Faith-based initiative a welcome assault on poverty
by Rodolpho Carrasco
June 2, 2001
in Pasadena
Star News
Rodolpho Carrasco is associate director of Harambee Christian Family Center in Pasadena, Calif.
A few Thursdays back, I received a call from The White House, inviting me to join a group of Latino religious leaders in meeting with President George W. Bush on the topic of government support of faith-based initiatives.
The Faith-based Initiative is an effort to, in the words of the President, "allow faith-based programs to compete for taxpayers' money if the services they provide are necessary and the results are positive."
But it has been described in other ways, including as a potential violation of church-state separation, or as a way to buy off Latino and African American voters ahead of the 2002 congressional election.
I was grateful for the invitation. For months I have weighed the pros and cons of this initiative as well as the concerns and suspicions of people all over the country. The opportunity to hear it defended by its principal supporter was too good to pass up.
The appointed day, May 22, was full of briefings and discussions. Separate gatherings of 120 Latino religious leaders from around the country, a private meeting between nine of these Latino leaders and the President in the West Wing, and a public press briefing gave me some clarity on the topic. At day's end, three points stuck out.
First, the initiative is not a Republican "thang." Susan Anderson of the Local Initiatives Support Corp. says that the initiative is a payoff to the Republican Party's right wing. I know many people who cast a long eye on the initiative because a Republican proposed and champions it. But the fact is that Democrats are keen supporters of the initiative.
Rep. Tony Hall (D-Ohio) is the co-sponsor of the bill in the House of Representatives. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut) is a supporter who at present withholds his full endorsement until church-state issues are resolved.
Right there, sitting in the White House meeting, was the Democrat that Bush appointed to direct the Office of Faith-based and Communities Initiatives, John DiIulio. And California's own Governor Gray Davis last month jumped on the faith-based bandwagon, awarding $5 million to 20 faith-based organizations, saying, "Working with faith-based organizations is one way to effectively reach people who many not typically use government funds for services."
Second, the Faith-based initiative does not favor religious institutions. There has been much concern that government by Bush means a slippery slide to theocracy. Anderson reflects that thought in writing "few know that Cabinet agencies are under executive order to 're-engineer the protocols" for disbursing anti-poverty funds to benefit religious organizations."
However, Cabinet agencies are under no such directive. Rev. Luis Cortes, executive director of Nueva Esperanza Community Development Corporation in Philadelphia and organizer of the first-ever White House Hispanic prayer breakfast, clarified this misunderstanding when asked by the Latino pastors.
"All this initiative does is allow faith-based organizations to compete on equal ground for funds," Cortes said. "That's it. It doesn't favor us. There are no set-asides, just fair competition, that's all."
Not only is there no favoritism toward religious groups, the advent of the level playing field far from guarantees funding. In California, though Gov. Davis gave out grants to 20 faith-based groups, the applicant pool for the funds numbered more than 230.
Third, Latino communities stand to benefit greatly from the faith-based initiative. In his public remarks at the Presidential press briefing, Cortes stated that approximately 80% of Latino churches and faith groups are located in low-income barrios around the country. The initiative is "an opportunity for all barrios in this country because it means that funds will get to the people who know the barrio best," he said.
Cortes was not just talking about raw government dollars. He was referring to other provisions of the initiative that have received very little press, but which have the potential for even greater benefit than government grants.
One of these provisions is to allow people who do not itemize deductions on their tax forms to nevertheless itemize their charitable contributions. Cortes estimates that this provision will mean an additional $15 billion for Latino faith-based groups operating in low-income barrios, all of it from the pockets of private individuals.
Another provision encourages business and corporations to increase their giving to faith-based groups. A White House blueprint titled Rallying The Armies of Compassion says that corporations often act like they have church-state conflicts that forbid them from giving to faith groups, when in fact they do not.
As a director of a faith-based nonprofit organization, it is these last two provisions that encourage me the most. At Harambee Center we do not receive government funds, nor any funding that restricts our mission. Anything that encourages more private individual and business donations will benefit us.
My enduring observation from my time at The White House is something that has been altogether lost in media coverage and public discourse on this initiative: The initiative is drafted and promoted by seasoned poverty fighters who emphasize results.
The President himself mentioned poverty throughout his inaugural address, more than any other inaugural address in recent memory. DiIulio, who directs the initiative's White House office, achieved fame and notoriety with his academic theories that attempt to understand contemporary poverty.
All of the White House staff are sincere, but they appear to understand the limits of sincerity. One can be sincerely wrong, after all. Hence the insistence on measurable results. "Results, not religion," they say over and again, on talk shows, in newspaper interviews, in commencement addresses.
This results-orientation means that if something is tried and does not work, you throw it out and try something else. If allowing faith-based groups to access taxpayer funds turns out to be a failure, we stop the flow. And vice versa.
Results-orientation is what we private citizens do most of the time with our own personal finances. It is refreshing to see government officials propose to operate by similar standards with something as sensitive yet hopeful as this faith-based initiative.
###
OTHER ARTICLES BY RODOLPHO CARRASCO
