Faith-Based Help: Worse than Secular Aid

Advocates of faith-based programs designed to provide social services with government funding often argue that such programs are at least as good, if not better, than alternative secular programs. As a consequence, they should be eligible for the same government funds - and perhaps given preference, due to the fact that they address religious and spiritual needs which are left out by secular organizations. But what evidence, if any, exists to support these claims? None, really - but there is evidence for the opposite.

In the largest study to date, the Charitable Choice Research Project looked at government-funded programs in Indiana, Massachusetts and North Carolina. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Fifty-three percent of the clients of secular programs were placed in full-time jobs, versus 31 percent in faith-based programs, according to data on 5,600 people served by 53 programs in Indiana. The secular providers secured jobs with health benefits for 9 percent of their clients, against 0.5 percent for the religious providers. The faith-based data came from both newer, congregation-run programs and traditional agencies such as Catholic Social Services, said economist Partha Deb of Hunter College, in New York, who compiled the data.

The researchers also found among faith-based programs lax compliance with rules that government money not be spent on religious materials and that clients not be forced to take part in religious activities. "States do not monitor for constitutional violations, and they do very little to educate contractors about constitutional compliance," said Sheila Kennedy, professor of law and public policy at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Of 15 states contacted, she said, seven had "no mechanism at all for ensuring constitutional accountability."

So the three-year study provides two very important pieces of information. First, faith-based job training programs not only do worse than secular programs, but they do much worse. Why? That's a good question and it would be interesting to find out. Do the programs focus too much on "religious and spiritual needs" and not enough on practical matters? Do their faith-based hiring practices mean that they don't have the best employees for the positions?

Second, despite the continued existence of constitutional restrictions on these groups, they still violate the separation of church and state by using government funds for forced religious activities. It is unconscionable for government to give money to churches that will be used for evangelization - but, apparently, the governments in question just don't care. This is ultimately no better than if the evangelization were encouraged.

Does anyone think that advocates of faith-based programs getting government funds (and of exempting those programs from having to adhere to anti-discrimination laws or the Constitution) will pay much attention to this study? I don't. They don't care if the programs do worse - their ultimate goal is to have the government fund evangelization and discrimination by churches and other religious groups. These social programs are just a convenient ruse..

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Religious Right
• Christian Nationalism
• Religious Intolerance & Bigotry