| OCR Text |
Show Making Others Conditions Our Own: Faith-Based Initiatives and Other Mediating Structures as Public Policy Scott R. Rasmussen Neuhaus and Berger anticipated this debate about the possibility of using mediating structures in the public policy process. They made no attempt to resolve the debate but rather proposed both a minimalist and maximalist approach. The minimalist proposition holds that public policy should not undercut mediating structures. A minimalist fears the taxation and regulations that structures would have to accept along with federal dollars. The maximalists argue that "public policy should utilize mediating structures as much as feasible" (Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 193). Setting aside the church versus state debate, and assuming that religion should play some role in society, one must consider these approaches as to the appropriate use of mediating structures. If the maximalist approach is to succeed then the structures must develop a working relationship with government and in all likelihood accept some sort of federal funding. Minimalists see such a relationship and acceptance as steps on the road to mediating structures becoming corrupt and shadows of their former selves. Minimalist Approach Douglas J. Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, outlined three axioms of the minimalist perspective regarding federal funding of mediating structures. The first states "Direct government funding of social welfare agencies (including mediating structures) is likely to create the wrong winners and losers" (1996, p. 125). Besharov argued that government tries to pick the best service provider, discounting the thoughts, feelings, and preferences of millions of consumers (p. 125). The second axiom represents a real fear and a reality for many organizations. "Direct government funding of social welfare agencies can alter the nature of their services and raise their costs" (Besharov, 1996, p. 125). The government money often comes with stipulations and regulations attached that force these agencies to change the way they do things. One head of an inner-city faith-based organization said "They [the government] make it difficult for us to do what you know people need because they tell people they have to leave [the program after a period of time]" (Monsma, 2003, p. 14). This particular organization spent its own money in an effort to set up programs that allowed for some continuity to counter the restrictive government regulations. The third axiom is somewhat an extension of the first. "Direct government funding often requires mediating structures to abandon the very features, like religious activities, that make them effective" (Besharov, 1996, p. 125). These requirements, again, often come in the form of regulations or mandates in order to receive the funding. Stripping faith-based organizations of their religious features can be quite damaging. Remember the group that used "circle-up" time? To strip this time of its prayers and sharing of faith-promoting experiences would undercut the very pieces that make this puzzle fit. These three axioms represent the surface of a more deeply rooted problem identified by Michael Horowitz. A former Reagan administration official, Horowitz described the struggle between what he termed the rights regime and the contract regime (1996, p. 67). These two legal visions have been engaged in a "competition for moral and operational supremacy" (p. 67). The contract regime represented by mediating structures, defines and sets its norms through com-munities. In contrast, the rights regime seeks a nation where norms are defined and administered on a national level by the judiciary. Horowitz argued that the "rights regime" fails to realize "that real freedom and the promise of human dignity come from allowing people to shape the communities in which they live" (Besharov, 1996, p. 83). This struggle comes to a head in Besharov's axioms; under the rights regime government funding allows the gov' eminent to determine how mediating structures are run, thereby denying real freedom. Defenders of the rights regime often claim that they do so in order to help the poor. Horowitz pointed out that the exact opposite is true. Poor people do not have private means to seek help and therefore turn to public institutions. If these public institutions, (medi' ating structures) have been restricted by government regula' tions and thereby rendered ineffective, then the poor are neg' atively affected. They receive little, if any, lasting help at ail-Under the rights regime the government is empowered, not the people. Horowitz and others make the argument that as present' ly structured accepting government funding restricts and limits the effectiveness of mediating structures. If mediating structures are beholden to such a system, not only is the qual' ity of social services adversely affected, but community and social capital are stifled. Many people have a difficult time fully accepting these arguments. The minimalist approach attempts to demonize the government to some extent, making relationships between mediating structures and government appear unde' sirable and inherently antagonistic. The minimalist approach lends itself to one of the criticisms we discussed earlier, name' ly that by defining government as "the problem" one pits mediating structures against government. This creates unnecessary tension and limits mediating structures, just as tf they are fettered with regulations. By refusing, as minimalists suggest, to work with government (or at least severely limit' ing relations), mediating structures are cut off from the enor' mous amounts of funding that government offers. This limits , their reach, leaving government - with its regulations and bureaucracies - to administer the majority of social welfare programs. In other words, we are back where we started: sta' tus quo. What government and advocates of mediating structures need is a paradigm shift. Neuhaus and Berger articulated this shift when they first laid out mediating structures. The 54 |
