One might better suggest that the "faith based" money go to provide the professional social services providers with a position that can coordinate volunteer services in a meaningful manner. Somebody designs a suitable blueprint and lists ways to help (maybe on a web site database). Church "A" is strategically located near homeless population - it can be a site host. Church "B" is in the burbs - they can pair with "A" to provide food and volunteers for the soup kitchen. Teachers of English as a second language call and offer volunteer training to help volunteers interact one on one with immigrants wanting language practice.

Why reinvent the wheel? Most churches don't have expertise in social work, but could get a specific piece of the services puzzle done with their volunteers.

by NancyP on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 10:29:06 PM EST

First, the funding sources are often very targeted and have very tight "strings"- for instance, providing for substance abuse.  Even funding programs that are more general in nature generally have some strict rules.  I know of instances where people had to falsely claim to have substance abuse problems just so they could get the help they needed, and others where care givers demanded that people admit to substance abuse when they didn't (before services were rendered).  In one case, a man lost his wife to cancer and a few weeks later his house burned down.   The caregivers for that county DEMANDED that he admit to drug use before they helped him (because of funding source rules; note that these records are often kept and "shared" with other agencies).  He refused to lie- they didn't help; he lost his job, was forced out of the area, and onto the streets in another region (and of last count, was still trying to get back on his feet).  In many cases, the rules are spelled out very clearly- they just aren't followed by the more notorious groups and the enforcement is lax (if they're investigated at all).  Anyway, the funding sources also are sometimes a source of inefficiency because they limit what can be done for people who are hurting (in the name of not duplicating services or increasing efficiency).

Second, there is significant differences in care between those run by single churches or kept in a denomination, vs those which are more ecumenical or secular in nature.  The church-based providers are generally "high-demand"-  you have to sit through a hellfire and damnation sermon (for instance) before they will help you.  Some even are known to demand that you formally join their church before they help (or to require payment for services rendered- people have been refused help because they didn't have the cash!)  With these groups, it is the norm for people who find themselves homeless or in dire straits to be blamed for their problem, and the caregivers try to "fix" their "sins".  This is compared to "low-demand" programs where people can get their needs met without religious or other demands (such as admitting to drug use or other 'failures').  I must say that the low-demand programs are far more effective than high demand.

The more low-demand programs have success rates (on getting people off the streets and into homes as well as off drugs, employed, etc.) of around 3-6%.  The high demand programs?  MAYBE 1% (although most claim more.)   In the case of the high-demand programs, I've talked with people who were falsely counted as 'successes' from those programs.  They don't do as well as they think.  Many people have gone to their "programs" only to flee the tyrannical rules they enforce over people.

I mentioned in another post in this thread the "Continuum of Care".  I quickly admit that I don't know as much about it as I should- I will be doing some heavy studying in the next few days.  Anyway, many of the "faith-based" programs I've encountered actually work through this.  Some are actually good (low impact), while others have horrific reputations attached to them (but all have paperwork rules that they strive to meet).  The good ones are rarely (if ever) associated with any one church.  The bad ones are always associated with one single denomination or church.  

The point is- the low impact, ecumenical programs were started BECAUSE many of the churches (as well as synagogues and mosques- generally a sign of a good program) realized they couldn't do a good job by themselves and that by working together, they could be far more efficient.   In other words, they formed a non-profit NGO for helping people.  It seems to me that this was the way it was before Bush.  This the way people should think about going.  It also doesn't stifle faith!

One final note- a new paradigm is becoming more popular and it is often expressed through the "Housing First" idea.  The more fundamentalist and dominionist groups reject it because it recognizes and stresses systemic causes to homelessness and poverty rather than personal failure.  I see this way of thinking slowly replacing the "blame them!" ideology, and it's fascinating to watch the change- especially in people who had in the past been spouting "they brought it upon themselves" and suddenly were finding themselves contradicting what they used to say!
 

by ArchaeoBob on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:59:46 AM EST

There's also a rather long history of abuse with Teen Challenge itself--in fact, George W. Bush's long history of deregulation of "faith based" initiatives (which eventually led to re-regulation after discovery of rife abuse in the Roloff Homes) was in fact begun by a threatened investigation by the Texas DPS into abuse complaints and lack of sufficient education in Teen Challenge facilities in the state (Bush's gift was to totally deregulate all "faith based" facilities by setting up exemptions to licensing as long as they were part of a private association of "Christian children's homes" operators; a similar setup still exists in Florida and has also led to Florida being a home for abusive facilities, including Teen Challenge's).

I've written a 9-part series regarding what appears to be systemic abuse at Teen Challenge in particular--not just things like violation of child labor laws and such, but institutionalised coercive religious practices, indications that much of the intent of Teen Challenge is to serve as a de facto "missionary mill", and evidence of RL abusers of children being in charge of facilities where minors are present for "rehab".  Even worse, there is an increasing trend of kids and adults being literally sentenced to Teen Challenge (which is in fact officially a ministry of the Assemblies of God, a denomination with a history of both supporting dominionism and increasing reports of religious abuse, particularly connected with the "Joel's Army" movement) as a form of "alternative sentencing"--which includes the whole nine yards including being subject to being re-imprisoned for parole violations for essentially not becoming an Assemblies member (including agreeing to its statement of faith as a condition of rehab).

by dogemperor on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 07:14:51 PM EST