Critique of Theoretical Framework

Religion, well-disposed Policy, and companionable Work execute Faith-establish serve in Public well-being It is gener totallyy accepted that the church has been a locus of sociable aid and kind flip through push through Americas history, and that the concept of human services emerged, at least partially, from a ghostly base (Ellor, Netting, Thibault, 1999, p. 13). Further much, it is recognized that the brotherly bend up profession in the unify States was influenced by a long history of spectral traditions (Ellor et al, 1999 Hugen, 2012 Rosethal, 2006).The brotherly welfargon system that emerged in the United States, ormerly and presently, continues to be a mix of belief-based and layman organizations and groups with diversified perspectives and approaches (Ellor et al, 1999). The different perspectives and approaches to mixer upbeat in the United States ar rooted in an expansive array of worldviews and apparitional belief traditions. The U. S. is a pluralisti c society characterized by a diversity of people, opinions, and religions (Monsma, 2012).The church is hardly unitary of many an(prenominal) places where friendly welfare ideations nominate manifested themselves, and the battles against kindly injustices take been fought. For many years a great bod of ghostlikely affiliated organizations, colleges, hospitals, and social service agencies have letd federal official welfare funding. There is slide fastener profoundly fresh ab prohibited the inclusion of faith-based organizations in the chuck up the spongey of social welfare services to the hard and vulnerable populations (Karger et al, 2007).What is new is the prominence of postmodern, humanistic ideologies in social welfare that began in the 20th deoxycytidine monophosphate (Hugen, 2012). The clashes amid present-day humanistic and faith-based ideologies have spawned a lasting political debate over the appropriateness of federal administration unding of faith-based so cial services. A major landmark for this political debate occurred in 1996 when the United States Congress passed a set of supplys under the individualised Responsibility and Work chance propitiation Act (PRWORA) section 104also known as the pitying Choice clause (Daly, 2009 Wuthnow, 2004).Charitable Choice upstage many of the restrictions on integrating religious surfeit with faith-based delivery of social services, and positioned faith-based social service agencies as equivalent to secular social service agencies (Karger et al, 2007). The ovement to incorporate faith-based social service agencies was but fueled by President George W. Bushs Faith Based and Community Initiative (FBCI) (Kennedy & Bielefeld, 2006 Daly, 2009 and Wuthnow, 2004).The Bush administration aimed to do two things based on the core Judicious principles of Charitable Choice first, to amplify the amount of federal social-welfare resources going to faith-based organizations and second, to protect the org anizational autonomy and religious indistinguishability of these groups when contracted with the government (Daly, 2007). As a result of the Bush-era FBCI, 11 faith and community-based offices were created n federal agencies, and many states began to develop programs to expand the occasion of faith-based social services in delivering anti-poverty assistance (Reingold, Pirog & Brady, 2007).The Bush-era faith-based initiative was difficult enough that the Bush administrations proposed budget for 2002 allocated nearly $90 million to organizations that expand or emulated models ot tai tn-based social service programs (Twombly, 2002). Today, according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), thither are 956,738 general charities, 97,435 tete-a-tete foundations, and 70,745 other types of noncommercial organizations (NCCS, 2013). According to the NCCS Core bucks, human beings charities reported over $1. 59 trillion in total revenues, and $1. 9 trillion in total expe nses in 2011. Of the in the public eye(predicate) charities revenues 22% came from contributions, gifts and government grants 72% came from program service revenues, which include government fees and contracts and 6% came from other sources (NCCS, 2013). Blackwood, Roeger, & PettiJohn (2012) reveal that at that place was a 42. 3% growth in the number 501(c)(3) public charities from 2000 to 2010. In New York State alone, there are 1 5,362 religious or spiritually related public charities (IRS Business Master File 04/2010).Eric Twombly (2002), an affiliate of The Urban Institute, and Ira Colby (2007), a social piece of work professor at the University of Houston, point divulge that many faith-based organizations, such as The Salvation Army, United Jewish Communities, Catholic Charities, and Lutheran Social Services have historically received government support and played a signifi stomacht place in social service provisions in the United States. These groups are key players in man y topical anesthetic areas in both(prenominal) direct ocial provision and setting government service priorities.The goal of this essay is to look the political debate over Charitable Choice and the faith-based initiative, and secondly, to uncover the implications for social work do and social work education from this debate. It is evident that faith-based organizations play a substantial role in the delivery of social welfare services in the United States (Nagel, 2006). To begin our exploration of this issue, we will look at the pertinent worldviews and belief systems that support or refute the federal government support of faith- based social service agencies.Worldview/ Belief Issues Republicans have favored the privatization of social welfare and reinforced the value of nonprofits. Conservative thinkers believe that churches can address welfare better than the government and the secular social service system (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002). Conservatives vigorously access the belief that government should finance and deliver social services to the population (Karger et al, 2007). Conservatives argue privatization has become a paradox in social welfare because the private sector has been utilized in service provision and precedes the welfare state in many instances.David Osborne and Ted Gaebler (1992) assert in Reinventing Government that the private and public sectors have different roles. The governments role should consist primarily of establishing the objectives of social policy, and the private sector role should consist of execution of instrument the policy. David Stoesz (2007) co-author of American Social Welfare Policy argues, nonprofit organizations have been poor competitors, often losing out to for-profit firms (p. 193).He further asserts that the nature of nonprofits make them less competitive than commercial firms, and when for-profits nter the same market, they often take a substantial portion of the market until nonprofits adopt the same manageme nt procedures and become much efficient. A macroscopical assumption is this if for-profits suspect that they can generate a profit by providing superior service to a clientele, they will look for to subcontract with the government and provide the service.Conversely, Ira Colby (2007) the Dean and Professor of social work at the University of Houston asserts that privatization of social services as the answer to creating ettective service provisions tor the poor is a grossly erroneous assumption (p. 194). According to Colby (2007) the catchphrases of compassionate conservative or faith-based social services are hardly resurfacing ideas from a previous welfare era where greater reliance on the private sector was emphasized.Liberal political orientation asserts that the government should play a central role in the provision of servicesthat government is trusty for ensuring that all people, regardless of status in life, receive submited services and supports that maximize their we ll-being and exponent to participate in society. In essence, basic social services are the business of the government (Colby, 2007). Monsma (2012) identifies 5 factors that underlie and work to mold how liberals view the public role of faith- based organizations.The first is a strong emphasis on the free, autonomous, choosing individual. The second is a suspicion of traditional values and religion when they enter the public square. The third is seeing government as a potentially positive force for social change and improvement. Fourth is its embrace of the strict church-state separation, no-aid-to-religion standard. The fifth and final factor is the legacy of the nondiscrimination statuses of the 1960s. These factors, which can be onsidered beliefs, ask liberals to look negatively upon faith-based human service providers.The emphasis seems to be instead on freedom of preference and what the government can potentially do to improve societal conditions. Rev. Robert Owens (2001) pos its that a negative correlation exists amidst the amount of funding received by religious organizations and the strength of religious mission. Owens, in his stance against public funding of religious organizations, argues that accepting government money to provide social service programs only deepens the astonishment in communities about who works for whom. Accepting government money turns the state/ church relationship upper side downwhere the church works for the state.The solution then is to keep religious congregations independent of the influence of government. Political, Legal, Social Policy After the Great Depression, President Roosevelts New Deal political ideations foc utilise on the geomorphologic conditions contributing to poverty and social inequality. Because of the depression, it had become obvious that personal morality could non prevent or be the primary cause of poverty (Nagal, 2006). Therefore, the public responsibility for ocial welfare was emphasized, and the popular moral property was minimized in social service delivery.Following the New Deal era, the Reagan administration shifted the focus back to the inclusion of faith-based organization in social service provisions. President Reagan considered religious organizations to be more effective than public or secular, nonprofit social service providers (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002). Reagan went so far as to use the parable of the severe Samaritan as a metaphor for the cause of poverty. His perception of the biblical parable contrasted a bureaucratic aseworker against the ripe Samaritan The story of the Good Samaritan has always illustrated to me what Gods challenge really is.He brushed the road, knelt down, bound up the wounds of the beaten traveler, the pilgrim, and carried him to the nighest town. He didnt go running into town and look tor a case-worker to tell him that there was a tellow out there that needed help. He took it upon himself. (Denton, 1982, p. 3 as cited in Cnaan & Boddie, 2002) Reagan believed in volunteerism and the change magnitude responsibility of private organizations to meet societys social-welfare needs. The emphasis on volunteerism resulted in a decrease of government spending on social welfare initiatives in the 1980s.Reagan challenged the private sector to step up and meet the needs of society. He called on churches to provide for the needs of the poor within their own neighborhoods (Yancey, 2007). President Clinton took the challenge one step further and suggested that organized religion would be able to make a significant contribution to reducing the need for social welfare if each congregation in the United States would hire one person in need (Wuthnow, 2004). Here is what President Clinton saidUnder this law Charitable Choice, every state, when it becomes effective, every state in the country can say If you will hire somebody off welfare, well give you the welfare checks as a supplement for the wages and the training. It means, folks, when you go back home, your church can receive a persons welfare check and add to it only a modest amount of money to make a surviving wage, and to take some time to train people and bring their children into the church, and make sure their children are all right and give them a home and family.I Just want every pastor in this audience to think about it. Just think about it. If every church in America hire one person off welfare, if every church in America could get some work to do that, it would set an example that would require the business community to follow, that would require the charitable and other nonprofit organizations to follow. We cannot create a government Jobs program big enough to solve the whole thing, but if everybody did it, one by one, we could do this Job. Associated Press, 1996, section A2) Throughout the later part of the 20th century, the federal government called on the Church to act as the primary safety net for people in need. History reveals that faith - ased organizations have always been a part of providing social welfare services. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity satisfaction Act of 1996 with the Charitable Choice clause and Bushs Faith Based and Community Initiative simply increased the collaboration between faith-based organizations and the federal government.Separation of Church and State Before the Charitable Choice provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, faith-based organizations contracting with the government had to remove all religious symbols from the room where service was rovided accept all clients refrain from any religious ceremonies hire staff that reflected society, not the organizations belief system adhere to government contract regulations and incorporate separately as an 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organizations (Cnaan Boddie, 2002).All this changed later on the PRWORA of 1996. First, faith- based services providers retain their religious autonomy second, the government could not curtail the religious facet or practice of faith-based services third, taitn-based service providers were exempt trom complying with employment policies andated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally, faith based organization contracting with the government were no longer required to establish a separate, secular 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization (Cnaan Boddie, 2002).There are, however, some stipulations that remain in order to contract with the government. Faith-based organizations are fiscally accountable to use government funds for the intended social services and not for religious worship or proselytization. The purpose of this section of the law is to ensure a clear separation between church and state. In order or the government to remain neutral to the religious or secular character of organizations, both are offered an opportunity to participate in social service programs.As Rosenthal (2006) states in his conclusion on Charitable Choice P rograms and Title VIIs Co-Religionist Exemption By offering religious institutions the opportunity to participate in social service programs, Congress is faithfully engaging the constitutional principle of neutrality by affording these organizations the same opportunities as non-religious organizations. On the flip side, however, the Constitution requires that this participation be both ecular and non-discriminatory, so as to ensure that religious organizations are not benefited simply by virtue of their religious character. p. 665) Implication for Social Work Practice David Stoesz (2007) in his response to Should Social Services be Privatized asserts that the social work profession traditionally sides with social welfare. This leads to the dismissal of nonprofit agencies and blatant hostility to for-profit agencies. Because of this bias, social work education is devoid of the knowledge and skills that are essential to business strategies in service provision. The implication for so cial work education would entail an increase of content in finance, marketing, information systems, and contracting.This would equip social workers to be more competitive in the new human-service market. With access to government funding that no longer regards the religious character of the service provider as a hindrance to the separation of church and state, it is likely (if not already evident by the NCCS reports) that more faith-based organizations and churches will engage in partnership with the public sector. This significant change has influenced social service delivery.As a social work practitioner, I could easily find myself working within a faith-based organization or at least collaborating with a faith-based organization in service delivery. Social work is a value-based profession. Although more secularized than ever before, social work can provide leadership in shaping the collaborative endeavor between the helping professions and faith-based organizations. This is espe cially important in considering the integration of spirituality and religion in social work practice.With the prevalence of faith-based organizations providing social services, it ould be beneficial for social work education to increase the content on honourable social work practice within religious settings. With an increased susceptibility in the integration of social work practice with religion and spirituality, social work practitioners can further lever the efforts of religious organizations to address social problems. Social work should also proceed cautiously to outline the parameters ot ethical social work practice in religious organizations (Sherr et al, 2009, p. 64) so that service delivery does not cross the ethical line and become an opportunity for proselytizing. The profession of social work continues to realize the importance of religious and spiritual beliefs for clients. The importance of these issues in social work education is supported by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Educational Policy and Accreditation Standard, 2. 1. 4 Social workers understand how diversity characterizes and shapes the human fuck off and is critical to the formation of identity.The dimensions of diversity are understood as the intersectionality of multiple factors including age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration tatus, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation Social workers gain sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal biases and values in working with diverse groups (CSWE, 2008, p. 5) The NASW Code of Ethics (2008) points to the importance of recognizing religious and spiritual beliefs in order to practice in a holistic, client-centered manner.Section 1 . 05(c) of the Code of Ethics states Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, nationa l origin, color, ex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, martial status, political belief, religion, immigration status and mental or physical disability. (NASW, 2008, p. 9) Competently addressing religious and spiritual beliefs is part of the holistic approach to working with the multi-dimensional personbio, psycho, social, and spiritual.To ignore the value system of a client leaves the door open for social workers to taint the helping relationship with their own beliefs and values (Zellmer & Anderson-Meger, 2011). digest populations (Karger et al, 2007). History reveals that faith-based organizations have lways been a part of providing social welfare services. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 with the Charitable Choice clause and Bushs Faith Based and Community Initiative simply increased the collaboration between faith-based organizations and the federal government.Conservative thinkers believe that churches can addr ess welfare better than the government and the secular social service system (Cnaan Boddie, 2002). Conservatives vigorously attack the belief that government should finance and deliver social services to the population (Karger et al, 2007). Liberal ideology asserts that the government should play a central role in the provision of servicesthat government is responsible for ensuring that all people, regardless of status in life, receive needed services and supports that maximize their well-being and ability to participate in society (Colby, 2007).With an increased competency in the integration of social work practice with religion and spirituality, social work practitioners can turtner jimmy the etto religious organizations to address social problems. With the prevalence of faith- based organizations providing social services, it would be beneficial for social work ducation to increase the content on ethical social work practice within religious settings. The clashes between presen t-day humanistic and faith-based ideologies have spawned a lasting political debate over the correctness of federal government funding of faith-based social services.In the American pluralistic society, public funds should not be used to promote any particular religion. Therefore, the social work profession should take a leadership role in appreciating diversity, and ethically navigating social welfare and the faith-based initiative.