Usually when potential homebuyers seek out assistance to get into a house, they have to go to the government or non-profit, non-sectarian groups set up to funnel federal and state dollars down to the consumer. With a new move by HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) to level the playing field for faith-based housing groups, consumers will get more options to help them buy a home.

President George Bush proposed in December an end to federal regulations, which unnecessarily limit religious organizations' access to grant programs administered by HUD. The more than 1,500 faith-based leaders who gathered just before Christmas in Philadelphia to hear the announcement, cheered his proposal. The idea is designed to place them on an “equal footing with other community-based organizations that serve low-income Americans and revitalize distressed neighborhoods,” according to HUD’s web site, www.hud.gov.

"An organization's faith should not be the yardstick we use to measure its ability to serve families and communities," says HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, at www.hud.gov. "President Bush is making it abundantly clear he intends to end this form of regulatory discrimination so we can focus on which organizations can most effectively provide housing and services to those who need them most."

The proposed new rules should amend the practices of the following programs, allowing equal access to funding for faith-based housing groups:

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program;
• HOME Investment Partnerships program;
• Hope for Homeownership of Single-Family Homes;
• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA);
• Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) program;
• Shelter Plus Care;
• Supportive Housing; and,
• Youthbuild.

For a rundown on what these programs will do for faith-based groups and their constituency, take a look at the HUD site. As we all know, no great deed comes without some critics, or at least those who point out that while the new rules may, indeed, do what the President and Secretary want it to do, there are also some unwanted results.

The National Congress For Community Economic Development (www.ncced.org) has taken an objective position on this, listing the pros and cons of this new rule and how it may affect -- positively or adversely -- consumers and faith-based organizations.

Some of NCCED’s concerns are very valid and have been aired by leaders from the faith-based groups.

Despite the fear that allowing faith-based organizations access to public funds may be construed as stepping across the boundary of church-state separation, I have to agree that faith-based organizations be careful when taking a handout from the right hand of government, which then holds your tax-exempt status in the other hand.

NCCED lists these concerns on its web site.

• May introduce government interference in the internal affairs of religious groups or government scrutiny of religion's financial records -- a concern heard across the religious board.
• May result in excessive religious reliance on public money, leading to a weakening of the "prophetic role" of religion, particularly as that may involve criticism of government policy; may cause a decrease in giving to religion by members and other private donors.
• May result in improper religious use of public funds unless each program is closely monitored.
• May imply that government considers faith-based providers superior to secular ones and result in unequal treatment.
• May encourage religious groups with insufficient capacity or competence to enter the social service field, especially risky with regard to "performance-based contracts," as is usually the case with government, which requires upfront money. Also introduces burdensome paperwork and the recurring need to reapply since government contracts are often of short duration.

I’m excited to see the barriers to public money being broken down so that faith-based organizations can get much needed funding to help with revitalizing communities throughout the country. Keeping in mind that faith-based groups have a track record of carrying out social programs to the public more cheaply than government groups, the threat to their independence should not be underestimated.

Published: January 24, 2003

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.