1. See, for example, Katz, Michael, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986)Google Scholar, who also proposes the “quasi-welfare state” characterization. On the “Europe envy” of this main story line, see, for example, Cnaan, Ram A., with Wineburg, Robert J. and Boddie, Stephanie C., The Newer Deal: Social Work and Religion in Partnership (New York, 1999), 86–87Google Scholar, and Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 3ff.Google Scholar

2. Olasky, Marvin, The Tragedy of American Compassion (Washington, D.C., 1992)Google Scholar. See also Payne, James L., Overcoming Welfare: Expecting More from the Poor–and from Ourselves (New York, 1998).Google Scholar

3. Marty, Martin E., The Modern Schism: Three Paths to the Secular (New York, 1969), 98.Google Scholar

4. On the concept of “deprivatization,” see Casanova, José, Public Religions in the Modern World (Chicago, 1994).Google Scholar

5. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse, 14. In addition to Katz, particularly useful overviews of American welfare history for present purposes include Trattner, Walter I., From Poor Law to Welfare State: A History of Social Welfare in America, 4th ed. (New York, 1989)Google Scholar, and Axinn, June and Levin, Herman, Social Welfare: A History of the American Response to Need, 3d ed. (New York, 1992).Google Scholar

6. These examples are drawn from Garland, Diana S. Richmond, Church Agencies: Caring for Children and Families in Crisis (Washington, D.C., 1994)Google Scholar; Magnuson, Norris, Salvation in the Slums: Evangelical Social Work, 1865–1920 (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1990)Google Scholar; Winston, Diane, Red-Hot and Righteous: The Urban Religion of The Salvation Army (Cambridge, Mass., 1999)Google Scholar; Olasky, , Tragedy of American Compassion; and Dorothy M. Brown and Elizabeth McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us: Catholic Charities and American Welfare (Cambridge, Mass., 1997).Google Scholar

7. For the struggle of Catholic organizations to be able to collaborate with public agencies, see Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us.

8. See, for example, Lincoln, C. Eric and Mamiya, Lawrence H., The Black Church in the African American Experience (Durham, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Billingsley, Andrew, Mighty Like a River: The Black Church and Social Reform (New York, 1999).Google Scholar

9. Cnaan, Newer Deal, 58ff.; Dobelstein, Andrew W., Moral Authority, Ideology, and the Future of American Social Welfare (Boulder, Colo., 1999), 60–75.Google Scholar

10. Ram Cnaan firmly establishes this point in his Newer Deal.

11. Theda Skocpol quotes the “big bang” characterization from Christopher Leman, albeit by way of criticizing the notion for minimizing earlier federal action and the complexity of American welfare history. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, 4.

12. Axinn, and Levin, , Social Welfare, 185–201Google Scholar; the rule is reprinted at 204– 5. See Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us, chap. 5, for Catholic Charities' battle to retain a public role despite the new rule.

13. Axinn and Levin, Social Welfare, 198.

14. Smith, Steven Rathgeb and Lipsky, Michael, Nonprofits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting (Cambridge, Mass, 1993), 53ff.Google Scholar; Salamon, Lester M., Partners in Public Service: Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State (Baltimore, 1995).Google Scholar

15. Cf. Smith and Lipsky, Nonprofits for Hire.

16. Loconte, Joe, Seducing the Samaritan: How Goverment Contracts Are Reshaping Social Services (Boston, 1997)Google Scholar. For more nuanced views, see Monsma, Stephen V., When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money (Lanham, Md., 1996)Google Scholar, and especially Glenn, Charles L., The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies (Princeton, 2000).Google Scholar

17. Dobelstein, Moral Authority, chap. 3; Cnaan, Newer Deal, chap. 4.

18. Cf. Dobelstein, Moral Authority, chaps. 3–4; Axinn and Levin, Social Welfare, 199–200.

19. Of course, welfare broadly includes assistance for those unable to work and benefits tied to employment. The persistent concern about dependency has to do with nonwork (and more generally, isolation from society) by those who could support themselves and their dependents. On this aspect of the normative issue in welfare, see esp. Skillen, James W., “The Question of Being Human in Assessing the Requirements of Welfare Policy Reform,” in Welfare in America: Christian Perspectives on a Policy in Crisis, ed. Carlson-Thies, Stanley W. and Skillen, James W. (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1996), 119–144Google Scholar; Mead, Lawrence M., Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; and Gilbert, Neal, Welfare Justice: Restoring Social Equity (New Haven, 1995).Google Scholar

20. Jo Bane, Mary and Ellwood, David T., Welfare Realities: From Rhetoric to Reform (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), 2–7.Google Scholar

21. See, for example, Noll, Mark A., A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1992), chap. 14.Google Scholar

22. Moberg, David O., The Great Reversal: Evangelism and Social Concern, rev. ed. (Philadelphia, 1977).Google Scholar

23. Handy, Robert T., A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities, 2d ed. (New York, 1984), 142.Google Scholar

24. Presbyterian Church (USA), “God Alone is Lord of the Conscience”: Policy Statement and Recommendations Regarding Religious Liberty, Report of the Committee on Religious Liberty and Church/State Relations (adopted by the 200th General Assembly, 1989), 31.

25. Handy, Robert T., Undermined Establishment: Church-State Relations in America, 1880–1920 (Princeton, 1991), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Glenn, Charles Leslie Jr., The Myth of the Common School (Amherst, 1988); Brown and McKeown, The Poor Belong to Us.Google Scholar

27. Useful dissections of no-aid separationism include Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix; idem, Positive Neutrality: Letting Religious Freedom Ring (Westport, Conn., 1993); Esbeck, Carl E., “A Constitutional Case for Governmental Cooperation with Faith-based Social Service Providers,” Emory Law Journal 46, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 1–41Google Scholar; and Laycock, Douglas, “The Underlying Unity of Separation and Neutrality,” Emory Law Journal 46, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 43–74.Google Scholar

28. The case is Bowen v. Kendrick (1988). For commentary on the case and dispute about its outcome and about the validity of the “pervasively sectarian” concept, see, for exmple, Carl H. Esbeck, “The Neutral Treatment of Religion and Faith-based Social Service Providers: Charitable Choice and Its Critics,” and Brownstein, Alan, “Constitutional Questions About Charitable Choice,” both in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Davis, Derek and Hankins, Barry (Waco, Tex., 1999), at 173–217 and 219–65, respectively.Google Scholar

29. This is the strong argument of Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix.

30. Cnaan, Newer Deal, 181.

31. Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix, chap. 3.

32. Mead, Beyond Entitlement; and Lawrence Mead, M., The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America (New York, 1992).Google Scholar

33. United States General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence, GAO/HEHS-98–109 (Washington, D.C., June 1998); Nathan, Richard P. and Gais, Thomas L., Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1999: A First Look (Albany, N.Y., 1999).Google Scholar

34. Murray, Charles, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (New York, 1984)Google Scholar; Ellwood, David T., Poor Support (New York, 1988).Google Scholar

35. Novak, Michael et al. , The New Consensus on Family and Welfare: A Community of Self-Reliance (Washington, D.C., and Milwaukee, 1987).Google Scholar

36. Berger, Peter L., and Neuhaus, Richard John, To Empower People: From State to Civil Society, ed. Novak, Michael, 2d ed. (Washington, D.C., 1996)Google Scholar; Eberly, Don E., ed., Building a Community of Citizens: Civil Society in the 21st Century (Lanham, Md., 1994)Google Scholar; Dionne, E. J. Jr., Community Works: The Revival of Civil Society in America (Washington, D.C., 1998).Google Scholar

37. For a summary of the law, see Congressional Quarterly 1996 Almanac (Washington, D.C., 1997), 6–13–6–21; Congressional Quarterly 1997 Almanac (Washington, D.C., 1998), 2–57–2–58, 6–31–6–36.

38. The “help and hassle” idea is from Mead, Lawrence M., “Welfare Employment,” in The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, ed. Mead, Lawrence M. (Washington, D.C., 1997), 61–63.Google Scholar

39. However, Charitable Choice's sponsor, Senator John Ashcroft (R-Mo.); the author of the idea, Carl Esbeck, at the time professor of law at the University of Missouri–Columbia; and the two organizations that worked most closely to craft and promote the concept, the Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society and the Center for Public Justice, all belong to the evangelical Protestant faith community.

40. Carlson-Thies, Stanley W., “‘Don't Look to Us’: The Negative Responses of the Churches to Welfare Reform,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy 11, no. 2, “Entitlements” special issue (1997): 667–689.Google Scholar

41. Charitable Choice was section 104 of the federal welfare reform law, P.L. 104–93. The section is reprinted, with extensive commentary and guidance, in A Guide to Charitable Choice: The Rules of Section 104 of the 1996 Federal Welfare Law Governing State Cooperation with Faith-based Social-Service Providers (Washington, D.C., and Annandale, Va.: Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society and Center for Public Justice, 01 1997).Google Scholar

42. States may require houses of worship to establish separate 501(c)(3) organizations to receive the government funds and provide the services; states cannot require those separate organizations to be secular.

43. Carlson-Thies, Stanley W., “Faith-based Institutions Cooperating with Public Welfare: The Promise of the Charitable Choice Provision,” in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Davis, Derek and Hankins, Barry (Waco, Tex., 1999), 34–35.Google Scholar

44. When the government funds arrive via voucher rather than direct government contract, Charitable Choice does not require inherently religious elements to be separated out. The Court recognizes that, in the case of vouchers, the choice of provider is made by the recipient and not by government, eliminating establishment concerns. Of course, here, too, the government funds have to be used to provide the government-mandated social services.

45. Charitable Choice is the rule governing the federal funds even in states with “Blaine” amendments forbidding state funding of religious organizations; if necessary, such states have to keep the federal funds separate from their own funds and adhere to the Charitable Choice rules in expending the former. See A Guide to Charitable Choice, 25–26. Charitable Choice is an option for states only in the sense that, as a rule governing procurement, it is moot if a state uses none of the funds to purchase services from outside providers.

46. Quoted in Carlson-Thies, “Faith-based Institutions Cooperating with Public Welfare,”38. See also Monsma, When Sacred and Secular Mix, chaps. 3–5; Loconte, Seducing the Samaritan; and Esbeck, Carl H., The Regulation of Religious Organizations as Recipients of Governmental Assistance (Washington, D.C., 1996).Google Scholar

47. See, for example, Esbeck, “A Constitutional Case”; Esbeck, “Neutral Treatment of Religion and Faith-based Social Service Providers”; Monsma, Positive Neutrality; and Monsma, Stephen V. and Soper, J. Christopher, eds., Equal Treatment of Religion in a Pluralistic Society (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1998).Google Scholar

48. For example, Olasky, Marvin, Renewing American Compassion (New York, 1996)Google Scholar. For other views, pro and con, on Charitable Choice, see esp. Davis and Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations. Differing viewpoints are summarized in Carlson-Thies, “‘Don't Look to Us,’” and in Martha Minow, “Choice or Commonality: Welfare and Schooling After the End of Welfare As We Knew It,” Duke Law Journal 49 (1999): 493–559.

49. “Remarks As Prepared for Delivery By Vice President Al Gore On the Role of Faith-based Organizations,” 24 May 1999 (www.algore2000.com campaign website).

50. Particularly noteworthy is how Charitable Choice has encouraged some in the Salvation Army to reconsider the acceptability of past government regulations. See Winston, Diane, Soup, Soap, and Salvation: The Impact of Charitable Choice on the Salvation Army (Washington, D.C., 2000)Google Scholar. The Army's constant emphasis on maintaining its integrity is emphasized in Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace, “Interlude: The Salvation Army.”

51. Senator John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) introduced this measure in both the 105th and 106th Congresses.

52. Gore, “Remarks”; George W. Bush, “The Duty of Hope,” speech delivered in Indianapolis, 22 July 1999 (www.georgebush.com campaign website), and “‘The Duty of Hope’ Fact Sheet,” 22 July 1999.

53. Mark Penn, “The Community Consensus,” Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century (Democratic Leadership Council) 3 (Spring 1999), 52–53.

54. Wallis, Jim, “Overcoming Poverty: A New Era of Partnership,” in Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations, ed. Davis, Derek and Hankins, Barry (Waco, Tex., 1999), 160–161.Google Scholar

55. Breger, Marshall, “The Jewish Community and Its Liberal Allies Are Prepared to Sacrifice the Needy and Indigent on the Altar of Church-State Ideology,” Moment, 08 1998, 18–19Google Scholar; Nathan J. Diament, “The Debate over ‘Charitable Choice’: The Case for Gore's Proposal,” New York Jewish Week, 18 June 1999.

56. Sherman, Amy L., The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of New Collaborations Between Government and Faith-based Organizations in Nine States (Washington, D.C., 03 2000).Google Scholar

57. For these and other concerns, see Davis and Hankins, eds., Welfare Reform and Faith-based Organizations; Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace; and Sherman, Amy L., Restorers of Hope: Reaching the Poor in Your Community with Church-based Ministries That Work (Wheaton, Ill., 1997), part 3.Google Scholar

58. McCarthy, Rockne M., Skillen, James W., and Harper, William A., Disestablishment a Second Time: Genuine Pluralism for American Schools (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1982)Google Scholar; Skillen, James W., ed., The School-Choice Controversy: What Is Constitutional? (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1993)Google Scholar; Viteritti, Joseph P., Choosing Equality: School Choice, the Constituion, and Civil Society (Washington, D.C., 1999)Google Scholar; Minow, “Choice or Commonality.”

59. Skillen, James W., Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1994)Google Scholar; Carlson-Thies, Stanley W., “The Meaning of Dutch Segmentation for Modern America,” in Sharing the Reformed Tradition: The Dutch–North American Exchange, 1846–1996, ed. Harinck, George and Krabbendam, Hans (Amsterdam, 1996), 159–175Google Scholar; Monsma, Stephen V. and Soper, J. Christopher, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies (Lanham, Md., 1997).Google Scholar

60. The “equal partners” concept valuably emphasizes that faith-based providers are of no lesser value than government agencies, but it de-emphasizes the enormous difference in power between the two kinds of institutions. An alternative term such as “collaborators” usefully connotes both working together and the potential for faith-based organizations to be co-opted (note that “collaborator” was the term in World War II for citizens who aided the enemy). Charles Glenn's notion of an “ambiguous embrace” is intended also to highlight both possibilities and dangers (Glenn, Ambiguous Embrace). Of course, the whole point of the Charitable Choice concept is to limit the government's distorting impact on faith-based organizations when the two sectors work together. In that sense, Charitable Choice is but one example of a global movement to recast the relationship between government and non-governmental organizations. On that global trend, see Salamon, Lester M. and Anheier, Helmut K., The Emerging Nonprofit Sector: An Overview (Manchester, England, 1996).Google Scholar

61. Lugo, Luis E., Equal Partners: The Welfare Responsibility of Governments and Churches (Washington, D.C., 1998), 15, 18, 19.Google Scholar

62. Neuhaus, Richard John, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984).Google Scholar