a standard treatment regimen.

   Teen Challenge supporters say that the study reflected an impressive 86% success rate gauged against the secular programs, and that participants in the religion-based rehab were less likely to return to abusive behaviors. The Times notes, though, that the Teen Challenge results were not more impressive than those of hospital program graduates who, while going through only one or two months of residential treatment, continued to attend Alcoholics Anonymous support groups, which often incorporate a religious theme.

   "Social scientists have pointed out that the 86 percent success rate of Teen Challenge is misleading," notes the Times. "It does not count the people who dropped out during the program. And like many religious and private charities, Teen Challenge picks its clients." Indeed, the first four months of the group's treatment regimen see 25 to 30 percent of clients leave, with another 10 percent departing in the next eight months.

   Establishing a cause and effect relationship between religiosity and certain behaviors is even more elusive, despite efforts by some researchers, including those affiliated with groups like the Hudson Institute which promote faith-based initiatives. Johnson, for instance, argues that a number of published studies "find that religious commitment significantly reduces adolescent deviance," but only suggests explanations for why this might be so. Other factors intrude. Johnson told The Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper in July, 2000 that "Religious adolescents are likely to have good role models as well as strong bonds to family and school, factors we already know reduce adolescent crime and drug use." It may be those strong bonds, or access to decent schools, which govern behaviors -- not so much the ritual of church.

   Another factor contributing the myth of faith-based program efficacy comes from reporting bias, something which even secular outreaches are prone to. Says Johnson, "They'll hand you a three-page, in-house report showing that they reached 1,300 people that year. But what does 'reach' mean? That's not going to cut it."

   Skewing results by pre-selecting clients is a charge which has been leveled in another area of the state-church debate, namely, religious schools. Critics of vouchers say that high claims of success by religion-affiliated schools must be weighed against the fact that those educational institutions can often "pick and choose" which youngsters to accept, a luxury not given to public schools. The same bias may be evident in faith-based social program, says Dr. David Reingold of the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs. In a recent study examining social services in his state, Reingold found that religious programs are more likely to limit and filter the clientele they serve.

   "It's an extreme exaggeration to say that religious organizations are more effective," Reingold declared.

   A review of literature about the efficacy of faith-based social outreaches also shows that up to now, proponents of these programs have enjoyed a monopoly on the academic and especially the media debate over the issue. Claims of success are rampant, and even major philanthropic groups have hopped on the faith-based bandwagon, possibly without looking for good evidence to support such spending. The Ford Foundation began a religious program in 1997, distributing more than $10.5 million through nearly fifty grants. The Lily Endowment and the Pew Charitable Trusts grind out a steady stream of sanguine white papers, and are even funding 10 academic "Centers for Excellence" in order to examine, and advocate, a wider role for organized religion in the public policy mix. Funded by such grants, centers are now operating at Princeton, Yale, Emory University, University of Notre Dame and Boston University.

   Many of the studies, though, on the efficacy of faith-based partnerships quote each other, and frequently rely on anecdotal claims, say the critics. Byron Johnson remains committed to the goal of giving religious institutions a greater role in the operation of social services, but he -- and a growing number of researchers -- admit that good empirical evidence concerning claims of high success rates is wanting. The raw data and research is simply not there; and "self reporting" by religious groups operating these programs may not be sufficient to sustain a taxpayer funded program which is considered highly unconstitutional.

[text only]