Weekly Opinion Roundup - 7/1/2008

As the debate continues over the issue of faith-based social service, the Roundtable will assemble a weekly digest of opinion from all sides for your consideration.

07/01/2008

The Huffington Post (huffingtonpost.com)
Seth Colter Walls
07/01/2008

The "Sista Souljah Moment" has become a cliché without peer in contemporary politics. And like any phrase that is so often used, its value is necessarily diminished over time.

When Barack Obama delivered his Philadelphia speech on race, making his first full-frontal effort to solve the problem of Jeremiah Wright, it was widely hailed as his "Souljah moment." Then, when he later fully severed ties with Wright, Obama was said to have performed the "full Souljah." McCain has also engineered several such "moments" while trying to secure his maverick persona -- so many that writers for both the New York Times and and conservative National Review have called his entire political career one big, long Sista Souljah moment.

Now, as Barack Obama's recent raft of moderate moments (on FISA, Wes Clark, and the "threadbare" arguments of MoveOn.org) seems poised to prompt further exclamations of Souljah-ing, it's worth re-examining what the original moment entailed -- and what it did not. Because while Obama certainly seems to have absorbed some of the lessons Bill Clinton taught Democrats in 1992, Souljah-ing hardly accounts for all of his centrist political instincts.
But history first.

In 1992, then Gov. Bill Clinton strode to the podium at a gathering of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition with the knowledge that he was about to serve a political ace.

One day before Clinton spoke, the longtime civil rights leader's group had invited controversy by giving a platform to Sista Souljah -- an unremarkable rapper whose name would otherwise have been lost to history -- and who had previously suggested in a Washington Post interview that, as something of a break from the daily cycle of lamentable black-on-black violence after the 1992 Los Angeles riots, "why not have a week and kill white people?"

While other Democrats of the era might have panicked and canceled any invitations to follow Souljah's act at the Rainbow Coalition, Clinton recognized an opportunity. The Southern governor could not only "do the right thing" from a moral perspective and point out the proper goal of eliminating violence altogether (instead of simply race-shifting the impact), but he could also stand up to Jackson's stewardship of African-American activism that many independent -- and, yes, largely white -- voters believed had the Democratic Party cowed.

When Clinton spoke to the group and compared Souljah's tasteless broadside to comments by white supremacist David Duke, he may have stung Jackson, who felt betrayed, though he also assured his electoral viability in PC-averse southern states. (African-Americans were hardly united in support for Souljah's comments, either.) Thus the political cliché was born: the "Sista Souljah Moment." In retrospect, it was a freebie pivot. Unlike other triangulations, one could hold onto previously-held principles while taking advantage of the issue du jour in order to score political points.

So what does that incident tell us about the politics of the moment? Not as much as some commentators would have you think.

Reacting to Obama's Tuesday remarks about the role of faith in public life, the Bush administration's former point man on faith-based initiatives told the AP that the speech had the potential to become "a major Sista Souljah moment." The only problem with such analysis is that Obama has long talked about the role that faith-based institutions should play in the public sphere, even writing about it in "The Audacity of Hope." And as a community organizer, much of Obama's work centered around working with church groups on Chicago's south side.

So despite their centrist spirit, Obama's remarks today do not represent a sudden shift, nor do they seize on any particular au courant controversy as did Clinton's unwelcome surprise in front of Jackson's group. Nor is Obama's position a "move to the center" so much as it is a recapitulation of a moderate-style position Obama appears to have always held. (As Andrew Sullivan noted, "you could see this coming a while back.")

Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted to a certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate "moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat has always staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradual pullout from Iraq during the primary season, for example, Obama took some abuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantra that "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were "careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the "Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in the mainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In the aftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear, however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will be interpreted as a cynical centrist tack.

As for their distancing from Gen. Wesley Clark's criticism of John McCain's national security experience this week -- seen by some liberals as a Souljah-style betrayal --- the Obama camp notes that their candidate always has always gone out of his way to honor the Arizona Republican's military service, and discouraged attempts to do otherwise. And when it comes to yet another potential Souljah-moment -- Obama's implicit criticism on Monday of MoveOn.org's infamous "General Betray-us" ad -- his campaign notes that he objected to the ad at the time of its publication as well. (Well, sort of. After at first refusing to take an explicit position, Obama did eventually vote in favor of a Democratic-authored Senate resolution that sprung up in the wake of that controversy.)

Still, Obama's Monday pounce against MoveOn -- in which he described their tactics as "threadbare" during a speech on patriotism -- seems to fit the Souljah mold most clearly, at least out of the ranks the many purported Souljah-moments of late in the campaign. Just as the original Souljah moment was a critique that many African-Americans could get behind, there's precious little liberal love for MoveOn's "Betray-us" ad.

"I would guess that if you polled the members of MoveOn, a majority of them would also reject the language of the headline of that ad," progressive writer Todd Gitlin told the Huffington Post. "I would, and I was a contributor. I supported the concept of the ad, and gave money for it, but didn't give money for that [betray-us] text. ... I thought it was stupid. So, I mean this is a freebie."

Just like the original Souljah moment.

Back To Top

The Carpetbagger Report (thecarpetbaggerreport.com)
Steven Benen
07/01/2008

The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry, and the rights of those who receive the benefits.

The safeguards were just common sense, and helped make these partnerships legal. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.

So what happened? George W. Bush decided he wanted to re-write the rules. His White House identified those safeguards and renamed them "barriers.” To protect the First Amendment and the interests of taxpayers, the president said, was to stand in the way of churches helping families in need. The safeguards, Bush insisted, had to be eliminated.

I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So, when I saw this AP feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it's being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind.

I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush's approach. In fact, it's largely the opposite.

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

Whew. The AP article had it backwards. Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and strengthens them, not abandons them.

By all appearances, Obama's vision is consistent with what Bush's plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions. From Obama's speech:

"You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

"That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today - from saving our planet to ending poverty - are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

"I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together - Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike - to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

There's simply nothing wrong with this. If Obama honors church-state separation and keeps the safeguards in place, as he clearly intends to do, there's no reason the government can't partner with ministries willing to provide a secular social service.

That said, that AP feed really got me nervous there for a minute....

Back To Top

06/30/2008

StatemanJournal.com
Charles C. Haynes
06/30/2008

On June 16, seven Roman Catholic schools in Washington, D.C., were transformed into seven public charter schools by a unanimous vote of the D.C. Public Charter School Board. It's a conversion of sorts - only in reverse.

Other religious communities around the nation are already on the charter bandwagon, opening Arabic charters without Islam and Hebrew charters without Judaism. Not to be left behind, a Protestant minister in Harlem is pressing to start what he claims will be a religion-free charter in his church building.

Strange as it may sound, this is a hot new trend in education: creating faith-based schools without the faith.

Establishing a charter requires shedding overt religious identity because "religious charter school" is a First Amendment oxymoron. Although free from some regulations that apply to traditional public schools, charters are still public schools. That means they must be nonsectarian - neither promoting nor denigrating religion.

So why do people of faith leap to schools of no faith? In the case of the Washington Catholic schools, it's all about the bottom line. As Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl told The Washington Post, "We simply don't have the resources to keep all those schools open."

With voucher proposals stalled in many state legislatures - or running up against state constitutional barriers - some Catholic dioceses and other religious groups are eyeing charter schools as a funding alternative.

But take the Catholic out of Catholic schools and what's left? According to the archbishop, "They will have the same teachers, the same kids, the same environment. There will still be a level of value formation."

What that will look like remains to be seen. At this point, it's hard to see how the schools can sustain the "same environment" given that charters must be nonsectarian in hiring, admission and curriculum.

But at least these Catholic schools are populated mostly by non-Catholic students. When charter schools are designed to attract students of one religion, being faith-based without the faith is a much greater challenge.

Consider last year's controversy surrounding the opening of Ben Gamla Charter School in Florida, the nation's first Hebrew charter school. It took several tries before the school board approved the Hebrew curriculum because of concerns about religious bias in the materials.

Ben Gamla's start-up problems, however, haven't dissuaded Jewish community leaders in other states from undertaking similar efforts. An application was filed this month to open a Hebrew-language charter school in New York City.

Excluding faith from Hebrew charter schools doesn't seem to bother proponents.

Philanthropist Michael Steinhardt, a backer of the New York school, was quoted last fall in the New Jersey Jewish News as envisioning "a nationwide system of Jewish charter schools focusing on Jewish elements, not on religious studies- which appeals only to a minority of Jews anyway - but on elements of Jewish culture that make us strong."

What is complicated line-drawing for Jews is even more complex for Muslims. The current uproar over Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in Minnesota underscores the pitfalls and challenges of attempting to separate Arabic culture and Islamic faith.

After news reports of possible mosque-state violations, the Minnesota Department of Education found TIZA generally in compliance with state law, ordering a few modest changes in school practice. But it won't be easy for school officials to remain neutral toward religion as required by the First Amendment in a school serving mostly Muslims who want and expect an environment that reflects Islamic values.

Even if all of these schools manage to satisfy the letter of the First Amendment (a big if), the trend toward faith-based schools without the faith is problematic for at least two reasons.

First, public schools were founded to educate youngsters of all races and creeds. Of course, parents have the right to send their children to religious or other private schools. Public schools, however, receive public support because they serve the common good - not the interests of one group.

It's important to ask whether Hebrew and Arabic charter schools - filled with mostly Jewish and Muslim students, respectively - undermine the purpose of public schools by creating a balkanized system of public education.

Second, a faith-based school without the faith does religion no favors. Devout Christians, Jews, Muslims and others may be tempted to take the money and start the school. But substituting "culture" for "religion" is no way to advance the mission of faith.

Religious leaders, beware. This Faustian bargain isn't worth the spiritual cost.

Back To Top

The Heritage Foundation (heritage.org)
Ryan Messmore
06/30/2008

How do we meet people's basic needs in America? The answer often depends on where we stand.

Those who stand in Washington, D.C., typically see problems such as poverty, homelessness and drug addiction in terms of statistics, costs and caseloads. This view nurtures the mindset that these problems can be solved only by government programs fueled by ever-increasing spending.

But if you stand on South Division Avenue in Grand Rapids, Mich., or on West Main Street in Leesburg, Fla., you perhaps see things differently.

Instead of statistics, you might know a family who can't pay its rent because of unexpected doctor bills. Instead of a case number, you might know a pregnant teenager whose dad was never around. Your close-up view of these problems helps you see what Washington bureaucrats can't: That what these people need most are family, friends and support networks that know them personally.

Therein lies the power of religious and community-based organizations, which President Bush has rightly highlighted from the earliest days of his campaign right up through today. The best expressions of this reorientation toward the local, the flexible and the personal have been through programs such as Access to Recovery. ATR is a program that allows drug addicts to use vouchers at the treatment facility of their choice, including religious providers.

Similarly, grassroots nonprofits also play a valuable role in helping the homeless.

"We cannot break dangerous patterns of behavior and cycles of poverty unless we get personally involved," says Mary Kay Baker, director of the Interfaith Hospitality Network in Grand Rapids. Her organization works with 15 local churches to provide shelter, food and other forms of material assistance to homeless families. But it offers more. "They need cheerleaders who listen to them and give them encouragement."

Mary Kay and her colleagues live this personal approach. They refer to the people they serve not as "clients" or "cases" but as "guests," according them dignity and respect. Church members volunteer to house these "guests" in their church buildings, cook and eat dinner with them and play games with their children or help them with homework.

This personal approach includes another crucial element: discipline.

With assistance comes personal responsibility. Toward that end, guests are required to seek employment during their stay or receive a seven-day notice to leave.

Guests at IHN also must turn over their government-issued debit cards to staff. Although staff members don't hold veto power over the cards, they talk with guests about their spending choices. "Many guests have never had the concept of saving explained or modeled for them," says Baker. "When we encourage them to save money, they often leave thrilled to have enough saved up for their first's month's rent."

IHN's networking approach with local churches is just one model for meeting people's needs. The First Baptist Church of Leesburg, Fla., has taken a different route by gradually building an entire ministry village on its campus. Staff and volunteers operate different ministries that serve homeless men and women, abandoned children, pregnant women, sick people without medical insurance, alcoholics and drug addicts, and many others.

What motivates FBC members? "They love Christ, and Christ loved broken people, so they are moved by their love of Christ to serve those he served," Pastor Emeritus Charles Roesel says.

This local, faith-centered approach doesn't just transform lives. It also tackles human need more efficiently than bloated government programs. For example, while FBC's community medical care center spends about $30,000 a month to provide medical care to the uninsured, it receives over $100,000 a month worth of donated pharmaceuticals and services.

Similar savings are achieved in Grand Rapids. IHN receives $12,000 annually from a government grant - less than 10 percent of its budget.

But because churches and volunteers provide housing and food to their approximately 200 guests each year, they provide services that would cost taxpayers more than $92,500 annually in government expenditures.

Such examples bear out the original idea behind the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. At its best, the initiative seeks to instill a personal, community-based approach to meeting human needs by reducing regulations and fostering an environment in which faith-inspired and grassroots efforts can flourish.

As government budgets spiral out of control, the need is more urgent than ever for policies that create environments in which families, local congregations and community-based organizations can thrive. Their power to meet people's needs lies in a personal approach that government simply cannot emulate.

 ** Ryan Messmore is a William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at The Heritage Foundation.

Distributed nationally on the McClatchy Tribune News Service

Back To Top

06/28/2008

Washington Post
Jim Towey
06/28/2008

As President Bush noted Thursday at the national conference of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, his first executive order was to establish that office. The controversy over his initiative began then and continues. Liberals who measure compassion only by tax dollars spent say it hasn't gone far enough, while zealots about church-state separation say that it goes too far and should be shut down. But this program is transforming lives. And in an election campaign lacking for new ideas, this one is worth saving.

Thomas Boyd, a graduate of the faith-based Jericho Program in Baltimore, which helps former prisoners rebuild their lives, is an example of the transformative power of such initiatives. There are thousands like him across our country. They are the shining lights of an initiative that I saw work wonders during my four years as White House director of faith-based initiatives. The White House program has brought new programs, more charitable giving and improved relationships between the federal government and religious charities, all within the bounds of the Constitution.

Although this continues to be debated in Washington, there's little debate in the heartland: The Bush faith-based initiative works. Thirty-five governors -- 19 Democrats and 16 Republicans -- and more than 70 mayors have similar programs.

Although this initiative has accomplished so much for so many, its future is uncertain. The program's true legacy will not be known until the next president decides what to do with it. Unfortunately, on this issue, both candidates have been silent.

Since no one has asked the candidates these important questions, I will:

Will you keep open the 11 faith-based offices that President Bush established in government, including the one in the White House?

These offices play critical roles in helping religious charities fight discrimination. In Sioux Falls, S.D., they helped a Catholic soup kitchen that risked losing federal funding because organizers led a voluntary prayer. Paul Revere's Old North Church couldn't receive a "Save America's Treasures" grant until President Bush's change in policy. The Seattle Hebrew Academy received disaster relief money to recover from an earthquake after the White House pushed a policy change to ensure that the school was treated the same as any other school. Without these offices, none of this would have happened.

- Will you rescind President Bush's executive order mandating equal treatment of faith-based organizations by the federal government?
Previously, religious charities faced discrimination if they had, say, a cross on a wall, an all-Jewish board of directors or a Bible verse on a brochure. When Congress blocked legislation to end such discrimination, federal faith-based offices shepherded 13 regulations through seven agencies that helped faith-based charities compete on a level playing field. What will you do with these regulations and the executive order?

- Will you expand the Bush pilot project allowing addicts to choose their own treatment program?

Before George W. Bush's presidency, addicts nationwide were forced to use the same treatment providers even if they had repeatedly failed with them. In states where the new Access to Recovery program is operational, addicts can choose a faith-based approach to recovery. Will you support more programs that allow choice?

- Do you support the right of faith-based charities to hire on a religious basis without forfeiting federal funds?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a later Supreme Court case permit religious groups to hire on the basis of faith. An Orthodox Jewish organization, after all, could not maintain its identity if it were forced to hire Southern Baptists or atheists. If these same groups want federal funding to support their good works, however, they face a maze of contradictory rules. In the case of some poverty-fighting programs, Congress prohibits religious hiring; yet with others, such hiring is expressly permitted. This has led to a logjam of social welfare legislation in need of reauthorization. How will you break this impasse?

- Will you promote competitiveness so that the best provider of social services -- be it sacred or secular -- prevails?

Those who advocate on behalf of huge government anti-poverty programs often focus on increasing the levels of spending instead of achieving results. Powerful lobbies and resistant congressional committees have thwarted attempts to focus on outcomes. Take Head Start, the government's multibillion-dollar early-childhood initiative. President Bush tried to build accountability and to tie funding to outcomes rather than follow the well-traveled path of perpetual funding. He lost, and so did many qualified faith-based programs that remain spectators because of the stranglehold that current grantees have on funding; 95 cents of every Head Start dollar goes to secular providers. Does this seem fair to you? If not, what will you do about it?

Talking about God on the campaign trail might appear faith-friendly, but it is no substitute for articulating a sound policy position on this critical initiative. As our economy frays, this strong new thread in our social safety net must be preserved. The next president needs to get specific.

** The writer was director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from 2002 to 2006. He is president of Saint Vincent College in Latrobe, Pa.

Back To Top

06/26/2008

The Washington Times
Gary Andres
06/26/2008

Popular presidential history prefers sound bites to epic narratives. FDR brought us the New Deal; Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society; while Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush both helped usher in the end of the Cold War - all remarkable accomplishments. Yet their real stories include many more chapters.

These presidents changed more than history's top headlines. And the current occupant of the White House is no exception. Prosecuting the global war on terror - including the response to the September 11 terrorist attacks - will no doubt fill many pages of President George W. Bush's narrative. But for the next two days, the White House is hosting an event that should better frame an underreported part of President Bush's legacy, his Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program. The conference features cabinet members, academic experts, practitioners and the president himself, discussing and evaluating ways to solve some of society's toughest social ills.

Political debate surrounding these issues usually misses the point. Civil libertarians trot on their hobbyhorses shouting the initiative tramples barriers separating church and state. How dare you insert God where only government should tread? Or they portray this as some secret plot by the conservative Christian backers of the White House to proselytize a nation drifting somewhere East of Eden.

These smokescreens obscure the real debate and the true contribution of President Bush in this area. The heart of the controversy is about "means," not "ends." The Faith-Based Initiative asks fundamental questions that makes some traditional liberals extremely uncomfortable: Is there a better way to address the needs of the underprivileged? Does the federal government have a monopoly on compassion? Can we stop debating "if," when we need to extend a helping and start discussing "how?"

Simple, but profound, questions like these shake status-quo, liberal interest groups to their very core. That's the real reason they fight so hard against the kind of change President Bush proposes. And it's the reason that White House efforts today and tomorrow - as well as over the past seven years - deserve a lot more attention in this context. While the press loves to cover fights between godless liberals and conservative crusaders, they miss a bigger, more important debate.

President Bush has created a new archetype of compassion and a more effective way for the federal government to help people solve problems. Many of the successes are already outlined in an impressive White House report issued last January titled "The Quiet Revolution."

The report highlights how President Bush has transformed thinking about helping the poor and distressed communities. It rejects "the failed formula of towering distant bureaucracies." Instead, as candidate Bush said in 1999, "[I]n every instance where my administration sees a responsibility to help people, we will look first to faith-based organizations, to charities, and to community groups."

This "quiet revolution" has indeed transformed government and social-service delivery at a variety of levels and should become a part of this president's legacy. Mr. Bush recognizes that mobilizing "armies of compassion" and creating a more welcoming environment for faith-based organizations requires pushing these ideas beyond an office in the White House. Eleven major federal departments or agencies now have faith-based centers looking for ways to remove barriers, train and encourage community activists and re-orient the way the federal government addresses social problems.

And by focusing on providing flexibility and more numerous, smaller grants, the Faith-Based Initiative has helped deliver training to more than 100,000 social entrepreneurs for populations such as at-risk youth, disaster victims, recovering addicts, returning prisoners, individuals with HIV/AIDS and the homeless.

States have also responded to the president's call. Thirty-five governors from both political parties now operate offices dedicated to working more cooperatively with faith-based and community organizations.

Moreover, "the measure of compassion is more than good intentions, it is good results," Mr. Bush said in 2002. This week's conference will also focus on accountability - what works and what doesn't - in allocating scarce federal resources to these community organizations.

The president's new approach is all about a better way to solve problems through more intentional involvement of faith-based and community groups. No American president has done more to retool the federal government's approach. History writers should not overlook this effective alternative to the traditional welfare state and Mr. Bush's contribution to building a new paradigm of hope.

* Gary Andres is vice chairman of Dutko Worldwide.

Back To Top

The Monitor (McAllen, Texas)
Editorial
06/26/2008

Who do you expect to come to the rescue when a woman needs refuge from an abusive relationship; when a family falls on hard times and needs shelter; when an addict needs treatment; or when an ex-convict needs help re-entering society?

Chances are your first thought is a local community organization _ the dedicated groups who share the same sidewalks and street corners as you and your neighbors in need. They are America's armies of compassion, creating deep impact in the communities they serve. Yet not long ago, these charitable organizations were too often ignored by government efforts to address the same problems.\xA0

Some in Washington joke that changing the ways of the Federal Government is as difficult as trying to turn an ocean liner. As leaders of large Federal agencies, we've certainly experienced some of those challenges. That's why we join together with great satisfaction to highlight a sea change in our nation's approach to helping the needy _ a change that is now anchored deep within government.

When President Bush formed the Faith-Based and Community Initiative in his first days in office, he promised to steer government in a new direction by placing faith-based and other locally based nonprofits at the center of his Administration's battle against human need. Thursday, as he stands alongside individuals who represent millions of lives changed by this Initiative, the President can say he delivered on his promise.

For decades, many government efforts to aid the needy earned a reputation as cold and distant from communities...and often having minimal impact for good. Charting a new course, the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative worked to make local nonprofits central to every effort led by our agencies to address need. A White House office coordinates this drive and Centers within each of our agencies lead reforms deep in the gears of government. We have consistently moved away from impersonal and bureaucratic programs toward responses led by social entrepreneurs that harness the passion and personal touch of neighbors serving neighbors.

Breaking away from government-as-usual first required leveling the playing field for faith-based organizations. Any pragmatic effort to deliver change in communities and impact lives simply could not exclude these vital allies. Thanks to expansive reforms, faith-based charities are now welcomed as equal partners in addressing our Nation's needs.

This victory put necessary wind in the sails of the Initiative. That was just the beginning. Innovative partnerships reflecting the President's vision have placed locally based charities, both religious and secular, at the heart of our agencies' diverse efforts to address needs _ from homelessness and at-risk youth to malaria in Africa. Last year alone, more than 19,000 Federal grants to serve the needy were won by thousands of America's faith-based and other nonprofits.

What matters most is the ripple effect these organizations have in the lives of the individuals they serve. Ex-prisoners served through the President's Prisoner Reentry Initiative are re-arrested at rates less than half the national average. More than 200,000 addicts have been helped toward recovery by thousands of grassroots nonprofits through "Access to Recovery" vouchers. Community-Based Health Clinics provided medical care to more than 4.7 million more low-income individuals in 2006 than they did in 2001. Administration partnerships with faith-based and community groups have helped reduce chronic homelessness by nearly 12 percent in a single year.

Internationally, local faith-based and other community groups make up more than 80 percent of partners in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has provided compassionate care to nearly 6.6 million individuals affected by HIV/AIDS.

Reflecting the President's vision, today 35 governors, 19 Democrats and 16 Republicans, and more than 100 mayors have Faith-Based and Community Initiative offices or liaisons of their own. Although often with little notice, the Initiative's "quiet revolution" continues to grow _ navigating a new government approach to addressing need and lifting the lives of millions through a neighbor's caring touch.

More than seven years after its launch, the Faith-Based and Community Initiative is anchored in government and stands as one of the most powerful and lasting pieces of the President's record. It has ignited a quiet revolution in the way America delivers lifelines to the lost. And we trust the best is yet to come.

This editorial was signed by the United States Attorney General; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security; and the Administrators of Small Business Administration and U.S. Agency for International Development.

Back To Top

News | Events | Interviews | Legal | Publications | Research | Resources | Links

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy
Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government

411 State Street, Albany, NY 12203.
Phone: (518) 443-5014 | Fax: (518) 443-5705 | Send us E-Mail
Copyright 2008, All rights reserved.