The Poverty Defense
In: University of Richmond Law Review, Band 47, S. 495
24 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: University of Richmond Law Review, Band 47, S. 495
SSRN
In: World medical & health policy, Band 4, Heft 3-4, S. 93-94
ISSN: 1948-4682
In: Brooklyn Law Review, Band 77, Heft 4
SSRN
In: Constitutional Commentary, Band 26, S. 339
SSRN
Charitable choice, or the use of federal money to fund social services provided by religious organizations, has engendered controversy and confusion since its inception in the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Under the welfare reform statute, entitled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ("PRA"), states may contract out administration of their welfare programs to private entities, including houses of worship. President Bush is promoting the expansion of charitable choice into other federal social service programs as a major policy initiative of his administration. Federal funding of faith-based organizations has supporters and opponents on both the left and the right. Supporters argue that charitable choice ends discrimination against religious organizations in competing for federal funds, and that religious organizations provide more effective social services than governments because of the spiritual and moral guidance the religious organizations provide. Opponents on the right counter that charitable choice will destroy the unique nature of religious organizations, make churches overly reliant on federal funds, and result in federal funding of objectionable groups. Opponents on the left charge that charitable choice violates the separation of church and state and federally subsidizes discrimination, because religious organizations are exempt from some antidiscrimination employment laws. Yet these arguments miss an equally vexing problem arising under charitable choice: How can government ensure accountability from its sectarian contracting partners? This has profound ramifications for all of the constituents involved, including government funding agencies, the tax-paying public, social service providers, program beneficiaries, elected officials, advocacy groups, foundations, agency administrators, and others affected by, or interested in, a particular human services program. The PRA aims to move welfare recipients into the workforce. Rather than handing out welfare checks, ...
BASE
In: University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Band 66, Heft 4
SSRN
In: Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2007
SSRN
In: Data & Society, April 21, 2021
SSRN
In: 95 Washington University Law Review 53 (2017)
SSRN