[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
AUGUST 25, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-101
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
91-692 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Meyer, Professional Staff Member
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 25, 2003.................................. 1
Statement of:
Beasley, Reverend Jesse, Team III, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN;
Richard Hart, Salvation Army, Chicago, IL; and Beth Truett,
executive director, Partners in Education, Fourth
Presbyterian Church, Chicago, IL........................... 12
Moore, Emmett, 11th District Police Steering Committee in
Chicago; Richard Townsell, executive director of the
Lawndale Christian Development Corp. of Chicago; and
Steaven McCullough, chief operating officer, Bethel New
Life, Inc., Chicago, IL.................................... 104
Sauder, Tim, executive director of Gateway Woods Children's
Home in Leo, IN; Mark Terrell, chief executive officer of
Lifeline Youth and Family Service in Fort Wayne; and John
Green, executive director of Emmaus Ministries of Chicago.. 56
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Beasley, Reverend Jesse, Team III, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN,
prepared statement of...................................... 15
Green, John, executive director of Emmaus Ministries of
Chicago, prepared statement of............................. 73
Hart, Richard, Salvation Army, Chicago, IL, prepared
statement of............................................... 39
Sauder, Tim, executive director of Gateway Woods Children's
Home in Leo, IN, prepared statement of..................... 59
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
Terrell, Mark, chief executive officer of Lifeline Youth and
Family Service in Fort Wayne, prepared statement of........ 64
Truett, Beth, executive director, Partners in Education,
Fourth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, IL, prepared statement
of......................................................... 44
FAITH-BASED PERSPECTIVES ON THE PROVISION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
----------
MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Chicago, IL.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., at
3333 West Arthington Street, Chicago, IL, Hon. Mark Souder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder and Davis.
Staff present: J. Marc Wheat, staff director and chief
counsel; and Elizabeth Meyer, professional staff member and
counsel.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. We don't
have a projection microphone at the table here. They will have
one for the witnesses so we will do our best to project as
loudly as we can. Unfortunately, without a mic my voice won't
sound as deep as Congressman Davis' but I will do the best I
can. He is known as the voice of the Congress. We all each
morning wake up hoping that an extra day or two in our lives
will deepen our voice, too, and we can get out of the puberty
stage.
Good morning and thank you all for coming to this hearing.
I am an ardent believer and supporter of many different things,
White Sox baseball for one, and yesterday I was fortunate
enough to cheer on my favorite baseball team since 1959 and
Nellie Fox, Chicago White Sox unfortunately without much
success. Apparently I do better cheering them on radio and TV.
In fact, the first point of the day was initially a high
point. They actually arranged to put my name up on the score
board and then the Texas Rangers hit a three-run home run right
after my name went up. I think that sent a message to the
dugout, ``I am not going to get upstaged by Souder.''
More important to the purpose of our hearing this morning,
I am an ardent believer in the work of the countless faith-
based organizations that are helping scores of people in
neighborhoods across our entire Nation. Today I am happy to be
here in Chicago to convene this third in a series of hearings
to discuss what characteristics make faith-based providers
especially effective at serving the needs of their communities.
This subcommittee has oversight over the faith-based
programs. We are really the only committee in Congress with
oversight. The tax and some of those bills go through other
committees. We are the only committee that deals with this
issue. We decided over 2 years we are systematically going
through neighborhoods and cities and different regions of the
country to highlight different types of programs in each area.
They are not necessarily representative of all the programs
in that area but by the time we are done we will have a range
of what is going on in the country and then getting additional
written testimony and other things to add to it as we do a
major report on what is actually happening in the communities
across America.
We have held hearings in San Antonio, TX, where we had
people from Dallas and Houston and New Mexico and others a
little more heavily focused on Hispanic things in that area. We
held a hearing in Nashville, TN, both with urban and rural in
the central south. This is our third.
Most of the people today are from Chicago. We have a number
from my hometown area in Indiana, some which are urban and some
which are more small town and rural. We will be holding
hearings in LA, Orlando, Boston and Philadelphia, and maybe one
or two more out in the western United States.
What we will hear from our witnesses today faith-based
organizations are raising the bar for social service providers
through their tireless efforts and unsurpassed dedication of
their volunteers. Many people toil away day in and day out in
our communities trying to help those who are less fortunate.
For these workers service is not simply a 9 to 5 job but a
calling. They know there is a need in their community and they
are compelled to help. By doing so they have been making a
difference that cannot be denied. I have had the opportunity to
visit many faith-based organizations and time and time again I
have heard the testimony of men and women who have seen their
lives transformed thanks to the love and support they receive
from volunteers and leaders in the faith community.
My home State of Indiana has a long tradition of active
faith-based organizations. Recent examples of State and local
partnerships with faith-based organizations include the Front
Porch Alliance create by former Indianapolis Mayor Steven
Goldsmith and Faithworks Indiana, an initiative designed to
assist faith-based and community-based organizations of all
types in developing services and access funding to help
families in need throughout the State.
Two years ago Faithworks produced a study, modeled after
the National Congregations Study, that found that 79 percent of
Hoosier congregations provide human services. this compares to
57 percent of national congregations that provide human
services.
When we talk about faith-based organizations we are
referring to more than just congregations, but it is clear that
in Indiana faith communities have been active in mobilizing
resources to help people in need.
At a minimum, government must not only allow but should
demand that the best resources this Nation possesses be
targeted to help those of us who face the greatest daily
struggles. We must embrace new approaches and foster new
collaborations to improve upon existing social programs. We
know that as vast as its resources are, the Federal Government
simply cannot adequately address all of society's needs.
Services provided by faith-based organizations are by no
means the only way to reach all people in need. Rather, they
offer a unique dimension to that service, a group of people
motivated in many cases by their faith, who are ready, willing,
and able to help their neighbors around the clock.
I believe that we cannot begin to address the many and
diverse social demands of our Nation without the help of
grassroots faith and community initiatives in every city across
the country. A recognition that faith-based organizations are
competently filling a gap in community services has led to
legislation and regulations that encourage these organizations
to become more involved in their communities, through both
action by Congress and the leadership of President Bush.
Charitable choice provisions have allowed faith-based
organizations to compete for government grants on the same
basis as secular providers so that they can reach more people
in need. As we expand that involvement, we must fully consider
the specific characteristics and methods that make faith-based
groups successful at transforming lives.
Today we will hear from organizations that provide care to
children, families, prostitutes, people in need of shelter and
food, and the community as a whole. We need to understand how
the unique element of faith impacts the structure and success
of these programs. It is also important that we understand how
your programs transform lives.
Our witnesses today represent just a fraction of the
countless faith-based organizations that are meeting the needs
of their communities. I expect that our witnesses today will
provide valuable insights to their work, and identify areas and
methods by which the government can best assist community
organizations of all types to provide the best possible care
for people in need. I very much look forward to the testimony.
Now I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague,
Congressman Danny Davis from Chicago, one of the most active
members of our subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me join
with Chairman Souder in welcoming all of you to the third
series of faith-based oversight hearings by the Committee on
Government Reform's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug
Policy, and Human Resources.
Let me just tell you that one of the pleasures that I have
had since becoming a Member of Congress and being assigned to
the Committee on Government Reform has been to snare an
assignment that put me on the subcommittee chaired by
Congressman Mark Souder from Indiana.
While we are of different political parties and
persuasions, I am a Democrat, Mark is a Republican, but we have
been able to form an alliance to establish a friendship and
establish a common bond of understanding relative to the need
to pursue some of the most perverse social problems that exist
in our country.
Mark, I want you to know that I value your friendship and
it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to work with
you. Thank you very much.
These hearings are designed to look at the role of faith-
based organizations in providing much needed services.
Specifically, the witnesses who have been invited to testify
today have been asked to discuss effective means of providing
social services in their communities. As a Member of Congress
and a member of this subcommittee, I have long known the value
of services provided our neighborhoods by community nonprofit
and religious based organizations.
As a matter of fact, the community where we are currently
located has been a hot bed of social activism and involvement
for the last 40 years. In many instances churches and other
groups have been in the forefront of addressing the varied
needs of many of our communities.
Whether that be offered in food and drink via soup
kitchens, handing out sandwiches and blankets to the homeless,
making shelter available or providing drug counseling
treatment, you the soldiers of comfort are helping to provide
and improve the conditions and character of our country.
I not only support the services provided by these social
activists and faith-based organizations, I also agree with the
President that these organizations should, in fact, be in place
and have an opportunity to serve. As a matter of fact, my last
conversation with the President a few weeks ago when we rode
together from Washington to Chicago and back on Air Force One
had to do with the provision of services by faith-based
organizations. We were both very engaging in our descriptions
of what we thought those should be.
One is we both agreed that organizations should not in any
way discriminate against people seeking such services or make
participation in religious activities a condition for receiving
these services.
I, too, believe that faith-based organizations should be
held accountable for the Federal moneys they receive and that
Federal dollars should not be used to support inherently
religious activities, although I don't think you can get much
more religious than I am relative to the fervor with which I
involve myself.
I come from a religious-based environment. As a matter of
fact, the church was the center of activity in the small town
that I grew up in, Parkdale, AR. Much of whatever it is that I
am today comes as a result of the Pinnas Chapel CME Church. It
was a colored Methodist at the time. They have since changed
and it is now the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church.
Everything changes, even religion.
I do not, however, believe that faith-based organizations
which receive Federal funds should be allowed to discriminate
in the hiring of individuals. A little sticking point that has
been much of the discussion and will continue to be much of the
discussion about faith-based organizations, the role that they
play in our society, and the position in which they are placed.
Our hearing today is particularly timely given the enormous
interest in the effectiveness of services provided by faith-
based organizations, especially in comparison to services
provided by government entities.
Two years ago our subcommittee ranking minority member,
Congressman Elijah Cummings, and Senator Joseph Liebermann
requested that the investigative arm of Congress, the General
Accounting Office, look into the services provided by faith
organizations.
That report issued in September of last year specifically
examined how faith-based organizations were being held
accountable for performance and what information is available
regarding their performance.
The report concluded that while most State and local
officials believe that their faith-based organizations
performed as well as or better than other organizations
overall, they did not provide data regarding faith-based
organizations performance.
As I end, let me just suggest this. One area in particular
where I have personally seen the work of faith-based
organizations be so effective with not very much in the way of
resources is in the area of drug counseling and rehabilitation.
I don't know what it is that other folks have seen but I
have seen people addicted to drugs get into sessions and start
singing ``What a Friend We have in Jesus,'' and ``Blessed
Assurance, Jesus is mine. Oh, what a foretaste of Glory divine.
Watching and waiting, looking above. Pass me not oh gentle
Savior.''
I have seen individuals come out of those experiences with
a renewed determination to confront their problems and deal
with their needs. I am a psychologist by training. I am a
scientist. As a matter of fact, I own a Ph.D. degree. I have
four honorary doctoral degrees. I have never learned anything
in any scientific setting that replaces that experience. I am
unequivocally in support of faith-based activities.
I part with some of my friends who consider themselves, and
all of us do, civil libertarians who have certain kind of
notions about this than I do. We agree on the nondiscrimination
but I think the services can, in fact, be extremely effective
and they can be cost effective more so than anything else that
I have seen.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for bringing this hearing to
Chicago. I look forward to the testimony of the witness. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions to the hearing record, that any answers to
written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in
the record. Without objection it is so ordered.
What I just read functionally means is that this is not a
town meeting, it is a congressional hearing. The witnesses that
are testifying have prepared written statements but anybody
else who has written statements if they give them to
Congressman Davis or myself within the next 5 days, they will
be submitted into the record.
The record entails this. We have a court stenographer here
today. I don't know if it takes us a year or year and a half
until these things get printed in a booklet form but since
these are the only hearings being held by Congress on faith-
based, they will be the more or less permanent record of the
kind of the history of faith-based.
There have been some hearings in Congress and debates on
provisions in law but there aren't hearings looking at what
faith-based organizations are actually doing. We are having the
debate over discrimination clauses in almost every bill that is
coming up right now on the House floor and what makes groups
effective but nobody is going to hearings trying to figure out
from the groups themselves what makes them effective.
We are having the tail wagging the dog right now in that we
are trying to get out and hear from the diversity of different
groups. We will also be doing a separate committee report at
the end of next year like we did on borders in the United
States that will pick up the information from the GAO reports,
the different CRS reports, private sector reports.
I have worked closely over the years with Rev. John
Perkins' organization on community Christian economic
development efforts around the United States and from different
organizations like that to incorporate addition to the hearing.
What I just read says that if you want to get something to us,
you need to get it to us in the next 5 days through Congressman
Davis' office.
The next thing is I will also ask unanimous consent that
all exhibits, documents, and other materials referred to by the
Members and the witnesses may be included in the hearing record
and that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their
remarks. Without objection it is so ordered.
For example, what that means, Rev. Beasley, is the
different charts you have that you refer to will all appear in
the record and if any of you have additional things you want to
submit in addition to your testimony, we will put them in the
hearing book record as well.
Now, our first panel is here. Let me describe the procedure
we go through. I come from a little hometown that is surrounded
by Amish and my great-great-grandfather was one of the first
Amish settlers in Indiana back in this area in 1846 around my
hometown. There we have an extended yellow light so the buggies
can slip through. We found that people tend to extend during
yellow so we just have a green and a stop.
You have 5 minutes to do your testimony. When the red comes
up we will be a little more generous but try to wind up so we
can get everybody in today. The red doesn't work? When the
green goes off, that means wind down. I know one time Rev.
Perkins, I don't know how many of you know, was speaking at a
church in Fort Wayne and he said right at the beginning, he
said--I was one of, I think, there were two other guys there.
He said, ``I see some White folks in the audience. I just
want you to know we are going to be done at 2. I know you White
folks tend to look at your clock a lot and start to do things,
whereas Black folks are a little bit more did it feel good?''
He said, ``We'll be done at 2 so just sit back and see if it
feels good and stop watching your watch.'' That was fine except
it was 9:30.
In today's testimony we don't have to stay rigid to the 5-
minutes because we want to get your points in but to get
everybody done so we can ask questions and followup. We will
draw that out we may have additional written questions.
Now, this is also a Government Reform Oversight. By
tradition this committee swears in all its witnesses. We are
part of the committee that did the Waco hearings, the
Travelgate hearings, the White Water hearings and all that.
If you give your testimony, you are giving an oath and you
can be prosecuted for perjury, as witnesses have been in this
committee. It is a little bit different than other committees.
If you will each stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that each of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
It is a real privilege to have each of you here today.
First leading off is Rev. Jesse Beasley from Fort Wayne, IN,
who I have been working with on and off for multiple years and
who I am just really pleased at what they have done in Fort
Wayne with this TEAM III concept and we are going to have you
lead off this morning.
STATEMENTS OF REVEREND JESSE BEASLEY, TEAM III, INC., FORT
WAYNE, IN; RICHARD HART, SALVATION ARMY, CHICAGO, IL; AND BETH
TRUETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARTNERS IN EDUCATION, FOURTH
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, CHICAGO, IL
Rev. Beasley. I want to thank Congressman Souder and
Congressman Davis and the rest of the team that is here today
for allowing us to come and testify about what TEAM III has
done.
Mr. Souder. Can you hear in the back?
Rev. Beasley. I am sorry. I will talk a little louder. I am
going to act like Congressman Davis this morning.
I want to thank Congressman Souder and Congressman Davis
for having us here today to testify concerning faith-based. We
have been working the arena for about 3 years. TEAM III is an
acronym, Touching and Equipping All Mankind. We are a
collaborative group of proactive faith-based organizations that
exist to enhance and enrich the quality of life for the low
income, working poor, and disadvantaged people. We are
primarily focused on the southeast area of Fort Wayne.
We are a network center. We have a group of 12 churches who
have come together that are providing programming development
and these the churches. We are seeking some financial
assistance and we are recruiting professional personnel to make
sure that the programs are effective.
That is one of the things that we see the need of change
inside of the faith-based arena specifically speaking for the
church. As we begin to provide services for the community, we
realize that we needed to have professional people working in
the programs so that they were more effective. This is one area
that our faith-based arena was lacking in.
We addressed the issue by creating a nonprofit corporation
that will begin to focus on and train some of those individuals
as well as identify them. We have worked with some of the
government agencies, Family Social Services Administration,
Fathers and Families, Department of Education, and we work with
them on FFSA for structure because they provided a great
structure for us to follow.
We believe also that faith-based organizations need to be
accountable for any dollars that come to them whether it be
State or Federal or local grant money. We believe that faith-
based has a powerful impact on the community because it
provides for the need while it is assessing the place where the
individual in the group needs to go.
We also understand that it is not enough for one ministry
to have result producing programs, childcare centers, or
spiritual training whether Bible studies or seminars, but it is
a need every ministry should have those things. Every faith-
based organization, whether it is a church or not, should have
the ability to reach their targeted population.
We understand that if we continue to work individually, it
will leave out a large number of grassroots organizations who
are making a difference because of poor structure, lack of
accountability, administrative skills, professional, personnel,
and reporting processes. They were unable to attack any of the
financial assistance to have a greater impact on the community.
We started out in a summer feeding program with seven
churches and the pastors started to work together as we
collected the food and all the other things that went along
with doing that like setting up a staff. We put four staff
people in each of the churches and as we did that we saw the
affect it had on the community while we were providing for the
need.
After we seen it we made a decision that it was no longer
possible for us to do that individually and be able to reach
the community. We understood that our methods needed to change
as we identified some of the methods as we met as a board of
directors. Some of those methods that needed to change was our
leadership development, where we taught our leadership
development, what information we gave them as we prepared them
to meet the needs of the people or the targeted population.
We had to assess the needs of the helper and that is kind
of where we are right now. Our theme this year is helping the
helper help. One of the things that faith-based has not
addressed which would be a good thing to address is helping the
helper help. Making sure that the people who are helping, who
are directing the programs, who are running the programs are
getting the adequate help that they need while they help the
helper. That is one of the hugest things that we have seen.
We also needed that vehicle to provide the structure, the
accountability, and opportunity for government entities or
other faith-based organizations. As TEAM III advanced we
realized that was the vehicle that provides grounds for
relationship with the Government and other faith-based
organizations.
I see my light came on. We also identified we needed to
enhance our ability to provide informational resources and
adequate direction to social service programming and
assistance. We also understand that we can no longer address
just the spiritual need but must be more practical in our
approach and services by providing work force development,
social services, crime prevention, and partnering with
community organizations that were not necessarily faith-based
organizations. And to provide those things in a faith-based
setting without violating choice and certainly not apologizing
for our faith.
Last but not least, to duplicate that attitude and that
atmosphere in each of the faith-based organizations that was
connected and compliant, the same structure, accountability,
and professional personnel and to monitor them with the vehicle
organization.
I have included in our presentation of TEAM III which
describes us a little more adequately than I have done today.
We have narrowed this concept for 3 years with much success.
Three years is not a lot of time but as we examine ourselves in
the light of what has been done in the faith-based arena, we
believe that we are on the cutting edge.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Just for the record
because many of you in the audience may not know that much
about Fort Wayne, IN, but in our southwest quadrant we have not
had the economic growth and we have had lots of other
challenges and two of the three lowest income housing tracks in
the State of Indiana are, in fact, in that area of Fort Wayne,
not in Gary where many more people are familiar with.
It is been a real challenge for the churches to get
organized, find the resources, and try to address that. Not
everybody can be like the Beasley family who are personally
terrorizing soccer from all over the United States. We have had
two tremendous products out of your extended Beasley family.
Many people know from the Chicago fire and other places the
graduates of Fort Wayne, the extended family, but Fort Wayne
has other things in addition to Beasleys.
Now I would like to have Mr. Richard Hart from the
Salvation Army, one of the Nation's leading organizations to
talk about the particular program that you have been working
with, the Salvation Army.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beasley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hart. Thank you. Good morning, Honorable Davis and
Souder. I am the program manager of the Salvation Army
Community Corrections facility here in Chicago on the west
side. We have been in business since 1975 in the corrections
area. At the beginning of 1975 we had a contract with the
Illinois Department of Corrections. In the late 1970's, early
1980's we began to have a Federal contract with Federal inmates
from Federal prisons across the country.
In 1987 with the sentencing guidelines we went totally
Federal as far as our contract. As of today our contract is all
Federal from the Federal prisons across the country and with
the Federal probation department here in the northern district
of Illinois.
Our residents are referred from those two primary sources
for transitional houses, for the reentry issues that is so
prominent these days as far as those being released from
institutions. We happen to have the largest Federal work
release in the country contracted with the Bureau of Prisons
and we can hold 175 individuals, men and women.
Today's count is 158. We have been down some due to a
decision from the Attorney General's Office regarding release
of individuals from Federal prisons that they serve 90 percent
of their time and put 10 percent in work release facilities.
Those that were called direct court commitments can no longer
come to a community correction facility. They have to go to a
prison so that certainly has affected our population.
We feel that we are effective because of the structure that
we have available in our program. We have case managers that
will address all the needs of an individual coming through the
doors doing a complete assessment of their needs. Primary focus
for our resident is finding employment, a place to live,
reestablish any family ties or positive peer interaction.
Before they move out of our doors, they will have been
placed in one of those areas, primarily the first two, either
housing or employment or both. Our facility also provides a
substance abuse counselor for our residents and also mental
health after care for those who may need that service.
As far as those being released from prison, there is a need
in several areas, in particular substance abuse area. We have a
clinical department that will address that in individual and
group sessions and certainly again with the mental health after
care.
We have to structure that individual's need and for the
long times of being incarcerated, some from 5, 10, 20 years
that we see that come straight to our doors, we have to take
the time that they have manageable steps and not try to do
everything right at once, once they are released to our
facility.
Some are trying to find employment, trying to assimilate
into a community, trying to establish a relationship with
family members all at once. We have to give them time to do
things in a process step to make them more effective so they
don't become part of that revolving door recidivism.
In addition to having the structured program that we have
for our residents, residents who do come to our facility pay
what is called subsistence and that is 25 percent of their
gross income goes back to the government to offset their stay
in a facility like ours. Not only is that a benefit to the
taxpayers because in one particular year we calculated that
over $400,000 in 1 year from our facility in Chicago on the
west side was collected and given back to the government.
The residents are also paying taxes as they find employment
throughout this metropolitan Chicago area along with paying any
restitution that may be required through the Federal Probation
Department. There is an added benefit of those who are released
to come through a community correction facility.
In addition to the counseling program we do allow residents
to enter into any type of schooling that may be needed. We find
people who do not have their GED, so they can certainly utilize
the services of Malcolm X College here on the west side of
Chicago or any other community outlet that provides GED
training. We also have English as a second language that is
provided right there on the grounds of the Salvation Army for
those who need those services.
We also see a need of life skills for individuals that have
been incarcerated for so long that have to really get into the
adjustment of community life. We sometimes have volunteers
along with our paid staff that provide curriculum of life
skills.
As recently as the last month or so we have had outside
speakers who have given readings of poetry, given individuals
opportunities to give self expressions. We have found certainly
an abundance of talent from our residents there. We have had
Alder Institute that is here in Chicago provide volunteer work
for parenting classes for our residents.
In addition, we have environmental safety trade training
class, asbestos and lead removal on our site. Our residents now
become their own business persons once they receive their
license from the State of Illinois to do asbestos and lead
removal.
Quickly the other departments that we have in our program.
Certainly our chaplain is here which is a big part since we are
a faith-based organization. Our chaplains are paid through the
Salvation Army and not the Federal Government money that our
correction program is paid through. They even provide
counseling and pastoral services in Cook County Jail and State
of Illinois Prisons. Our clinical department, once again, does
assessments and mental health aftercare.
The other programs in our surrounding block area is a
freedom center and that is where the Harbor Light program. They
provide counseling for people with addiction and our Brandecker
Clinic that provides health care for our residents and
corrections along with the Harbor Light residents and the
community residents in the 60607 area. The Brandecker is an
extension of the Cook County Hospital which is now called John
Stroger Hospital. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hart follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Our next witness is Beth Truett, executive director of
partners in education at the Fourth Presbyterian Church of
Chicago.
Thank you for being here.
Ms. Truett. Thank you very much, Honorable Davis, as well
as Honorable Souder.
I represent Partners in Education at the Fourth
Presbyterian Church of Chicago. We are a 501(c)(3) organization
that was founded in 1991. However, our roots extend back to
October 1964 when a group of church members began helping
children from the nearby Cabrini-Green housing projects with
their homework.
Today we work with nearly 500 children from 33 Chicago zip
codes in our Tutoring program. Some of that change is
occasioned by what is going on in terms of relocation in both
Cabrini as well as the Horner projects, some of it is voluntary
relocation. The families just coming back over the years.
About 50 percent of the tutors--it is one-on-one tutoring--
come from our church of about 5,100 members. We are located at
Michigan and Chestnut Streets in Chicago. About 30 percent of
the students still come from Cabrini-Green. We find it a great
misnomer to think that the neighborhood is changing so much
that poverty is not there and children are not there. The
schools are full and there is a lot of work to do.
We support nine of our tutoring students with scholarships
to private and parochial high schools. We would like that
number to be a lot higher. We have a job training program for
high schools and had the pleasure of having one of our students
this summer in Congressman Davis' office as an intern. We have
100 children participating in the City Lights Summer Day
program that was founded in 1966.
Finally, in partnership with the Chicago Public Schools,
Partners in Education coordinates a literacy initiative in four
Cabrini schools as well as an after-school arts education
project which culminates in a Fine Arts Festival each May. In
October we are going to open a parent learning center in Byrd
Academy, which is one of the Magnet Cluster Schools in Cabrini
thanks in part to a State of Illinois DCEO grant to eliminate
the digital divide.
It is going to replace the Center for Whole Life which has
been located in a CHA project for 12 years. But the lack of
neutrality of being in a CHA building has increasingly caused
us not to be able to meet our mission of raising the level of
parent education from that location. I sometimes say that our
greatest success would be to go out of business. That every
parent would be able to tutor their own child and that we would
not have to do this externally. In the meantime, we are working
to build self esteem through education.
Partners in Education is funded by individual
contributions, by grants from foundations and corporations, and
earned income projects such as our student-designed holiday
cards where we encourage kids to express their creativity,
write verses, and also win prizes for their work. The mission
budget of our church funds 22 percent of Partners in Education
and we need to raise the rest.
The Tutoring and Scholarship programs employ long-term one-
on-one relationships. We serve students in grades one through
12. In addition to academic Tutoring, there is time for honing
creative and computer skills and reading in our Tutoring
Library. One single parent with four children in Tutoring
program recently reported that her kids' grades have gone from
D's to B's and C's and that one has achieved B Honors for three
quarters and has actually been awarded a scholarship from the
school itself.
In order to bring students to Tutoring, bus transportation
is provided if kids are living in Cabrini or Horner
neighborhoods. They have the option to arrive 1 hour before
tutoring to participate in Kids Cafe which offers both life
skills lessons as well as a hot meal. This was founded in
conjunction with America's Second Harvest and our program was
the second in what is now 1,200 programs. We just celebrated
our 10th anniversary and are deeply committed to alleviating
childhood hunger.
The City Lights Summer Day program provides opportunity for
elementary school children that include strengthening academic
skills, arts education, community service projects, in
partnership with the Ravinia Music Festival and Rock for Kids,
a local music-oriented charitable organization. Students
showcase their talents in a performance for parents and
friends. Like Tutoring, transportation is provided for most
students and Kids Cafe serves breakfast and lunch bringing the
total meals served to kids to 10,000 annually.
The Near North Magnet Cluster Program is entering its 4th
year. We are in Cabrini and we are 1 of the 144 public schools
that have been clustered to provide local school choice for
parents living in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.
It is unique not only in its art focus but also because it
brings principals together for strategic planning, leverages
resource, and builds community. The 2002 Festival of the Heart
won a Peacekeeping Award from the Presbyterian Church USA for
its effectiveness in bringing kids together from rival gang
territories on either side of Division Street with positive
results.
Now, as I wind up here, I want to tell you that the church
is currently in the process of folding in three other local
missions into Partners in Education, our ministry to homeless
neighbors, older adults, and health ministry. The Center for
Older Adults was founded in 1965. It is a place for seniors to
search for meaningful engagement through adult education,
exercise, health, and wellness.
The Elam Davies Social Service Center welcomes and supports
about 3,000 homeless persons per year. Sometimes they are not
homeless but living in poverty and our efforts are to get them
into housing and also to provide food, clothing, and the
appropriate referrals.
We are working to inform choices that will build bridges to
the future for all the people that we serve. We seek to
practice justice, not charity, by providing children and adults
with the opportunity to discover hope and to create a
satisfying life.
Partners in Education at the Fourth Presbyterian Church of
Chicago believes that we are called to reach out to our
neighbors. We affirm the worth of all people and we strive to
provide a safe and belonging place where the body, mind and
spirit are strengthened and nurtured. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Truett follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Souder. Let me first ask Rev. Beasley, one of the
things that we have worked with and discussed was the problem
in many cases that there is a proliferation of almost every
church having some kind of a program. One of the things that we
talked about which you have done, which is why I wanted to make
sure you were at this hearing and part of this faith-based, is
you talked about it being a collaborative effort.
Could you talk a little bit about you have some large
churches, some small churches. Could you just put into the
record, which will be in the written statement, but some of the
different programs you were doing and a little bit about the
different churches so we can understand what, in fact, TEAM III
and how that is different than many of the social programs we
see where a particular church or a denomination may say, ``This
is my program. I am going to go apply to the Federal Government
to try to get that.''
Rev. Beasley. I sure can, Congressman Souder. One of the
programs that we have established and worked diligently with
the last couple of years is the Dimetrian Program. It is a
value-based initiative. We partner with value-based initiatives
to get some of the people who are returning from prison
connected to a mentor and help get their lives established and
goal setting.
They even do some of the parenting classes. We also have
another program called Returning Fathers which is a very
comprehensive landscape training program that teaches returning
fathers how to operate a bobcat, backhoe, tractor, all the
equipment that is necessary to do landscaping. In the process
of doing that we teach parenting, money management, goal
setting, and how to handle their money and leisure time. We use
mostly Christian curriculum to do that.
Not only do we do that, we have done some leadership
training where we train some of the leaders in the church that
will be focused on doing some of the training. We are thinking
of outside sources. We are doing some asset building through
the Department of Education where they are offering the asset
building by depositing money in the account of the government.
I am sure you are familiar with the Indiana government account.
We also have been doing some youth training where we are
partnering some of the youth with some associations and doing
some community mapping. We are involved with some of the
community organizations like Christmas Connection that goes
into the homes and provides gifts very much like Angel Tree
did, and still does, under Chuck Colson's ministry. We are
heavily involved in that. As a matter of fact, we cover not
only the southeast part of Fort Wayne but a good portion of the
outlying counties of Fort Wayne.
We are doing some technical training for staff and boards.
We are making sure that the structure of each of the individual
churches after we have assessed them is one of an organization
that is accountable and that is able to receive dollars and
they understand what the relationship is between government and
their programs. We are doing a lot of educating other pastors
and some of the staff that we have earmarked for some of the
things that we have coming up.
Those are just a couple things. I don't want to go on.
Mr. Souder. What is the largest of the churches and the
smallest of the churches roughly in membership?
Rev. Beasley. Our largest church probably has about 700
people and our smallest church probably has about 6.
Mr. Souder. One of the things that we have had a concern as
we have shaped the bills and as administration worked with the
different agencies as far as grants is as to whether the church
is going to get directly entangled. Part of your philosophy was
to set up this organization as a--is it 501(c)(3)?
Rev. Beasley. Yes.
Mr. Souder. So that it could be available as it develops to
be the recipient so if there are problems or claims or lawsuits
and bookkeeping, it moves to a 501(c)(3) rather than to the
churches directly.
Rev. Beasley. Exactly. That is the common ground for the
churches to work together and it is also the common ground for
us to have a relationship with government entities or local
grantmakers because we have become the reported agency for
those local and Federal grants.
Mr. Souder. Just so people understand, this is an important
part of our compromised faith-based bill that is moving
through, to try to stress that these secondary groups so we
don't get quite as entangled directly with the churches and
this is the forerunner of what we are going to see increasingly
if this kind of relationship is going to work.
I wanted to ask now Mr. Hart at the Salvation Army, you
made a statement that I just wanted to make sure I clarify a
little bit for the record. You said that many of these people
that you work with have been incarcerated for long periods of
time and that they have substance abuse problems. I presume
that means the substance abuse problems aren't being
effectively addressed while they are in prison. Are you also
saying that they are continuing to abuse substances while they
are in prison and that they haven't been exactly away from that
abuse during the period of time they have been incarcerated, or
that they are going to return to their previous pattern? Could
you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Hart. Sure. Those coming from an institution have
entered into a comprehensive drug program in some of the
Federal prisons. Part of the Federal Government is that they
continue at the halfway house and continue treatment. Once they
are released from us a majority have Federal probation. They
also continue with their substance abuse counseling. That is
for one segment.
I also mentioned that we receive clients from the Federal
courts and that is really a big part of our substance abuse
treatment. Those coming from home who have been adjudicated to
come to Salvation Army in lieu of prison. These are individuals
who have failed other drug programs. This is generally their
last opportunity before being considered for incarceration. A
big target is the Federal court individuals who have to receive
treatment.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Truett, I also had--am I saying your name
correctly?
Ms. Truett. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Souder. I had a technical question about your program.
You said 30 percent of your students still come from Cabrini-
Green and you made several references to the Horner public
housing area. About how many students would you say are
involved in that?
Ms. Truett. Thirty percent as well.
Mr. Souder. So it is about the same size. Is that area
changing at all like Cabrini-Green?
Ms. Truett. It is changing. I mean, there has been a
dramatic change in housing as well in that neighborhood. We
have not been located in that neighborhood for as long as we
have in Cabrini so I am less familiar with some of the distinct
changes than with Cabrini.
Mr. Souder. I visited Cabrini-Green in the early 80's or
middle 80's when I was with then Congressman Coates and the
Children Family Committee. Then we held a hearing over there
again in the mid 90's and met with a lot of the residents there
and have gone through that change there. Others can come during
the day. I am curious. You said some are coming back. Did most
of those people push for their arrest and when they are coming
back, where have they been? I wonder what the dislocation
affect is and whether you've seen that with the kids.
Ms. Truett. When I said coming back, maybe I wasn't careful
enough to explain it. What I meant is coming back to the
tutoring program. We are not yet in that phase in the plan for
transformation in the city of Chicago. Unfortunately housing
units are built for the residents who want to live and take
advantage of the plan for transformation. People are still
being more dislocated than they are relocated into Cabrini.
But what I was referring to is because of a long history,
40 years of this tutoring program, is that even when students
move to the west side and they move to the south side, they
find ways to get back to the program.
Mr. Souder. Do you see large churches like yourself as
gentrification occurs at some of the--it is kind of moving
inside out and we are seeing a push. Some of the lowest poverty
push further out into the near suburbs. Do you see large
churches like yourself partnering with large suburban churches
or how are you going to work and provide assistance?
Ms. Truett. Well, in the last year the Presbyterian of
Chicago has taken up that very issue and now, in terms of
funding from our own denomination if we are not partnering with
other churches who do not have the ability to provide direct
service, say a suburban church, we are really not qualifying
for those denominational funds. They are holding workshops for
us and encouraging us to do that.
In addition, because we are one step from the actual
neighborhood, we belong to the Near North Ministry Alliance
which is a group of churches, some of whom are located in and
some of whom are located on the fringes of Cabrini where our
efforts are also attempting to coordinate, especially around
high school education, kids who are going to Walter Peyton High
School--who get in and then they can't succeed because they
don't really have the tools to make the grade once they get
there, which is very sad.
Mr. Souder. We are planning this fall to do as Congressman
Davis referred to in his testimony one of the major hot points
and this is hiring practices. We are having a philosophical
debate on that in Washington over a public policy but it is a
standard practice that I ask the witnesses so we can get into
the record.
In your different programs, for example, Rev. Beasley, you
have a very strong statement of faith. Salvation Army has
historically had that and the Presbyterian church. In these
different programs, and I will just ask each of you. I am not
asking for commentary on it but let me start with Rev. Beasley
first. For staffers in your program, do they need to agree with
your statement of faith before you hire them?
Rev. Beasley. Well, we have opened our program to anyone
who is willing to conduct themself according to our statement
of faith. It doesn't necessarily mean they have to be
converted. At least while they are with us they will conduct
themselves according to our statement of faith.
Mr. Souder. That is a staffer?
Rev. Beasley. Well, currently the issue of staffer. It was
a kind of like a blanket cover. We have had some of the
gentlemen who have been in the program come back to take care
of a couple of those positions. The issue hasn't come up but we
are willing to work with anyone who is willing to adhere to our
statement of faith.
Mr. Souder. Would you hire a Muslim to be one of your
staffers?
Rev. Beasley. I can't tell you that I would.
Mr. Souder. You have to in serving serve who walks in the
door.
Rev. Beasley. I understand that.
Mr. Souder. As a Christian church would you hire a Muslim
to be a staffer?
Rev. Beasley. As a Christian church?
Mr. Souder. And as TEAM III.
Rev. Beasley. As TEAM III it is a possibility but as my
church, no, I could not.
Mr. Souder. Because that is a potential difference in a
church organization.
Mr. Hart, in the Salvation Army for your prison correction
programs, would you hire someone who didn't share the Christian
faith or actually practiced another faith as a staffer?
Mr. Hart. Certainly. As myself, I am not part of the
Salvationist Church. We have people of all different faith and
backgrounds that are hired there so we do not discriminate at
our corrections program.
Mr. Souder. So you would hire a Muslim?
Mr. Hart. We would. We currently do have both on board as
staffers.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Ms. Truett.
Ms. Truett. Yes. We are open to people of all beliefs. I
think the criteria would be we frequently will open a meeting
with prayer so we wouldn't change that particular practice
because a person from a different persuasion were present but
we would not discriminate in our hiring practice.
Mr. Souder. Now, in a government program that receives a
direct government funding you could not open that meeting with
a prayer. Would you change that in order to get direct Federal
funding?
Ms. Truett. That is a very good question and that is a
debate which we are really engaging in. We have a task force
within our church that I am sitting on to wrestle with those
very questions.
Mr. Souder. There needs to be an understanding of many,
particularly in the minority community have, in fact, in the
past received Federal funds and opened the meeting with a
prayer but, as the new guidelines are promulgated, you cannot
have a prayer during the period of time that is funded with
Federal dollars. There will be more court decisions with that.
You can have a prayer meeting before and after but this is
really touchy because prayer is integrated into so many of the
programs and that is what we are trying to work through as we
deal with working with this.
Rev. Beasley.
Rev. Beasley. Yes, sir. I have a concern. That concern is
when two people come to the table to make an agreement and that
agreement is to provide services, that they should not be asked
to change who they are to provide those services. I know I am
on the record and I want to say this on the record. We are
faith-based people, truly faith-based. If we take out the
element that makes us who we are, then we become government. If
I can share with you for just a second. If I could have 1
minute.
Our program, Returning Fathers, works with the parole
office in Fort Wayne, IN. We decided to work with them for
referrals. They were going to give us an office in their
building so that we could screen the people. In the meeting one
of the parole officers said, ``If you are in our building, the
people are going to look at you just like us and they are going
to respond to you just like us.''
Instead we met in the church and the response was totally
different. Now I have the probation officers calling the church
to get reports or to find out where their people are because
they will come to the church because there is help there for
them. If we take that element out, we might as well do what you
are doing. We want to remain faith-based. It is possible for
faith-based organizations to have a relationship with
government and not give up who they are. FFSA has provided over
the last 2 years as a service provider for them some valuable
structure that not only helped the organization where we help
the people, but it has helped us in our church as we structure
our church. You have some very valuable tools but if you make
us change who we are, then we've lost the basis for a
relationship.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask you a direct question. In many of
the cases and the kids you have worked with in our reentry
program, in our other different things, do you believe that one
of the main reasons your programs have been effective in your
communities is because people have actually committed their
life to Jesus Christ and changed and is that a big part of your
ministry? Can you really separate the faith part from the other
part?
Rev. Beasley. Yes. I think you can. You can separate it to
the point of providing services. We don't have to pray during
the time that we are providing services for individuals. We
don't have to do that. That is not a problem. But it is
impossible for us to reach a community and not be--I am a
pastor. I teach them life skills every day and if I never say
anything to them about Jesus, they start to look at me and say,
``What he's doing is not real. Why should I believe in what he
wants me to do?''
What we are really after is life change. Not the money. Not
the prestige that goes along with it but to change the life of
the people who are caught up in the system. It is ministry and
it can be separated. We can have a relationship and I believe
TEAM III shows that.
If you will talk to any of the people in Indianapolis with
Family Social Services Administration who grew with us during
the last couple of years, we have worked with them diligently
to make sure that we are not violating any of their principles.
I think government should do the same.
Mr. Souder. Congressman Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must say
that I am intrigued with the answers as well as the questions.
I think what we are hearing helps us to understand the
complexity of trying to shape legislation, that you are trying
to reach a point where there is enough agreement without
changing the basic structures of what it is that we believe in.
That is why I always say that there are no simple solutions to
very complex problems.
Rev. Beasley, I am intrigued by the ability that you all
have found to organize 12 churches in what sounds like a very
cohesive unit, especially since a friend of mine became a
pastor and he got a call to come to a church where they had a
lot of difficulty with pastors. They were changing pastors just
about every 2 or 3 months.
After he had been there for about 6 months, he was totally
fascinated by the fact that he had managed to stay that long.
He asked one of the members, ``Would you do me a favor and just
tell me what it is about me that this congregation likes so
well?'' The sister told him, ``Well, Reverend, people at this
church ain't never really wanted no pastor and you are about
the closest thing to nothing we ever had.''
So I proposed this business of leadership and the ability
to organize a group to become effective without everybody
wanting to be the leader everybody agreeing to follow whatever
the group establishes, and nobody pulling out and saying, ``If
it is not my way, then it is the highway.'' How have you
managed to do that?
Rev. Beasley. Well, I just did a status report on that. We
have been together for 3 years and we have yet to have one
argument in our board meeting. It is a solvent renewal debt.
That is the only answer I have for you because I don't have a
formula. We are just being obedient.
I told you there are 12 and there are actually 15 churches
now. We have a couple more. There was a group between 700 and
the 6. I think it is probably because the church that has six
is mine and I am the leader. I am not sure how it happened. I
think I just showed up at the meeting. Pastor White who is here
with me is the vice president.
Because we were working together and providing resources
for one another and the effect that we've seen that it have on
the people to see us working together is starting to come out
of every pastor's mouth. We have to keep on doing this. We
can't stop doing this. We have to keep meeting. That is how
TEAM III was born.
Under those grounds we've been operating. As a matter of
fact, for the last 3 years we've been able to provide four
staff people for each of those churches for 50 days. This year
we did it again. Each one of those sites fed over 500 kids a
day meals, breakfast and lunch as the pastors work together.
It has to be common ground and that is what I was
expressing to you when I was telling you about us working with
government. We had a common goal. This is a neutral place where
we can satisfy that common need. Let us do it and let us not
argue. We are going to be different. We are from all
denominations from the Church of God. We have some Lutheran
churches involved with us. We are a nondenominational church.
We have some Full Gospel churches with us.
Denominational issues are not the issue. The issue is how
do we get help to our community and to our children and satisfy
the need and how do we do that effectively instead of the way
that we've been doing it.
Mr. Davis. Is it your position now that while Federal
resources, that is money, are desirable but you really don't
see yourself changing the way that you operate in hardly any
way, shape, form, or fashion in order to meet the
qualifications for that money should they be different than
what you currently practice.
Rev. Beasley. No, sir. It is exactly the opposite. TEAM III
is the organization that standards in the middle that provides
the opportunity for the change to take place and to do that and
not too rapidly so that we make mistakes doing it. We don't
have a problem complying. As a matter of fact, those were the
strong points and the things that focused that we needed to
change. We needed to change the method by which we reach the
community, not the message.
Mr. Davis. Even now on the 501(c)(3) tax exempt status
organizations you couldn't do the prayer piece. I am saying you
can't do what is called religious proselytizing. Or let us say
a church has a daycare center in the basement. They can't teach
Presbyterian philosophy as a part of their daycare operation
even though they can have a daycare program but it is not
called a church philosophy program.
When I was a kid growing up, even in school we often
started our day--we started everything with prayer just about.
As a matter of fact, we would get ready to go to the cotton
field to chop cotton and my daddy would want us to start
praying and we prayed that the sun didn't shine or that it
might rain.
What I am saying is that these kind of--I mean, there is a
strong feeling that many people in our country have about what
is separation of church and State. That has been a part of the
doctrine and philosophy of this country almost since its
beginning. I am saying that is a great deal of what much of the
debate really centers around. I think that is something we will
be discussing.
Mr. Hart, if I could ask you what are the Salvation Army's
experiences with recidivism? I mean, are you finding that the
individuals who come through the Salvation Army after they are
discharged and complete the programs are they able to go on
about their lives and their business without returning to
prison at the same rate or better than or whatever than people
who don't receive these kind of services and this kind of
opportunity?
Mr. Hart. I think that the majority who do come through a
community corrections program do better. There are studies out
there from Jeremy Travis and Joan Presivia from the Rand Corp.
has shown that when they receive the treatment they do better.
With our facility we actually hired a researcher and we
hope to have some raw data next year as they complete how well
we are doing. We do have statistics that we give to the
American Correctional Association outcome studies and we are
audited by different government entities such as the Bureau of
Prisons who keep up our failure rate and shows that we have 10
percent recidivism as far as those who fail our program.
Those who complete it and go on to supervision, there are
certainly individuals once they have probation that they will
have technical violations from probation and may have to go
back and serve a term in prison and then come back through our
doors again. We certainly see those individuals. We have a
close relation with the Federal Probation Department.
They have case loads of a minimum of 80 now because of
budgetary reasons so they can't give them the type of services
that our counsels in our facility who have case loads between
10 and 15 where they can do in-depth counseling. There are some
who go through that revolving door. I think it is a small
percentage. I think they do receive a benefit coming through
our facilities as far as the areas that we identify.
Our residents, we get a chance to see them and some of the
life stresses as they are on home confinement while they are
still under supervision with us and we can sometimes identify
issues that will happen at home. Or if they have weekend passes
and they are going back to family members they haven't lived
with in years and they bring up those issues with their
counselors and we work with them to adjust to a community life,
a home life again.
There are certainly issues that they experience on
employment, job retention as far as punctuality and all those
other things that we know and we take for granted those who are
employed. We work with those issues with individuals because
there are some who have problems with authority figures or
people telling them what to do on the job. Our counselors talk
with them to work out those things. These are things they have
to do to survive. That is included in our life skills and our
ongoing counseling with our residents.
Mr. Davis. So you are saying that the recidivism rate is
lower than for people who don't get the opportunity.
Mr. Hart. I believe so.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Ms. Truett, let me thank you for your testimony. Also let
me dispel for some African Americans the idea that Black
elected officials don't get invited to predominately White
churches. I always hear on the radio talk shows, especially
when there is an election, I always hear African American
suggest that, ``White politicians are coming into the community
talking politics and social issues and you don't never see no
Black politicians in White churches.''
Well, I don't feel like arguing at that point because I am
trying to get votes but I certainly have been invited to Fourth
Presbyterian and have discussed issues a number of times with
people there. For those of you who don't know what Fourth
Presbyterian is, it is a flag ship type church of the
Presbyterian denomination right downtown, Michigan Avenue on
the Gold Coast. Right in the heart of what one would call an
upscale district.
My question is, I mean, there are perceptions that certain
kinds of institutions don't need or wouldn't make use of
Federal resources to carry on program activity. The
congregation can just kind of reach in its pocket and pull out
whatever they are going to do. Federal resources if you were to
use them would allow you to do what with the programs that you
mentioned?
Ms. Truett. Well, first of all, I just want to tell you
that when the church was built there was only a varnish factory
and a saloon there. It was on the outpost originally. To answer
your question, we have put a deposit on some land on Chicago
Avenue right at the fringe of the south end of Cabrini.
Our belief is that as part of the plan for transformation,
that there needs to be a community center that helps people
live together. That you can't all of a sudden put people
together in the same neighborhood who have not had exposure to
one another and expect that to be successful.
That is a big project and regardless of the fact that we do
enjoy support from a church that has resources and assets, even
currently our programs have grown beyond the ability of the
church's membership or the church's budget to support.
Certainly in the future as we reach out to have a facility that
has sports arena, that has space for community meetings, etc.,
we will not be able to support that as a church.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have no
further questions of the witnesses. I want to thank each one of
you for your testimony and for your response and thank you very
much.
Mr. Souder. I want to briefly followup on a couple points
with Rev. Beasley just to clarify again. If I understand how
you are functioning, you would say that for a feeding program
that you wouldn't necessarily have a prayer or religious
activity with the feeding but you could before or after if you
had government funds in that feeding program.
If it was your own dollars, you probably would have a
prayer and other things mixed in with it. But you understand if
you get the State dollars or the Federal dollars, there has to
be some separation but it isn't that you are giving up the
religious ministry of your programs. It is just what you are
using the Federal dollars for during that period you would not.
Rev. Beasley. Exactly. We are currently funding through the
Department of Education for our feeding program and we do not
pray at the beginning of the feeding program which is part of
the agreement.
Mr. Souder. I don't agree with it but I understand the law
and the danger inherent in this.
Now, let me ask Mr. Hart because normally we think of this
separation and flexibility of church and faith-based groups
related to hiring practices related to do they need to be
Christian and would you hire a Muslim, would you hire a
Buddhist, would you hire a Hindu.
Let me ask you another question. In your drug treatment
program if you heard from a number of others that one of the
people who was one of your prime sources of using drugs, would
you fire him or would you go through a due process?
One of the big things that faith-based organizations do is
because faith is part of their statement, if they hear through
counseling or others that someone is abusing their wife,
beating their child, addicted to pornography, using drugs, they
will fire them. But with a Federal grant unless we have a
faith-based hiring practice change, you would have to have this
person prosecuted, convicted in court before you could fire
them.
Rev. Beasley. Well, the answer to that is since we have a
contract with the Bureau of Prisons there are things in our
statement of work that says that anyone abusing drugs could no
longer perform their duties there so it is already inherent in
our----
Mr. Souder. The question is not whether or not anyone is
abusing drugs. The question is no one is guilty under
government guidelines until that has been proven in a court.
Whereas in an organization often they fire when the allegation
is made or they feel there is sufficient evidence. The
difference between a government grant and private money is the
process of when you determine they have been abusing drugs.
Rev. Beasley. Once again, I say we don't have a grant, we
have a contract. It is explicit in that contract that there are
provisions of the Bureau of Prisons. We have to follow with
that. We don't go by any Salvation Army rules or anything like
that. Because we have that contract, we have to follow the
agreement within that contract with the Bureau of Prisons. They
tell us exactly whether or not we can ask questions with that
individual or that individual has to be off work until they may
bring in their own investigators. It is really already a
settled issue there as far as the contract provisions.
Mr. Souder. One of the things as we debate this, and we
have seen this in our earlier hearings and continue to see it,
is different organizations are comfortable or not comfortable
at different levels. Once an organization has made a decision
that you will hire a Muslim, you are still faith-based but you
are no longer a Christian solely faith-based organization.
You are now ecumenical. That is a decision that each
organization has to make. But, in effect, what we are trying to
work through at the Federal level is can an organization
maintain a distinct brand of faith or do all organizations that
get a Federal grant have to become ecumenical?
Do all organizations have to sign such a precise statement
as you have with the State of Illinois or could, in fact, they
retain some flexibility because they are concerned about the
witness of their organization. If, for example, this is even
tougher.
Drug abuse, at least, has a process but what about somebody
who is beating their wife and the wife doesn't want to
prosecute. Most church organizations would fire that person but
a government organization is not allowed to unless charges are
substantiated.
We think of it in terms of homosexuality or other types of
things but when you look at it as spouse abuse and child abuse,
addiction to pornography, that in maintaining your integrity as
a faith-based organization, that is why these debates over
waivers are so critical. I thank you for your participation in
this. Did you have any other comments or questions?
Mr. Davis. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. I want to thank the first panel and you are now
dismissed. We will go to the second panel which is Mr. Tim
Sauder, executive director of Gateway Woods Children's Home in
Leo, IN. Mark Terrell, chief executive officer of Lifeline
Youth and Family Service in Fort Wayne. Mr. John Green,
executive director of Emmaus Ministries of Chicago.
As you come in if you could each remain standing and we'll
do the oath before you sit down.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show all the witnesses responded
in the affirmative.
Tim, if you are more comfortable that you affirmed, I
actually write affirmed into the record when I take my oath. I
am probably the only Member that writes that so we'll show that
in the record, too.
Let me say before these witnesses go ahead, in a further
comment on one of the things that Congressman Davis made a
reference to about politicians going to different places, one
of the challenges of this hearing is where do we hold it
because this is really to cover urban, rural, suburban. It is
to cover Black, White, Hispanic kids.
We chose to hold it here in your district as a member of
the committee in this community but we are actually trying to
represent a wide diversity of people, the majority of whom,
quite frankly, are not African American in this zone so we are
having all kinds of people come in but we came in to your home
area rather than doing it in downtown Chicago or suburban
Chicago or, for that matter, Springfield or Indianapolis which
would be the State capitals because we think it is important to
do that.
The first witness in this panel is--we need to have quiet
in the room. It is hard enough to hear already. Our first
witness is Mr. Tim Sauder, executive director of Gateway Woods
Children's Home in Leo.
STATEMENTS OF TIM SAUDER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF GATEWAY WOODS
CHILDREN'S HOME IN LEO, IN; MARK TERRELL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER OF LIFELINE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICE IN FORT WAYNE; AND
JOHN GREEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EMMAUS MINISTRIES OF CHICAGO
Mr. Sauder. I am honored and thankful to testify before you
today about the meaning, role, and substance of faith-based
services. In our case, Gateway Woods is a distinctly Christian
ministry. Our mission is to ``Honor and obey God by providing
help and healing to troubled children and their families who
may then bless others.''
May I also add that Chairman Mark Souder's dad was
instrumental in laying some of the groundwork for our agency
near Ft. Wayne over 30 years ago and his mother served as one
of our longest standing volunteers until recently.
In the 1970's and 1980's faith-based services were often
marginalized or excluded from much of the social services
practice and academia, the very field that it launched over
2,000 years ago. It is refreshing that Christian and other
faith-based agencies and services have been ``rediscovered''
and revalidated in our society's desperate and practical search
for something, anything that really works.
I am simply grateful to our President, to Congress, to the
Governors, administrators, some good old-fashioned county
judges, and all you have some common sense for opening their
minds and hearts to partnerships and resources for the sake of
our Nation and its people.
I served as the administrator of Gateway Woods for 17
years. We are a Christian multi-service agency providing
services to troubled children and their families in Indiana and
Illinois.
We provide substantive help and long-term hope through our
services. As we say, we treat the whole person, the whole
family, the whole problem. We address the very beliefs and the
attitudes and behaviors that drive dysfunctional and
destructive lives.
The programs of Gateway Woods include residential childcare
with three group homes on a 50-acre rural campus, Gateway Wood
School which is a new 13,000 square foot alternative school for
middle and high school students, home-based services and
aftercare, specialized foster care, adoption both domestic and
foreign, in-home Christian counseling, and prevention and
restorative services which include mentoring and training on
marriage, parenting, conflict resolution, family finances,
fatherhood, etc.
Some quick facts to let you know how, why, with whom we
operate, and how we are held accountable, and how we know what
we do really works. Our motivation is very simply stated. We
have what they need and we would be neglectful, selfish, and
disobedient not to share it.
I understand that the most recent faith-based and
government collaborations are aimed at addressing poverty. We
do so indirectly but substantively and permanently by teaching
spouses how to thrive in marriage, parents how to raise kids,
families how to function, and kids how to learn and work.
We are part of an ongoing, longitudinal effort by IARCCA,
State childrens services association to carry out its landmark
outcomes measures research. This project tracks such simple but
critical life components as family reunification,
restrictiveness of living environment, school attendance and
grades, contact with the law and employment.
On most measures our scores at Gateway Woods are at or
above the State averages. Also our colleagues usually only
follow their discharged clients for 6 months, we at Gateway
Woods follow them at 6, 12, and 24-month intervals to ascertain
and assure longstanding change and success.
Our other accountabilities and affiliations include
multiple licenses with the Indiana Division of Family and
Children, accreditations by the Indiana Board of Education, the
National Association of Private Schools, and a charter
membership in the Indiana Association of Christian Childcaring
Agencies. But our ultimate accountability is to God and our
Lord Jesus Christ.
We partner with numerous county offices of family and
children and probation departments, the State Department of
Corrections, who together refer most of our residents and
clients.
Whether government pays for the service or not, we will
provide what is needed regardless of the client's ability to
pay because we have coveted with our generous donors and our
loving God. In the past year we gave away over $725,000 in free
and subsidized care.
We also serve as the extended family for our children and
residents and foster children, even into adulthood by providing
friendship, emergency finances, and scholarships for any kid
who needs the help long after they have left our programs,
after the government support has stopped, and case managers are
gone. When the funding streams dry up, we will not.
In all honesty, we have worked very well with State and
local government schools, personnel, programs, and funding
because Indiana, in particular, is a simple, unregulated
nonbureaucratic State. I am from Illinois originally but by
contrast our functioning here in Illinois is done--we provide
everything free of charge and we really don't have
collaborations with the government because of the bureaucracy
of it.
As a small agency we have been minimally involved in
Federal programs because the cost-benefit ratio for us is not
worth our human and financial cost or the hassles that take our
time and taxpayer's funds away from what we consider to be the
real work.
We see a lot of needs in the system. We see a lot of ways
in which we can collaborate and cooperate. We can talk about
that later but I am thankful for this chance to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sauder follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. Terrell.
Mr. Terrell. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify
today. Lifeline was founded in 1968. We work in three different
areas: Prevention, intervention, and aftercare. We work with
children as young as 3 all the way through families. Our
mission is to change hearts and to bring hope to a generation
at risk.
I have chosen not to spend most of my testimony talking
about all the very specifics that we do. You need to know we
worked last year with almost 4,000 children and families across
one-third of Indiana, moving into Michigan and Ohio. We are
very excited about that opportunity. We are looking for that to
grow even this year.
What I want to basically talk about is my perspective on
faith-based organizations providing community services. As was
mentioned earlier by someone else, faith-based organizations
have been providing community services from the time of our
country's founding. The question shouldn't be whether or not to
invite faith-based organizations to the table. The question
should be who can provide the most effective service for the
client.
I understand the reservations of those of different faiths
and those of no faith at all. The government's responsibility
should be to help correct the social ills that are present, not
to chastise those who because of their faith, have chosen to
make a difference in their community.
We should allow our clients to make a choice of whether or
not faith is an issue. If the client is morally or ethically
against faith, or a particular faith, give them an opportunity
to choose to work with an organization who espouses no faith at
all.
By giving the client the power to choose we dramatically
reduce the argument, the frustration, and the dilemma of
whether or not to allow faith-based organizations to provide
services. The discussion should then be who can provide the
best service at the best cost. Allow the free enterprise system
to work within social service. Those who produce the results
will, in the end, be left standing and those who do lip service
to what they provide will, like most unsuccessful private
enterprises, go by the wayside.
How do you determine who is successful or not? Determine
what you, the government, believes is important, communicate
what you believe is important, and hold agencies accountable to
meet those expectations. At Lifeline, we spent the last 5 years
working very hard to develop our outcome studies, our outcome
measurement tools, and using those tools to evaluate our
programs.
Each quarterly evaluation comes with a mixture of disbelief
and joy. The disbelief is where we are baffled as to why a
particular program outcome is less than desired and complete
joy when we achieve an outcome that has never been reached
before. We desire at Lifeline to be the best at what we do and
have realized that we will only be the best at what we do if we
are willing to ask the hard questions and look at information
that is unpleasant to review.
In the book Good to Great the author, Jim Collins, espouses
the importance of determining what you don't do well is just as
important as determining what you do well. It is his contention
that you will never be a great company, great social service
agency, great school, or even a great government until we are
willing to focus on getting rid of what you can't be best at.
With that said, we are willing to compete with other social
service organizations of faith, different faith, or no faith at
all. When those expectations have been clearly determined,
clearly communicated, and honestly evaluated, we are confident
that Lifeline and other faith-based organizations will be left
standing still providing services, and still will be providing
great work. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Terrell follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Good morning. I am Deacon John Green. I am an
ordained permanent deacon with the Catholic Archdiocese of
Chicago. For the last 13 years I have worked with male
prostitutes in the city of Chicago.
I would like to start by asking the Congressmen, suppose
you walk outside to lunch today and you get hit by a car and
you are sucking out of a straw for the next 3 years. What is
going to sustain you? Hopefully your faith comes to mind, your
family, your education, your friends.
As I started working with male prostitutes I realized that
this safety net that all of us have didn't exist for these men.
About 5 miles from here is a place called the 1950's McDonalds
which is an all-night McDonalds. I sat with a man named Johnny
in 1989. Johnny shared that for the last 3 years he had gone
home with the last trick of the night and he had woken up in a
different place every day.
As I started to understand his background, he shared with
me about early sexual abuse that began when he was about 11
years old and continued until the age of 16. He shared with me
that he was from a third generation family who most of the men
in that family had spent time incarcerated. He was second
generation welfare.
As he began to just describe that, I realized that this is
a man without a safety net. I had spent a little bit of time
before that working in New York City with Covenant House and
through an experience at Covenant House I began to grapple with
Micah 6:8. ``Oh man, what is it that the Lord asks of you? Only
this, that you live justly, love tenderly, and walk humbly with
your God.''
About 14 years ago I began to ask those three questions of
my own life. What do I need to do to live justly in this world?
Who do you, Lord, call me to love tenderly and how can I walk
humbly with you? Asking those three questions has led me into
working with these men involved in prostitution. We do three
things at Emmaus. We develop ministries of evangelization,
transformation, and education. The first two are focused on
reach out to men involved in prostitution.
In 1970 20.7 percent of prostitution arrests in the United
States were of men. By 1998 the number had risen to 42 percent.
That is from the FBI uniform crime report of 1998. During that
same time nationwide arrest for male prostitution rose 16
percent in the years between 1989 and 1998, whereas arrest for
female prostitution dropped 13.3 percent. Male prostitutes
blend into the urban environment.
People don't know about them. People don't care about them.
During the summer of the year 2000 my wife and I traveled to 23
different cities around the country and we spent time talking
with men involved in prostitution all over. We saw the need
that exist. In Chicago about 3,000 men are arrested for
prostitution each year.
So evangelization. We go out in the streets at night in
male/female teams. We try to set up our teams male/female,
White/minority, under 30/over 30, Catholic/Protestant. We are
an organization that tries to bring Roman Catholics and
Evangelical Protestants and others together in faith-based
work.
We go into bars where men are involved in prostitution. We
go into street area. We just build a relationship and bring
some hope into the midst of what they are doing. As we do that,
we introduce them to our ministries of transformation. The bulk
of that is at a drop-in center that we have in the uptown
neighborhood at 921 West Wilson.
In 1996 my wife and I had some inheritance from a
grandfather and we did the good thing that all young couples
do. We invested in Cisco Systems. Then we wrestled with having
that wealth and where your treasure is, there your heart is
also.
Our treasure was not in Smith Barney in Boston so we bought
a crack house in the uptown neighborhood and have transformed
that into a ministry center. It is a drop-in center during the
day for guys that are met by our outreach teams. We have about
150 men a year that come through the drop-in center. Each year
we see about 20, 25 of them off the streets.
We also have ministries of education where we focus on the
church trying to educate the church about issues of male
prostitution and trying to get them involved. One of the things
we do is we host a program called Wheaton in Chicago where
Wheaton college students come and live with us each semester.
We've had 37 students through that program and we teach them
about urban ministry, teach them about urban living.
Let me back up a little bit, our Ministries of
Transformation. We also had a residential program going for
about 2\1/2\ years and we had to close our residents program
after September 11. We had a real decrease in funding, about a
$60,000 drop. We are hoping to open up that residential program
again this year.
During the time that we had that residence open we had 37
different men--oops, I am confusing my statistics. Sorry.
Thirty-five different men come through the residential program.
Half of them continue to be off the streets and to be doing
well.
We started with just me and a couple of volunteers about 13
years ago walking the streets. We now have 10 staff in two
cities. We just expanded to Houston, TX, last year. We are in
the process of expanding to some other cities. Our budget is
about $400,000 a year.
We also have a volunteer program where people commit to a
year of ministry with us. We give them room and board, medical
insurance, and $20 a week. If you are looking for a change of
location, let me know.
We are hoping to expand to five other cities around the
country in the next 7 to 8 years and eventually we want to open
up a long-term residence where guys can come for 2, 3, maybe 4
years. What we have learned is that the amount of devastation
that happens in men's lives that lead them into prostitution is
not going to be solved by 6 months in our residence program or
through our counseling.
It is going to take long-term effort. We need to teach them
a trade. We need to help them get a GED. We need to help them
restore their understanding of healthy sexuality. We need to
repair that damage that has been done spiritually,
psychologically, and emotionally. For us that means a long-term
thing. We are hoping as we get these five Emmauses going in
other cities that those will feed into a long-term program.
One of the most devastating things that we have found in
the last few years is that we are beginning to see more and
more really young children involved in prostitution. Young men
involved in prostitution in the city of Chicago. When I started
we would very rarely see men under the age of 18 in the city of
Chicago. In the last 3 years we have begun to see 12-year-olds.
12-year-olds!
I think there is a number of reasons for this. I think
there is a lot of age inappropriate sex ed that is going on in
our schools. I think many families have been very strongly
impacted by the welfare reform that has gone on and leading
many kids to that. I think also just the sexualized nature of
our culture.
I would like to close with challenging Congressman Davis a
little bit on this preferential hiring. You talked about seeing
those drug reform programs where people were singing and
praising the Lord. If you take away the option for faith-based
organizations to preferentially hire, you will take away that
faith that you saw. You will take away that vibrancy in Christ.
I am interested in getting men out of prostitution and
walking in the saving knowledge and relationship with Jesus
Christ. If I can get one out of two of those, I am happy. If I
get both of them, I am ecstatic.
But I need to preferentially hire people of faith, people
who have my same values or an organization that has the same
values to do that. I don't think, as some of the other
presenters will have presented that is impossible to do in a
relationship between government and faith-based organizations.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Souder. Let me start again by laying out a little bit
more. We have written testimony but for the record a little bit
about your missions and start with Mr. Sauder. His way of
spelling Sauder is correct. It is the German way, but when the
Sauder families first came in to the United States and
Pennsylvania, there is a Sauderton and Souderburg that is
spelled SO. Everybody kept calling us Souder so some of them in
Illinois where Tim is from went back to the SA and in Indiana
we have more of the SO. In Ohio it is mixed.
I want to double make the point that you made that was
really interesting in your testimony. You take government money
in Indiana because the requirements and the contracting out
give you more flexibility, but in the State of Illinois you do
not because the requirements are tighter.
Also a point I want to make for the record is for 16 years
we have had Democrat Governors in Indiana and Illinois has had
Republican Governors. Indiana Democratic Governors have
consistently wound up with high marks from those in the faith-
based community because they have given more flexibility to the
faith-based community, whereas a number of the Republican
Governors have not.
For those who think that this is just a straight partisan
issue in Washington and at the grassroots level, it is a tad
more confused when you come into the State-based level because
in Indiana it does not work the same way as Illinois. We have
seen it flipped on its head.
Now, Gateway Woods started as a direct ministry of the
Apostolic Christian Church. It evolved and started to take kids
assigned and, if I understood your testimony correctly, you
said over half now are either coming from Division of Family
and Children or the Probation Department or the State
Department of Correction.
Mr. Sauder. It is more like about 70 to 80 percent of our
children are referred through public agencies.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain a little bit of that
evolution, what impact and changes it had on you and if the
State required you to change your hiring practices or different
things, what would you do?
Mr. Sauder. There are several questions there. One, in
Indiana the government provides very few of its own direct
services so it subcontracts to private providers. Secular
providers, Christian providers, for-profits, not-for-profits,
they go out in a sense in the market place and purchase service
of all kinds. It is not just residential childcare or foster
care.
In a sense, it is a very healthy symbiotic relationship.
The government needs us because they don't have the services
available. We need them because that is not only a source of
accountability with these kids who often need a judge and a
case manager or probation officer or someone. Also it is a
source of referrals for us in finding those kids who really do
have the need.
About 20 to 25 percent of our children are placed privately
by their families and these are kids primarily where the
families are having a lot of trouble. They are having trouble
with the kids and the child hasn't gotten hooked into the
system yet through abuse and neglect or through delinquency.
The family knows that there are big problems and they are
trying to solve those problems before they get even worse. Even
with those children who are coming privately, they are not
necessarily really connected with our church at all.
Now, as far as the hiring and so on in Indiana, we are
licensed by the State of Indiana as a residential child caring
organization. We are also licensed as a child placing agency.
That is the title of the license for foster care and adoption
in Indiana. There are a set of regulations. There is an annual
license review, if you will, by State officials and so on. I
may need to ask you to restate or repeat your question on some
of the hiring issues.
Mr. Souder. Would you hire a Muslim?
Mr. Sauder. I would not.
Mr. Souder. What would you do if the government said, for
example, if you were counseling the house parents at the
children's home and found that one of them was abusing their
own children but the spouse and the child would not go forth to
the court, would you still fire that parent which you could not
do with a government grant?
Mr. Sauder. I've got to think on that one.
Mr. Souder. Because this is an important thing because
religious organizations at times will say, ``We will continue
to counsel you. You are welcome to come to our church. We will
include you in those programs but we are not going to put you
in a place if you are practicing pornography where you are
dealing with children.''
But you could not get in with a government grant under some
of the guidelines that are proposed and have somebody who is
addicted to pornography and remove them from the position
unless that has been established as a risk in a court situation
because that would be a religious opinion, not something that
is condemned by law.
Mr. Sauder. I am not sure how the labor laws differ between
Indiana and Illinois. Maybe those are irrelevant if we are
dealing with a Federal grant. In our case currently there are
indirect Federal funds that come to us through the State
administration through education and so on, but at the moment
we don't have any government grants directly to Gateway Woods.
We are a contractor with the State.
Also, our employees--right up front one of the other
gentlemen in the previous panel, I think Mr. Terrell, also
mentioned about making sure that up front everyone understood
what was the agreement that they were coming into employment or
work or ministry with our organization, the kind of clients
they were going to work with, what their job description was,
if they understood those expectations and that there was, in a
sense, a contractual agreement inherent. If they were to
violate that as in not fairly performing their work in whatever
way it was, we would need to work through that process.
We would not necessarily immediately fire that person. We
would first of all try to sit down and talk, work through the
situation, probably involve a counselor of their choice and to
see what kinds of issues these truly were and if they were ones
that were endangering the lives of the children who they are
entrusted with. By law in the State of Indiana we cannot have
employed at our place someone who is a sexual offender or
someone who is an abuser or someone who----
Mr. Souder. That has to be proved.
Mr. Sauder. Yes. And we are under a State reporting
guideline that if there is suspected abuse either between
children or from staff to children or from the children's
parents and their children, we are obligated by law to report
that.
There is an institutional abuse outline and the State has a
system by which that would be investigated. In fact, in all
honesty, it would be the State that would force us to fire that
person before we would as quickly as we would. I guess I'll say
it that way. It is an issue of protecting children that takes
precedent as far as I understand.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask Mr. Terrell a variation. If you had
somebody who on their own time like, let us say, they had 2
days off and they were drunk on those 2 days, which did not put
the kids at risk but they were getting drunk on their own time
or were known to be carousing around town setting a non kind of
traditional family example, a moral example, would you keep
that person on staff?
Would you counsel them through it? Would you suspend them
in short-term while they tried to work through? But if they
continued that behavior after counseling, would you let a
person who is, in effect, in a Christian sense living in sin
continue on your staff?
Mr. Terrell. Well, first of all, we will work with them. We
have had situations like that. You can't employ 100 people and
not have those issues.
Mr. Souder. Everybody is the same.
Mr. Terrell. Exactly. So our first course would be to work
with them, counseling. The second part is we also look into
what Tim mentioned: how does this affect the work that they are
doing? Again, if we would find that it is going to have a
detrimental effect, you can't hire someone that is supposed to
help young men and children to be responsible when they are not
responsible. You can't do what you don't possess. Again, that
is an issue that we have to work with and we wrestle with.
Mr. Souder. But if it is not illegal, you would still have
it.
Mr. Terrell. We would have to work through it and it would
be a case-by-case basis. Again, we do drug and alcohol
counseling with our people. Some of the best drug and alcohol
counselors are ones that had that issue. But they have
transformed their lives. They have changed. But if they are
still doing it, you can't tell someone not to do it.
Mr. Souder. Any Christian knows that the fundamental is
repentance and that we also fall back and come back. The
question is a hardened sinner who will not change and the
behavior is not illegal, would that compromise your ministry?
Mr. Terrell. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. In the contracting out of different services
that you provide, you provide them for school systems, for
different government contracting much like variations at
Gateway Woods, different types of things, could you--well, you
mentioned that even in multiple States. In Fort Wayne we have
the largest population of Burmese dissidents in the United
States most of whom are not Evangelical.
The government has looked at providing some service to them
through some of their religious communities but they would not
be able to have a Buddhist outreach program under the
guidelines either. In other words, we think in terms of this as
Christians but, in fact, this will limit some other religion's
ability to do this as well.
We have seen this in Fort Wayne where there is a discussion
of how best to deliver services to some of the new immigrant
populations that are not Christian but don't want to have their
religion secularized either. Could you explain--you elaborated
a little bit but how much in what you do do you believe the
effectiveness of your staff and individuals is the power of
Christ and how much is that integrated into your ministry?
You have other issues as well. Can you really separate it?
Can you separate it in some programs and not others? I've been
there. I've looked at some of the tapes. I know you work at
that question but it is really a fundamental question. Would
your donors continue to support you if they thought, ``We could
do this in a secular way and it isn't the transforming power.''
Mr. Terrell. I think it is the most fundamental question
obviously that you are wrestling with. It is vital that the
people that work for me and work with the clients that we work
with have similar values and the faith that we do. No question.
What would it do with the donors? We raise a significant
amount of our budget outside of the contracts that we get with
probation, welfare, and Department of Corrections. They give to
us because they know that we are a faith-based organization and
that we are hiring Christians. We are hiring people with faith.
They are going to make a difference.
There is a statement that everyone says that people are
your best asset. We have all heard that. I have agreed with
that. I have come to disagree with that. The right people are
your best asset. That is the most significant thing for us.
Public schools are all over the State of Indiana now and we are
not there to primarily make them Christians. We work with
people of all faiths, but it is amazing to me. We have a
curriculum that is not a Christian curriculum, but it has
faith-based principles underlying it.
All of the facilitators that go in are Christians. It is
amazing, the results that are happening. That is not by
accident. That is truly a belief that is ordained by God that
that has happened. Now, we are not there to talk about our
faith with Christ. If a young man asks us, ``Tell me about
it,'' we are going to be open and share that. We let schools
know that is where we are at. But, it really comes down to the
government and our Nation need faith-based organizations to be
there.
If you remove our ability to determine who works with us,
you will eliminate our ability to do our work. I would much
rather see us compete. I have talked to Social Service
providers and they hate that word. Compete with outcome
measures and allow the proof to prove who is more successful. I
am willing to join into that dialog and put it there. To answer
your question, I truly believe that it will make a fundamental
difference on how we can be successful or not.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. I've gone over my time. I'll yield
to Mr. Davis. I first want to say to Mr. Green, and I'll ask
you some comments after Mr. Davis, but thank you very much for
your ministry and your comments. We wanted to include you today
because it is different than a lot of other ministries but very
important part of reaching out to the diversity of challenges
we face.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sauder, is Gateway Woods a 501(c)(3) tax exempt not-
for-profit organization?
Mr. Sauder. Yes, we are.
Mr. Davis. What do you see as being the difference between
what is being proposed for faith-based initiatives that is
different than the requirements of a regular 501(c)(3) tax
exempt?
Mr. Sauder. I am not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Davis. Let me try to restate it. If I am a 501(c)(3)
tax exempt organization, do I need anything else to get money
from the government or to run Social Service human service
programs or to get money from philanthropists or to get money
from public entities? I am saying if there is no difference
between a 501(c)(3) tax exempt regular not-for-profit
organization and a faith-based initiative, why would I need a
faith-based initiative?
Mr. Sauder. When you say faith-based initiative you mean a
collaboration with the government?
Mr. Davis. Well, I am saying----
Mr. Sauder. We are a faith-based initiative whether the
government is around or not. I am not sure if I----
Mr. Davis. Let me try to do it. Many hospitals are faith-
based. Catholic Hospital is a faith-based initiative. Many
colleges and universities are faith-based initiatives. That is,
they are run by, they were established by religious
denominations. But they have established themselves as
501(c)(3) tax exempt status organizations in order to have the
benefit of not having to pay certain kinds of taxes and to
operate under rules and regulations. My question is if all of
this exist for the group, what would a faith-based initiative
mean to them that a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status does not
already mean?
Mr. Green. Can I make a comment on that?
Mr. Sauder. Please do.
Mr. Green. I understand what you are asking, Chairman
Davis--Honorable Davis. Sorry. The question needs to be asked
to the government because it is the conditions that the
government puts on funding. The government can write my
organization a check and I'll send you a receipt and it will be
tax exempt and everything else, but the conditions of
preferential hiring, the conditions of no proselytizing, all
those conditions you add to the funding that would come through
Department of Human Services, come through the Department of
Housing.
I think the question needs to be asked of the government,
not necessarily to a faith-based organizations because anybody
as a 501(c)(3) can make a charitable donation to any of our
work.
Mr. Davis. But you can't proselytize. You can't get
government money.
Mr. Green. I am saying that is a condition that government
has then set.
Mr. Davis. Let us say I want to get hired as a Baptist
preacher. I want to be hired as a Baptist preacher. Now, I know
the Bible a little bit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes,
Solomon, Songs of Solomon, Mark, Luke, John. I've read some of
that so I know a little bit about Christianity.
My conceptualization of Christianity which comes from the
teaching of Jesus the Christ, it seems to me this cat was more
inclusive than exclusive. I am saying from my study of it.
Somebody else may have a different notion of it. It seems to me
that if I exclude people that I ain't really following what I
call Christianity.
I mean, Jesus went and got whoever he could get and he
didn't ask them--he didn't ask the little boy, ``Look here,
son, are you a Christian? Because if this fish you got and this
bread, if it ain't blessed or holy, maybe I can't use it.'' I
am trying to understand.
Now, if they decide that they are not going to hire me
because I know all this stuff that I know because I can't
whoop. Black Baptists they like for people to whoop. You can
know all about the Bible but if the church decides that you
can't whoop, they may not hire you. Now, are they
discriminating against you on the basis of faith or are they
saying you don't meet their requirement to be their pastor
because you can't whoop? If a person is an alcoholic, I know a
lot of Christians who are alcoholics, as a matter of fact.
I mean, who profess their alcoholism. Well, they go to
church and they are on the deacon board and, you know, they do
all the other things but they still got some problems with
alcohol. You know, they have a little nip before the service
starts. We used to have a cat at our church who would go out
and get a shot before he would pray.
Everybody in the church knew that he needed a little help
before he got started. He was a member of our family, a cousin,
but he was one of the main deacons. I am trying to determine
what this discrimination business really is and what we are
discriminating against if we decide that certain kinds of
people can't work.
For example, a Muslim. Well, I am trying to understand.
What it is that a Muslim would project in a counseling program
or social service program that would make him or her
unacceptable to a Christian organization? I guess I have
difficulty understanding that description of faith.
Mr. Terrell. I'll try to address the question. To use your
example about being inclusive and exclusive and talking about
our Christ, I truly believe we need to be inclusive and to work
with as many faiths and with as many people as we possibly can.
But our Christ was exclusive on who he had working with him. No
question about it, but he picked people from all different
walks of life, tax collectors, smelly old fishermen. But the
bottom line is there was a common theme that all of them
possessed.
That is really what we are asking to be able to do is to be
able to--I do not personally have a problem if the Muslims
decide to have a program to work with the indigent, the poor. I
don't have a problem. I have some very good friends that are
Jewish. I have no problem with that and we have lots of
discussion. They would not want to hire me to talk about the
New Testament even though we agree on the Old Testament.
It doesn't mean that they don't do great work. I think they
do great work. But I think for us to do the kind of work we
need to do, we need to be able to be exclusive in who we hire
so that we can do our best work. I know that is not the
politically correct comment but I really truly believe that is
the right answer.
Mr. Davis. Well, I guess I just asked are we taking this in
terms of--I think it is hanging us up and it is holding us up
on what otherwise would be great initiatives. I mean, the idea
is having some body who will work with male prostitutes and who
will raise this. I mean, that is super commended.
I mean, that is an area that lots of folk don't really know
much about and don't know much about or don't have much
understanding. The same thing I think is true with the whole
question of sexual preference. I mean, I remember a group of
ministers telling me one time that they just did not understand
my position in relationship to that.
I countered to them that it just seemed to me that if there
was somebody who was going to understand all people, that
ministers would have a better way of doing that than anybody
else because of their faith and religious training and
religious upbringing.
Of course, they suggested at the moment that God made Adam
and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I think we have come a long way in
this country relative to our understanding of just what faith
means. It just seems to me that in some instances we are going
beyond and denying ourselves the opportunity to reach agreement
on some solid points.
Mr. Green. One of the issues with the whole preferential
hiring, just because I would preferentially hire someone of
faith and that has the same values, that doesn't automatically
mean my work would be discriminatory. You mentioned the whole
issue of sexuality.
That is an issue that our organization obviously deals with
quite a bit and we have a position on sexuality that says
sexual intimacy, the context of that is one man, one woman, one
lifetime period. Anything outside of that is not what God
ordains.
There are a lot of people and conventional wisdom in our
society is going to say that is being discriminatory. That is
being homophobic or whatever. With our organization I deal with
men who are involved in prostitution. Seventy-five percent of
men who are involved in prostitution are actually heterosexual
in their orientation. Most of them are doing this because of
poverty issues.
I deal with guys who are transgender. I deal with guys who
are bisexual. I deal with all sorts of different sexual
struggles but our organization, and the staff of our
organization, have a very historic view of sexuality. Yet, we
don't discriminate against any of those men. All of them are
welcome to come to our organization and welcome to come into
our drop-in center.
Even if they say, ``OK, John. I disagree with you on my
sexuality. I want to stay a transgendered individual.'' ``Fine.
We are going to try to work with you as best we can. We will
try to find you housing.''
Mr. Davis. Would you hire one?
Mr. Green. Absolutely not.
Mr. Davis. You would not hire one no matter how much
experience they may have had or how good they are or how well
they can relate to other people? They just simply would be
denied the opportunity?
Mr. Green. To work for us, yes.
Mr. Davis. Even though they have all this experience. They
can put themselves in the shoes of a person who is going
through what they have gone through? They probably have a
better understanding of it than most people. I have always been
told if you really want to understand an Indian, try walking in
his or her moccasins. I mean, that is something I don't
understand.
Mr. Green. Yet, if you go to the hospital and your doctor
says you have cancer and he does not have cancer, are you going
to not believe him?
Mr. Davis. No, but I will tell you what. I wouldn't want to
go to a hospital where someone told me that even though I have
all the requirements to be a doctor, I have all the medical
training, I have written 12 books, I have operated on 200
people, I have done all the stuff that you do, but because I am
a Muslim and the hospital is something else that I can't
practice there.
I would say take me on to some place else and treat me. I
am saying I feel that strongly about discrimination. Maybe it
is because I am African American in the United States of
America. Maybe it is because my foreparents were only counted
as three-fifths of a person when the Constitution was
established.
I wasn't counted as a whole man or a whole person. Or maybe
it is because of some of the other discriminatory practices
that I have experienced. I remember my brother and I were
looking for a job one summer. We would go in a place and I was
told that I had too much education. I had a masters degree and
he was about to finish college and he was told he didn't have
enough education.
We would come out and compare notes and we just kind of got
used to it. People have a tendency to become and to think as
they have experienced. Maybe that is why the discrimination
opportunity looms so greatly with me because I think that we
just need to become more inclusive than exclusive.
Mr. Green. Yet, you do discriminate, Congressman. Don't we?
Mr. Davis. Yes, we do. It is a common practice of life but
religion to me says that we are always becoming. Just because
we discriminate today, that doesn't mean that we keep trying to
discriminate tomorrow. I mean, when I go to church I hear songs
like, ``Just a Closer Walk with Thee.'' You know, ``Nearer My
God to Thee.'' ``I am Coming Up, Lord.'' I have never seen a
Christian that had enough religion so just like we are becoming
as individuals in our lives as related to Christianity, it
seems to me that our Nation would be becoming and trying to get
a little bit better than what we have been.
Trying to understand things that we have not understood
before and trying to reach that point where, as I guess Martin
Luther King would say, God's children will be able to walk hand
in hand and say we are an intimate part of this great Nation
that we have created and we just want to make it better. That
is how I see the discrimination question.
I really hope that we can resolve it so that we can get on
with the faith-based initiatives, that we can get on with what
the President is proposing so that some institutions--I mean,
the thing that amazes me the most and intrigues me the most is
I believe that faith-based programs can probably do much more
in some areas because of the faith orientation than a nonfaith-
based organization.
Since money is so tight and we have lost so many jobs and
the economy is in bad shape and I don't see it getting in good
shape soon, I just want to make use of all this resource that
we have in people of faith. I hope we will be able to do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have gone over my time,
too.
Mr. Souder. Thanks. I am going to do a little bit more and
you are welcome to as well. Let me first ask Mr. Green. Do you
know if the people who are trying to reach out on the streets
who are male prostitutes, is government doing anything to help
them?
Mr. Green. Is government doing anything to help male
prostitution? Yes.
Mr. Souder. Are there programs right now in Chicago that,
in fact, you see out on the streets when you are trying to help
these guys?
Mr. Green. Yes. I would say there are others that work with
generally the homeless population. We have not met another
organization in the country that specifically works with male
prostitutes. It is just too hot of an issue. It is just too
difficult of an issue. We have met three other faith-based
organizations that have outreaches to the homeless in general
and are starting specific programs for male prostitutes.
Mr. Souder. Years ago when I was Republican staff director
of the Children and Family Committee in the mid-1980's I would
say I went with Covenant House in Chicago all night on one of
the vans distributing sandwiches and lemonade. It wasn't
targeted specifically toward male prostitutes but a fair number
were either transvestites or male prostitutes who we met in the
van so while that ministry wasn't targeted, Covenant House
locations around the country I think have done some in the
ministry targeted to that group.
Mr. Green. And I worked for the New York Van Program for 2
years.
Mr. Souder. What has been kind of interesting, and you got
a taste of our Washington debate and why I have been very
cautious at urging any faith-based organization that wants to
maintain their traditional Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,
whatever their orientation is, Jewish, about applying for
government grants, because you heard a little bit of the
difficulty of distinction of the historic trend that churches
never before in contact, even if they had government funds,
have been asked the questions on hiring that they are currently
being asked because it was viewed as a Constitutional
protection for people to hire people of their own faith if you
are giving money for that faith.
If we are going to tap into those faith-based
organizations, which are probably the majority of faith-based
organizations in the United States, but not all because some
churches are more ecumenical, but if we are to tap into these
services, we have to figure out how to reconcile it. I am fast
coming to the conclusion this is going to be very difficult.
I, for example, give to numerous Christian ministries and I
am interested in them as Christian ministries, not in
government watered-down ministries where faith is not a key
part of it. This is a very difficult question because it hits
into a fundamental question that none of us want to talk about
and that is discrimination. It implies judgment.
Now, many denominations, all religions, believe that their
religion is the right way or they wouldn't practice that
religion. Each of you represent a Christian based organization.
Is it correct to say that unless somebody accepts Christ, you
wouldn't define them as a Christian mission? If that is the
case, do you believe that each of your ministries are commanded
by scripture to be a reflection of Christ? Not perfect but the
reflected glory of Christ?
Each of the witnesses said yes. Now, if they are to be a
reflected ministry of Christ, then just as a Muslim or a
Buddhist would reflect their ministry to be that. If you have
somebody else, your ministry by definition would change if you
had people who were not reflecting Christ. This is not a new
question. It is not a question of trying to go around
condemning people. It is a fact that people are giving you
money, people are volunteering in your organizations because
they share that commitment.
The reason I ask the question is because your ministry is a
terribly important ministry of some of the hardest to reach and
hurting people. I just can't commend you enough. Those of us
who are living in comfortable lifestyles feel terribly guilty
and will go right back to living our comfortable lifestyles but
we very much appreciate your sacrifice.
Mr. Green. You need to ask that question how we live
justly, though.
Mr. Souder. God will honor you for that and less than honor
some of the rest of us who aren't doing it including me. It is
interesting that the faith-based programs started in government
in the homeless area and nobody asked these programs who they
were hiring or what their hiring practices were because it
actually started with AIDS because people thought they were
going to catch AIDS so nobody asked the Christian
organizations, Mother Theresa or others, but in the U.S.
Evangelical Lutheran, whatever the religion was, whether they
were hiring preferential practices because nobody else would do
it. Since nobody else was taking care of the AIDS patients,
they didn't ask them the question.
When we went to the homeless area, once again we don't have
enough people doing this, so nobody asked the churches what
their hiring practices were because everybody was so relieved
that different organizations were getting involved with the
homeless.
This question has become hot as we have moved into
categories where you are competing with others and it is now
going back so when an African American church wants to compete
for a Head Start Program grant, all of a sudden the Head Start
people go, ``Well, we don't know about the rules they are
under.''
Similar in drug treatment as we saw in San Antonio where we
had several witnesses who forthrightly said that some of the
other faith-based drug treatment programs shouldn't get the
money.
They would rather have it go to the traditional
establishment people who know how to write the grants, who get
the government grants, and not to many of those people in the
communities who are faith-based who don't want to go through
all the government hiring practices and who want to have
flexibility to do it as those churches always have. But they
are saying, ``No, we've got to do that.''
That is partly what has brought on this pressure that we
are debating and that what we are working through. What is
really discouraging is that because the faith-based has kind of
expanded, some things now are going to go back to some of the
people who are getting government grants or indirect grants and
the government is potentially going to come back to those
groups who now have the money and say, ``Unless you change the
practices in your church and your religious group, even though
you have been getting this money for 10 years, you can't do
what you have been doing.''
This is particularly going to hit many in the minority
community where the churches are more integrated. That is still
an exception in a lot of the suburban and rural areas where the
church may or may not be as integrated in as it is culturally.
The question is are we in government actually going to force
changes that will change the nature and the definition to be
instead of a Christian church or a Muslim or Jewish Synagog,
that we are going to make everybody so amorphous that nobody
has a clear mission.
This is the very debate we are having that you have heard
today over the definition of the word faith. What faith means
really has not been clear and there is absolutely no
understanding, point blank, on either side of what the previous
Constitutional provisions were that protected and made churches
unique.
That is why the Rev. Beasley thing of the 501(c)(3) as
Lifeline has done and as Gateway if they are going to continue
to do what they are doing, and if you want to get into
different government grants, I believe there is going to have
to be these groups that say, ``Well, maybe our computers can be
paid by the government.'' Maybe our building can be paid but
what we are doing on a day-to-day basis is so much wrapped up
with our faith that we don't want to get tangled up into this
governmental debate.
Do any of you have any comments on that?
Mr. Green. One comment I would like to make is when the
whole faith-based initiative came forward I read a book called
Seducing the Samaritans by Joe Laconte. A wonderful book. He
actually traced the history of, I think, 13 or 17 nonprofit
organizations in the Boston area and they all began as vibrant,
Christian ministries.
They were all essentially seduced by Federal funding. All
of them have lost all of their Christian components. They would
say they are based upon the Gospels or whatever but there is no
effort to really live out the Gospels in a concrete way because
they were seduced by government funding. I think that is a
wonderful resource to look at in the midst of this whole
discussion.
Mr. Sauder. I don't know if I have the answer but I keep
coming back to the question what works. Do we care about making
sure that we have covered every little nuance of each
Congressman's or each judge's list of things that are dos and
don'ts and in the process kids and families continue to fall
apart.
I know I maybe am being idealistic but I want to keep
coming back and reminding Congress, encourage you, challenge
you, and pray for you that you will not lose site of the fact
that who needs help. Political correctness and our checklist
does not need help. Kids and families need help and I think
that is why this whole faith-based thing has opened up because
our society, our government programs, our nongovernment
programs are looking for things that will work because it is
clear that they are not and our society is quickly
disintegrating while we debate these issues.
I know they are difficult but I guess my challenge and my
prayer is that you keep coming back to let us make sure, let us
get down to the ground level and see where the rubber meets the
road and needs are being met and where kids are being helped
and where families are being helped and try to limit the
bureaucracy in the process if we can.
Mr. Terrell. Maybe I will be the last one. I don't know.
Ask the clients if they care. They want to go to where they can
get the help and they can be successful. Who is being
successful? Make that the judgment. I had a judge in northern
Indiana ask me, ``Are you a faith-based organization?'' I said,
``Yes, I am,'' knowing there would be a consequence to that. He
said, ``If the worse thing that happens is they become flaming
Baptists, so be it.''
I am not Baptist, by the way. It doesn't matter. His idea
was how do we help those people. Again, we, at least I'll speak
for Lifeline, we can help those people best by having people
who have similar values and similar missions and that is what
we would like to see happen.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask one more question of Mr. Green.
Would you spend the time and do the mission that you do which
is helping people if you didn't believe that Jesus Christ was
real and that was the only way? In other words, I am not asking
whether you view it as a Christian mission but what motivates
you to go do and give up what you have given up? Do you believe
you would have done this if you weren't a Christian? People do.
Mr. Green. People do. I would say because my atheist sister
is our largest supporter of Emmaus. I think if I wasn't doing
it, she would. I think when we encounter people like I did this
work--I was going into business and different things but I did
this because I encountered a person whose life I touched and
they touched my life as well. I think it is in that
transformation of life that we are transformed.
Isaiah 58 talks about fasting and what is true fasting and
all these different things, loosing the chains of injustice and
breaking the yoke and welcoming the homeless into your home and
feeding the hungry. Then right after that it says, ``If you do
these things, your healing will quickly appear.''
It says nothing about people no longer being hungry, no
longer being thirsty. It says, ``If you do these things, your
healing will quickly appear.'' In some ways I do what I do in a
selfish way because I am transformed by doing this work and I
am transformed by living out the Gospel as best I can. Would I
do it if I didn't believe in the Gospel? I would like to think
yes because of the values and morals that my parents taught me
which I think contributes to why I do it.
Mr. Souder. But part of this debate is some people do
things for secular reasons. Some people do things for other
faiths. But Christians many times do it because of their
Christianity. What we are in effect saying is that unless you
do it for reasons other than your faith, you can't get
government funds. That is a legitimate debate.
One other thing. Congressman Davis compared it to a doctor
with technical skills. This is a little variation of the same
question. You said you wouldn't hire someone who didn't share
your faith. Do you believe that because the faith part of your
ministry--in other words, if somebody stays a transvestite and
would stay a prostitute--in other words if they will change,
you would hire them. I mean, they would actually be possibly
one of the most effective hires you could make. But if they
haven't changed, that is part of what is being a good doctor is
on your staff.
Mr. Green. Absolutely. I mean, we get people--the men that
I work with get just covered with stuff whether it is poverty
or whether it is self-abuse or abusing others. I think there is
a certain point where man-made intervention can work whether it
is the 12 steps or whether it is counseling or whether it is
therapy or whatever.
There comes a point where your life has been devastated to
such a degree that I think and I believe that the only thing
that is going to solve that is a transformative encounter with
the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ. If you deny me the
opportunity to provide that, you are going to deny them who are
so wounded, who are so broken in life that is the only thing, I
think, that is going to reach them and that is why I do what I
do.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Do you have any questions?
Mr. Davis. Yes. Just one thing. I was thinking of a
scripture in Isaiah. I believe it is the Prophet Isaiah said,
``If you would put an end to oppression, every gesture of
contempt, build it on the old foundations, you will be known as
the people who rebuilt the walls.''
When I read that, it suggests to me that--it is kind of
like the blues thing, ``Yesterday is dead and gone. Tomorrow is
out of sight. It is so sad to be alone. I need somebody to help
me make it through the night.'' It seems to me that we have
reached another plateau in our being. I think of the Prophet
Michael. You have to love mercy and walk humbly with your God.
It just seems to me that the ultimate in this country is
our notion that the majority rules. I am saying fundamental to
our sense of democracy is majority rules. I am saying if we
didn't have that concept, we would probably be like lots of
other countries where coup d'etat and coups. Every time we
disagreed somebody would grab their rifle or machine gun or a
bomb or whatever it is that they use. But we have come to
accept this notion of majority rules.
If we can arrive at a majority opinion and then certify
that into law as part of some legal requirement and operation,
then it just seems to me that we, too, would be known as the
people who rebuilt the walls. That is the common ground. I
didn't feel like putting on a tie this morning.
A lot of days I just as soon not wear a tie. I would love
to just get up and put on my blue jeans and t-shirt and come on
down here and do what I do. I could do it probably just as well
with blue jeans and a t-shirt on as I can with a tie, but there
is some expectations. Oh, my God, I have a press conference
today so I can't go down to Fourth Presbyterian with my blue
jeans and sneakers on because they expect something different.
It seems to me that as we come together there is some level
of societal expectation and compliance with what those
expectations are as we seek to become more cohesive in our
determination of who we are and what we are. Mr. Chairman, I
thank you very much and I think this has been a great
discussion. I really appreciate the position and views and
programmatic responses of the members of this panel.
Mr. Souder. Well, thank you. I want to say that your seeing
and living legislative discussion and interaction here, the
difference between what we agree has to function as a country
which is democracy and a republic and the tension that puts on
individual faith and how to reconcile that when you have
increasing diversity of faiths in America because I love that
passage in Micah. I have it posted.
And I love the Isaiah passage but for many people of the
Christian faith, they believe that the old testament is, in
fact, a disproof. That without the death and resurrection of
Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit we are
incapable of practicing compassion and mercy on a regular
enough basis.
Christ came down because of the failure of humanity to do
that and that is really what is behind a lot of the missions.
That is what we are really trying to figure out. What if a
majority of the people don't agree with that and don't want
their tax money to go to groups that do that. In a democracy we
work that through.
At the same time the practical matter of that is that
groups that are effective in performing outcomes for those who
are hurting are then withdrawn from that system and the people
who are hurting are punished because of that debate. But it is
unlikely that we are going to change the religious.
I am a Christian but people of other religions are going to
be equally passionate on theirs and how do we keep a democracy
functioning and not have it break down to what we are seeing in
other parts of the world where religious extremes then want to
kill those who disagree. This isn't about killing each other.
It is about how we work with the government funds.
I'll let you have the last word. Do you have a comment, Mr.
Green?
Mr. Green. I would love to have a conversation with
Congressman Davis because I don't see in scripture where the
majority rules. I see that the road is narrow and I see that
the way is rough. It was the one thief from the cross that was
saved. I think it is not about the majority. It is not about
the economic balances. It is about the economy of grace.
I spent an exorbitant amount of time and effort reaching
out to men who are considered expendable in our society. The
John Wayne Gacy's and Jeffrey Dahmers all preyed upon male
prostitutes because nobody cares about these guys. Yet, I think
the economy of grace calls us to. It calls us to make economic
decisions sometimes that in the world's sense seems foolish but
I think in the Gospel sense seems wise.
Mr. Souder. But as elected government officials we have to
work within that democratic framework because you can't have
one group saying, ``And we are the anointed and this is the way
to do it.'' Even if they happen to be right that they are the
anointed, in a democracy you have to work through it and that
is our difficulty.
If the third panel could come forward. Ms. Mary Nelson,
president and CEO of Bethel New Life of Chicago, Mr. Richard
Townsell, executive director of the Lawndale Christian
Development Corporation of Chicago, Mr. Emmet Moore, 11th
District Police Steering Committee in Chicago.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Nelson is not here but Steaven McCullough.
Mr. Souder. Steaven McCullough is representing Ms. Nelson.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Mr. McCullough, could you spell your name for
the record so we have it? We didn't have it.
Mr. McCullough. My first name is spelled S-T-E-A-V-E-N.
Last name is spelled M-C-C-U-L-L-O-U-G-H.
Mr. Souder. Thank you for your patience in waiting so long
as we have gone through this. We thank you for participating in
today's hearing. We will start with Mr. Moore. You are up on
this side. Thank you for your testimony with the 11th District
Police Steering Committee. Looking forward to hearing your
testimony.
STATEMENTS OF EMMET MOORE, 11TH DISTRICT POLICE STEERING
COMMITTEE IN CHICAGO; RICHARD TOWNSELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE LAWNDALE CHRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF CHICAGO; AND
STEAVEN MCCULLOUGH, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BETHEL NEW LIFE,
INC., CHICAGO, IL
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Davis.
Good morning to everybody here. My name is Emmett Moore. I am a
community police volunteer for the last 8 years. I am also
working with the police department and the city government and
the district advisory committee. That is the committee that
sits down with the police district commander, and we strategize
as to how to fight the crime problem.
I also chair a committee called Court Advocate
Subcommittee. That puts me in court maybe three and sometimes
four times a week, an average of about two times a week. I have
been doing that for the past 8 years so I am close to this
subject, and I see the faces behind the crime. I am also an
advocate for victims of crime.
I see this problem that people we are dealing with here
today have brought violations before us and will bring us down
if we don't change. One thing we have going for us that other
Nations don't have, we have a written Constitution which is, in
my opinion, is the best there ever was and the best there ever
will be. The problem is are we living up to that Constitution?
I don't think we are doing that but are capable of doing it.
Now, the subject we are dealing with today, faith-based
initiative, what little I know about it and from what I have
heard here today I have a concern. My concern is, No. 1, that
when we talk about the church and the church's role in our
society, I think they do their best work when dealing with
moral issues or moral fitness, dealing with character and
things like that.
That's their best work and the best thing they have done,
and they have done a very good job at it until about four
decades ago when we had so much going on and somehow we lost
sight and moral standard decayed.
Now, that happens because customs change. The one thing
that never changes, and I think the church overlooked that, and
that is character which deals with right and wrong. What we are
dealing with today we have no right and no wrong. Everything
goes. If we don't change that, I don't see how we are going to
survive.
I am here, and I am 78 years old. Sixty-one years ago,
about 4 months before my 18th birthday, I volunteered: I had a
choice of going to TWA or going into the military. I
volunteered for the Navy, and I had 3 years and 2 months in the
Navy.
I survived that war which was cake compared to the war we
are in now because we knew who the enemy was. We could
strategize and plan and attack that enemy. But the world we are
dealing with today is much more complicated and is much more
difficult. It should really not be complicated because we
should go according to the principles of our Constitution which
is equality of opportunity. That is the thing to make us what
we were. That is my wish that every individual regardless of
what faith you are, we are all in this together.
Every individual has a role to play. When we talk about
equal opportunity, that means every individual for the benefit
of society should be given the opportunity to progress to his
fullest potential to be a contribution to society, not a drag
on society. We are going, it seems to me, in the opposite
direction.
Another concern I have with faith-based is the limited
resources we have. Even if they wanted to do good work, they
don't have the money. We could use $100 million right here
today in East Garfield and North Lawndale something like--what
do you call the war plan? Whatever it is. You know what I am
talking about. It would be a good investment here.
The corporations, everybody is involved in this. The big
corporations who right now are shipping jobs out of the
country, they have to bring some of that money here. I have
here a thing called the bell curve. I am trying to buildup that
process with crime and I am trying to understand that. What
they are saying if we don't keep the curve, the bell ringing,
there is no end and you are going to lose.
As we get this thing, the rich and the poor, all our power
and all our strength to keep us going comes from that 68
percent, and that is shrinking real fast--we better get a
handle on it and turn it around. That is for everybody. I don't
know how to do it. I am not that smart, but we ought to do it.
Losing is not an option.
I am not saying the government has to put out all the money
here. The corporations have a responsibility to save this
society. The corporations will have to come out here and invest
in our community. In the beginning of the 21st century--I hope
I get this right. I know some of you have read it before what
Teddy Roosevelt said about the same thing that we are talking
about.
We are all in this together. Anything I have said I have
read it somewhere. I am not that smart to think of this myself.
What he said back 100 years ago, and I hope I get this right.
You can look it up and make sure you understand what he said.
He said that all of us are together with a long-time social
benefit. Long-time social benefit for all of us is that
everybody has an opportunity to be what he can be. If he falls
on the way, pick him up if he wants to get up. Now, if he don't
want to get up, that is his problem.
Crime as we know it is out of sight. We have always had
violent crime. We have a history of violent crime but about 40
years it went downhill. It was noticeable. We didn't have to
worry about what we worry about today. During the 1960's we saw
it go up 500 percent. We have to find a way to deal with that
problem. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Richard Townsell is the executive director
of the Lawndale Christian Development Corp., a long-time
activist. That organization has been a huge impact. I
appreciate you coming to testify.
Mr. Townsell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman
Davis. My name is Richard Townsell. I am the executive director
of Lawndale Christian Development Corp. I also happen to be
born and raised in this neighborhood. Our church has been in
existence--this is our 25th anniversary as a matter of fact.
Our church, 25 years ago was started by 13 young people.
Those young people, high school students primarily, made no
distinction between personal salvation and systemic salvation,
systemic transformation so we are going to work both on the
social gospel as well as preaching the Gospel. The church has,
for those 25 years, been involved in after-school educational
programs.
Currently we have a program called Hope House where we
house 50 men who either were in prison or on drugs for a large
part of their life and help them get cleaned up and sober and
rededicated back to their families and get jobs. And housing
for homeless people and all sorts of things that churches do.
We have a health clinic that sees about 80,000 patients a
year. We have over 200 staff. Just down the street, as a matter
of fact, they have a second site near here. We have been
offered about $30 million worth of development in this
neighborhood over the past 11 years that I have been executive
director. Most of it has been housing related, economic
development.
We also run after-school programs for young people to deal
with the digital divide and help them learn how to design Web
sites. We have helped hundreds of young people go to college
and graduate from college. I am honored and privileged to be
here.
As I think about the faith-based initiatives that the
President is putting forth, I think they are wonderful, but I
think there is one big problem and that big problem is there is
no money with it.
What they are dong now is opening up opportunities for
others to participate on an equal footing, faith-based
providers and others to participate on equal footing with
nonfaith-based providers. The dilemma is, as the brother to my
right said before, we need something in the realm of $100
million just in this neighborhood.
With the budget being what it is and deficits being what
they are and taxes being slashed and all those wonderful
things, to really make the faith-based initiative go, there is
a scripture that says faith without works is dead. A lot of
faith without money is dead, too. We need to be thinking
carefully through.
I have listened to the panel before and all of the
objections and trying to figure out who gets it and who
doesn't. It is easy to figure that out when the pie is a little
bit bigger. It is not easy but it is easier. Our dilemma is
faith or nonfaith with the kinds of things in our economy and
what is happening in our Nation, one of the things that all of
us say is a good job solves a lot of social problems.
If we can create ways to help jobs get created in
neighborhoods like this and others, I think many of the social
problems that you see will go away. Now, they all won't go away
from I do know that as it pertains to young people and
families, you can only do what you see. If you see someone
going to work every day you can aspire to that. If you don't,
you don't.
The dilemma for me with the faith-based initiative is not
Constitutional questions and establishment clause and all those
sorts of things but where is the money. If we can begin to
impress upon the President that if he really wants to see this
happen, if he really wants to see the faith community get
behind it, then he has to put the appropriate amount of
resources in it or else it is just happy talk. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Steaven McCollough is representing Bethel
Newlife, Inc.
Mr. McCollough Good morning. My name is Steaven McCollough
and I am chief operating officer of Bethel Newlife, Inc. On
behalf of Mary Nelson who could not be here today, I extend a
welcome to all of you.
Bethel Newlife is a 24-year-old faith-based organization,
community-to-community development corporation that serves the
West Garfield Park and communities of Chicago. Bethel Newlife
evolved from Bethel Lutheran Church. In 1979 we started with
$9,000 and two staff people to rehab a small apartment building
in the community.
Today Bethel has an annual operating budget of $12 million
and a staff of over 300. Bethel has been faith-based since
before it became a popular term. Our mission statement is from
Isaiah 58:9-12 that Congressman Davis has mentioned.
Bethel programs are in five mean areas in employment and
economic development. Bethel sees close to 300 individuals in
the community, many in our employment center, many of whom are
ex-offenders returning to the community.
Bethel operates two individual development account programs
called Smart Savers and Sowing Seeds in which we have over 70
graduates and 50 new IDA savings accounts. We also began
construction in June for a new commercial center at Lake
Implaskie with funds from the State of Illinois, Office of
Community Service and EPA.
Another area is services for seniors. Bethel operates four
senior residential facilities, three of which are fully
supported by HUD. The fourth is a combination of HUD and the
State of Illinois Supported Living Program which is a first in
the Chicago area. Other programs for seniors include adult day
services, in-home services, and community-based residential
facilities.
In the area of housing and real estate development Bethel
Newlife manages over 350 rental units of subsidized and
affordable rental housing. We continue to develop over 60
single-family affordable housing initiatives through programs
such as the city of Chicago's New Homes for Chicago program and
Illinois Housing Development Authority.
We also provide supportive housing services in two
locations for the homeless. One is for intact families and the
other is for women with young children. Also in this area we
have adaptive reuse which is culminating in the adaptive reuse
of a closed-down intercity hospital that used to be St. Ann's
Hospital in Thomas. It is a multi-use facility that houses
seniors, childcare, and other activities.
In the area of community building and cultural arts the
core of Bethel Newlife is an organizing organization. We work
with clubs, local school councils. We also operate a community
technology center with over 20 computers and 15 laptops that
are available for checkout to residents of the community.
We support a balance prevention program in collaboration
with Cease Fire which is a program that is operated out of the
University of Illinois, Chicago. We do counseling, industrial
retention, and providing space for cultural arts programs
everything from plays to poetry readings and musicals.
We also provide family support. We have a women and infant
children program and Chicago Family Case Management program, as
well as a program called Project Triumph which supports parents
and young children's development. We operate a 80-child daycare
facility and will open soon alternative hour childcare facility
at Lake Implaskie.
Our views on faith-based perspectives is this, and I am
quoting from Mary directly, ``What it takes to operate a faith-
based organization is God, guts, and gasoline.'' You have to
have God as your primary source and the faith in God and, the
belief in individual assets and community assets, and the
belief that everyone has an opportunity to change. Everyone has
an opportunity and everyone has a right for economic
opportunity and a right to prosper.
We need to take on tough tasks. I think faith-based
organization have that ability to take on those tasks whether
it be working with ex-offenders, working with the homeless, or
working with families that just need a leg up. I think the
ability for faith-based organizations to have staying power
contributes is the gasoline.
Faith-based organizations have the gasoline to sustain over
time with government funding. When foundation support is on the
wain, it is the faith-based component that sustains this
organization and other faith-based organizations to keep going
and doing mission of the organization.
Finally, in terms of government support, I think voting
needs to be expanded for capacity building for smaller CDCs to
assess need of funding from the government but the New Life is
a 24-year-old organization. We do a lot of collaborations with
the government at the city, State, and Federal level.
But Bethel is not the end all or be all in the community
nor in the faith-based community. Small organizations need that
same capacity so in providing funding to get that capacity
whether it be training, resources for various activities is
desperately needed.
The second thing is new allocation, new funding for
programs not rearranging existing funding is needed for
organizations that serve the community, especially faith-based
organizations. Additional funding for housing subsidies for
development and rental assistance as well as home buyer
assistance is critical for us to maintain and keep a stable
community.
Those are some of the things that the government can do to
help support faith-based organizations in the community. Thank
you.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Let me just say
that we certainly appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Townsell, I am obviously intrigued by the fact that a
group of individuals just out of high school could decide to
become urban pioneers, in a sense, and come to the North
Lawndale community which has been called a cure for every
problem and ill that exist in urban America. We look at it
right now and we see that it is somewhat on the rebound.
I can remember when there were 10,000 people who worked
right in this spot where we are right now every day. There used
to be 10,000 people who came right here to work every day. As
corporations began to move out and move away and go to other
places, that created a tremendous vacuum. How has your
organization been able to develop and work successfully,
especially given the fact that you are in practically what has
been an all-Black community and your organization is not an
all-Black organization?
As a matter of fact, the people who started it there are
probably very few Blacks in it I would imagine at the time. How
have you been able to bridge that kind of gap and work
effectively in a big urban center like the North Lawndale
community and develop all of the things that you currently now
have going?
Mr. Townsell. I think first and foremost we have little
bitty problems and a great big God. I think faith is at the
center of everything that we have done. I think the other
misperception, Congressman, is that organization was started
mostly by Whites. Those 13 young people primarily are from this
neighborhood. I was born at 1537 Avers so I have been around
the church for 23 of its 25 years.
While our pastor is White and while the guy who started our
health clinic is White, most all the other people that started
the church were African American and still live in this
neighborhood so their hopes and dreams mixed with others who
have resources and faith. Frankly, the answer is I don't really
know how we did it other than by God's grace and by a lot of
perseverance and reading through every single document and
showing up at things and praying about them and praying over
proposals and those sorts of things.
I think for myself I have a burning passion because I am
from here. I think a lot of the folks on our staff, most of the
people on our staff are from the neighborhood where I am living
now. They have a burning passion to see their neighborhood
rebuilt because they remember a time, just as you suggested,
Congressman, where we had 10,000 people working here and they
want to return to that and they want to do it in a way that
honors God.
The long and the short is this is not unique to us. It is
not even unique to some folks of faith but you have some folks
who put their hand to the plow that decide they are sick and
tired of being sick and tired and they are going to press on
and do what they need to do in order to rebuild. Sometimes that
is without money and sometimes that is with money.
Mr. Davis. You obviously receive Federal dollars for the
community health center and other programs.
Mr. Townsell. Nothing from my development corporation and
nothing from the church.
Mr. Davis. But the community health center receives Federal
support from the Bureau of Community Health?
Mr. Townsell. Right.
Mr. Davis. And do you find anything that prevents the
church from carrying out its mission because of the receipt of
these Federal dollars that you obviously comply with all of the
guidelines, all of the rules and regulations to receive?
Mr. Townsell. They are all separate 501(c)(3)'s so the
church's mission is to preach the gospel and help homeless
families and men. The development corporation has its own
501(c)(3). Art Turner is the chairman of our board and he runs
that operation. Then you have the health clinic who has its own
separate board so they are all distinct, all born out of the
church, but are born really to, as we started in our early
days, begin to think about and pray about what did God want us
to do.
All these problems kept arising because we were from here.
The only thing that we could do back then was to get a washer
and dryer and start a laundromat in the church because we are a
little small store front church and that is about the only
thing we have the capacity to do. God continued to honor our
faithfulness and today we look like we have a lot going on but
there is still more challenges than we as one institution can
deal with so we partner with and collaborate with other
institutions around the city to do what we do.
Mr. Davis. Steave, let me just ask you. Of course, Mayor
Nelson is one of the four most actively involved persons in the
country when it comes to community development. I often say
that Mayor Nelson is the most creative community developer that
I have ever known and I have known the mayor long before Bethel
Newlife started.
As a matter of fact, the Mayor and I served together at the
old Christian Action Ministry where she was on the staff and I
was a member of the board. Then after some problems existed
there, Mary went out and organized through Bethel Lutheran
Church.
My point is that I have been interacting with Mary now in
faith-based entities for more than 30 years. I have never heard
them suggest that anybody had to become a Lutheran or that
anybody had to be a Lutheran. Dave was the pastor of Bethel
Lutheran Church, our brother, for a number of years until he
finally retired and then ultimately passed away.
My point is that I have been interacting with them for all
this time and everybody knows that Bethel Newlife is faith
constituted, faith-based, but I have never heard them suggest
that anybody had to be Lutheran to work there or be Lutheran to
participate or be Lutheran to receive any of the services or
benefits.
They still push not a heavy dose of religion but, you know,
they like to talk about the blessings come down and different
things like that. It is all kind of community spirited and
community related. Is there anything that keeps you all from
carrying out your faith tradition?
Mr. McCollough. There is nothing that prevents us from
carrying out our faith tradition.
Mr. Davis. And you get a lot of money from Federal
Government. The mayor will get money from anywhere that is
money. I mean, if there is money, the mayor knows about it and
she goes after it and has done an outstanding job with it.
Mr. McCollough. Absolutely. The only requirement to work at
Bethel Newlife is that if you believe in transformation, if you
believe in helping individuals transform to improve their
quality of life and their family, if you believe in
transforming the community physically and building assets that
belong to the community and for the residents of the community.
That is the only requirement.
We have a dynamic organization in terms of staff of all
faiths. We have people of the Jewish faith, people of the
Muslim faith. I myself am Baptist. I am not Lutheran and I am
second in command so that is not a requirement. The only
requirement is if you believe in individuals and in the
community and wanting to put your best efforts toward that. We
have the most talented staff. I would compare my staff to any
for-profit organization, let alone non-profit or faith-based in
the country. I think our staff by the length of tenure, as well
as their abilities and education get the job done.
Mr. Davis. They also obviously believe in hiring young
people for responsible positions. Plus, what you described, if
a person didn't express those values, let me just tell you,
they couldn't work for me either. They couldn't work for me if
they didn't convey to me in some way, shape, form, or fashion
that they internalized the values that I hold dear as an
elected official and if they didn't have an appreciation for
what I tell the voters every 2 years when I go out and ask them
to renew my contract, then not only don't I want them to work
for me, I really don't want them anywhere around me other than
for me to try to help them understand what they need to be
about and what they need to be doing.
I don't see any conflict in that but I would see some
conflict if you said you have to be some particular religion or
profess a certain kind of faith in order to work for Bethel
Newlife or for a Lawndale Christian Reform entity.
Thank you gentlemen. I don't have any other questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. Mr. Townsell, could you say the
three things again?
Mr. McCollough. McCollough.
Mr. Souder. McCollough. Excuse me.
Mr. McCollough. God, guts, and gasoline.
Mr. Souder. You said that you don't require somebody to be
a member of any particular faith but you said they had certain
principles that you asked them to have.
Mr. McCollough. Well, the principles are belief in
transformation of individuals as well as the community believe
that everyone has an opportunity to access both economically as
well as access to services to support their family. Another
belief is that not only transformation access but also
opportunity to gain access to resources and to support
themselves and their family.
Mr. Souder. I wanted to clarify just for the record because
that is not an atheist group. Is that true?
Mr. McCollough. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Would you hire an atheist in your organization?
Mr. McCollough. We would.
Mr. Souder. If the majority of qualified people coming in
the door were atheist, would you hire them?
Mr. McCollough. If they can do the job and they believe in
our principles, yes.
Mr. Souder. Then you are not a faith-based organization.
Mr. McCollough. We are a faith-based organization.
Mr. Souder. You can't be. If the majority of your people
could not believe in faith, you by definition----
Mr. McCollough. It depends on what you define as faith.
What we define as faith are the simple principles as in the
Bible so----
Mr. Souder. The same principles as in the Bible you
couldn't be an atheist.
Mr. McCollough. The principles are----
Mr. Souder. For example, the Bible says the only way to
heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
Mr. McCollough. That is in the Bible. If the person is an
atheist and wants to work at Bethel, our principles allow for
atheist to work there.
Mr. Souder. You have a right and there are many nonprofit
organizations that do that and in government you do that, but
the difference, and this is what is really important, the
definition of a faith-based organization, the question is what
does faith mean. If it is a secular humanist faith in
transformation, that is fine.
Those organizations can get grants and do that. What this
program was designed to do is say programs that are uniquely
faith-based that believe whether it is in the Prophet Mohammed
or in Buddha or whatever, if they are part of their faith that
they would be eligible. But what you are saying is you don't
have a faith-based criteria or a defined faith-based so you are
technically not a faith-based organization.
Mr. McCollough. I tend to disagree with that. I think our
actions--I mean, our foundation is rooted in faith based out of
Bethel Lutheran Church.
Mr. Souder. I would agree with that. Would you agree with
this? The U.S. actions are routed in Judeo-Christian traditions
and that many nonprofit groups are organized off of the
teachings of Christ and how to treat other people, compassion,
and mercy and so on, but that wouldn't mean that while there
are echoes and practices of that does not make them a faith-
based organization.
Mr. McCollough. We are not the government. I mean, we are a
community-based, faith-based organization that is grounded in
the church as opposed to individuals. You asked about if an
individual were an atheist would they work there. Yes, but we
determine what is faith-based by our actions. What we do as an
organization is for the church and the community.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Townsell, do you have similar hiring, would
you agree with that? In other words, a majority of your staff
could be atheist?
Mr. Townsell. No.
Mr. Souder. Does the staff have to--I need to step back a
step. Do all your staff have to be Christian?
Mr. Townsell. Yes, but there is also some Christians that
we wouldn't hire.
Mr. Souder. Amen to that. What we are distinguishing, and
this is really important and you said it very eloquently in the
beginning, is that I would say, and each person has to define
precisely what they mean by this and it is a lot in
interpretation, but there is a difference between the faith and
the works, but works are a manifestation of your faith and
without faith works is dead but faith without works is dead
also.
Too often we don't see that. You said from the very
beginning that Lawndale Christian Community has that mix. In
other words, the goal isn't just to sit in a room and pray. It
is to go out and help people. On the other hand, you understand
that moral basis is the interactive of that.
Mr. Townsell. The most personal transformation and societal
transformation.
Mr. Souder. And there are many organizations in America
that started with a very explicit faith-based mission that
evolved into the work side which is very important for the
community. We have all kinds of nonprofit groups in America. We
have all kinds of organizations. It is just there are
differences in that some of these groups are further along in
that transformation.
My bet is that if I went to Bethel Newlife a majority of
the people there are, in fact, Christian and, in fact, practice
that and would reflect that. But the nature of your
organization is defined such that could evolve because you
don't have that now as a defining sense of the mission in the
hiring.
The mission could change. It may not because the
individuals--people may not apply it to Bethel. The name Bethel
actually has connotation and Newlife has a connotation. It
could evolve because you don't have the firewall.
The question in the government debate here is that your
organization, Bethel Newlife, does not need faith-based
legislation because you are already eligible for any government
program. In other words, there may not be enough dollars but I
don't think you would be excluded currently from anything that
the Federal Government does.
Mr. Townsell. That's correct.
Mr. Souder. Whereas Lawndale has set up different division
because they know if one division--is this correct? Some
decisions, the health center, if they are going to get
government funds which made them become more of a secular
mission practice by Christians.
Mr. Townsell. Correct.
Mr. Souder. And then other missions that are overtly
Christian don't necessarily get those government funds.
Mr. Townsell. No funds.
Mr. Souder. The question we are debating is should some of
those missions that haven't been just the pure works side
without the Christian faith side be included as a choice for an
individual that they can do to. Where this becomes very clear
is in drug treatment.
For example, some drug treatment programs have faith
components as a critical part of it. Others don't have it. They
have the 12-step process or other processes. The question is
should government dollars be able to go to a program where
faith is an integral part of the program, or should they have
to do it just on private sector.
What if for some communities that to get the first step--
anybody agrees in drug and alcohol transformation the first
step is commitment. What about if the faith part actually sets
up the other and those in many cases are the most effective
programs to long-term rehab. We in the government say they
can't because they have faith as an active component in that
and that is where the rubber hits the road.
Bethel Newlife is already covered. Some of Lawndale
Christian Community is already covered. The question is where
on this continuum are we going to move? It isn't to say one
program is better than the other necessarily. It isn't to say
that individuals aren't.
It isn't to say that, for example, a United Way in a small
town which is clearly a secular program, that 100 percent of
their employees in Lagrange, IN are probably Christian in my
community, but United Way isn't. It isn't to say they don't
practice Christian works. It isn't to say they aren't good
Christians. It is just the organization they are part of.
GM may, and probably does because it is in the United
States, have a majority of Christians, but GM by nature isn't a
Christian organization merely because the majority of people
who are there are doing things that Christians would be
expected to do, show up to work, perform well, and do that part
of their career, too.
Do you have a comment?
Mr. McCollough. Well, I was just going to say that Bethel
Newlife is not a church, we are not in the business of
converting people to the Lutheran faith or any other faith. Our
purpose is to serve. We leave the church's role to the church
and leave Newlife Bethel separate from that. But what Bethel
Newlife does as an organization is based on the faith and
belief of the church.
Mr. Souder. But, for example, Lutheran Social Services has
not applied for government grants because they don't believe
they are able to separate that cleanly their faith from their
works. Lutheran Social Services and Lutheran Churches are
divided in the United States as to how to do that.
Mr. McCollough. There are different models. Yes, exactly.
It is up to individual organizations to come up with their own
model that works best for them, their church, and the
community.
Mr. Souder. And what we are wrestling with is those who
choose the model where faith is interactive with their works
and they don't see a separation, should they be excluded from
the delivery of social services if tax payer dollars are
involved? In the faith-based initiative there are really
several prongs.
One where we all agree in Washington, and I and others are
discouraged that the dollars aren't more, is we ought to give
tax credits including for those who don't take deductions that
you can give to faith-based organizations. We have a sign-off
on that between the different sides. Nobody is arguing the tax
side.
We also have a training fund side to help more religious-
based organizations set up 501(c)(3)'s so they don't get sued
and we have negotiated that. What we haven't agreed on between
the two sides is the eligibility of those who currently can't
get government funds, and Newlife can, but that can't get
government funds should they be allowed to without changing the
nature of their organization that they have Constitutional
protections.
That is what has held up the money because the Compassion
Capital Fund was supposed to be for those groups. Congress has
not passed that legislation for the Compassion Capital Fund.
What we have done, which I still believe is good, is allowed
those groups through the executive branch--Congress has not but
the executive branch in some of our pending legislation that
would be allowed faith-based organizations defined as those who
can't separate the two to be eligible to bid.
I believe this will still lead to the leveraging dollars
and efficiency of staff volunteering but that is where the
debate is. The additional dollars beyond regular will come if
we can resolve whether these groups are, in fact, eligible.
One thing I also wanted to get on the record is I believe
Lawndale Christian Corp., are you affiliated with the John
Perkins national organization?
Mr. Townsell. Correct.
Mr. Souder. Could you explain a little bit because I want
to make sure we get into our record of hearing that we have
been doing things about prisons, about schools, about
juveniles, about male prostitutes, about childcare centers, but
we haven't really had anybody thus far in our hearings who has
talked about the importance of community development and how
that would be involved in the Christian mission and what you
have done there relating to how does a church say this is what
we need to do to get jobs for people. This is what we need to
do to train people. We have some on job training but what is
the philosophy behind Christian community development in your
corporation?
Mr. Townsell. The CCDA, Christian Community Development
Association, was started about 15 years ago by John Perkins, a
gentleman from Mississippi, an African American, who was almost
killed in the 1960's registering people to vote.
During that time he was in prison after the sheriffs had
beat him and stuck a fork up his nose and tried to kill him.
God told his heart that he was supposed to love people who are
of lighter hue. He was supposed to love White folks. He did do
that. John has been sort of the Moses of the Christian
Community Development movement and has helped us and groups all
around the country. Basically he taught us all that he knew
about community development and other groups all around the
Nation.
Where we have had a lot of success is trying to figure out
how to do affordable housing and job training and those things
in addition to after-school programs and Bible clubs and all
those things. One of the three tenants of Christian Community
Development is relocation meaning that folks who have graduated
from college who grew up in neighborhoods should relocate and
live back in those neighborhoods instead of escaping to the
suburban utopia.
That was a challenge for me and for my brothers and others
who grew up in this neighborhood then left and came back but he
believes that folks of God should be OK in coming back to
communities.
The second is reconciliation. We should be reconciled. The
cross is really the ultimate symbol of reconciliation, man to
man and man to God so we should reconcile across race and class
and gender and those things.
Finally, redistribution which is really about economic
development. How do you do community development well and how
do you get the local economy to rebuild and how do you support
local banks and how do you support local insurance companies.
We use African American architects and surveying companies and,
to the extent we can, construction companies, African American
and Latino.
So that has been part of our mission is redistribution and
how the dollars begin to circulate back in the neighborhood.
John has really taught us how to do that. That is a critically
important component. The difficulty is particularly in housing.
It is a very complicated issue and there is not a lot of
Federal support to be doing housing.
HUD is moving more into the home ownership branch which is
important. We do home ownership counseling and we sell homes.
Also for supportive housing and those sorts of things. Our city
budget is overwhelmed by the number of requests. Our State
budget is overwhelmed by the number of requests of people who
want to deliver affordable housing and can't.
Also, what is affordable. I mean, how do you define
affordable. Is it 60 percent of the median in the city which
the median is $75,000 so you are helping people that make
$42,000 a year, or is it much lower? Trying to give HUD--you
know, again this is a question of resources. How do you get HUD
to pay attention and create a Federal housing policy I think
would be instrumental in neighborhoods being rebuilt.
Mr. Souder. Let me ask, if I may, just a couple of followup
particular questions with that. How do you--because I think it
is tremendously admirable about coming back and resettling in
the neighborhoods.
How do you--we are dealing with this in Fort Wayne, how to
get a balance and where the balance tips toward either middle
class identification in the lower class, lower-income people
who may not have a job and then move out and are unwelcome. How
do we address that question? Do you have suggestions on how we
get blended communities and maintain it without tipping one
direction or the other?
Mr. Townsell. I mean, it is a difficult question because
who really governs the market? Some people would say that you
should have affordable housing set aside. That we should be in
developments like there are hundreds of units being developed
and there should be a certain percentage that is set aside for
people with certain incomes so they don't get moved out of the
neighborhood.
I think you need the market to come back so that you have
goods and services so that people don't have to drive to Opark
to get stuff. At the same time we don't want that to be the
wheel that drives people out of neighborhoods so you have to be
constantly thinking. That is why I think the role of the church
is important because we have all kinds of folks in our
congregation.
We just don't have rich folks. We have poor folks,
unemployed folks. The church being at the center of that and
being accountable to that base of folks because 85 percent of
our members live in the neighborhood. We have to be sure that
we aren't doing something that is going to move Mr. Jones or
Mr. Smith out of the neighborhood.
It is a very complicated question. I don't know how you get
around it without somehow there being land policies with land
trusts or something like that to make sure this stays
affordable for 40, 50, or 100 years. I don't have enough time
right now to talk about it. I have ideas about it.
Mr. Souder. Before I go to Mr. McCollough, I am going to
ask a second question here and then I would like you to address
both of them, too. I have been a supporter of Congressman
Davis' effort of what we do with the people who are returning
offenders who are some of the hardest to house and find
housing.
As we have locked up people at increasing rates, often in
poor communities of which we see just as the Chicago Tribune
and New York Times and USA Today is reporting today crime has
gone down. Partly crime has gone down because we have locked so
many people up. Now they are going to be coming back out. How
do we not have the cycle start over again?
Do you see that as a pressing problem because many times as
you bring back middle class people, they are concerned about
obviously crime in the neighborhood and who their neighbors are
going to be. Do you have any suggestions to us other than
support Congressman Davis' bill which gives funding toward it.
Mr. Townsell. I would say yes and amen to that. There are
other things that need to happen in addition to that. I think
not just middle class people are concerned about crime. All
people are concerned about crime. Poor people are concerned
about crime as well. I think the way Jolice Wilson talks about
it is----
Mr. Souder. But lower income people have less ability to
escape it. They don't have to come back to it.
Mr. Townsell. Sometimes less ability to organize it and
hold accountable the police to be able to protect and serve in
the same way they do in other neighborhoods. I think the issue
is that we need to be anticipating men coming back and building
job training centers in places like Lawndale. I think Washburn
was many years ago to help people learn how to be brick masons
and plumbers.
I went to Dunbar High School which is a vocational school.
In my school you could repair helicopters. You could do
masonry. You can do carpentry. You can do all those sorts of
things and you can go from there to an apprenticeship into the
union and get a great paying job. Well, Washburn is gone and
there are not many things like it.
Westside Tech is revived. They are doing landscaping and
horticulture and some of those other things. There is not a
place to help men and women learn how to do a trade. Most of
their training programs are in the suburbs so they are not
accessible to folks in the city.
If there is one thing that Congress could do to help would
be to build a world class training facility like Bill
Strictland has in Manchester, in Pittsburgh, and North Lawndale
not too far from here accessible to public transportation to
help people who are returning from prison to move into a trade
and learn carpentry and electrical and then move into the union
and have a well-paying job. I think that is a critical thing
and that is something that I hope you two gentlemen will fight
for.
Mr. Souder. Mr. McCollough.
Mr. McCollough. You talked about displacement
identification. I think in ways you support the current
residents with low-income versus middle and upper-income
residents moving in the community. I think one way of hoping to
support lower-income residents is continuing to provide rental
subsidies and continue to provide funds for low-income rental
and affordable home ownership.
Those are the two key things. There is such a lack of
affordable housing in Chicago and across the Nation. What that
does is forces many families outside of the community that they
were born and raised in. I grew up here as well. I was born in
Troublin, OH and lived here in the community for 27 years so I
know what this community is about. People need to have a stake
in it. I think home ownership as well as rental.
In the community itself through the 1960's and the 1970's
there were so many units of rental housing that have been
destroyed that is being replaced by $50,000, $100,000, $300,000
townhomes. A lot of folks can't afford that. We need subsidies
to make those affordable. That is what the government can do.
You also talked about ex-offenders. The reason people don't
move into neighborhoods are, two things, schools and crime.
This needs to be put on both of those. All five of our area
public health schools are on academic probation. A number of
our elementary schools--most of our elementary schools are on
academic probation. There needs to be additional resources and
training for teachers. I think that leads into the No Child
Left Behind Program but there needs to be funding behind that
to support that.
As far as ex-offenders that is the primary issue in our
community today. It is not just jobs. It is also housing. It is
also education. It is also economic opportunity. It is also
about the family. It is a family issue. Ex-offender who are
back in our community affects children, affects the ex-offender
themselves and their family. All of those things I mentioned
will help support that work. We are in full support of
Congressman Davis' bill.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Moore, maybe as kind of the elder here you
probably have about as many years as these guys combined. Could
you give some of your comments on what you see the challenges
are with some of the ex-offenders and how the community would
respond. Also what our committee predominately focuses on,
narcotics.
We also do faith-based and other agencies like HUD. That is
why I was also asking housing questions. What do you think are
the most effective things we are currently doing in drug and
alcohol and where we should target that, the most effective
areas that you see having your experience as a police captain.
Mr. Moore. I deal with drug traffic and gangs. In answer to
your question, that is a tough question because what I see in
the courts, especially drug traffickers, drug users, but for
drug traffickers in most cases people testify in court that
drugs make them second class.
Just to give you an example of where I am coming from here,
we have a drug conspiracy case where the people range in age
from 18 to 45. We had a 45-year-old grandfather who testified
in court, ``That is the only way I am going to put food on my
table. I have grandkids. I have a family. I volunteer. I am an
ex-offender. I can't get a job. You are forcing me to sell
drugs to feed my family.''
That is real. That is the real question we are going to
have to deal with. He was sentenced to 8 years on top of what
he has already been in. Now, he is going to be OK but his
grandkids and his other family members out there who have no
income, most likely those people are going to fall through
because nobody cares.
To get back to I quoted President Teddy Roosevelt that
people stumble. We are not perfect. I am a court advocate and I
deal specifically with victims. There are some people who have
committed crimes who should not be able to walk amongst. That
is why I have a problem with these ex-offenders because that
includes everybody who has committed a crime.
We have to deal with people who have done their time, what
the States say you shall do, and they come out and, yet, we
reduce them to second class and we force them to go back into
crime and every time they go back they commit a crime. Not in
every case but in most cases they commit a crime which is a
little more severe than the one they was in there for in the
first place.
When you factor in the cost of incarceration, it seems to
me that it is just plain common sense that it would be better
if we could find a way for those people who have done their
time and not reduce them to second class status and force them
back into that crime but to try to pull them back into the
mainstream which is what we talked about with this bell curve
here.
We have to bring the mainstream back because as this side
grows which is the rich, and this side grows which is the poor,
we ain't going to have no middle class. That is the only thing
that keep us going is the middle class. I am not only talking
about money because I don't always equate class with money
because you can get rich, you know. Most people do get rich
without dishonesty. We are going to find a way, I think.
Here is a question I have for the people who provide this
service. We are volunteers, mostly seniors, and we deal with
young people. We have a kids program. We try to have character
building programs. Now, I have been dealing with seven young
men who are exploring a gang. They are associated. They are not
gang members but as the Supreme Court said--I don't like to use
that word gang because they said a gang member is not a crime.
That is a status. Criminal conduct is what we should be dealing
with.
I want to ask these providers of this service, I know their
resources are limited. These young people, I have two young men
that want jobs. They don't want food here today or something.
They want jobs where they can earn a living and make a
contribution to society. They don't want no handout. They don't
want to be second class. They want the opportunity to work and
find a job.
I can't tell them where to go. We can't tell them where to
go. We can't tell them to go to this place or this group. They
don't have the jobs to give them. What do we do with them? Now
they've got to go out. We are forcing that 19-year-old who
wants to go straight. We get our democracy from each other.
We talk about it all we want to but really democracy comes
from how we relate to each other. That is real democracy. I
don't care what we say. We don't have it until we live in peace
without fear and we relate to each other on the principle that
we are all going to treat each other right. That is democracy.
I think people with the money, you can keep it if you want
to but you can't buy a hamburger on Madison Street. These
people over here, this group is growing. Sooner or later they
are going to pull you down. You can't spend it. You got to
spend everything on security. You can't enjoy life.
Money is good but they got the money and they are going to
keep it. That is human nature. ``I am not pulling out. I am
going to keep it.'' They put all the jobs out to maximize the
money they are going to bring in. They don't care about this
group over here. I am here to tell you you better start
thinking about them. You better start thinking about them
because crime as we see it coming is going global.
This is something out here that is real. Crime is a way of
life. It is a way of feeding the family. It is a way of
survival. Internationally drug traffickers with an endless
supply of money wants to come in and organize street gangs into
their network, which they are already trying to do. Crime is
going global now. Every ethnic group in this world is involved
in some kind of way in this drug trafficking thing. Now, if
they want to do that, we are lost because drug trafficking and
the crime and the destruction that goes along with it.
Somebody said about 30 years ago, one of the drug lords out
of Colombia when he was arrested, he said, ``I found a way to
get rich and destroy the United States.'' What I am trying to
say the international drug traffickers and the international
terrorists have the same agenda. If they ever hook up with the
endless supply of money up here, we are in major, major
trouble. It is on its way now. Drugs is everywhere. It started
right here within a half a mile of here 45 or 50 years ago and
spread nationwide. Now it is spreading worldwide. I think the
people who make decisions and the people who control the money
should think about the Nation first. Everybody in it is part of
it and you can't force people into a life of crime and then
expect them to play according to the rules. It just doesn't
work.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Let me just agree with Mr. Townsell in terms of
the need for vocational training and technical training. That
is something that needs to be pushed much harder. In addition
to the government, though, we also need the unions because the
unions have been deterrents to individuals coming in as
apprentices and moving up. There have been grandfather clauses
and all kind of other things. If your granddaddy was a union
member, you could get in or if your daddy was a union member.
But if nobody in your family or nobody vouched for you or
whatever, then you couldn't get in. That has been a real
deterrent and that is something that needs to change.
The other point is that the whole business of rights in a
democracy. That is something that we can't get around. The
reality is that my rights end where the next person's rights
begin. We always are trying to protect and that is one of the
things, too, that has made us great. We can talk about atheist
but I don't know any. I was just trying to think as the
discussion went.
I don't know a single person that I could describe as being
atheist. There may be some people who know them but I don't
know one. Not a single individual do I know who would fit my
definition of an atheist. So there are some things that we talk
about and there are other things that are real. My mother used
to always tell us that what you do speaks so loudly until I
can't hear what you say. What you say really just don't mean a
lot but what you do means a great deal. When I think of Bethel
Newlife, for example, as an entity, obviously what you do
speaks to what you are. I don't think there is any way to deny
that.
The testimony that we have heard and, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to just indicate for the record a gentlemen left a little
note who said that, ``Faith-based organizations can keep doing
it the way they want to but it is not Constitutional to use my
tax dollars to promote your religious beliefs. Find other
sources of funds. Federal funds are not the only source.''
Then he ends by saying, ``Don't use my taxes for
discrimination.'' He is saying you do whatever you want to do
with your money. You can do whatever you want to do with your
resource but don't use his money. Well, you know, if there was
a grant for $1 million, chances are a few pennies of his money
might get mixed in there. I don't know how you get his money
out.
He has got a right to his opinion. The thing that I have
had to learn most in this business is that individuals have
rights even when they have the right to be wrong. There are a
lot of opinions that are basically that, and that is opinions.
You have a right to those but we also have a responsibility and
the chairman knows that well.
That is why all of this is so relevant and so important. We
have a responsibility to shift through those opinions. We have
a responsibility to hear those opinions but then when the
rubber hits the road, we have to make a determination. We have
to make a decision. Lobbyist come to see me all the time.
I listen to them and I say, ``You know, I agree with what
you say but there was a guy that just went out the building who
said a whole lot of stuff that was different than what you said
and I agree with a lot of what he said also.''
It makes me feel kind of like the young fellow who had two
girlfriends and wanted to get married. He couldn't figure out
what to do. He eventually wrote himself a poem and he said,
``I've got a love for Angeline but I love Caroline, too. I
can't marry both of them so what am I going to do? My God,
Angeline can cook and how Caroline can sew. They are both super
intelligent and, Lord, I just don't know which way to go.''
Of course, he never got married. When issues come up for
both, no matter what we are thinking and no matter how much
good stuff we have heard on both sides, when the chairman puts
the question, you have to be aye or nay. I mean, you can slip
out and not be present. You can do that but you can't vote
present. I mean, you can be aye or nay. That is why we go
through hours and hours of listening.
There are a lot of folks who don't understand these
hearings but that is the democratic way. That is to give every
person his or her opportunity to be heard. Now, if there are
some people who don't understand it and don't take it, then the
only thing that we can do is try and help them understand it.
But at the end of the day we have to do like my pastor when he
opens the doors of the church.
I mean, he'll open the doors of the church and if nobody
joins, then he often would say, ``If Israel never repents, we
are discharged of our duty. If Israel never repents, Jacob
won't lose his reward.'' What he is really saying, ``I have
done the best I can do and didn't nobody bite.'' The apple has
been put out there but if nobody came in and took a bite, Lord,
remember I've done my best.
That is what we have to do as we listen to all of you is
simply say like Abraham Lincoln said, and that is when it comes
to the issues of public policy Lincoln said, ``I just do the
best that I can and if at the end it comes out all right,
people will swear what a great guy I was. If the end comes out
all wrong, then a legion of angels swearing that I was correct
won't make a bit of difference.'' We thank you for your
testimony. We thank you for sharing with us.
I must confess, Mr. Moore, with all due respect to you, it
is really refreshing to me to see two young men who grew up in
this community as things were changing and transitions were
being made who themselves have made a commitment to come back
and serve and make use of their talents and skills and become
part of the leadership to help rebuild those walls that have
crumbled. I thank all of you and thank everybody for coming.
Mr. Souder. I want to thank Congressman Davis for again
hosting us here. It is tremendously helpful and such a
different atmosphere than we get in Washington. Our discussions
tend to be a lot more open with people willing to say
controversial things and argue with each other than in
Washington where it tends to get very intimidating and you kind
of get this cold, dry debate not in context to where people
actually live.
It is really helpful to do this. We will continue to have
these. The fundamental debate item has come up in every hearing
and we have heard lots of different types of people debate
that. But we have also heard what many diverse variations of
faith-based groups are doing in their communities and the
fundamental question we have to decide in Congress by
democratic vote at some point and the court's rule and the
interpretation of the Constitution is are clearly no one can
discriminate with tax dollars as to who they serve.
All these different groups that we have met with in all
three hearings and we will see in the future are trying to
serve at-risk people. The question is can diverse faith groups
participate in that system without changing who they are.
Many organizations in the United States choose to do that
and currently are participating but we have a large segment
whether they be evangelical or very conservative Catholic or
Orthodox Jewish or conservative Lutheran or Buddhist or Muslim
or Hindu that do not choose to participate. Those people are
varied about and a lot of their support for government services
has backed up because they believe that a lot of these
solutions require faith in solving these problems and they are
not going to support.
In Indiana where we have a Democratic Governor or Illinois
where we have a Republican Governor, the amount of dollars
going to social services is not going up. The number of kids
and adults per probation officer is increasing all the time in
every State regardless of party because the middle and upper
classes will not support and have not supported increases as
the needs are going.
They will say the problems are getting greater but the will
to fund the taxes aren't there. The question is can we
supplement this and can we get more support if we have blended
types of funding. But those groups will not tolerate watering
down their faith. They may even be a minority of the country
but if they withdraw from that participation, it has
consequences for the public funding side as well.
This is a huge dilemma and one that has become partisan
which is unfortunate and we need to have these kind of
discussions so we all understand. The Republicans need to
understand the magic of faith-based does not solve the resource
problem. There are dollars.
What we are arguing for some on the other side is to say,
``You need to understand that there are many people of multiple
faiths who believe this just isn't a funding problem. It is a
morals and ethics problem and just pouring more resources
without having that as a component we view as a waste of our
money.'' This is a really tough dilemma as we work through
these expenditures.
I appreciate those of you from Chicago. Those of you who
have been in the audience if you have additional things you
want to submit, we'll do this. This is likely to be because we
have had really good hearings likely to be the Congressional
debate record that will be behind the report that will come out
at the end of the 2-years summarizing a lot of this of the
faith-based issue because you can't have a better discussion
and debate with people who have really spent their time down in
the trenches helping people than we have had today.
First and foremost, those on the panel, those in the
community, the first thing is thank you as public elected
representatives, as Congressman Davis has said, for what you do
because you are actually helping real people. We are trying to
figure out how to make it easier for you to do that, how we can
supplement it, but you have sacrificed your lives to do it and
we really appreciate that very much.
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, two testimonies I want to make
sure that we--the testimony that I read from the gentleman that
left, his name is Sam Ackerman so I want to make sure that
Sam's name is reflected in the record.
Also I have testimony from Mr. Otis Wright who is the
director of intergovernmental affairs for the Chicago Housing
Authority. I would like to make sure that their testimony is
reflected in the record.
Mr. Souder. Both of those testimonies will be entered. If
you have additional, submit those.
With that, subcommittee hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Mr. Souder. I'm going to reconvene briefly. I have been
stating multiple times--the current Governor of Illinois, Rod
Blagojevich, is actually a close friend of mine. We have
traveled around the world. He is a relatively new Governor.
This State had Republican Governors who made most of the
legislation about what we are debating. But Rod would not like
being called a Republican.
[Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]