For me, one of the more disturbing things happening in the world of non-profits that make it their mission to help the poor, is the debate between "faith-based" (FBO) and "community-based" (CBO) non-profits and who should actually be charged with this mission. This discussion is a newer layer to the older debate that government should leave helping the poor to the charities. I have to first admit that I come from a governmental program background, but I've been in the position to contract with both FBOs and CBOs for employment and support services. I've been at this since the 1998 Welfare Reform Act and we were one of the few organizations that embraced not only multiple contracts with community organizations, but contracts with faith-based organizations. Both types of organizations, FBOs and CBOs, have demonstrated outstanding performance; both types of organizations have failed brilliantly. The organization's success or failure has almost always come back to organizational capacity, not philosophy of service.
I honestly can't understand the position that welfare/social services/poverty programs and services should solely be provided by any one group or level. As a wonderful women, who has devoted her life to social service, once said to me, "there's enough poor to go around." She was referring to the then government versus community-based debate for helping the poor. Now we seem to be in some sort of "triad" wrestling match with a winner take all approach.
In 1996, legislation enacted the "charitable choice" (Section 504 of the 1996 "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act") as part of the Welfare Reform. The purpose was to specifically encourage government agencies to subcontract out to faith-based organizations to implement job training programs to enable welfare recipients to get off of public assistance. Before this legislation, it was often hard for faith-based organization to get any governmental funding for their programs. Now I hear complaints that government is promoting a particular religion by funding its proselytizing efforts through these programs. I am not going to provide a link to more information about this debate because:
a) this subject, i.e. "the poor" and how to "cure" poverty, is as old as time, and
b) it has become so politicized that depending upon your personal leaning, you can find a plethora (I love that word) of studies to back exactly your point of view and prove that anyone that doesn't think like you is an idiot. I believe history will dub this the era as the "yellow journalism in social studies." If you don't know what yellow journalism means you can Google it.
The point of this blog entry isn't to "argue" for one side or another or to see how many times I can use quotation marks in one blog. My point is to argue that we are all desperately needed in this war. In this debate, I offer the following:
1) Government welfare programs by necessity are utilitarian. They serve an important and legitimate service to society. Government is best charged with this duty because it can tax its people, provide the programs evenly throughout its domain and ensure legal redress. They provide a safety-net that keeps people from starving, rioting, and general social upheaval. (See French Revolution and other multiple modern examples for lack of application).
2) People in faith-based organizations provide services because it is an overt act of heart. True they proselytize, but they are there because they "believe" and I think there is a place for that. Remember, charity has always been a major tenet of religion(s) and has also help to build some of the major social structures in our society I hold most dear. Part of that same legislation that allows governmental agencies to contract with faith-based organizations also provides that the agency ensure that there are alternative programs for any individual uncomfortable with service at a FBO.
3) People working in community-based organizations often spend a great deal of good money getting a bachelor or master's degree in "social-work" and then go into some of the toughest situations in our society for not much more than minimum wage because they "believe" in something bigger than themselves (or believe me they wouldn't be there) and they are committed to helping improve individual lives and society as a whole.
So as Rodney King said, "Can't we all get along?" Honestly, isn't there a place to recognize, respect and work with each other for the common good of those in poverty?
Jann
