One of the least understood aspects of the American social safety net is the extent to which it is composed of faith-based social service organizations.

As an interfaith study committee recently reported: “.”

Stephen Monsma

One of the foremost scholars of nonprofit service organizations, Lester Salamon of Johns Hopkins University, has reported: “.”

The importance of faith-based social services, however, does not end with their large numbers or widespread nature. They also bring an added value to the social service table that government and secular social service agencies do not bring.  Since they are rooted in a faith tradition, they possess a basis to appeal to their fellow believers for volunteers and for funds that government agencies and secular agencies do not possess. Many of those in need are themselves deeply religious persons who are more likely to resonate with a faith-based agency than a secular agency. Those who feel beaten down by life—and perhaps by past mistakes they themselves have made—can be reassured that they are of great worth and that God loves them and has a plan for their lives that is good.

In addition, faith-based social service organizations provide a means by which the faithful can fulfill Jesus’ command to care for “the least of these.” In a modern, urban culture—in which we tend to live in economically homogenous neighborhoods—many have little direct contact with those in need. Through faith-based social service organizations many can fulfill their faith’s command to give of their “time and treasure” to help those in need.

If a faith-based organization must hire nonbelievers and those who do not support its religious beliefs, it will cease to be a faith-based organization and will resemble government and other secular agencies. The added value faith-based organizations bring to helping those in need will be lost.

These faith-based social service efforts increase the diversity of social service programs, one that reflects the diversity of our society. “One size fits all” is hardly a recipe for effective social services. Social science has not demonstrated one effective means to deal with problems of homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, welfare dependency, recidivism, and other social needs. A diversity of social service agencies—including faith-based ones—makes good sense.

Because of the added value that faith-based organizations bring to the social service table, government agencies have often partnered with them in order to more effectively help those in need. State, local, and national government agencies have frequently helped subsidize the programs of faith-based organizations, thereby enabling them to reach more persons with effective programs. For example, in a study I conducted of President George W. Bush created a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in order to encourage more such partnerships between government and faith-based social service organizations. President Barack Obama continued this effort by way of his renamed White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Under such partnerships faith-based programs combine their own funds with those from the government and provide dedicated, highly motivated staff and volunteers. Such partnerships are often win-win situations, as more persons in need are helped than either the faith-based organization or the government could help acting alone.

Today, however, faith-based organizations and the good they are doing are under threat. Many see their faith-based nature as incidental to the good they are doing, and thus assume their faith-based practices can be eliminated with no real harm being done to the public services they are rendering to those in need. Thus, there are those who argue that once a faith-based organization accepts some government funding, it loses its ability to consider whether or not their staff members support its religious mission. In this thinking they must hire persons regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs). But if a faith-based organization must hire nonbelievers and those who do not support its religious beliefs, it will cease to be a faith-based organization and will resemble government and other secular agencies. The added value that faith-based organizations bring to helping those in need will be lost.

Similarly, some newly enacted or proposed government regulations can have the effect of stifling practices rooted in the religious traditions of faith-based organizations. Examples abound: in some areas, evangelical and Catholic adoption agencies have stopped providing adoption and foster care services when they were required to place children with unmarried couples (whether heterosexual or same-sex couples.) Some Catholic hospitals are under pressure to provide abortion and sterilization services in violation of their faith. Over 50 faith-based service organizations are in court defending their freedom not to provide as a part of their health insurance programs coverage for birth control or abortifacients, which would violate their religious beliefs.

If faith-based organizations are to continue to provide services to those in need, services that government and other secular agencies cannot duplicate, we as a society need to accept as good a diversity of social services, including those that are faith-based in nature.