Opinion: Faith-Based Program Getting Better at Doing Good

(March 11) -- This week, the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships delivered a report to President Barack Obama urging the government to take a wide range of actions to improve the lives of people in need.

For example, instead of requiring struggling families to travel to multiple sites to access Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, and medical, veterans' and other benefits, the council called on government to work with nonprofit partners so families may access all of these benefits at single sites. The diverse Advisory Council, made up of members of many different faiths, beliefs and political perspectives, was able to unite around more than 60 proposals like this that have the potential to bring about meaningful change for vulnerable people.

In its report, the council also offered a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening the constitutional and legal footing of the partnerships the government forms with community-serving organizations, both religious and secular. That might sound improbable, given the religious and political diversity of the council, as well as some serious differences among council members about the proper relationship between government and religion. Through painstaking work, however, the council was able to unanimously endorse a list of important reforms in this area, too.

For example, the council called on government to make it clear that government grants may not be used to pay for explicitly religious activities (activities with overt religious content). This helps to ensure that the government does not promote or regulate religion.

It urged protection for providers' ability to maintain a religious identity through having a religious name and mission. At the same time, the council said providers need to segment religious activities from programs funded by direct government aid. This has the effect of safeguarding beneficiaries' religious liberty rights, while also keeping the government from meddling in religious activities. Further, the council urged improved training and enforcement of these and other rules.

Council members also were deeply concerned about the fact that beneficiaries often do not receive written notice of their rights to request an alternative service provider (including an alternative secular provider) if they object to the religious character of the initial service provider. So the council insisted that that problem be remedied.

And, noting that public understanding of and confidence in these partnerships often suffers for lack of information about them, the council called for governmental bodies disbursing federal social service funds to post online a list of entities receiving such aid as well as all guidance and grant documents.

Beyond the council's unanimous endorsement, these proposals also received support from an array of national organizations, including Barry Lynn's Americans United for Separation of Church and State. And Lynn served on a task force the Advisory Council established to develop these and others recommendations. His helpful suggestions strengthened our work.

But in recent comments on the council's report, Lynn and Americans United hardly mention these important reforms. Instead, they focus narrowly on a few other items, one of which is a significant issue the council was instructed not to address: the practice of allowing religious groups to make religion-based employment decisions in government-funded jobs. The White House decided to deal with that issue outside the scope of the council process.

Lynn also has complained about the fact that a majority of council members said providers should be able to deliver government-funded services in rooms with religious symbols. It certainly is fair to argue about that issue, but what is lost in the criticism is that all council members agreed that no beneficiary should be forced to accept services in a setting that is religiously objectionable to them and must have access to a secular alternative provider.

Lynn also has lamented the fact that the council was divided over the issue of whether the government should require houses of worship to form separate corporations to receive direct federal social service funds. A narrow majority of the council (13 members) voted in favor of such a requirement; the minority (12 members) also thought separate incorporation was a good idea, just not one the government should impose. So, even on the one or two issues where the council was unable to come to consensus on specifics, it was unified around some common goals.

Americans United and others also have raised concerns about the fact that the Obama administration has not yet made any changes to the executive orders and regulations President George W. Bush put in place. But President Obama indicated a year ago that he would wait for the advice of the council before moving forward on these issues.

If the administration implements our recommendations in this area swiftly, and those rules are especially durable given the fact that they are supported by such a broad constituency, won't that be a great victory? I think so.

Through the council's work, a diverse group has been able to reach consensus on many difficult issues and advocate a wide range of reforms that would make partnerships much more effective, transparent, constitutionally compliant and responsive to those in need.

Especially at a time when much of our civic and political life is gridlocked and dysfunctional due to bitter division and distrust, that's something to celebrate and support.

Melissa Rogers is chairwoman of the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and is director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School.


To submit an op-ed to AOL News, write to opinion@aolnews.com.