Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
Recent public policies have promoted an increased role for faith-based organizations in the delivery of publicly supported services. Yet, there is little information on how service delivery by faith-based and secular providers might differ. This study seeks a better understanding of role differences by analyzing the broad context of social service delivery patterns in Los Angeles County. We find important differences. Faith-based organizations are much more concentrated in their service offerings than their secular counterparts. However, they play an important role through their emphasis on transitional assistance, their multi-service orientation, and their reliance on interventions that utilize their unique strengths. Secular nonprofit and public providers, in contrast, offer a much more comprehensive set of services. The results suggest that faith-based organizations have a modest and focused role in social service delivery, but one that is complementary to the efforts of secular providers.
ITRODUCTION(1)
The passage of Section 104, the "Charitable Choice" provision, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, changed the institutional structure of social service delivery in the United States by altering the rules under which faith-based organizations (FBOs) may deliver publicly supported services. If states contract with nonprofit organizations to deliver social services, they must now also include religious organizations as eligible contractees. The contracting religious organizations retain control over the expression of their religious beliefs (Center for Public Justice, 1997). The important public policy change is that organizations whose main activities are religious (e.g., congregations) may now receive money to support social services. Religiously affiliated organizations whose main purpose is the delivery of social services (e.g., Catholic Charities, Salvation Army) are not affected by this provision.
Although this policy change has triggered efforts to understand its impact on congregations (e.g., Chaves, 1999; Cnaan and Boddie, 2001), the Act seems to have signaled a broader change. First, there is evidence that states are seeking to contract with FBOs. Several states, e.g., California (Anderson, et al., 2000), Indiana (Kennedy and Bielefeld, 2002), and Texas (Yates, 1998), have encouraged FBOs to compete for public funding with other social service providers. Second, the Act has prompted the interest of philanthropic foundations, and some have begun to direct funding accordingly (e.g., the Robert Wood Johnson's $100 million initiative to FBOs that...