Hearing Before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on Faith Based Solutions
Testimony presented by The Rev. Eliezer Valentín Castañón
General Board of Church and Society
of The United Methodist Church
June 6, 2001
Dirksen Senate Office Building
Room 226
Introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for this opportunity to speak to you on a matter as important as serving the needy. We welcome the great attention that Congress and the administration have given to religion in the public square and for the recognition of the great work that we do for the marginalized and needy in our communities. We are grateful for the recognition that we have not only been the conscience of the nation but also the ones to help carry the burdens of the poor and the unwanted. We thank you for the recognition that religious organizations do contribute to this country not only with prayers but with sweat and blood.
I am Eliezer Valentín-Castañón, a Program Director of the General Board of Church and Society (GBCS) of The United Methodist Church. I am also an ordained minister of our Church, who works for the church on issues of Church-Government relations. Part of my responsibilities with The United Methodist Church is to work in a variety of issues that in one way or another are affected by Charitable Choice (i.e., TANF, Welfare-to-work, etc.)
The United Methodist Church has charged the GBCS with the "responsibility… to seek the implementation of the Social Principles and other policy statements of the General Conference on Christian Social concerns." In addition, GBCS "shall speak its convictions, interpretations and concerns to the Church and to the world." (1)
It is because of this charge that I come to you today to speak on behalf of the GBCS on the issue of Charitable Choice. (2)
The United Methodist Church has not adopted language regarding Charitable Choice. Nevertheless, our General Conference (3) has been very clear about what the Church understands is appropriate when a church is seeking to enter in a partnership with the State in order to offer community social services (i.e., Drug rehabilitation). In the Book of Resolutions of The United Methodist Church 2000, our Church has stated that:
"Governmental provision of material support for church-related agencies inevitably raises important questions of religious establishment. In recognition, however, that some health, education, and welfare agencies have been founded by churches without regard to religious proselytizing, we consider that such agencies may, under certain circumstances, be proper channels for public programs in these fields. When government provides support for programs administered by private agencies, it has the most serious obligation to establish and enforce standards guaranteeing the equitable administration of such programs and the accountability of such agencies to the public authority."
We believe that no private agency, because of its religious affiliations, ought to be exempted from any of the requirements of such standards. In particular our Church believes "that government resources should not be provided to any church-related agency unless it meets the following minimum criteria:
1. The services to be provided by the church-related agency shall meet a genuine community need;
2. The services of the agency shall be designed and administered in such a way as to avoid serving a sectarian purpose or interest;
3. The services to be provided by the agency shall be available to all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, creed, or political persuasion;
4. The services to be rendered by the agency shall be performed in accordance with accepted professional and administrative standards;
5. Skill, competence, and integrity in the performance of duties shall be the principal considerations in the employment of personnel and shall not be superseded by any requirement of religious affiliation..."
In addition, the Church believes:
"...that churches have a moral obligation to challenge violations of the civil rights... and requirement of attendance at church activities in order to qualify for social services" (Pages 569-571).
As you can see The United Methodist Church does support partnerships between church and state. As a matter of fact, our Church has been in partnership with the state in many different ventures, providing non-sectarian and non-proselytizing social and educational services in our communities, never losing sight of our faith or our commitment to serve Christ.
From the following examples you can see the breath of our Church's partnership with government in providing community
social services.
United Methodist Community Ministries
Chollas View Workfirst Center and San Diego Youth at Work (4)
Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries
San Diego, CaliforniaMetro United Methodist Urban Ministries of San Diego is a 35-year-old organization described by its director, John Hughes, as a "faith-based incubator," and it has grown dramatically over the last several years since it began to more actively access public programs linked in large part to welfare reform and related federal measures. "Our mission is to help churches help people," according to Hughes. Metro is managing partner of the Chollas View Workfirst Center, housed at the Chollas View United Methodist Church in southeast San Diego, a predominantly Hispanic and African American neighborhood. It is a major player in San Diego Youth at Work, which provides job training, educational incentives and assistance with general life skills.
The Chollas View Workfirst Center, which has 14 other partners, developed initially because the church parking lot was used as a pick-up and drop-off point for persons in an early workfirst transportation sector (van driving) training program. It is now a multi-service program funded by U.S. Department of Labor money through a competitive process. The center provides vocational training, paid work experience, support services, childcare on site, transportation, employment readiness training, job placement and employment retention services. The Chollas View Church is itself a collaborating agency, as is All Congregations Together, an interfaith organization that primarily offers mentoring services to persons leaving welfare.
San Diego Youth at Work targets young people ages 14-21. It too is funded primarily by the federal Department of Labor and will likely last three, and perhaps five years, according to Hughes. It has three components: 1) matching talents with needed and available resources, such as finding out the interests and abilities of young people and finding the right program or educational opportunity to development abilities;. 2) Community coaches, who are from the community and help young people map their futures; 3) Support services, including food, clothing, rent, tires and other material needs. Much of these services are supplied by one of Metro's two Good Neighbor Centers.
Metro itself provides relatively few direct services. It is more of a broker, a builder of networks. At present, some 95 percent of Metro's budget comes from government sources, the other five percent from churches and private donations. What about religious content that might seem relevant in the public-funded programs? "We make it clear that we are faith-based, that we are part of the United Methodist Church. We do not limit services based on religion and we hire persons of many faiths or no faith, depending on their abilities. We do pray at meetings. We are a Christian organization. Our philosophy on this point is that of St. Francis: 'Preach the gospel at all times and, if necessary, use words."
Hughes noted that Metro over the years has learned to "speak church and speak social service." He worries about new faith-based players that may not have both vocabularies and may lack the capacity to produce the results expected by government funders. Consequently, he and colleagues in San Diego are exploring the possibility of a local faith-based institute to identify and train strategic leaders and to develop the idea that some faith-based groups may best serve as brokers and legitimizers. Hughes foresees a growing need for an institute that could offer faith-based consultation and possibly build a pool of funds for faith-based social service providers.
Family Pathfinders (5)
Smiley United Methodist Church
Smiley, Texas
Volunteers within The United Methodist Church of Smiley, Texas, 60 miles east of San Antonio, were already helping people prepare for meaningful work before they learned about Texas Family Pathfinders, a state-initiated program that enlists and makes small grants to faith-based and community groups engaged in welfare-to-work. And the people at Smiley Church are still doing the work now that the state grant is gone. In fact, they did not reapply because, says Nelda Patterson, who spearheaded the ministry, "we just didn't have the money to keep taking state grants." A mystery? Not really. Reimbursements were notoriously slow and the small congregation-a 100 members church with an average Sunday attendance of 50- did not have the up front funds to carry the formal program. It all started at Smiley like so many things churches do: Someone had a dream. In this case, it was Nelda Patteson who over a period of time had helped a young woman become a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). But the young nurse had a hard time keeping jobs, and Ms. Patteson figured that she "needed to get smarter about how to help people." She became certified to lead a program called "Survival Skills for Women," consisting of 10 sessions over five weeks. She offered the training to five women, mostly from a local housing project, coming off welfare. Things went well.
"About that time [1998] we learned that the state had some money for faith-based programs. We applied and received $10,000 to help nine TANF-certified women receive computer training and literacy education at a center in Gonzales, the county seat. We were one of five recipients out of 100 applicants at that time." The funds came through Family Pathfinders, a Texas effort to mobilize and encourage faith groups to get involved in welfare-to-work training and mentoring. In Smiley, the money went to pay for the computer course and child care in Gonzales and for travel back and forth. Volunteers led the "Survival Skills for Women" course at the church. The results were positive on all counts, including the relationships established with the women coming off welfare. The church realized no money from the program and that was not a problem. "We liked what the money went for," said Ms. Patteson, "but the state was so slow in paying the reimbursement that we couldn't continue. As it was, we had to borrow $1,500 from the local United Methodist Women to pay the initial tuition, child care and travel costs. That was paid back when the check arrived."
Ms. Patteson and others at the Smiley church stay in touch with the women who went through the program. They have also offered to share the techniques of their success with other churches in the region. "Maybe a larger congregation would have the funds to tide it over," Ms. Patteson said. The growth of the congregation's awareness of poverty and the people caught in it is an important outcome of the temporary partnership with a government program, according to Ms. Patterson. "Before, some people in the church thought anyone who lived in a housing project was just lazy. Now they know that's not so. There is more caring about persons now."
Louisville Works and Kairos Business Services
Wesley House Community Services
Louisville, KentuckyWesley House Community Services has leveraged a grant from Emerging Ministries with Women, Children and Families (funded by the Women's Division) into ongoing public funding for two programs that help women leaving welfare to build solid lives. Louisville Works, a computer training program, and Kairos Business Services, an internship program, do prepare persons for work in offices, but the objectives are bigger.
Getting the students into "just any jobs" so that they leave the welfare roles is not enough, according to Katie Chapman, director of the two programs. The two programs aim at equipping participants to deal with the ups and down of real life and to feel a sense of security in knowing that Wesley House is there should they need a safe, caring place. Wesley House is a United Methodist national mission institution (linked to the General Board of Global Ministries) with programs in childhood, youth and family and senior services.
Since the Women's Division seed grant was received in 1997, Louisville Works and Kairos have trained a total of 200 persons, with much of the current funding coming through the Kentucky version of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). State government reimbursed Wesley for student tuition. Other funding comes from church and other private sources. Kairos is an eight-week internship that goes beyond basic computer training. Case management for students in each program is provided by the Jefferson County social service agency. One measure of the success at Wesley is the fact that the computer instructor in the Spring, 2001 was a single mother of four who was herself a graduate of Louisville Works and of Kairos. Her ability to identify and communicate with the students is seen as a major reason attendance is excellent in the classes.
Near Southside Employment Coalition and Youth Opportunity Program
Kingdom House
St. Louis, Missouri
Kingdom House is a 99-year-old community center of the Missouri East Annual Conference with a long history of partnerships with government and private agencies. It is a major sponsor of and until recently housed the Near Southside Employment Coalition, an ecumenical program whose director is actually paid by Kingdom House. Near Southside serves an area south of downtown St. Louis filled with a mixture of public housing and "gentrified" residences. Almost all of the public housing residents are African-American; many single women heads of households. Near Southside's workforce development programs was 15 years old and had a good track record, and then came welfare-to-work. The employment coalition entered into a performance-based contract with the state to provide job training services to 75 persons. The experience was less than a happy one, according to Near Southside director William McRoberts. Relatively few persons were initially referred to the agency and, says McRoberts, the training period was too short, the procedures unclear and the bureaucracy heavy-handed. McRoberts says that his agency did not "staff up" at the outset, that is, hire additional people, so that Near Southside did not lose as much money as did some non-profits with TANF contracts in the early days of welfare reform. The state was reimbursing services providers at $1,800 per individual, while the actual cost was closer to $4,500 per person, according to McRoberts. Near Southside did not reapply for a direct state contract but it did sign on to a pilot project funded by a combination of state and private foundation money. The pilot involves training persons to work in customer services, primarily through "call centers," a growing field that pays $9 or $10 per hour. The funding partners are the Annie E. Casey Foundation, through its Jobs Partnership Program, and the Missouri State Department of Social Service Block Grants. Near Southside provides customer services and job readiness training and computer literacy courses. Kingdom House in 1997 was certified to receive Youth Opportunity Program (YOP) tax credits from the state of Missouri. Under this arrangement, individuals and corporations who give money to YOP at Kingdom House receive a 50 percent credit on their state income taxes. YOP is a social development program for low income, "at risk" youth. It provides recreational and other after school activities. Since 1997, Kingdom House has received $1 million through the tax credit plan, according to Ralph Lewis, director of development.
Transitional Journey Program
Cookman United Methodist Church
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The Transitional Journey Program of the Cookman United Methodist Church in Philadelphia is, according to a University of Pennsylvania research report, the only real charitable choice venture in the state; indeed, it is one of very few in the whole country. It got underway in 1998 with a $150,000 state allocation for welfare-to-work training, placement and follow-up. For the first year, the money was in the form of a performance-based contact and some of the staff members were not paid for months while Cookman waited for reimbursement. "We worked on hope and despair," says the Rev. Donna Jones, pastor of the small-membership congregation in poverty-ridden North Philadelphia. The second year was easier because part of the money was a grant and, also, additional funding came from local and national United Methodist agencies.
Cookman worked with 192 persons leaving welfare in the first three years of Transitional Journey, which has a job placement rate of 87 percent and an overall retention rate of 60 percent, which is quite high. Some of the program graduates change jobs in the first year but are counted as working if the break is short. "People quit or get fired and come back to our doorstep, and we help them find another job," says Pastor Jones. The program has a small staff of case workers. It has received some in-kind contributions, including computer and other equipment from the Dupont Corporation. Most of the program participants are women and 80 percent have no high school diplomas. Transitional Journey offers a GED program and training in English as a second language. Counseling is offered and children of the women are invited to take part in the church's activities for children and youth, including recreation.
As a charitable choice contractor, Transitional Journey includes religious content in its training, however, it must use non-government funds to buy the Bibles it distributes to persons who want them. Pastor Jones recalls that during the first year one student called the state to complain of "too much" religious content. "That's why we have all the students sign waivers, so that they know that our program is Christ-centered, but the religious part of it is strictly voluntary." For example, a Muslim who came through the program excused herself from the sessions of faith and selfhood. "Sisters of Faith," a related program encourages a deeper faith commitment and builds skills to "live faith daily."
The initial state grant was wrapped up in March, 2001, with a second application pending, expected to become effective in June, 2001.
What are the problems with Charitable Choice?
The United Methodist Church has no difficulty in partnering with government to do what is right for people in need. The above examples show that we have been doing this for many years and very successfully. Nevertheless, The United Methodist Church's practice of setting up separate nonprofit corporations for church organizations that want to provide these services to the community clashes directly with one of the main provisions of Charitable Choice.
We do not have any difficulty with the government providing access to religiously motivated organizations (i.e., separate non-profit religiously affiliated corporations) to compete for federal dollars. We cannot agree, however, in the establishment of "faith" as a separate category that sets religious groups apart from requirements which others are obligated to meet in order to provide social services.
When President George W. Bush said that he intended to "[b]ring faith organizations to the table and [to] remove legal barriers to full participation in public programs and access to public program funds," we were troubled. When he said that "Private and charitable groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes...," we were cautious.
We believe, however, that the key point in President's Bush statement is that private and charitable groups "should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete." Thus, we should use what is permitted by law, we should use what we know has worked and improve on it, rather than to create a new program that, in our opinion, is a solution looking for a problem.
The United Methodist Church cannot support legislation that clearly endorses religious discrimination in the hiring and firing practices in community social service ministries paid by the Federal government. Our Church believes that programs serving the community and funded with federal or state dollars should not be allowed to use faith to discriminate. The preservation of the Church's character, so strongly argued by the supporters of this legislation, cannot be upheld by sacrificing civil rights that we all have struggled so hard to defend. Integrity and skills should be the reasons for hiring or firing people from a government-paid job, not their faith affiliation. We believe that our actions are the loudest witnesses we can present to the world to show the love of God through Christ.
The United Methodist Church is a strong supporter of Title VII, Section 702 (a), of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which allows for religious discrimination on the basis of a religious group's doctrines and rules. We can accept this discrimination as long as the discrimination takes place in church-related ministries and where the ministry is paid by their own members. We cannot agree, nor support, religious groups' discrimination while using tax dollars. It is one thing for the church to require that their pastors, organists, sextons, and other employees of the church to be from their faith and conviction, another thing, entirely different, is for religious groups receiving tax dollars, in order to provide secular services, to be allowed to use the same criteria for hiring their employees for government related programs. Therefore, in our estimate, violating civil right laws using federal dollars.
In addition, we must pay heed to Justice Rehnquist is warning regarding government funding of religious organizations: "There is the risk that direct government funding, even if it is designated for specific secular purposes, may nonetheless advance the pervasively sectarian institution's 'religious mission." As long as government attempts to separate what is religious from secular in entities like churches, synagogues, mosques, etc, it risks becoming excessively entangled with religion, thus advancing it or hindering religion, both clear violations of the establishment clause.
Conclusion
Charitable Choice clearly contradicts the minimum requirements set forth by our church as to what must be in place before a religious group accepts tax dollars in order to provide social services. We believe that Charitable Choice is not the right way to help the needy nor is it the best way to foment healthy Church-Government relations. Let me list for you five areas were we disagree with this policy.
1. It steps across the boundary of church-state separation by exempting "Faith-Based" groups (used here to refer exclusively to "religiously sectarian groups," since "Faith-Based" groups are more broadly defined) from compliance with civil rights laws barring hiring discrimination on religious grounds with tax dollars, or by not requiring separate incorporation of contract holders, thus allowing local churches to receive funding directly into their accounts, and by allowing religious content in service programs.
2. This relationship may result in excessive religious reliance on public money, leading to a weakening of the role of a religious group's prophetic voice. How can a prophet raise his/her voice against government policies while simultaneously asking for government help?
3. Since government funding brings government oversight through compliance reviews and audits. This government review will lead to government interference in the internal affairs of religious groups.
4. Elected officials will be tempted to play politics with religion (which we have seen already happening in some states). Houses of worship may compete against one another for government contracts, encouraging rivalry among religious groups who are looking to access the same pot of money. Who will decide which religious group is better suited to provide services? Or which services are more worthy? This situation could widen the divisions that are present in today's religious landscape in America, driving us further apart.
5. In the area of drug rehabilitation, we find that the line that separates Church and State is completely crossed over. No one can honestly believe that a program funded with tax dollars, which requires as a major component of treatment the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, will not advance religion. How can this scenario be considered as not advancing religion when this requirement is exactly what we find in the Gospel of St. Matthew as one of the responsibilities of believers? "Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples" (28:19).
For Christians, under this circumstance, more clearly than any other, tax dollars will clearly go to advance a religious purpose.
This is not an exhaustive list of our concerns regarding Charitable Choice, but reflects some of the major difficulties we have with this policy.
We agree with the Baptist Joint Committee and other religious groups that there are alternative options where religious groups are involve in providing services to the community in partnership with the State. We believe that there are alternatives to continue and expand church-state partnerships without bringing down the wall of separation between church and state, which has protected and enhanced our religious liberties and American democracy. Therefore, we would like to recommend the following so that we might continue the partnership and to further enhance it.
First, let religious groups create separate affiliate (non-profit) corporations that are not "pervasively sectarian," with technical assistance from the federal government (something that HUD has been doing). This will enable faith based organizations to receive government money and perform the services with religious motivation, but without proselytizing, discrimination, or teaching religion.
Second, encourage increased private giving by passing legislation expanding deductibility rules for charitable contributions. This money could be directed by individuals to the charities of their choice with no regulatory strings attached.
Third, foster cooperation between religious groups and government that do not involve taxpayer's dollars. Government could publicize the good work that private religious and other non-profit social service groups are doing and make referrals to these organizations when needed and appropriate. Churches and government have been working together for many years; this can continue and be expanded without sacrificing each others' freedom.
Fourth, churches could also work in partnership with the State in providing volunteers in government-organized mentoring projects, as long as government does not promote religion. (6)
Let me conclude with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., regarding the relationship between the Church's prophetic voice and the State.
The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It
must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. (7)
Thank you for your attention.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Reverend Eliezer Valentín-Castañón
1. 1 The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church 2000. Pages 490-491.
2. 2 Neither I nor the GBCS has received a federal grant or contract in the current or preceding two fiscal years.
3. The General Conference of The United Methodist Church is the highest legislative body of the church. This is the body that makes legal and theological decisions regrading the life of the church. General Conference meets every four years in different part of the country.
4. These examples are part of a United Methodist cross agency document, soon to be released, espousing the Church's position on Charitable Choice. This information was gather by Mr. Elliot Wright a community development consultant for the General Board of Global Ministries.
5. Martha Ward, director of Family Pathfinders, reports that across the state of Texas more United Methodist congregations are involved in the program than of any other denomination.
6. See for additional ideas and suggestions "In Good Faith: A Dialogue on Government Funding of Faith Based Social Services." The Feistein Center for American Jewish History, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.
7. King, Jr., Martin Luther. Strength to Love. 1963.