Atheists weren't invited to participate in a discussion about the federal faith-based initiative. "We'll still be taxed, though!" says American Atheists President Ellen Johnson.

report on faith-based social programs by a coalition of representatives from near three dozen groups failed to arrive at consensus on key issues. Nevertheless, the conferees urged more funding from philanthropic sources and efforts by government to encourage giving, and other efforts to involve religious groups in the delivery of social services.

   The document, "Finding Common Ground: 29 Recommendations of the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based Community Initiatives," was unveiled at a high-profile Washington, DC press conference last week. Members of the participating groups had been meeting since June at the behest of Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a key point man on Capitol Hill for President Bush's faith-based initiative. Despite passage of a funding bill in the House of Representatives, federal lawmakers remain in gridlock over constitutional and other questions about the initiative.

   The group was headed by former Sen. Harris Wofford (D-PA), who ran against Santorum in 1994. Describing their relationship as an "Odd couple" in an introduction to the report, Wofford added: "The needs of young people, families and communities left behind cry out for urgent attention, and we both believe that expanding the efforts of faith-based and community-based organizations is one of the ways that Americans now stirred by a renewed sense of community and patriotism can take concerted action."

   Despite the talk of "common ground" and a search for compromise and agreement, the membership of the Working Group was overwhelmingly religious. Representatives included: Aly Abuzaakoul (American Muslim Council); John Castellani (Teen Challenge); Robert Edgar (National Council of Churches); Floyd Flake (Allen AME Church); K. J. Seamus Hasson (Beckett Fund); Richard Land (Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention); and Ronald Sider (Evangelicals for Social Action). Many were veterans in the battle over public funding of religion. Castellani, for instance, testified on behalf of Teen Challenge last May in front of the U.S.House Government Reform Subcommittee, and shocked many lawmakers when he boasted of how his program had resulted in the evangelical conversion of so-called "Completed Jews."

   Other group members, such as Dean Trulear of the Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church and former Congressman Floyd Flake, have become fixtures for photo opportunities showcasing Mr. Bush's faith-based agenda.

   Not all of the religious participants agreed on the scope or desirability of using government funds to subsidize faith-based social programs.

   The Working Group report is littered with ambiguous claims, contradictory recommendations, and statements that -- for some -- may raise questions about the real purpose of the project. Sen. Wofford sets the tone for "Finding Common Ground" in a disturbing assertion: "We found that the Constitution, from the great purposes of the Preamble, through the Bill of Rights with the First Amendment, was not an obstacle but was our over-arching guide..."

   Wofford also noted that the group "did not get diverted to debate on whether or not faith-based organizations should receive a larger proportion of the existing pool of federal funds for social service." This entitlement from the public treasury is already a "done deal," thanks in part to the 1996 welfare reform act which allows religious organizations to compete for government grants in order to operate faith-based social programs without compromising or diluting their religious character. Mr. Bush, in one of his first acts President, signed Executive Orders creating a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and ordering federal departments to develop liaison bureaus with the religious lobby, giving them access to additional federal grant money. H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, has already passed the House of Representatives. Should it become law, the budgets of nearly a dozen major federal agencies would be at the disposal of religious groups seeking to operate social service programs. The combined grant pools could swell the federal initiative subsidies to over $60 billion.

   The report made several recommendations for encouraging private financial institutional support and individual donations, such as increased deductions and an end to donation penalties from IRAs. "To encourage corporate giving, restrictions on in-kind contributions such as non-deductibility of transportation and storage costs should be eased."

   Several participating groups have opposed or raised questions concerning direct government entitlements for faith-based social ministries -- American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way. Still, the Working Group report strained to find ways to encourage faith-based programs. These steps include a "review (on) blanket restrictions on applications from faith-based organizations that are working to address human needs in their community" to increasing "the participation in federal programs of effective organizations that, because of their small size, have difficulty pursuing available funds..."

   Other parts of the report were a clear green light for government aid o churches and other houses of worship. Section IV ("Government Indirect and In-Kind Assistance") called for more technical help for "smaller organizations and individuals," and expansion of VISTA and the AmeriCorps programs "in order to supplement the staff and significantly increase the capacity of faith-based and community-based organizations to meet human needs..."

   The Working Group called for "transparency" in government entitlement programs in hopes of rendering the grant-making process more user friendly. Churches and other houses of worship were urged to create separate 501(c)(3) corporations or enter into "partnerships" with existing established charities. Some religious groups have balked at this process, complaining that it invites government scrutiny and control. The group suggested the creation of an "EZ application form" for 501(c)(3) groups, and argued "All organizations that operate with public and private money should operate with high levels of accountability regarding money, and have the ability to comply with rules and regulations intended to safeguard consumers and tax dollars." No specific recommendations were made, though, and this issue remains a point of contention in the debate over faith-based social services. Even the Supreme Court has noted that government monitoring of how funds may be spent by religious groups may violate the First Amendment separation of church and state.

   The question of whether or not religious groups should be permitted to discriminate in employment practices while accepting government money has emerged as the main obstacle to the faith-based initiative. It was also a point of contention within the Working Group. A section dealing with "Employment Practices" affirmed that "privately funded faith-based organizations should continue to enjoy the freedom to pursue their religious mission -- including continued enjoyment of statutory authority to use religious preferences in employment." It was not explicitly pointed out, though, that government efforts to encourage private or institutional giving to religious groups would thus have the effect of affirming private discrimination.

   But another line within the section declares, "No racially discriminatory employment policy should be permitted, even if that policy is ostensibly based on religious beliefs."

   One strategy for "selling" the idea of public funding for faith-based social programs has been the questionable claim that religious groups are "faster, better, cheaper" than secular counterparts in terms of delivering social services. President Bush has repeated praised the "armies of compassion," contrasting them with government welfare programs or non-religious outreaches that fail to "heal the spirit" in the process of combating poverty.

   The claim, though, may not be supported by good, empirical evidence.

   Last April, for instance, the New York Times quoted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Byron Johnson who, referring to the new White House faith-based initiative, warned: "We've created an office out of anecdotes." Time Magazine admitted, "there is little reliable research proving the effectiveness of religious programs" and "there is scant evidence showing religious programs show the best results and how they stack up against secular programs."

   While calling for greater private and government efforts to energize church outreaches (such as demanding that the government craft a "guidebook for faith-based" groups), the report also called for a review of faith-based programs to measure effectiveness. Participants agreed that faith-based organizations "can increase the total resources devoted to social services," but then cryptically added in section 25:

"In addition, some faith-based groups believe that inner spiritual renewal is central to their programs and provides significant additional resources for overcoming problems. Others believe, however, that there is no empirical evidence of such impact..."

   The report urged that private foundations and Federal agencies investigate such claims. It is disturbing, though, that these recommendations are presented along with calls for greater private and government assistance to faith-based groups before thorough evaluations of efficacy are made. The report also admits that there "is not yet clear agreement on what constitutes a common set of standards for judging outcomes of effectiveness" for faith-based outreaches. The section also includes ambiguous and even contradictory claims such as:

"Some researchers find, but do not explain, that the presence of religious faith helps some persons in need of help ... Other researchers find that no empirical evidence exists of such impact..."

   The Working Group did manage to arrive at consensus on what it termed the "topology" or characteristics of various programs that operated under the umbrella term "faith-based." They include:

   ¶    "Faith-Saturated" organizations where religious belief "is very important at all levels," and include requirements for religious practice.

   ¶    "Faith-centered" groups which are founded for a religious purpose, where officials and staff share faith commitment, and where the programs "include explicit religious messages and activities but are designed so that participants can readily opt out of these activities and still expect positive outcomes."

   ¶    "Faith-related: groups, formed by religious people and which may display religious symbols. With the possible exception of leadership, staff are not required to adhere to a particular faith or practice, and there is no "explicitly religious message" for participants.

   ¶    "Faith-background" groups "tend to look and act secular" even though they are rooted in a faith tradition.

   ¶    "Faith-secular partnerships" have no explicit religious content, and religious faith or change is not necessary for outcomes.

   "There are a lot of problems with these definitions, and the rest of the report," cautioned Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "Strip away the psychobabble and double-talk, and it's clear that the underlying constitutional and ethical problem of the faith-based initiative are far from resolved."

   Johnson cautioned that even without agreement on the constitutionality of several points, other recommendations put the government in the position of being a "cheerleader" on behalf of faith-based programs.

   "It's interesting that this group wants to proceed 'full steam ahead' to encourage private subsidies for churches, temples and mosques engaged in social work without even knowing if these programs are effective." Johnson added, "Even if some studies showed these programs to perform as well, or even better than secular counterparts, the larger question remains -- should 14% of Americans who profess no religious belief be compelled to open their wallets and pocketbooks to organized religion under the pretense of solving social problems?"

[text only]