Private food assistance in the Deep South: assessing agency directors' knowledge of charitable choice

Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, June, 2004 by Suzie T. Cashwell, John P. Bartkowski, Patricia A. Duffy, Vanessa Casanova, Joseph J. Molnar, Marina Irimia-Vladu

On the other hand, there may be regional gaps in charitable choice knowledge--and these will likely mirror the actual implementation and opportunities for implementation of charitable choice programs. Consequently, future work is needed to determine if food agency directors in the South are actually less informed about charitable choice than their counterparts in other regions of the country. From our study alone, we cannot determine how Alabama-Mississippi pantry directors compare with food agency supervisors in other parts of the country. If a broader comparative study were undertaken, care should be exercised to account for the fact that the South is comprised of more rural communities and fewer large cities than many other regions of the country. Hence, spatial variations in charitable choice policy knowledge and opportunity may be rooted in both regional differences (e.g., South, Northeast, Midwest) and distinctions that characterize different types of community locales (e.g., rural versus urban areas). Here again, scholarship is needed that aims to identify structural differences that create knowledge and opportunity gaps for those living in communities far removed from the centers of policymaking in America (state capitols, Washington, D.C.). It is only through such scholarship and corrective efforts that the "level playing field" proposed by advocates of charitable choice can even be reasonably considered.

For the time being, our study demonstrates that there is much to be done before charitable choice can be said to have effectively lived up to its name and before food banking can fulfill its mandate. The directors of food agencies and other organizations ostensibly empowered by charitable choice must be educated about this novel policy initiative. Such a conclusion is clearly supported by our study of food banking in Alabama and Mississippi. And, given the uneven implementation of charitable choice throughout the nation at this time (Ragan, Montiel, & Wright 2003), we suspect that this conclusion would be borne out in many other parts of the country as well. It is only through proactive and diligent education efforts that the presumed beneficiaries of charitable choice will be able to make reasoned choices about the new opportunities available to them in America's post-welfare era.

Table 1
Percentage Distribution of Correct, Incorrect and Unsure Answers to
Statements about Charitable Choice.

Knowledge Statement (correct response
featured in capital letters)            Correct   Incorrect   Unsure/NA

General Policy Parameters
1. Charitable choice refers to a          12%        3%          84%
provision found in 1996 welfare
reform law. [TRUE]

2. Under charitable choice, public        18%        7%          75%
funds are to be disbursed through a
competitive bidding process in which
nonprofit groups submit funding
proposals. [TRUE]

3. If religious organizations receive     23%        8%          69%
funds from charitable choice in a
local area, clients in that area
must be given the option of receiving
services from a secular provider
as well. [TRUE]

4. Charitable choice legislation is       11%        15%         74%
so named because it gives states the
choice of not complying with its
provisions. [FALSE]

Specific Legal Provisions

5. Charitable choice prohibits            46%        6%          48%
government discrimination against
faith-based providers on the basis of
religion. [TRUE]

6. Faith-based organizations that         26%        13%         61%
receive public money under charitable
choice can display religious icons
and symbols in locations where they
provide services to clients. [TRUE]

7. Religious organizations and other      32%        3%          65%
nonprofits that wish to participate
in charitable choice can be legally
recognized as private service
providers by becoming incorporated
with 501(c)(3) status. [TRUE]

8. Charitable choice requires             43%        3%          53%
participating nonprofits to comply
with government non-discrimination
statutes in hiring staff for their
programs. [TRUE]

9. If a religiously-based agency          57%        2%          41%
receives funds under charitable
choice, the agency is allowed to
screen out and withhold services from
clients who do not believe in God.
[FALSE]

10. Faith-based organizations that        50%        7%          43%
receive funds through charitable
choice can legally require that
clients attend religious events such
as prayer meetings, worship, and
scripture study to receive social
services. [FALSE]

11. Faith-based providers funded          55%        2%          43%
under charitable choice can withhold
services from clients who refuse to
join their religious group. [FALSE]

12. Private nonprofits that accept        51%        2%          48%
public funds under charitable choice
can be audited by the government.
[TRUE]

13. If an agency receives funding         58%        2%          40%
under charitable choice, the agency
must comply with government
non-discrimination statues in
providing services to clients. [TRUE]

Implementation Status

14. Charitable choice is currently        5%         17%         79%
used in  all fifty states of the
U.S. [FALSE]

15. Because of legislation currently      7%         8%          85%
stalled before Congress, religious
organizations can no longer seek
funds from state governments that
contract out their social services to
secular nonprofit providers. [FALSE]