U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–692 PDF 2004

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

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

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

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

(III)

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

(1)

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

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 faithbased 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 faithbased 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.

3

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:]

4

5

6

7

8

9

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

10

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 faithbased 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 quesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Feb 27, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\91692.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

tions 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

12

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.

13

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.

14

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 faithbased 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:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

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.

38

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:]

39

40

41

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 oneon-one relationships. We serve students in grades one through 12.

42

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 musicoriented 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.

43

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:]

44

45

46

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.

47

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

48

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

49

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?

50

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

51

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.

52

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

53

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.’’

54

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

55

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.

56

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.’’

57

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, accreditaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Feb 27, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\91692.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
58

tions 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:]

59

60

61

62

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 faithbased 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

63

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:]

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

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

71

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 21⁄2 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 longterm 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

72

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:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

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

91

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

92

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 BurVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:40 Feb 27, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\91692.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
93

mese 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

94

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-forprofit 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.

95

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

96

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?

97

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 threefifths 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.

98

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

99

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.

100

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 dayto-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

101

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

102

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.

103

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

104

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

105

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

106

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.

107

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

108

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.

109

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

110

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 faithbased 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,

111

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.

112

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 faithbased 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 faithbased 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.

113

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

114

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.

115

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 faithbased 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.

116

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?

117

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

118

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

119

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

120

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.

121

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.’’

122

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

123

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

124

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:

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

Æ