OCR Text |
Show Making Others Conditions Our Own: Faith-Based Initiatives and Other Mediating Structures as Public Policy Scott R. Rasmussen Bush's vision of a "faith-friendly public square where faith-based and community organizations can compete equally with other groups to provide government or privately-funded services" (White House, 2005b.). Central to President Bush's initiative is that religious organizations should not have to give up their religious identity in order to receive federal funds. The President supported legislation to "prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations, protect the religious freedoms of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights" (White House, 2005). Besides making efforts to eliminate strangling federal barriers to allow mediating structures better access to public funds, the White House is also working with Congress to encourage faith-based organizations. These efforts are touted by members of the administration as 'leveling the playing field' allowing all organizations, faith-based and otherwise, to compete for federal funds. Have these efforts been successful? Are more faith-based organizations receiving federal funding? According to numbers released by the White House it would appear that, at least in the short run, it has been successful. As a result of attempting to level the playing field there was a 20% increase from 2003 to 2004 in the number of first-time faith-based organizations that received federal grants (White House, 2005a). The Department of Health and Human Services "saw an 88% increase in the number of awards to faith-based organizations since FY 2002 - from 483 to 908" (White House, 2005a). These numbers obviously represent a significant move toward employing mediating structures as social policy. FBCI seems to be a start for Neuhaus and Berger's vision of mediating structures. "We are convinced," they wrote, "that mediating structures might be the agencies for a new empowerment of people in America's renewed experiment in democratic pluralism" (Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 208). Conclusion So is that it? Can and should we accept President Bush's plan as full implementation of mediating structures and be done with the whole matter? Only time can tell, but we can definitely use it as springboard to launch a new era where mediating structures play a larger role in the public arena. John Winthrop's invaluable vision of making others conditions our own can only come to fruition if we as individuals and communities are empowered to do so. Huge government programs and massive bureaucracies do not empower nor encourage people to participate in and care for their local community. Feelings of trust, cooperation, common vision, and rallying together to defend common values and traditions empower everyday citizens. These aspects of social capital are developed with others through mediating structures; i.e. family, neighborhood, church, and voluntary associations. These institutions are at the base of our society and ought not be dis- enfranchised as the main forces of creating and maintaining social norms as well as administering help to those in need. We can only make others conditions our own if we are exposed to and see those conditions, and mediating structures, particularly faith-based organizations provide a helpful forum to do so. Mediating structures are not the end-all, be-all to welfare reform and public policy. They do, however, provide a starting point. Further studies to determine their effectiveness should be done, specifically comparing faith-based organizations and their success rate versus government run welfare agencies and programs. It is clear that mediating structures are a force already at work in American democracy. The social capital that they create and sustain is priceless in strengthening our relations, communities, and democracy. Mediating structures, specify cally faith-based organizations, merit closer consideration and further implementation as instruments of public policy. References Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1996). Habits of the heart. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Besharov, D. (1996). Bottom-up funding. In M. Novak, (Ed.) To empower people: From state to civil society (pp. 124-131)-Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Couto, R., & Gutherie, C. (1999). Making democracy work better. Chapel Hill and London, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. Dictionary.com. Recidivism. Retrieved April 14, 2006, from http://dic-tionary. reference. com/search? q=recidivism. Eastland, T. (2001, July 23). No salvation for the White House. The Weekly Standard, 20. Retrieved July 7, 2005 from the LexisNexis Academic online database. Exec. Order No. 13199, C.F.R. 8499. (2001). Retrieved July 8, 2005, from http://www.whitehouse .gov/news/releases/2001/Oil 20010129-2. html Evans, S., & Boyte, H. (1986). Free spaces. New York: Harper &. Row, Publishers. Galston, W. (1996). The view from the White House - Individual and community empowerment. In M. Novak, (Ed.) To empower peo' pie: From state to civil society (pp.58-63). Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Govlnfo. (2000). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 10, 2005 from http://govinfo. library, unt.edu/npr/library/papersl bkgi¦d/q-a.html Horowitz, M. (1996). Law and the welfare state. In M. Novak, (Ed)-To empower people: From state to civil society (pp. 67-84)-Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. Johnson, B., R.B. Tompkins, and D. Webb. (2002). Objective hope :Assessing the effectiveness of faith-based organizations: A review of the literature [Electronic version]. Philadelphia, PA: Center for research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at University of Pennsylvania. 56 |