Should We Have Faith in Faith-Based Social Services?

Rhetoric Versus Realistic Expectations Margaret Gibelman, Sheldon R. Gelman

Early in his administration, President George W. Bush set forth his Faith-Based Initiative, which would authorize and encourage religious groups to compete for and provide publicly funded social services. This article analyzes the arguments made by supporters of faith-based social services in regard to their underlying values and premises. This analysis forms the basis for examining the managerial track record of faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services. To identify issues and trends within this category of service providers, the authors analyzed press reports of instances of wrongdoing in faith-based groups from 1995 to 2001. Findings reveal that faithbased groups appear to be as susceptible to managerial and accountability inadequacies, if not outright wrongdoing, as are nonsectarian service providers. The authors identify implications regarding the credibility of faith-based groups and public trust as they pertain to an enhanced role in the less regulated service system that the president envisions.

ofce in January 2001, President George W. Bush chose as one of the first domestic policy items the Faith-Based Initiative, which would authorize and encourage religious groups to compete for and provide publicly funded social services. This initiative is predicated on assumptions about the inadequacy of the service delivery systems of the past, the idealized service delivery system of the future, and the appropriate role of government and charitable organizations within this newly envisioned system. This article analyzes the arguments of the Bush administration and supporters of faith-based services to find their underlying values and premises. This analysis forms the basis for examining the track record of faith-based organizations in the delivery of social services from 1995 to 2001. The authors searched press reports of instances of faith-based groups wrongdoing in this period to identify issues and trends within this category of service providers. The analysis identifies implications regarding the credibility of faith-based
AKING

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 13, no. 1, Fall 2002

Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

49

50

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

groups and public trust and draws implications in regard to an enhanced role for these groups in the largely unregulated service system that the president envisions.

Methodology
The subject of analysis was articles appearing in daily, weekly, or monthly newspapers and special nonprot newsletters, such as the Chronicle of Philanthropy and the Nonprot Times. The authors used two primary search engines to identify and obtain articles: LexisNexis, a computer-assisted research service that includes a large database of full-text news publications; and ProQuest, a comprehensive database that includes newspapers, journals, periodicals, and newsletters. Although the two comprehensive databases produced some duplication, they identified some different articles or revealed articles that carried slightly different perspectives. The search took place in early 2001 for the time frame of 19952001 for stories about faith-based groups in the United States, in specific regard to managerial or legal issues and improprieties. The authors abstracted articles from twenty-seven newspapers, some national in scope, others geared toward the state or local level. The search began with the keywords religious charities and variations (for example, faith-based groups, churches and social services, and so on). It yielded hundreds of articles related to religiously based nonprots, the majority of which were outside of the purview of the social services or concerned topics tangential to the management track record of these groups. The two authors independently reviewed and analyzed the remaining articles to identify themes: Who did what to whom, why, how, and with what disposition or outcome (Rubin and Babbie, 1997)? The authors then discussed and reconciled any differences in themes. They constructed descriptive categories about the situations or events reported, for instance, the nature of the allegation; the parties involved; the legal status of the case; the immediate impact on the faith-based institution, its board (where applicable), staff, volunteers, or services; and responses from the organization, if any. The situations that this article and its tables identify are based on compilations of news reports on the same incident. A precise count of the number of articles revealing wrongdoings would be misleading, as a signicant proportion of the twenty-seven newspapers may have picked up the same story through the Associated Press. Similarly, some stories played out for days, weeks, or even months in the newspapers. The data sources have several limitations. One is that the use of the Internet as a search vehicle allows access to some but not all press. Thus, the authors make no claim to any representation of the print media. Because conducting a search on the Internet involves using keywords, the search may have omitted some cases because they fell under different terminology and were thus not recognized.

The authors searched press reports of instances of faith-based groups wrongdoing in this period to identify issues and trends within this category of service providers

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

51

The decision to limit the time span of the search to the most recent few years meant that information was generally lacking about the outcome of the allegations reported. However, allegations of improprieties may be as important as the outcome, as they show vulnerabilities and the immediacy of public reactions, as molded through press accounts. Finally, press accounts may downplay the positive outcomes of nonprofits or, more specifically, faith-based groups, if they include them at all. Thus, although the use of available records is expedient, media stories often portray the exceptional or sensational. Nevertheless, such articles provide access to recent and current records concerning faith-based groups and allow the identication of themes and emerging trends.

Background
Although the rhetoric would suggest otherwise, the use of religiously based organizations is far from new. Their role in the provision of social services, including those funded by tax dollars, has a history of more than one hundred years in the United States (see, for example, Terrell, 1987; Smith and Lipsky, 1993; Gibelman and Demone, 1998). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 significantly boosted efforts to expand service delivery by creating market competition. To involve religious and other private organizations in the delivery of welfare services to the greatest extent possible, States are specifically authorized to administer and provide family assistance services through contracts with charitable, religious, or private organizations or through vouchers or certicates that may be redeemed for services at charitable, religious, or private organizations (U.S. House of Representatives, 2001, p. 6). This provision came to be known as charitable choice, giving religious groups the ability to compete for government contracts and opening the door to nontraditional providers, such as congregations. Although charitable choice mandates only nondiscrimination in regard to religion in the competition for contracts, some have interpreted the movement as bestowing preference to religious organizations. Thus, welfare reform raised anew the question of the appropriate role of faith-based organizations in the delivery of government-sanctioned and publicly financed services. The Bush initiative picks up on this question and extends the boundaries of controversy. The initiative covers two executive orders and support of pending legislation. The rst order, Executive Order 13198, Agency Responsibilities with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Bush, 2001b), established Executive Department Centers for FaithBased and Community Initiatives within five federal departments: Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The initiative has three goals: (1) eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the

This provision came to be known as charitable choice, giving religious groups the ability to compete for government contracts and opening the door to nontraditional providers

52

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

participation of faith-based and other community organizations in providing social services; (2) coordinate a comprehensive effort to incorporate faith-based and other community organizations in departmental programs to the extent possible; and (3) devise proposals to develop innovative pilot and demonstration programs to increase participation of faith-based and community organizations. The second order (Executive Order 13199) created the White House Office for Religious-Based and Community Groups (Bush, 2001c). The orders are directed to government offices within the executive branch of government; these ofces promulgate and enforce the regulations that implement public policy. Bolstering and promoting the Faith-Based Initiative is also on the congressional agenda. A bipartisan-sponsored bill, the Community Solutions Act (HR 7), would, among other provisions, allow faithbased organizations to compete for federal grants in a wide range of social service areas, including juvenile justice, job training, domestic violence, hunger relief, and crime prevention programs. In July 2001 the House approved HR 7, but with less positive prospects in the Senate (Eilperin, 2001). President Bush has made clear that the initiative is one he intends to pursue (Milbank, 2001). The 2001 Faith-Based Initiative can be distinguished from the past use of religious organizations to provide social services on several points. The executive orders and legislative proposals are predicated on several basic but unproven assumptions, including the assumed failure of big bureaucracies and most traditional service providers and the belief that faith-based and community groups can and should augment, if not replace, the work of traditional nonprofits. Thus, the Faith-Based Initiative refers not to opening the doors to faith-based groups already part of the established delivery network but to groups that have been heretofore excluded. Media commentary described the Faith-Based Initiative as throwing open the doors of government to religious and community groups as part of a broad effort to refashion the way government delivers social services (Goodstein, 2001, p. A18). In the newly envisioned service system, faith is the missing element in effective social service programs (Bush, 2001a). Congregations have not been major providers of social services, except of a short-term, emergency nature. In the Bush scenario, this situation can dramatically change by providing public funds directly to churches, synagogues, and other religious groups (Sanger, 2001). Located in communities and responsive to them, such groups are potentially more flexible, responsive, and less encumbered by bureaucratic processes (Edsall and Milbank, 2001; Gibelman, forthcoming). Another premise is that faith-based groups will be better able to enlist and use volunteers, thus promoting civic responsibility as well as decreasing costs. The coffers of churches will also be enlarged when community residents receive and seek to support the services the churches offer. Legislative reforms will stimulate such enhanced charitable giving both to reduce restrictive regulations and

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

53

provide greater incentives to give (Goodstein, 2001; Hruby and Lipman, 2001). The rhetoric associated with the Faith-Based Initiative is thus based on several untested premises about the failures of the current system. Concurrently, the initiative expects religious groups not only to overcome the weaknesses of the traditional service system but to do so with a greater level of commitment, expertise, credibility, integrity, and trust. To what extent does the track record of faithbased groups justify such expectations?

The Track Record of Faith-Based Groups: Findings

Table 1 provides a summary of the major cases appearing in the print media during the period 19952001 and for which sufcient information was available to identify the groups as faith-based and to discern the facts of the situation. Excluded are cases of sexual improprieties or misconduct, which the authors address as a separate category. These cases of alleged or conrmed wrongdoing cover a broad range of faith-based groupsfrom small community agencies or congregations to large national umbrella organizations. The cases presented in Table 2 concern scams that used faith and religion as the pretext for wide-scale fraud of those who identify with faith groups. The intent in these cases was to commit criminal acts under the cover of serving the faithful.

These cases of alleged or conrmed wrongdoing cover a broad range of faith-based groupsfrom small community agencies or congregations to large national umbrella organizations

Table 1. Situational Opportunities: Selected Examples

Year 1995 1995 1996 1996 1996 1997 1998 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 Organization JCC of Greater Washingtona Episcopal Church (N.J.)b Evangelical Lutheran Church of New England (Conn.)c Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn (N.Y.)d Sutton Place Synagogue (N.Y.)e St. Vincent Services (N.Y.)f Jewish Educational Center of San Franciscog National Baptist Conventionh Williamsburg Community School District (N.Y.)i Solid Rock Baptist Church (N.J.)j Catholic Charities of San Francisco (Calif.)k Jimmy Swaggart Ministriesl Silver Spring Church of God (Md.)m Allegation Embezzlement of $1 million + Embezzlement of $2.2 million Embezzlement of $800,000 Embezzlement of $1.2 million Embezzlement of $500,000 Embezzlement of $800,000 Tax evasion, mail fraud, money laundering of $1 million + Misuse of $4 million Diversion of funds $6 million Embezzlement of $155,000 Misappropriation of funds $73,000 Misappropriation of funds $769,000 Unpaid debts (amount unknown)

aMooar, 1995. bNiebuhr, 1995. cWilliams, 1996. dFried, 1996. eRichardson,1996. fBarron, 1997. gKatz, 1998. hBragg, 1999. iSteinberg, 1999. jHughes, 1999. kCharity Paid for CEOs Hair Removal, 2000. lEx-Aide Admits Taking $769,000 from Ministry, 2000. mPerez-Rivas, 2000.

54

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

Table 2. Fraudulent Intent or Scams by Faith-Based Groups

Year 1995 1999 1999 1999 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001
aWalsh,

Organization New Era Foundationa St. Francis of Assisi Foundationb Baptist Foundation of Arizonac New Jerusalem Church of God in Christd Helpline Soul Rescue Ministrye Greater Ministries Internationalf Aid Association for Lutheransg Lutheran Brotherhoodh St. Stephens Baptist Churchi Project Social Carej

Scams Pyramid scheme Insurance fraud Phony investments Nonexistent meals Mortgage fraud Pyramid scheme Deceptive practices Deceptive practices Mortgage fraud Bogus enterprise

Losses $135 million $50 million + $600 million $1.3 million $2.3 million $448 million Amount unknown Amount unknown Amount unknown $325,000

1995; Barron, 1997. bWilliamson, 1999. cBlum, 1999. dPear, 1999. ePristin, 2000. fFive Guilty in Bilking . . . , 2001; Blum, 2001. gWilliams, 2001. hWilliams, 2001. iArrest in Mortgage Fraud Case, 2001. jLambert, 2001.

Themes
The authors extracted themes about the nature of the faith-based groups wrongdoings and found that money was at the root of the majority of cases. This finding is consistent with studies of the larger nonprot social service sector (Gibelman and Gelman, 2001; Gibelman, Gelman, and Pollack, 1997) and suggests that financial gain is a strong motivator for wrongdoing. The most frequently cited cause of the wrongdoing was situational opportunity, made possible by lack of oversight within the hierarchy of the congregation or organization. Situational opportunity is evident in the following situations: A long-time, trusted employee over whom supervision was lax if not nonexistent Lack of financial safeguards in the form of basic financial principles Failure to subject organizational finances to an external audit or entrusting the staff person (religious or lay) with responsibility for the audit A sole individuals control over the disbursement of funds In these instances the embezzlement of funds or other form of financial fraud took place over a significant period of time. In all cases the individual responsible for the wrongdoing was strongly identied with or a part of the faith group, such as a member of the clergy or a paid lay employee of the congregation. In two cases the accused individuals had worked for the organization for more than twenty-ve years (Barron, 1997; Fried, 1996). The lay or religious leadership of these faith-based groups offered several justifications for their actions. Some argued their need for money to pay personal expenses; others saw the misappropriation of

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

55

funds as their entitlement or due on the basis of sacrices they had made on behalf of the group over a long period. In the case of the Williamsburg Community School District, a respected and politically well-connected rabbi siphoned millions of dollars in public monies to support religious day schools (Steinberg, 1999); here the seeming justification was the greater good. Still others argued psychiatric problems: they were prompted to felonious behavior because of internal forces over which they exercised no control. These faith-based cases reveal that the underlying issues had to do with the lack of appropriate oversight and the failure to institute or maintain accountability mechanisms. The situations were thus ripe for exploitation. Others in these organizations perceived the individuals as trustworthy and beyond reproach. The following comments reect the shock of those left to pick up the pieces. Hes the one I would least expect (Richardson, 1996); Hes like the boy scout who would help the little old lady walk across the street (Richardson, 1996); He was likeable and unassuming (Williams, 1996); The priests are very trusting, and she did a good job; no one suspected anything (Hughes, 2001). These themes parallel those found among the larger network of traditional nonprofits, both in the United States and globally (Gibelman and Gelman, 2001; Gibelman, Gelman, and Pollack, 1997). As the analysis of cases highlights, the sanctity afforded religion does not make faith-based institutions immune from the types of wrongdoings that occur among secular nonprots.

The underlying issues had to do with the lack of appropriate oversight and the failure to institute or maintain accountability mechanisms

Misconduct and Abuse

A separate area of wrongdoing associated with religious groups is the abrogation of civil rights in the form of sexual improprieties or harassment and the perpetration of child abuse or neglect. The cases in Table 3 reect newly alleged failures and abuses of vulnerable populations in the name of religious belief or under the protection of a religious label. Many of the situations in which clergy found themselves negate the image of those who have chosen a religious calling. Headlines such as Cantor Charged with Running Prostitution Ring (Silverman, 2000) or Reform Leader Resigns; Sexual Misconduct Charged (Weiner, 2000a) suggest that religious leaders are subject to the same human failings as secular leaders. The Catholic Church alone has spent millions of dollars to settle sexual abuse cases against clergy or church employees over the past decade (Man Pleads Guilty to Molestations, 2001). In one highly publicized case, the priest was sentenced to life imprisonment for molesting eleven former altar boys (Man Pleads Guilty to Molestations, 2001), and his diocese paid more than $30 million in damages. So pervasive and horric are such occurrences within religious groups of all faiths that groups have established Internet help lines (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2001; Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, 2001). In the

56

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

Table 3. Recent Faith-Based Failures

Year 1998 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 Organization Straight, Inc. (N.J.)a Orthodox UnionNational Conference of Synagogue Youth (N.J.)b Catholic Social ServicesAtlanta (Ga.)c Roloff Homes (Tex.)d Heartland Christian School (Mo.)e Lutheran Services (Fla.)f House of Prayer (Ga.)g St. Christopher-Ottilie (N.Y.)h YMCA (Salem, Mass.)i Catholic Church (Mass.)j Catholic Church (Maine)k Allegation Child abuse Child sexual abuse Inadequate housing and abandonment Physical abuse Physical abuse Inadequate housing and abandonment Cruelty to children Abuse, neglect, and lack of qualied staff Child sexual abuse Child sexual abuse Child sexual abuse

aSzalavitz, 2001. bWeiner, 2000a. cTropy, 2000. dRosin, 2001. eBragg, 2001; Charton, 2001. fSzalavitz, 2001. gJudd, 2001a, 2001b. hTerrazzano, 2001. iMan Pleads Guilty to Molestations, 2001. jBelluck, 2002a, 2002b; Ferdinand, 2002; Sins of the Fathers, 2002. kBelluck, 2002c, 2002d.

early months of 2002, these improprieties, particularly within the Catholic Church, have been revealed in increasing numbers and with corresponding public outrage (Belluck, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c; Ferdinand, 2002; Goodstein and Wilgoren, 2002; Whitaker, 2002). An op-ed article in the New York Times by Lisa Sowle Cahill (2002), professor of theology and ethics at Boston College, argued that the scandal in the Catholic Church goes beyond an institution in crisis. It calls into question the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church in America, she concluded. In Atlanta, Georgia, forty-nine children were seized from five families that belong to the House of Prayer. Allegations concern the systematic beating of the children by their parents under the direction of the pastor (Judd, 2001a). The pastor voiced his view that parents have an absolute right to discipline their children and advised members of his congregation on how severe the beating should be (Firestone, 2001). Collectively, these cases point to a problem with public funding of self-governing groups when the funded group fails to institute appropriate accountability mechanisms and public oversight is lacking or insufcient. Some faith-based groups, depending on their primary purpose, may fall under the Internal Revenue Classication of nonprot service organization, also known as a 501(c)(3) organization. Nonprofits differ from other organizational types in locus of responsibility. In 501(c)(3) organizations, the board is the policymaking body, and its members assume fiduciary responsibilitya duty to act for the good of others. Board members share collective responsibility for the scal and programmatic aspects of the organizations performance. Examples within the sectarian sector include

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

57

Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, and Methodist-sponsored social service agencies. Table 1, in fact, includes two such mainstream religiously based social service providers: the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington, D.C., and Catholic Charities of San Francisco. The majority of cases of faith-based groups wrongdoing, however, concerned groups whose mission is primarily religious rather than service-oriented, such as congregations. Very small nonprofits with revenue less than $5,000 per year (encompassing a substantial proportion of nontraditional service providers) and churches of any size do not have to apply for tax exemption and are not required to report to the government (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1996). Scholars estimate that about 350,000 churches would fall within this category of 501(c)(3) nonprots exempt from the accountability requirements governing charitable organizations (Bowen, Nygren, Turner, and Duffy, 1994). In addition, some faith-based groups may be classied as a special form of nonprot, a 501(d), a religious community that shares a common treasury, such as a monastery (Whiddon, 2001). Thus, little information is available about the nances and services of these groups; they lack a track record against which to measure current and future service delivery capability. Such religious groups run their own programs at a specic location but may also support other activities, individuals, and organizations through donations. A 1991 survey of 258,000 congregations revealed that nine out of ten of them reported activities in human services and health; such activities were run within the congregation, in conjunction with other community groups, or as part of denominational programs (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1996). We have all come to expect wrongdoings in the world of big business; the ends of making money and profit seem to justify the means. Government and nonprofit excesses too, along with cumbersome and inefcient bureaucratic structures associated with public institutions, are acknowledged and documented. On the other hand, supporters tout faith-based groups as inherently capable by virtue of the sanctity associated with them. Emerging revelations about faith-based groups, however, negate the images emanating from Washington, D.C., that a distinctly religious approach to services is morally compelling. Just because an organization is faithbased does not exempt its leadership from the human frailties that beset other organizational leaders.

Just because an organization is faith-based does not exempt its leadership from the human frailties that beset other organizational leaders

Consequences and Long-Term Implications

The excesses and misdeeds associated with private enterprise and even government have long been fertile territory for the press. But among faith-based groups, as President Bush has aptly noted, public trust is a key component. The track record suggests that there may be reasonable skepticism about the level of trust that these institutions deserveno more and no less than other societal institutions.

58

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

A case in point is the recent indictment and conviction of John L. Geoghan, a priest, for sexual molestation that took place, with church knowledge, over a period of thirty-three years

In general, charitable organizations that have been subject to allegations or found guilty of wrongdoing have responded by quickly removing the accused or guilty party and have found a replacement who can command widespread support and condence and get the group back on the right track (Gibelman and Gelman, 2001). In the case of faith-based groups, however, not all managers are paid employees. Some are attached to the church through their religious calling, such as in the case of priests, nuns, and monks. Removal of the groups leader in such an instance is more complex than the ring of a paid employee and may not address the fundamental question of public accountability. Because faith-based groups have characteristics that distinguish them from secular nonprots, making comparisons is far from easy. Thus, it is not possible to assess whether the incidence of wrongdoing among faith-based groups is more, less, or the same as with secular nonprots. Numerical counts are not useful in this respect. First, faith-based groups may be somewhat insulated from public scrutiny and able to protect themselves better and for longer from public exposs than can nonprots that, for example, engage in substantial contracting with government and are subject to public accountability demands. A case in point is the recent indictment and conviction of John L. Geoghan, a priest, for sexual molestation that took place, with church knowledge, over a period of thirty-three years (Wakin, 2002). Precisely because faith-based groups can and do shield their members from adverse publicity, the true incidence of misbehavior cannot be known. Second, numbers of incidents do not tell us about the type or severity of the wrongdoings, again making comparisons difficult. Thus, this articles authors have made no attempt to compare incidence or level of misbehavior between faith-based and secular groups. The cases detailed here, however, do suggest that faith-based groups are subject to many of the same human and organizational failures as are charitable groups (Gibelman, Gelman, and Pollack, 1997; Gibelman and Gelman, 2001). Faith-based groups, like secular nonprots, raise money on the basis of donor trust, a trust shaken to the core by the revelations of improprieties. There are long-range implications for any group that nds itself the subject of allegations of wrongdoing, even if eventually exonerated. Citizens memories may be long, particularly when the group has abrogated the public trust. For the faith-based group, long-term implications include difculties raising money, loss of lay leaders and volunteers who may want to dissociate and save their individual good names, and citizen and government calls for greater accountability. In the aftermath of some highly publicized cases of nonprofit wrongdoing, such as the United Way of America (Miller, 1995; Murawski, 1995); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Terry, 1995); and the New Era Foundation, which used religious fervor as a defense (Walsh, 1995, 1997), publicity

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

59

about these cases led to public outrage and to an increasing call for and implementation of heightened accountability procedures for these organizations (Johnson and others, 1998; Schoenberger, 1998; Dickey, 1999). In contract relationships, governments can and do exercise the prerogative of demanding minimum standards of management and oversight. President Bushs Faith-Based Initiative, however, calls not only for more involvement on the part of religious groups but also the concurrent decrease in regulations to promote their participation (Milbank and Edsall, 2001; Press, 2001). Despite a questionable track record of performance (due to the small scale of most faith-based services, the untested outcomes of such services, as well as alleged and documented wrongdoing), public dialogue about the Bush initiative has been relatively silent on the subject of capacity. Opponents have been more vocal about potential proselytizing that can compromise separation of church and state than they have about provider capability (Peterson, 2001). Proponents, on the other hand, have seized upon this initiative as a means to overcome the bureaucratic business as usual of traditional social service agencies, including the collective of traditional faith-based providers that fall within this category (such as Jewish Family Services, Catholic Charities). The findings here suggest, however, that the potential newcomers to publicly funded social service provision are subject to some of the same weaknesses that plague traditional providers, including too much trust with too little oversight. More important than the religious afliation of a group is the matter of its institutional capacity to provide high quality services and effective management (Ottaway, 2001). The movement from an individually oriented, small scale, personal approach to one that involves larger numbers of people and government grants requires more formal structures and evaluation and accountability systems than currently exist among many faithbased groups. The creation of such systems takes time and requires the investment of resources that are not currently available and that government will not fund. Such organizations will be left with the choice of developing the necessary level of infrastructure or providing services. Common sense and experience indicate that the choice will be service. But delivering service without accountability replicates the mistakes of the past. To date, an elaborate array of codied procedures has governed the use of public dollars to support service delivery through charitable entities, including religiously based organizations. In accepting government funds, the provider agrees to abide by federal laws and regulations that have sought to correct injustices for victims of racial, gender, or other forms of discrimination. The presidents initiative, however, seeks to streamline or eliminate such rules to encourage greater participation by nontraditional groups. If regulations that place barriers on the use of faith-based groups are reversed, these groups will be exempt from the kinds of oversight and monitoring

Delivering service without accountability replicates the mistakes of the past

60

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

that will enable an informed assessment of whether these services are more effective than secular servicesor whether they are effective at all (Confessore, 2001; Gibelman, forthcoming). Traditional charitable groups have been subject to the oversight of boards of directors, the IRS, contract agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, watchdog agencies such as the Charities Information Bureau, and voluntary accrediting bodies such as the Council on Accreditation for Services to Families and Children. Even with multiple channels of monitoring and accountability, they have not been exempt from violations of the public trust. Eliminating regulations that are designed to protect clients and the general public by ensuring the appropriate use of public funds would seem to enhance the prospects of more pervasive wrongdoing, through acts of omission, if not commission. Even with more vigilant internal controls, nontraditional providers are unlikely to institutionalize adequate public accountability mechanisms. The use of untested and inexperienced faith-based groups to provide social services suggests the need to maintain and even enhance accountability to ensure that these groups effectively carry out public purposes. Ensuring the capacity and integrity of faith-based groups is everyones concern: government wishing to devolve some of its functions to faith-based groups; the religious groups guarding their reputations; and citizens desiring that charities do what they are supposed to do with maximum effectiveness (Sins of the Secular Missionaries, 2000; Weaver, 1995). Faith-based groups are led by religious leaders who may be held to a higher standard than secular leaders. Their religious calling is imbued with meaning: integrity, charity, tolerance, and sacrifice, among others. They are given the benet of public trust freely; and the relevant public may easily make allowances about lack of management skills, because the leaders bring other and perhaps more important attributes to their jobs. This kind of attitude can breed trouble, leading to a sacrifice of basic processes of oversight and accountability.

Conclusion
The problems uncovered among faith-based groups may likely apply, similar to secular charities, to only a small proportion of the total number of religious organizations engaged in providing some type of social service. Nevertheless, the cases described here have cast suspicion and disparagement upon religious organizations within the same time frame, culture, and milieu in which these groups are being touted as an effective solution to overcoming the failings of traditional nonprot and governmental service providers. Attention to the causes and consequences is particularly important given the lofty expectations put forth for these faith-based groups and the escalating hope that Congress will permit these groups greater access to public

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

61

dollars to support their social service work. Legislators and the public should make no assumptions about the innate ability of faithbased organizations to plan, develop, implement, and evaluate social services. It is a given that the majority of faith-based groups carry out their mission with impunity. However, the capability of religiously based groups to carry out the mandates of the Bush administration may create a scenario that invites a breach of public trust. The fact that faithbased groups provide good works under church auspices does not mean that they need not be accountable to anybody. Salamon (1995, p. 15) commented on the myth of the pure virtue within the nonprofit sector and a certain romanticism about its inherent purity, about its distinctive virtues. With such high expectations of nonprots, the plunge from public favor can be severe. Unless we address the underlying conditions that made these wrongdoings possible, fresh scandals will ll our newspapers, and public trust in faith-based groups will erode, just as we have witnessed in the nonprot sector in general. MARGARET GIBELMAN is professor in and director of the doctoral program at Yeshiva Universitys Wurzweiler School of Social Work in New York City. SHELDON R. GELMAN is a professor and the Dorothy and David I. Schachne Dean of Yeshiva Universitys Wurzweiler School of Social Work and the universitys associate vice president for academic affairs.

The fact that faith-based groups provide good works under church auspices does not mean that they need not be accountable to anybody

References
Arrest in Mortgage Fraud Case. New York Times, May 4, 2001, p. B9. Barron, J. Ex-Ofcial at Social Agency Is Accused of Embezzlement. New York Times, Oct. 11, 1997, p. B3. Belluck, P. Archdiocese to Yield List of Sex Accusers. New York Times, Mar. 2, 2002a, p. A10. Belluck, P. Ex-Priest in Child Abuse Case Sentenced to 9 to 10 Years. New York Times, Feb. 22, 2002b. Belluck, P. Maine Parish Agonizes over a Priests Confession. New York Times, Mar. 5, 2002c. Belluck, P Second Accusation to Be Factor in Decision on Priests in . Maine. New York Times, Mar. 7, 2002d. Blum, D. E. Baptist Church Leaders Convicted of Fraud. Chronicle of Philanthropy, Oct. 18, 1999, p. 32. Bowen, W. G., Nygren, T. I., Turner, S. E., and Duffy, E. A. The Charitable Nonprots. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

62

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

Bragg, R. Top Baptist Official Is Guilty of Stealing and Business Fraud. New York Times, Feb. 26, 1999, p. A1. Bragg, R. Christian School Questioned over Discipline for Wayward. New York Times, July 5, 2001, pp. A1, A15. Bush, G. W. Bush on the Creation of a White House Ofce Tied to Religion. New York Times, Jan. 30, 2001a. Bush, G. W. Executive Order 13198: Agency Responsibilities with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. May 29, 2001b. Bush, G. W. Executive Order 13199: Establishment of White House Ofce of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. May 29, 2001c. Cahill, L. S. A Crisis of Clergy, Not of Faith. New York Times, Mar. 6, 2002. Center for Sex Offender Management. 2001. [http://www.csom.org.] Charity Paid for CEOs Hair Removal. Record, June 23, 2000, p. A17. Charton, S. School Accused of Ordering Pupils to Shovel Cow Manure: Sheriff Files Charges of Felony Abuse. La Belle (Mo.) Record, July 16, 2001, p. A8. Confessore, N. Feeding Time: Charitable Choice, or, How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Pork. American Prospect, Feb. 6, 2001. Dickey, M. Major Oversight: Trustees Are Still Reluctant to Evaluate a CEOs Performance, Despite a Call for Measurable Results. Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 18, 1999, pp. 33, 35. Edsall, T. B., and Milbank, D. Blunt Defense of Faith-Based Aid. Washington Post, Mar. 8, 2001, p. A8. Eilperin, J. Faith-Based Initiative Wins House Approval. Washington Post, July 20, 2001, p. A1. Ex-Aide Admits Taking $769,000 from Ministry. Record, July 7, 2000, p. A9. Ferdinand, P Archdiocese Works Toward Settlement in Sex Scandal. . Washington Post, Mar. 7, 2002, p. A2. Firestone, D. Child Abuse at a Church Creates a Stir in Atlanta. New York Times, Mar. 30, 2001. Five Guilty in Bilking Based on a Ministry. New York Times, Mar. 14, 2001, p. A12. Fried, J. P. Church Aide Avoids Jail After Bishop Speaks Up. New York Times, Dec. 3, 1996, p. B3. Gibelman, M. Purchasing Faith-Based Social Services: Constitutional, Philosophical, and Practical Challenges. Public Administration Review, forthcoming. Gibelman, M., and Demone, H. W., Jr. (eds.). The Privatization of Human Services: Policy and Practice Issues. New York: Springer, 1998. Gibelman, M., and Gelman, S. R. Very Public Scandals: An Analysis of How and Why Nongovernmental Organizations Get in Trouble. Voluntas, 2001, 12(1), 4966.

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

63

Gibelman, M., Gelman, S. R., and Pollack, D. The Credibility of Nonprot Boards: A View from the 1990s. Administration in Social Work, 21(2), 1997, 2940. Goodstein, L. Nudging Church-State Line, Bush Invites Religious Groups to Seek Federal Aid. New York Times, Jan. 30, 2001, p. A18. Goodstein, L., and Wilgoren, J. Two Paths, No Easy Solution on Abusive Priests. New York Times, Mar. 3, 2002. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. Nonprofit Almanac, 19961997: Dimensions of the Independent Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996. Hruby, L., and Lipman, H. Religious Leaders Assail Plan to Aid Faith Groups. Chronicle of Philanthropy, May 3, 2001, pp. 4344. Hughes, J. V. $130,000 Allegedly Embezzled from Church. Paterson (N.J.) Record, Dec. 24, 1999, p. L3. Hughes, J. V. Former Church Bookkeeper Guilty of Theft. West Milford (N.J.) Record, July 21, 2001, p. A4. Johnson, N., and others. Regulating for Quality in the Voluntary Sector. Journal of Social Policy, 27(3), 1998, 307328. Judd, A. Church Disputes Claims of Abuse. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Mar. 18, 2001a, p. C10. Judd, A. House of Prayer Child Hurt in Fight with Social Workers. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Mar. 31, 2001b, p. H3. Katz, L. Attorney General Settles Suit with Pils: JEC Founders Face Limits but Keep Home. Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, Nov. 13, 1998. Lambert, B. Two Rabbis Plead Guilty in Conspiracy to Divert Federal Money. New York Times, Oct. 1, 2001, p. B2. Man Pleads Guilty to Molestations. New York Times, July 9, 2001, p. A15. Milbank, D. Bush Turns to Domestic Agenda. Washington Post, Sept. 25, 2001, p. A7. Milbank, D., and Edsall, T. B. Faith Initiative May Be Revised. Washington Post, Mar. 12, 2001, p. A1. Miller, B. Ex-United Way Chief Found Guilty. Washington Post, Apr. 4, 1995, pp. A1, A17. Mooar, B. Deal Struck in Jewish Center Theft. Washington Post, May 25, 1995, pp. D1, D5. Murawski, J. Former United Way Chief Gets 7 Years in Jail; Sentence Praised by Charities. Chronicle of Philanthropy, July 13, 1995, p. 37. Niebuhr, G. Misuse of Money Totaled $2.2 Million, Church Says. New York Times, May 2, 1995, p. A17. Ottaway, D. B. Private Social Welfare Initiative Draws Scrutiny. Washington Post, May 7, 2001, p. A1. Pear, R. Nonprofit Groups Accused of Bilking Lunch Program. New York Times, Oct. 3, 1999, pp. 1, 34. Perez-Rivas, M. Outreach Group Finds Itself in Need. Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2000, p. M6.

64

GIBELMAN, GELMAN

Peterson, I. Faith, Public Dollars, and Charity. New York Times, July 5, 2001. Press, E. Lead Us Not into Temptation. American Prospect, Apr. 9, 2001, pp. 2027. Pristin, T. Suit Alleges Major Housing Fraud Against U.S. by Brooklyn Charity. New York Times, Nov. 29, 2000, pp. B1, B10. Richardson, L. Embezzlement Is Charged at Synagogue on East Side. New York Times, Nov. 8, 1996, p. B3. Rosin, H. Faith-Based Youth Homes Lesson. Washington Post, June 21, 2001, p. A18. Rubin, A., and Babbie, E. Research Methods for Social Work. (3rd ed.) Pacic Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1997. Salamon, L. The Global Associational Revolution: The Rise of the Third Sector on the World Scene. The Future of Charities and the Voluntary Sector Working Paper No. 7. London: Demos, 1995. Sanger, D. E. Bush Focuses on Football and Religion-Based Plan. New York Times, July 5, 2001. Schoenberger, C. R. Report Details Nonprot Woes. Boston Globe, July 10, 1998, p. E1. Silverman, R. Cantor Charged with Running Prostitution Ring. Jewish Standard, Dec. 8, 2000, p. 2. Sins of the Fathers. Newsweek, Mar. 4, 2002, pp. 4253. Sins of the Secular Missionaries. Economist, Jan. 20, 2000, pp. 2527. Smith, S. R., and Lipsky, M. Nonprots for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Steinberg, J. Rabbi in Plot to Siphon Millions in Public Money to Private School. New York Times, Apr. 16, 1999, p. A1. Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests. 2001. [http:// www.survivorsnetwork.org]. Szalavitz, M. Bush = Jesus = Unprotected Kids. American Prospect, July 21, 2001. Terrazzano, L. Audit Finds Violations at Agency: State Probes Group Home. Newsday, May 11, 2001, pp. A5, A45. Terrell, P. Purchasing Social Services. In A. Minahan (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Work. (18th ed., vol. 2, pp. 434442). Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of Social Workers, 1987. Terry, D. NAACP Audit Shows Lavish Spending, Members Say. New York Times, July 13, 1995, p. A21. Tropy, B. Refugee Reaction: For Those Who Need Help, the First to Resettle Here Feel Like the Last: Catholic Charity Investigated. Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Oct. 3, 2000, p. A6. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means. Summary of Welfare Reforms Made by Public Law 104193. 2001. Wakin, D. J. Brooklyn Bishop Silent on Handling of Sex Scandal. New York Times, Jan. 26, 2002, p. B1. Walsh, S. New Era Foundation: Red Flags, Red Ink, Red Faces. Washington Post, May 20, 1995, p. A1.

S H O U L D W E H AV E F A I T H

IN

F A I T H -B A S E D S O C I A L S E RV I C E S ?

65

Walsh, S. Religious Fervor Defense Planned at Fund-Raisers Fraud Trial. New York Times, Mar. 9, 1997, p. A21. Weaver, A. J. Has There Been a Failure to Prepare and Support Parish-Based Clergy in Their Role as Frontline Community Mental Health Workers? A Review. Journal of Pastoral Counseling, 49(2), 1995, 129147. Weiner, J. Reform Leader Resigns; Sexual Misconduct Charged. Jewish Standard, Dec. 8, 2000a, p. 3. Weiner, J. Youth Groups React to Abuse Report. Jewish Standard, June 30, 2000b, p. 6. Whiddon, O. Coffee, Tea, or 501(d)? July 3, 2001. [http:// www.4gf.org/Chrch/Comm_Ser/501D.htm]. Whitaker, B. Los Angeles Cardinal Removes Priests Involved in Pedophilia Cases. New York Times, Mar. 5, 2002. Available http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/05/national/05PRIE.html. Williams, G. Brother Against Brother: Members Say Lutheran Group Abused Their Trust to Sell Insurance. Chronicle of Philanthropy, Mar. 22, 2001, pp. 2728. Williams, M. Lutheran Treasurer in Connecticut Accused of Stealing from Church. New York Times, Sept. 20, 1996, p. B1. Williamson, R. Just a Few Good Questions Would Have Nipped Scammer. Nonprot Times, Aug. 4, 1999, pp. 1, 8.

Copyright of Nonprofit Management & Leadership is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.