State Funding For Faith-Based Groups Supported

By PRISCILLA GREEAR, Staff Writer

Published: December 4, 2003

ATLANTA—Catholic Social Services’ executive director Sandra Hollett is one nonprofit leader who supports the removal of a Georgia amendment prohibiting state funding to faith-based, social service organizations.

Its removal would enable CSS to compete freely for state grants, without risk of litigation, and expand services to meet some of the urgent needs of the state’s burgeoning Hispanic community.

That would benefit the whole state, as CSS serves some 40,000 of Georgia’s most vulnerable and needy residents each year, regardless of religious affiliation and without proselytism. Nearly half of those served are Hispanic.

Another area in which CSS could expand with state government aid is in providing support services to at-risk young families.

“There are a couple of areas of growth for us; (one is) parenting support for young families at risk,” Hollett said. “It’s the kids ending up in the foster care system, which is a big problem for our state. We have a particular strength in that area, especially with the Latino population. We’re out there in their communities.”

“We all recognize how outdated the amendment is. We would just like to change it and go for a level playing field between faith-based organizations and other nonprofits … to maximize the impact we can have on thousands of people who need us,” she said.

With the support of Archbishop John F. Donoghue, Hollett and attorney Frank Mulcahy, who represents the Georgia Catholic Conference in the state legislature, are advocating for Gov. Sonny Perdue’s initiative to revise the Blaine Amendment to the Georgia Constitution, which provides that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.”

The archbishop is scheduled to meet with the governor on legislative issues in December, with this and pro-life issues being priorities.

Gov. Perdue plans to submit legislation during the 2004 session of the Georgia General Assembly that would add to the beginning of the Blaine Amendment, “except as permitted or required by the United States Constitution, as amended.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids establishment of religion or discrimination on the basis of it, allows for allocation of public funds to faith-based providers of human services, and this amendment would put the Georgia Constitution in step with the U.S. Constitution. The issue was brought to the forefront in Georgia with a lawsuit filed last year against the United Methodist Children’s Home challenging a state’s right to fund social services delivered by a religious organization. Several existing state contracts that go to faith-based providers of human services likely violate Georgia’s Constitution, making them at risk for lawsuits, yet are in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. Blaine has prohibited contracts with organizations like the Salvation Army and YMCA.

“We want to be able to qualify (for state funds) on the same basis as any other nonprofit,” said Mulcahy. “We are speaking of religious freedom, be it for us or any other religion.”

Hollett noted the good sense in empowering the nonprofits providing the highest quality of social services to better meet societal need—and challenged those opposing the proposed amendment to come up with a better solution.

“If the need in the greater community increases every day and they’re not being met by our state government, all the nonprofits in Atlanta and all the churches in Atlanta, this is one way we can leverage limited resources to better meet the needs of the people who are pretty desperate,” she said.

Gov. Perdue held a rally announcing his pre-filing of legislation for the Faith and Family Services Amendment with Hollett and other representatives of organizations including Jewish and Christian faith-based social services on the steps of the Capitol on Nov. 25. Among the speakers were Jack Williams, law professor at Georgia State University and president of the board of trustees of Torah Day School of Atlanta, who called the governor’s approach a sensible one.

“The governor’s proposal maintains that delicate and elegant balance between religious freedom, on the one hand, and excessive entanglement between religion and the state, on the other, as embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “The governor’s proposal levels the playing field and invites effective religious organizations to help solve Georgia’s most pressing problems.”

Gov. Perdue spoke of the essential role faith-based organizations play in meeting human needs. “Government alone cannot meet all the human needs of our citizens. Our state government relies on faith-based organizations like yours to deliver critical family and social services ... The needs are too many and the needy too numerous,” he said.

Gov. Perdue referenced the history of the amendment, which was adopted in Georgia during a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry over a century ago. It began with Sen. James Blaine of Maine, who was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1875 and who proposed a national constitutional amendment which would have made unconstitutional the appropriation of state or federal funds to support religious schools, aimed directly at the Catholic Church and parochial schools. In the mid-19th century Catholics were increasingly concerned about public schools, which were in effect nondenominational Protestant schools, teaching Protestant theology and employing readings of the King James Bible. They objected and sought public assistance for parochial schools. While the national initiative failed, many states adopted Blaine-like amendments, and 37 are still in effect today.

The governor said that in several past cases state contracts with faith-based providers of human services have been invalidated by the courts because of the provision.

“The Faith and Family Services Amendment will allow the state to fund the best human services providers. The Faith and Family Services Amendment will affirm that the state should not discriminate against a private, voluntary organization, merely because it is faith-based. And it will keep in place our social services system in which faith-based organizations can provide those vital human services that our citizens rely on.”

To pass it will requires a two-thirds majority of the state House and Senate, and then a majority vote in a ballot referendum next fall.

Charles Douglas, an attorney and financial advisor with Strategic Stewardship, noted later how the Constitution “requires neutrality and equal opportunity. Simply put, the faith-based movement not only is permitted by the United States Constitution, it is required by it. Amending Blaine is good for Georgians because it fosters increased competition between all groups, sectarian and religious, for government dollars. Increased competition in a free marketplace system ultimately benefits the consumer and those in need of social services.”

In an interview with the Macon Telegraph, Larry Freels, director of the Hephzibah Children’s Home, expressed fear that because his home is church-owned it may soon be banned from receiving state money, which makes up about 60 percent of its budget. About half of the 14,000 children under state custody are cared for by faith-based groups, he said. Freels acknowledged that his home takes children to churches but said it doesn’t try to convert them.

“Yes, we take them to churches, but you don’t have to believe certain things to stay with us,” he said.

Currently the state can contract with religious groups for social services, as long as the religious organization sets up a separate nonprofit entity to receive state money. But depending on the interpretation of “indirect aid,” various religiously affiliated organizations may be put at risk. CSS has received federal aid that has passed through state government.

The proposed amendment, as required by the First Amendment, would only allow for taxpayer money to be used for secular purposes and not for religious purposes, which would be specifically stated in state contracts. Perdue has said that his proposed amendment is not a method to begin a voucher system.

Assisting the governor in drafting the legislation is Jim Kelly, president of the Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, a religious liberty law firm founded by him and Frank Hanna III. The two men attended law school together at the University of Georgia and “share a passion for Catholic philanthropy and religious freedom,” Kelly said.

He explained that the Constitution permits government grants to be made directly to a faith-based organization as long as the program does not define its recipients by reference to religion; the aid is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion; is available to both the secular and religious on a nondiscriminatory basis; and is not used contrary to its purpose in a manner that has the effect of advancing religion. “The U.S. Constitution does not require a complete separation of church and state. As long as the state does not establish a religion by funding faith-based social service providers to the exclusion of all other providers, a state may support faith-based organizations.”

Kelly, who said he’s available to speak with churches on the issue, added that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is also constitutional to give public funds to a faith-based organization with a clear religious mission without requiring it to dilute or excise the religious dimension of its work as long as it receives the grant money indirectly as a result of the private, independent choices of the people benefiting from the state aid (i.e., a drug addict choosing to use his voucher at a faith-based rehabilitation facility offering substance abuse counseling religious in nature).

Regarding direct aid, in the case of Mitchell v. Helms, the Supreme Court held that parochial schools with their clear religious mission could be provided direct government aid for the purchase of instructional equipment and textbooks as is neutrally available to public schools, a ruling which Kelly explained would also permit a program such as a homeless shelter with religious activities to receive a direct grant for the purchase of things like cots or textbooks for reading instruction. “Even if such direct grants are made, the recipient faith-based organization can maintain its religious mission and practices. If, however, a faith-based organization subsequently shows a pattern of using the direct grants for religious purposes rather than the designated secular purposes, there is a risk of sanctions.”

The Faith and Family Services Amendment would also permit the legislature to enact subsequent legislation relating to the public funding of health and social services as well as education, such as providing for school vouchers, but further legislation would have to be drafted, debated and passed. But Gov. Perdue’s amendment would not suddenly initiate state funding of church-based charities since that already happens. And the Blaine Amendment does not deter government from issuing vouchers for secular private schools and doubtfully would “create a rush to fund non-secular ones,” Kelly said.

The voucher issue is one concern of Maggie Garrett, a staff attorney of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Georgia Coalition to Protect Georgia’s Bill of Rights, who sees the proposal as a backdoor attempt to implement taxpayer-funded vouchers for private religious schools. She and other coalition members also believe that religion has thrived in Georgia precisely because the government has been prohibited from endorsing or burdening religious practice by funding worship, proselytizing or discrimination, and opposes amending Blaine to preserve religious freedom, protect public schools and prevent government discrimination. “They do great things, but the government shouldn’t be funding them. In addition, along with government money comes government oversight and government meddling. That’s a big problem.”

She noted how even if funds go to a group for non-religious purposes, they could allow more of other funds to go to proselytism and the significance of how religious groups providing social services are already able to get state money by establishing a separate organization. “Just because you’re religiously motivated doesn’t mean you can’t get money. This issue is do you help people on the basis of religion? Is religion intertwined in what you’re doing? It claims that you can’t proselytize with this money, but in the programs where it’s so intertwined how can we be assured that it can’t happen? And if the purpose isn’t to allow money to go for these things, the Constitution is fine just the way it is because we can already do that,” she said. With social service providers that proselytize, “they can say we’re not violating any rules because we’re not using the money for proselytizing, we’re using the money for chairs, but really the program is proselytizing so it’s a lot more complicated that their nice little sound bite.”

Kelly said that as the Georgia amendment is, if federal funds for faith-based organizations are first granted to the state for allocation it could then be considered unlawful indirect payments. He believes the Faith and Family Services Amendment is likely to pass, as “legislators will be hard-pressed to reject an amendment to the Constitution of Georgia that will enable faith-based social service providers in their respective districts to continue to effectively provide service to those who are most at risk in our state.”

It will be more likely to pass, he continued, if the court rules that the First Amendment prohibits discrimination under the Blaine Amendment in the case argued Dec. 2 and to be decided in spring 2004 of Locke v. Davey. This case raises the issue of whether the State of Washington can rely on its Blaine Amendment to deprive a theology major of a state scholarship made available to all other majors at colleges and universities in Washington. “In essence, the court will be deciding whether states can enforce Blaine Amendment restrictions on the public funding of religious activities that are more onerous than those permitted under the more flex ible First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Mulcahy noted the irony in the fact that the Catholic Church’s Gospel mandate to serve the oppressed without discrimination would disqualify it from competing for government grants. “Serving our brothers and sisters is what our faith calls us to do…We do that by serving in hospitals, social ministries, in parishes, in Catholic Social Services and educational institutions, and so in fact we’re being discriminated against in our faith.”

Adding to that, Hollett commented on the faith identity at CSS and its expression through service, always in line with Catholic values. “We provide services because we are Catholic, because it’s our mission. We have a 50-year history of providing services regardless of their belief because of a nonjudgmental, non-proselytizing approach. We are a professional service organization, and we recognize we need to maintain boundaries about certain issues,” she said. “At the same time you will have pictures of Jesus at CSS and other inspirational (elements). We are Catholic by nature but that does not affect our services to people of other faiths … Given the diversity of the population we serve, I think that speaks for itself.”

Sen. Blaine apparently didn’t have as much lasting influence in his own state, as Hollett, former director of operations of Catholic Charities Maine—which during her tenure had the only refugee resettlement program in the state—said that its budget was 95 percent through federal and state contracts.