The Freedom of Religion and "Charitable Choice"

The Freedom of Religion and “Charitable Choice”

Increasingly, more social services are being provided by nonprofit organizations, including many religious or faith-based groups. Proponents say that such “charitable choice” makes it possible for more clients to receive services. Opponents counter that such federal approval–and funding–is an impermissible sponsorship of religion, which is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although issues of religion and government seem to have come only recently to the forefront with President George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiatives,” the concept of charitable choice was made part of the federal welfare reform law passed in 1996.

What is “charitable choice?”

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) included a provision called “charitable choice.” Charitable choice allows federal funding to faith-based organizations for the provision of social services such as job training, drug rehabilitation programs, mental health counseling, child care, and adult education. PRWORA allows religious organizations to compete with other nonprofit organizations for federal dollars. The purpose of charitable choice is to provide such services, without impairing the “religious character” of the providers and without violating the concept of “separation of church and state.”

In 1988, the charitable choice provision of PRWORA was broadened to include services provided under the Community Services Block Grant program, which provides funding to local agencies created to alleviate poverty in their communities.

Charitable Choice Expansion Act would increase federal funding to non-governmental entities

In September 2001, the United States House of Representatives passed the Charitable Choice Expansion Act. The Senate, however, did not follow suit. As its title suggests, the proposed law was intended to expand the charitable choice concept to apply to all federal laws authorizing federal dollars for the provision of social services.

Had the bill passed–or if some version of it is reintroduced and passed in the future–all levels of government would be obligated to consider faith-based organizations on the same basis as other nongovernmental groups when awarding funding for the provision of social services. A government could not discriminate against a service provider just because it was of a religious character.

When President Bush asked Congress to pass the Charitable Choice Act, he asserted that the law would end “discrimination against religion” and would allow government to work cooperatively to provide social services. Supporters say that religious charities are often the only sources of hope in impoverished areas. They also contend that an expansion of charitable choice would still forbid the diversion of tax dollars to inherently religious activities such as preaching or proselytizing.

Critics of the Charitable Choice Expansion Act argue that its passage would endorse publicly funded employment discrimination and would be an assault on religious liberty. These critics say that all religious organizations receiving government funds, either directly or indirectly, should provide social services in a nondiscriminatory funding. Direct funding to religious organizations, critics say, could easily violate the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause. Taxpayers would lose their own freedom of religion because they would have no choice in funding certain religions or religious organizations. Opponents say at the Charitable Choice Expansion Act would change the way that funds are awarded and would create an “excessive entanglement” between government and religion.