Threat From the South: Is American Religion Bad News for Canadian Social Welfare?

By 

James R. Vanderwoerd, MSW, PhD
Associate Professor of Social Work
Dordt College
Sioux Center, Iowa,USA
Jwoerd@dordt.edu

 

Abstract

 
Recent advances in the role of religion in social welfare in the USA pose both threats and opportunities for social welfare in Canada. Should Canada emulate or resist the US pattern of increased partnerships between government and religion in addressing social problems? This paper raises three questions for consideration regarding the role of religion and its relationship with government in Canadian social welfare: 1) To what extent does government’s relationship with religion favour particular religious groups over others? 2) To what extent does government’s relationship with religious groups encourage or limit freedom of religious expression for individuals and groups? 3) To what extent does government’s relationship with religion indicate a retreat from state responsibility for addressing social problems? The paper concludes with implications for Canadian social welfare and suggests how the social work profession can respond.

Threat From the South:
Is American Religion Bad News for Canadian Social Welfare?

Introduction

Many around the world, including Canadians, greeted the recent election in the US with dismay. On a host of issues, including the war in Iraq, same-sex marriage, health care, poverty, the environment, and immigration, polls have documented the growing divergence of values between Canadians and Americans (Adams, 2003, 2005). Further, the election results raised troubling questions about the increasingly influential role of religion in public policy (Caputo, 2005). In particular, social workers and others have raised concerns about how social welfare gains made in the last half of the twentieth century have been eroded, as governments, under pressure from right wing, conservative, and often, religious forces, have undermined and dismantled social welfare institutions and programs. This paper briefly describes major recent advances in the role of religion in social welfare policy in the USA (Tangenberg, 2005; Wuthnow, 2004) and analyzes this trend with specific reference to the implications for social welfare policy in Canada.

Religion and Social Welfare Policy in the US

Buried in the controversy of the 1996 welfare reform legislation The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, H.R 3734, 104th Congress, 2d Session, P.L. 104-193.
– in which former President Bill Clinton made good on his promise to “end welfare as we know it” (Noble, 1997, p. 127) – was the innocuous section 104, dubbed “Charitable Choice”, which rewrote the regulations for federal funding of religious organizations that provided welfare services. Since then, the White House has continued to revamp funding relationships in order to “unleash the armies of compassion”, as President George W. Bush frequently describes these efforts (White House, 2005). Within weeks of being sworn into office in his first term, Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). Since that time, Charitable Choice provisions have been extended via legislative amendments to several other federal programs including Welfare to Work, Community Services Block Grants, juvenile justice, drug and mental health services, and children’s and public health programs. Although several other legislative attempts have failed, faith-based centers have been established in at least ten federal departments, all of which have been busy rewriting funding regulations (Carlson-Thies, 2005: Daly, 2005).
At one level, these developments are a logical extension of larger trends over the past three decades in western democracies in which increasing recognition is being given to the role of civil society and nonprofit organizations in solving social problems (Berger & Neuhaus, 1996; Boris & Steuerle, 1999; Salamon, 1995; Seligman, 1992). In the US, the unique wrinkle has been an explosion of corresponding attention to the increasing role of religion, and specifically religious organizations (Bane, Coffin, & Thiemann, 2000; Davis & Hankins, 1999; Ellor, Netting, & Thibault, 1999; Glenn, 2000; Hall, 1998; Vanderwoerd, 2002a; Wuthnow, 2004). This recent attention represents one of the major changes in the social welfare landscape since the New Deal, and has been referred to benignly as the “newer deal,” (Cnaan, 1999) and, more ominously, as a “seismic change” whose purpose is “about helping churches, not about reducing poverty” (Daly, 2005). The central importance of religion in politics is aptly captured in the fact that in the wake of the 2004 election a book entitled God’s Politics (Wallis, 2005) has been on the New York Times bestseller list for months.
Are these developments south of the border a threat to Canada? Certainly there is evidence that Canadians view American religion – especially fundamentalism or evangelicals – cautiously if not outright suspiciously. After evangelical Stockwell Day won the leadership of the Canadian Alliance Party religion reporter Dennis Hoover (2000) observed that, “If the we-are-different-from-Americans sentiment is a mainstay of Canadian national identity ... when it comes to religion, no specter haunts Canada as much as American ‘fundamentalism’.” This observation is consistent with Lipset’s (1991) comparison of American and Canadian values, in which he observed that in religion, as in virtually every other area, there are marked differences between Americans and Canadians. Specifically with regard to fundamental Christians, Lipset (1991) concluded that, “Christian fundamentalism is significantly different in the two countries. In Canada it does not have the same media presence, numbers or influence as in the States” (p. 89). A more recent study (Reimer, 2003) of evangelicals corroborates the differences described by Lipset. Based on existing survey data and extensive interviews with evangelical “subcultures” on both sides of the border, Reimer concluded that, “American [evangelicals] are more conservative politically, and they are predominantly Republican. They believe that government is too big and they blame it for societal problems more often than Canadians do. American evangelicals list moral issues as the source of national and local problems more often than Canadians, who are more concerned about economic issues” (p. 159). The growth in influence of conservative evangelicals in American politics is perceived by Canadians as a potential threat to cherished characteristics such as the Canadian social welfare state and health care system. For example, Schick and colleagues (2004) link fundamentalism with violence, the rise of fascism, and the undermining of human rights, and note that, “not surprisingly, this same move parallels the rise of the Christian Right in the United States” (p. 8).
Despite increasingly divergent values from the USA, recent initiatives in Canada to document the scope and influence of the nonprofit and voluntary sector – including religious organizations – suggest that Canada is not immune to major shifts to the welfare state occurring in other industrialized countries (Gil & Thériault, 2003; Hall et al., 2004; Hiemstra, 2002; Lauzier, 2000; Nevitte, 2000; Scott, 2004; Voluntary Sector Initiative, 2000). Many observers seem to agree that in a post-Keynesian, post-Cold War, global economy, the twentieth century model of state-dominated approaches to welfare are no longer fiscally viable nor provide the best incentives and encouragement for solving compelling social problems (Chatterjee, 1999; Ilcan & Basok, 2004; Myles & Quadagno, 2002; Paul, Miller & Paul, 1997). This realization has renewed interest in the role of the voluntary sector – particularly the religious sector – in social welfare, and raised questions about the relationship between the public and the private sectors (de Bettignies & Ross, 2004; Drover, 2001; Jaco, 2001; Kramer, 2000; Lightman, 2003; Van Die, 2001).
What do these trends in the US portend for Canadian social welfare policy? Are they threats to be resisted, or opportunities to be embraced? Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s famous phrase “sleeping with the elephant” captures Canada’s longstanding ambivalence with the USA and the perennial question of how closely Canada should be integrated with the USA (Hoberg, 2000). Should Canada emulate or resist the US pattern of increased partnerships between government and religion in addressing social problems? This paper raises three questions for consideration regarding the role of religion and its relationship with government in Canadian social welfare: 1) To what extent does government’s relationship with religion favour particular religious groups over others? 2) To what extent does government’s relationship with religious groups encourage or limit freedom of religious expression for individuals and groups? 3) To what extent does government’s relationship with religion indicate a retreat from state responsibility for addressing social problems? The paper concludes with an assessment of the threats and opportunities of these developments for Canadian social welfare, and suggests how the social work profession can respond.

An Overview of Canadian Social Welfare

Canadians who support social democratic policies often portray Canada as having a vastly more progressive social welfare state than the United States (Barlow & Campbell, 1995; McQuaig, 1995; Novick & Shillington, 1996). However, Esping-Andersen’s (1990) thorough empirical analysis shows that Canada is much closer to the liberal / individual social welfare regime exemplified by the United States than it is to social democratic regimes such as the Scandinavian countries or the Netherlands. The similarity between Canadian and American welfare state regimes is not surprising given their shared history of new world colonization, and in particular, the influence cast by their British origins. For example, both countries’ social welfare regimes bear the legacy of the English Poor Laws (for Canadian history see Guest, 1997; Meilicke & Storch, 1980; Turner, 2001; for American history see Axinn & Stern, 2001; Day, 2000; Jansson, 2005; Trattner, 1999).
Despite some similarities, however, the Canadian welfare state developed in quite different ways than its southern neighbor. One of the most profound differences was in the way that Canada became an independent country (Lipset, 1991). In contrast to American colonists’ emphasis on autonomy and independence from any government power (Jansson, 2005), Canadians had a much more conciliatory relationship with the British crown and tended to be more trusting of government powers. Hence the founding document of Canada, the British North America (BNA) Act of 1867, emphasized “peace, order, and good government,” and enshrined the most important powers and authority to the federal government (Banting, 1987). The development of Canada’s welfare state represents a gradual shift from a residual to an institutional approach (Guest, 1997). This development is another way in which the Canadian welfare state is similar to European countries and different from the US.
Canada’s development of a social welfare state was complicated by its system of federalism. Under the BNA Act, provinces were given jurisdiction over health, education, and social welfare on the assumption that these were relatively minor areas (Banting, 1987; Guest, 1997). Since then, the role of the federal government in these areas has been a matter of debate (Yelaja, 1992). By the end of the 1960s, the consensus–and practice–that emerged in the Canada Assistance Plan of 1966 was a complementary relationship in which the federal government shared the financial burden and also set national standards, while the provinces implemented and operated the programs. Since the mid-1980s, however, a number of pressures have resulted in a reduction of the federal government’s role in health, education, and social welfare. These pressures are similar to developments in other industrialized countries in the past three decades: stagflation in the 1970s, mounting public deficits in the 1980s, and the growing popularity of neo-conservative and neo-liberal ideologies advocating smaller government and a greater reliance on local government and the voluntary sector. In Canada, these pressures resulted in an end to the open-ended cost sharing agreement legislated by the Canada Assistance Plan and its replacement in 1995 with a block grant program called the Canada Health and Social Transfer [CHST] (Guest, 1997). Under the CHST, provinces have more power to set their own priorities for welfare programs; they also have less federal money to help pay for programs. Consequently, the federal government has less ability to set or enforce national standards, and provinces have greater freedom to implement more restrictive and punitive regulations in an effort to find savings.
As Canadians faced the so-called “crisis” of the welfare state (Mishra, 1999), many turned their attention to the “voluntary”, “independent” or “third sector” as a solution or alternative to the welfare state (Brock, 2000a, 2000b; Hall & Banting, 2000), paralleling developments in the U.S. and Britain. Few basic details are known, however, about the role of this sector in Canada’s social welfare regime (Valverde, 1995). Consequently, the current debate in Canada about the future of the welfare state appears to be focused on two issues: (a) major initiatives by government, academics, and nonprofit organizations to conduct research on the extent, nature, activities, and impact of nonprofit organizations (Brock, 2000b; LeRoy, Clemens & Gudelot, 2004; Orr, 1999), and (b) efforts to defend the traditional federally-driven welfare state and resist “offloading” to the voluntary and private sectors (Jackson, 2000; Townson, 1999). What is missing in these discussions is a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the so-called voluntary sector and government, and how specifically religious organizations fit in. Valverde (1995), for example, argues that, “in the social services sector there is not one public/private split, but many. “Privatization” is a misleading term as applied to social services, particularly if we do not specify if we mean private funding, private service delivery, private management, private policy development” (p. 54). Similarly, Maurutto’s (2003) study of the role of Catholic charities in Toronto’s social services refutes the secularization story of Canadian social welfare in which religion allegedly gave way in the 1920s and 30s to the establishment of a scientific social work.

Three Questions

This analysis of the role of religion in Canadian social welfare, and religion’s relationship to government, is guided by the three questions mentioned at the outset. The first two questions are derived from “disestablishment” theories originating in the British Isles and the American colonies (Esbeck, 2004; Noll, 2002), and which were influential in leading to the formal separation of church and state in Canada in 1854 (Choquette, 2004). Disestablishment is the term coined in the 18th century to describe the rationale for the separation of church and state as part of the larger intellectual and philosophical developments of enlightenment liberalism (Nisbet, 1982). As western European nation states made the transition from feudalism and state-established religion to modern-day capitalist democracies, two principles emerged to guide the relationship between church and state and attempt to protect individual rights and freedom of religion. These two principles are known as the “establishment” principle and the “free exercise” principle, and are captured succinctly in the two clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads in part that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment 1).
The third question shifts the analysis from religion to social welfare. The histories of social welfare and religion have always been intertwined. The story of the social work profession is in part the story of how informal helping, often by religiously motivated individuals, gradually gave way to formalized systems of care by educated professionals sanctioned and funded by government (Christie, 2005). Models of the welfare state developed in the mid-20th century institutionalized the shift from communities and churches to the state as the primary institution responsible for addressing social problems (Chatterjee, 1999). Thus, the third question addresses the extent to which these recent trends reflect a regression to systems of welfare regarded as antiquated and inadequate.

Establishment?

The “establishment” principle was developed out of the concern of modern liberal democracies to avoid the imposition of religion by the state (or crown). The practice of state- or crown-established churches had long roots in Europe which extended to both Canadian colonies until the mid-19th century (Choquette, 2004), and in some American colonies until American independence (Noll, 2002). The underlying rationale for the principle was that religion was believed to be outside the authority of government, and therefore, government must not take actions that have the effect of making any particular religion more or less likely to flourish or advance (Esbeck, 2004). Thus, the first question is the extent to which government actions have the effect of furthering or impeding the development or maintenance of particular religious groups compared to others. A more specific way of asking this question is to consider whether a particular religious group, in response to a given government action (i.e., legislation or funding) would have followed the same path of development without such government action. If the answer is no, then the government action is presumed to be in violation of this principle because it had the effect of “establishing” a particular religion.
Canada does not have a constitutional restriction separating church and state. While there have been, and continue to be, instances in which government has explicitly supported religious activities, the current practice is to regard religion as essentially a private affair over which government should have limited authority or influence (Greene, 1999). The issue of public funding for religious activities is most pronounced in education. The BNA Act of 1867 gave a constitutional guarantee that religious minorities of that day would be eligible for complete public funding as an alternative to the provincially established public school for the religious majority. This constitutional guarantee was included as part of a complex deal to which both the French majority in Lower Canada – today the province of Quebec – and the English majority in Upper Canada – now Ontario – could agree. In Lower Canada, the Roman Catholic Church was the religious majority, and the public schools were, therefore, Catholic. In Ontario, Protestants were in the majority, and public schools were Protestant. The constitutional compromise ensured that Protestants in Quebec and Catholics in Ontario would be guaranteed public funding for their alternative school system (Morton, 1982; Sweet, 1997). Over time, in English Canada, the established denominational majority schools became non-denominational, and the Catholic schools became known as the “separate schools.”
On the question of the establishment of religion, it seems clear that governmental treatment of schools helped to advance the two most prominent religious groups in Canada at the time of confederation. Despite this establishment precedent, however, subsequent policy regarding schools has been mixed. Several provinces, including B.C. and Alberta, provide some form of financial support for religiously based schools other than Roman Catholic. Until proposals for change in spring of 2001, Canada’s largest province, Ontario, has consistently refused to grant funding to private schools, partly on the grounds that it would undermine support for public schools, and that such funding would lean too far in government support for religion (Phillips, Raham, & Wagner 2004).
The history of establishing faith-based social welfare organizations in Canada is much less clear. Until recently (Cnaan, 2002; Maurutto, 2003), very little explicit attention has been given to the issue of religious organizations providing social services and to what role they should play in providing public social services. Maurutto’s (2003) historical study of Catholic charities in Toronto demonstrates that provincial and municipal governments have provided substantial funding for Catholic organizations to provide a variety of social and human services well into the 20th century. Christie and Gauvreau (1996) also document an extensive public role for Protestant social welfare initiatives through the 1940s. On this basis, it appears that the practice has been to give preference to – and thus to establish – the dominant Catholic and Protestant groups over other religious groups. Much more evidence is needed, however, before such a claim can be substantiated. Some have also argued that the Canadian approach to neutrality towards religious groups has resulted in the “establishment” of secularism and has thus limited and constrained the development of particular religious groups, particularly ones that differ from the dominant religions (Beyer, 2003; Chaplin, 2000).

Freedom of religious expression?
 

The second question addresses to what extent the state encourages or encroaches upon the free expression of religious diversity for those groups providing social services. In other words, are government partnerships with religious organizations accompanied by regulations that unduly limit a group from conducting its business in a way that is consistent with its religious beliefs? The challenge here is to find the right relationship between appropriate monitoring of accountability for public funds on the one hand and the autonomy of religious organizations to incorporate specific religious practices into the way in which publicly-funded services are provided on the other hand (Frumkin, 2000). A related issue is whether individuals requiring services have their individual religious freedom curtailed by being forced to participate in religious practices against their will as a condition of receiving the services.
As in the question about religious establishment, there is very little information about faith-based social service providers in Canada and the extent to which they feel their religious expression is restricted by government treatment. Hiemstra (2002), in a survey of 77 faith-based social agencies in the province of Alberta, found that the majority of agency directors found little curtailment of their religious expression as a consequence of government funding. At the same time, however, those organizations that had the most clearly articulated and distinct religious practices experienced greater restrictions to their religious expression. This suggests a tendency in Canada to restrict religious freedom unless the expression of it is more benign and limited to issues which are less divisive. Again, the case in public education is instructive. As noted above, some provinces do provide public funding for independent, religiously-based schools. In these provinces, school officials generally have reported that government monitoring and accountability has been limited to provincial standards for curricula, and that religious instruction, symbols, activities, and hiring have been relatively free from government intrusion (Sweet, 1997).
The case of government mandated and funded residential schools for Canada’s Aboriginal peoples operated by the major mainline Christian churches up to 1969 provides a tragic example of the violation of the religious freedom of minority groups (Miller, 1999). Both the churches and the federal government have faced massive lawsuits initiated by Aboriginal persons who were victims of abuses in the schools (Hodgson, 2002). In addition to suffering horrendous physical and sexual abuse at the hands of church officials, Aboriginal residents clearly had their religious and cultural practices systematically and intentionally stripped from them. This example points to the extreme ways in which the partnership of church and state can be used to restrict, punish, and even terrorize religious minorities (Hodgson, 2002). While these abuses have been recognized by both the churches and the federal government, this experience has understandably caused Canadians to be wary of the dangers that can come from church-state partnerships.
 

Dismantling the welfare state?
 

The third question considers more specifically the implications of government-religious partnerships for the welfare state and the appropriate role of government in relation to other sectors of society in providing social welfare (Berger & Neuhaus, 1996; Green, 1998). In debates of this topic, those on the political right have argued that the welfare state of the twentieth century set unrealistic expectations about what can be funded publicly, and what the proper role of government should be in meeting social needs (Brilliant, 1997; Johnson, 1987; Olasky, 1992). In the United States (De Vita, 1999), as well as in Europe (Lloyd, 2000), calls for greater responsibility for mediating institutions have been accompanied by, or some would argue, driven by, concomitant pressure for the devolution of responsibility for social welfare from the federal government to state and local institutions (Belcher, Fandetti & Cole, 2004). Phrases such as “the third way” and “civil society” reflect moves toward greater responsibility for individuals and their immediate networks (such as family, church, school, and community), combined with decreasing responsibility from national governments (Burbidge, 1997). The question this trend raises is the extent to which “those most loudly calling for renewal of civil society insist that vibrant local communities are the alternative to governmental responsibility for social provision” (Bane et al., 2000, p. 11; emphasis added). Put another way, is new interest in the role of religion and its relationship to government part of an agenda to reduce governmental roles for social welfare (Johnson, 1987; Wagner, 2000)? Are religious groups, organizations, and communities being asked to shoulder more of the social welfare load, and if so, is this motivated by declining commitment to collective social provision and a desire to reduce the governmental commitment to alleviating social problems?
Available evidence suggests that one of the central motives behind the increased attention to the third sector in Canada has been a search for more efficient and effective alternatives to a state-dominated social welfare system (Hall & Banting, 2000; McFarlane & Roach, 1999; Roach, 2000). While initially it was mostly neo-conservative and right wing groups arguing for this shift (April, Clemens, & Francis, 2000; Picard, 1996), others from the center and left of the political spectrum have also been exploring the viability of nonprofit organizations as well (Brock, 2000b; Lauziere, 2000). This recent focus has led to major initiatives by both the third sector and the government to explore the potential and challenges of strengthening the relationship between the two sectors (Brock, 2000b). As a result of work by task forces in both sectors, the federal government and an organization representing nonprofit organizations have launched a funded office to encourage and expand the capacity of the third sector (Voluntary Sector Initiative, 2000).
According to the best available information (Hall et al., 2004; Hall & Banting, 2000; Hirshorn, 1997), religious organizations constitute between 20-40% of all charitable organizations and are clearly one of the single largest categories among all charitable nonprofit organizations in Canada. Unfortunately, as noted above, little attention has been given to the unique role and characteristics of these organizations and their role within the welfare state. For example, in a recent report on the City of Hamilton’s Vision 2020 city plan, Van Pelt and Greydanus (2005) suggest that the role of religious organizations has been too long ignored in urban planning. Similarly, Maurutto (2003), in her investigation of the role of Catholic organizations providing social services in Toronto, argues that, “[f]ar from being shunted aside, the private agencies, such as Catholic charities, became increasingly entrenched within the expanding welfare state system” (p.7). Furthermore, in several recent studies by government and nonprofit task forces, private think-tanks, and various policy analysts, religion is mentioned only in passing, despite the fact that 88% of Canadians identify themselves as religious adherents (Bibby, 2000).
There are, however, signs that this attitude is changing. Since the 2000 Canadian federal election the role of faith in public life has increasingly come to the forefront, particularly given the attraction of religious groups to the Reform, Canadian Alliance, and Conservative parties. Nevertheless, this recognition seems to be limited to those who are already members of religious organizations. At this stage, discussion of the role of faith-based organizations and their relationship with government in the provision of social services is downplayed or even ignored. There is, however, growing emphasis on a greater role for the nonprofit sector in the welfare state. Inasmuch as religious organizations are acknowledged as being part of this sector, it seems the primary motive, so far, has been to find ways of decreasing public responsibility for social welfare.

Implications for the Welfare State
 

Whether it will be the result of pressure to reduce the financial responsibility of governments or to rebuild the capacity of other social institutions, it seems clear that the welfare state of the twenty-first century will not look like the state-dominated versions of the twentieth century. While some may lament the passing of the government-dominant welfare state (Johnson, 1987), the most compelling and convincing analyses of the future of the welfare state do not lie in attempts to recapture the twentieth century model. Whatever the motives, it seems that the “third sector” will have an increased role in providing social welfare in the future.
But, does this necessarily mean that religion must be given a role too? On this question, the observation of one civil society analyst is instructive:
Is it possible to bring to life proclaimed third sector values such as solidarity, compassion, responsible behavior, refusal of violence and oppression without seeking strategic alliances with the major world religions – Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism? In the pursuit of a more just society, the sector represented by organized religion, which I call the fourth sector, cannot be overlooked in any strategic design for societal transformation (Verhagen, 1997, p. 265).
Verhagen is not alone in recognizing the crucial role of religion in the social fabric of twenty-first century life. Those who study religion as a sociological phenomenon increasingly recognize that, contrary to the predictions of nineteenth century rational modernists, religion is not simply a vestige of a less civilized era, but is fundamental to lived human experience (Bane, Coffin & Theimann, 2000; Cipriani, 2000; Ellwood, 1992). Even if one doubts the significance of religion for oneself, it would be simplistic to minimize the role of organized religion in the structures of social welfare for tomorrow, particularly given the increasing attention to the third sector.
Assuming, then, that religion does have a legitimate role to play, what does this mean for the welfare state? First, it seems important to disentangle the dual motivations to reduce the state’s role and to enhance the role of religion. The experience in the US indicates that when the motivation is narrowly focused on getting government out of the business of social welfare provision, the third sector can find itself potentially prostituted and co-opted. The commitment to public responsibility for social welfare and the commitment to religious diversity must be independent of one another. It seems neither viable nor just to make one a condition for the other.
Second, commitment to religious involvement in social provision must be deep enough to respect smaller minority groups who differ greatly from more established religious communities. Failure to do so will result in violations of both the “establishment” and the “free expression” principles. On this point, Beyer (2003) makes this sobering observation:
While most countries in the world today officially declare that their citizens enjoy freedom of religion, none of them actually allows the unfettered exercise of that freedom. In fact, all of them seek overtly to control and to restrict that freedom, reinforcing in the process the local hegemony of one religion, a small set of religions, or even a formally atheistic or other national ideology (p. 333; emphasis original).
If certain dominant or influential religious groups consistently appear to benefit from government funding or other policies to the exclusion of smaller groups, then, as argued in the American context, the practical application of the policy de facto favours (or “establishes”) certain groups over others (Minow, 2000). Indeed, in the USA, the term “faith-based” is somewhat misleading in that the primary efforts have been directed to expanding the role of selected Christian groups over other religious groups (Daly, 2005; Wagner, 2000). Similarly, government partnerships with religious organizations must be monitored carefully to prevent the kind of gross violations of minority groups’ religious expression demonstrated in the Canadian residential schools fiasco.
Finally, room must be given for persons to opt out of explicit religious expression or activity. Whether this choice is called secular, neutral, public, or something else matters less than that there is freedom on the part of individuals, groups, and communities to live according to their own beliefs. The Canadian approach, so far, seems to assume that all public activity is secular and therefore neutral (Chaplin, 2000). While this approach certainly protects those who choose to be free from organized religion, it does so at the cost of violating both the establishment principle, by extending state support to a secular institutions over other equally legitimate (but religious) institutions, and the free religious expression principle, by forcing religious adherents to privatize their faith as a condition of public participation (Caputo, 2005; Chaplin, 2000).

Implications for Social Workers

How should the social work profession in Canada respond to these challenges? Should we heed the warnings of some American colleagues, who have observed that social work cannot afford to ignore the potential of religion and must be proactive in facilitating mutually beneficial partnerships between government, social work, and religion (Cnaan, 1999; Wineburg, 2001)? Or, should we continue to insist on an arms-length relationship with religion?
 

Ethics
 

As Ailsa Watkinson (2004) has recently argued, the increasing role of religion presents serious challenges for social work ethics and for human rights. The Canadian Social Work Code of Ethics, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the UN Declaration of Human Rights protect religious freedom and freedom of beliefs and values, but also protect individuals and groups from oppression at the hands of religious fundamentalists. This poses a particular challenge when different groups identified under various codes disagree over fundamental values or are pitted against each other, such as some religious groups versus some persons who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans-gendered (Hodge, 2004b; Vanderwoerd, 2002b). This is when a profession’s and a country’s commitment to religious freedom is strained and there is tension between the obligations to protect and uphold the rights of members of conflicting groups (McLachlin, 2004). Frederic Reamer (1999) recognizes that codes of ethics do not remove the necessity to weigh and adjudicate between claims of competing groups. As a profession, we need to recognize that the code of ethics does not prescribe specific policy or practice responses, and that there are genuine differences of opinion within our ranks regarding how best to realize our profession’s values.
 

Anti-oppressive practice
 

Given that social work has always had an explicit – if at times disputed – intent to seek justice for those who are marginalized, it seems to be the ideal profession to facilitate a dialogue between competing claims (Hodge, 2003a), and to be cognizant of how its own and others’ systems of discourse negate or marginalize others (Hodge, 2004b; Pierce, 2004). Anti-oppressive practice includes at least that social workers must remain vigilant about the ways in which various groups and populations are marginalized or oppressed (Carniol, 2005; Finn & Jacobson, 2003). Postmodern studies of discourse have convincingly demonstrated that dominant groups all too frequently use their system of values and beliefs as a way to “totalize” or oppress other groups with different belief systems (Middleton & Walsh, 1996). There is evidence that social work, as a profession situated within the professional knowledge class, shows signs of losing its ability to understand and be responsive to persons or groups who hold value systems that counter its own claims (Hodge, 2003c), and thus, through its own discourse, inadvertently becomes an instrument of oppression itself (Hodge, 2002; Pierce, 2004).
 

Cultural competency
 

Social workers and social work education, therefore, must continue to include spirituality and religion as areas to develop cultural competency (Baskin, 2002; Hodge, 2005c). For example, teaching cultural competency in social work education could be expanded to include various specific religious and spiritual groups such as evangelical Christians (Hodge, 2004a), Aboriginal peoples (Baskin, 2002; Mawhiney, 2001), Muslims (Barise, 2005; Hodge, 2005b); and Hindus (Hodge, 2004c). Culturally competent social workers must be aware of their own religious and spiritual identities and be able to respect the spiritual and religious beliefs and backgrounds of client groups with which they work. Our code of ethic states that “the culture of individuals, families, groups, communities and nations has to be respected without prejudice” (Canadian Association of Social Workers, 1994). Inasmuch as spirituality and religion constitute not only systems of beliefs and values, but also unique cultural practices, social workers must develop not only sensitivity and tolerance for clients’ religions, but also competency in spiritual and religious assessing and intervention (Caputo, 2005; Hodge, 2003b, 2005a).
 

Partnering with informal networks
 

It is sometimes difficult to remind ourselves that we as social workers simply cannot, or should not, offer all of what clients need or want. There is ample evidence that informal ways of helping, such as self-help groups, neighbourhood and community associations, long-term friendships, and a host of other informal activities also provide substantial – and sometimes better – help than professionals (Cameron & Vanderwoerd, 1997; Cossom, 2001; McKnight, 1995). Religious and spiritual groups form a substantial subset of those informal networks, and social workers cannot afford to ignore such avenues of helping. Trends towards increasing roles for religion in social welfare give us the opportunity to build the capacities of multiple social networks to address pressing social needs (Cnaan, 1999; Wineburg, 2001).

Macro-practice and social change
 

The vast majority of social service activities carried out by religious organizations and churches under the faith-based initiatives in the US have been focused on personal relationships between religious persons and clients (Sider & Unruh, 2004). This seems ironic given that some of the most pointed critiques and protests against social, racial, and economic injustice have come from faith groups (Wallis, 2005). Social workers must, therefore, be part of efforts to protect religious groups from being co-opted as handmaidens to government’s purposes (Vanderwoerd, 2004). The current initiatives in the USA appear to cast social problems as primarily a failure of individual responsibility, and therefore marshal the “armies of compassion” to correct and rebuke clients much as the friendly visitors and workers did in the Charity Organization Societies and Sunday School movements of the 19th century. Social work is one of the few professions which explicitly recognizes structural and systemic origins of social problems, and which specifically cultivates skills in social change and social mobilization. As a profession, we cannot afford to stand aside and allow faith groups to become transformed from prophetic critics of injustice (Bruegemann, 2001; Wallis, 2005) to agents of government. Rather, it seems that our profession is ideally suited to partner with religious groups in standing up for the disadvantaged (Cnaan & Boddie, 2002). Indeed, an oft-neglected part of our profession’s history on both sides of the border is how social workers have acted as and with people of faith to challenge oppression (Christie & Gauvreau, 1996; Marty, 1980; Maurutto, 2003). A good example of this is the role of indigenous peoples who have cultivated a “spirituality of resistance” to challenge injustice and oppression. Baskin (2002) notes that social work is especially suited for partnering with Aboriginal peoples and harnessing the anti-oppressive power of spirituality because of social work’s focus on the structural origins of social problems.

Conclusion
 

The pioneers and architects of the twentieth century welfare state might be horrified to see the edifices of social welfare provision dismantled. Defenders of the traditional welfare state view this dismantling as regressive and backward. Another way to view this change, however, is that nation-wide systems of collective welfare provided important foundations upon which to develop more responsive, inclusive, sustainable, and participatory approaches to social welfare provision. Certainly, recent attention to civil society and the third sector have demonstrated both the limitations of state-driven models and the importance of contributions from other social groups and institutions.
Can or should organized religion be part of these new visions, and if so, how should religious organizations and governments relate to one another? While Canadians may be wary of the increasing role of organized religion in public welfare provision – and point to compelling historical atrocities to substantiate their caution – there has been increasing attention to the role of religion in public life in Canada (Farrow, 2004; Lefebvre, 2005; Lyon & Van Die, 2000). In this vein, Verhagen (1997) issues a persuasive challenge to find ways to admit a positive role for religion in social welfare:
The civil society agenda demands concerted action at community, national, and international levels to solve global issues. Can this agenda materialize if citizens themselves are not filled with an irrational faith, belief, and hope; a spiritual vision which recognizes that poverty and injustice can be overcome; a belief that conflicts can be prevented and peace will prevail; a recognition that each person is unique and deserves respect for his/her own sake and which sees each human being as belonging to a wider, interdependent universe? Who will feed that irrational optimism and spirituality at the personal, community and higher levels? In other words, can the aspirations of a value-driven, civil society movement be realized without due recognition of religious inspiration and motivation as underlying forces? (p. 266)
Chief Justice McLachlin (2004) reminds us that proactive protection of religious (and other) diversity is clearly necessary in our multiethnic, pluralistic societies. However, pluralism cannot be reduced to individual differences that justify the retreat of the state from its responsibility for collective well-being. Instead, providing social welfare will require a delicate balancing of multiple and mutual responsibilities between government and other social institutions, including faith-based ones. Furthermore, the commitment to diversity and to religious freedoms must protect the smallest and most vulnerable groups from exploitation at the hands of dominant groups, and it must also allow citizens and groups to participate in public life with or without explicit adherence to formal religious doctrine and membership in religious organizations. The challenge for the social work profession is to limit the threats from religion while also harnessing the zeal of the myriad religious groups to seek the welfare of all.

References

Adams, M. (2005). Bash thy neighbour. Globe and Mail, October 19, 2005.
 

Adams, M. (2003). Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Toronto, ON: Penguin.
 

April, B., Clemens, J., & Francis, J. (2000). Preserving independence: Does the Canadian voluntary sector need a voluntary sector commission? Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
 

Axinn, J. & Stern, M. (2001). Social welfare: A history of the American response to need. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
 

Bane, M.J., Coffin, B., & Thiemann, R. (Eds). (2000). Who will provide? The changing role of religion in American social welfare. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
 

Banting, K. (1987). The welfare state and Canadian federalism. ( 2nd ed.). Kingston, ON: McGill Queen’s University Press.
 

Barise, A. (2005). Social work with Muslims: Insights from the teachings of Islam. Critical Social Work, 6, 2. Retrieved November 23, 2005 from criticalsocialwork.com
 

Barlow, M., & Campbell, B. (1995). Straight through the heart: How the Liberals abandoned the just society. Toronto, ON: Harper Collins.
 

Baskin, C. (2002). Circles of resistance: Spirituality in social work practice, education and transformative change. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 1(1). Available from http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/currents/
 

Belcher, J., Fandetti, D., & Cole, D.. (2004). Is Christian religious conservatism compatible with the liberal social welfare state? Social Work, 49(2), 269-276.
 

Berger, P. L., & Neuhaus, R. J. (1996). To empower people: From state to civil society. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
 

Beyer, P. (2003). Constitutional privilege and constituting pluralism: Religious freedom in national, global, and legal context. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(3), 333-339.
 

Bibby, R. (2000). Canada’s mythical religious mosaic: Some census findings, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(2), 235 - 239.
 

Boris, E., & Steuerle, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
 

Brilliant, E.L. (1997). Nonprofit organizations, social policy, and public welfare. In M. Reisch & E. Gambrill (Eds), Social Work in the 21st Century (pp. 68-79.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
 

Brock, K. (2000a). Was Seattle significant? The emerging interest in the third sector. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Available from http://qsilver.queensu.ca/sps/ThirdSector/Research
 

Brock, K. (2000b). Sustaining a relationship: Insights from Canada on linking the government and third sector. Fourth International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research, Dublin, July 5-8, 2000. Available from http://policy.queensu.ca/sps/ThirdSector/Papers
 

Bruegemann, W. (2001). The prophetic imagination. (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
 

Burbidge, J. (Ed). (1997). Beyond prince and merchant: Citizen participation and the rise of civil society. New York, NY: Pact Publications.
 

Cameron, G. & Vanderwoerd, J. (1997). Protecting children and supporting families: Promising programs and organizational realities. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
 

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (1994). Code of Ethics.
 

Caputo, R.K. (2005). What’s morality got to do with it? An essay on the politics of moral values in light of the presidential election of 2004. Families in Society, 86(2), 171-179.
 

Carlson-Theis, S. (2005). Charitable choice basics. Washington, DC: Center for Public Justice. Available from cpjustice.org
 

Carniol, B. (2005). Case critical: Social services and social justice in Canada. (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Between the Lines.
 

Chaplin, J. (2000). Beyond liberal restraint: Defending religiously-based arguments in law and public policy. University of British Columbia Law Review, 33(3), 617-644.
 

Chatterjee, P. (1999). Repackaging the welfare state. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
 

Christie, N. (2005). Religion and social welfare in Canada. In J.M. Herrick (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social welfare history in North America (pp. 303-306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 

Christie, N. & Gauvrea, M. (1996). A full-orbed Christianity: The Protestant churches and social welfare in Canada, 1900-1940. Montreal, PC / Kingston, ON: McGill – Queen’s University Press.
 

Choquette, R. (2004). Canada’s religions: A historical introduction. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.
 

Cipriani, R. (2000). Sociology of religion: A historical introduction. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
 

Cnaan, R. (1999). The newer deal: Social work and religion in partnership. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
 

Cnaan, R. (2002). The invisible caring hand: American congregations and the provision of welfare. New York, NY: New York University Press.
 

Cnaan, R. A., & Boddie, S. C. (2002). Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: A call for social work. Social Work, 47(3), 224-236.
 

Cossom, J. (2001). Informal helping and mutual aid. In J. C. Turner and F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian social welfare (4th ed.) (pp. 346-361). Toronto, ON: Allyn & Bacon.
 

Daly, L. (2005). Compassion capital: Bush’s faith-based initiative is bigger than you think. Boston Review, 30, April / May 2005. Available from http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/daly.html
 

Davis, D., & Hankins, B. (Eds.). (1999). Welfare reform and faith-based organizations. Waco, TX: J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University.
 

Day, P.J. (2000). A new history of social welfare. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
 

de Bettignies, J-E., & Ross, T.W. (2004). The economics of public-private partnerships. Canadian Public Policy, 30(2), 135-154.
 

De Vita, C. J. (1999). Nonprofits and devolution: What do we know? In E.T. Boris and C.E. Steuerle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 213-233). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
 

Drouin, H. (2002). Spirituality in social work practice. In F.J. Turner (Ed.), Social work practice: A Canadian perspective (2nd ed.) (pp. 33-45). Toronto, ON: Prentice Hall.
 

Drover, G. (2001). Trends and issues in social welfare: The impact of globalization. In J.C. Turner and F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian Social Welfare (4th Ed.) (pp. 532-544). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education.
 

Esbeck, C. (2004). Dissent and disestablishment: The church-state settlement in the early American republic. Brigham University Law Review, 4, 1386-1592.
 

Ellwood, R. (1992). Many peoples, many faiths: An introduction to the religious life of humankind. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 

Farrow, D. (Ed). (2004). Recognizing religion in a secular society: Essays in pluralism, religion, and public policy. Montreal: McGill – Queen’s University Press.
 

Finn, J.L. & Jacobson, M. (2003). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work. Peosta, IA: eddie bowers publishing.
 

Gil, C. & Thériault, L. (2003). Valuing volunteering without recognizing the reality of the voluntary sector. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 51, 132-136.
 

Glenn, C. (2000). The ambiguous embrace: Government and faith-based schools and social agencies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 

Green, D. (1998). Reinventing civil society: The rediscovery of welfare without politics. London, GB: Institute of Economic Affairs.
 

Greene, B. (1999). Public religion in a pluralist society: New ways of engaging civil society. In Faith and public life: Challenges, choices, and opportunities: Examining the public role of religion in a changing Canada. Toronto, ON: Public Justice Resource Centre.
 

Guest, D. (1997). The emergence of social security in Canada. (3rd ed.). Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
 

Hall, M. & Banting, K. (2000). The nonprofit sector in Canada: An introduction. School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University. Available from http://policy.queensu.ca/sps/ThirdSector/Papers].
 

Hall et al., (2004). Cornerstones of community: Highlights of the National Survey of Nonprofit and Voluntary Organizations. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Industry.
 

Hall, P. D. (1998). Religion and the post-welfare state: An untold story. Religion in the News, 1(1).
 

Hiemstra, J. (2002). Government relations with faith-based non-profit social agencies in Alberta. Journal of Church and State, 44(1), 19-45.
 

Hirshorn, R. (Ed). (1997). The emerging sector: In search of a framework. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
 

Hoberg, G. (2000). Canada and North American integration. Canadian Social Policy, 26(2), S35-S50.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2002). Does social work oppressive evangelical Christians? A new class analysis. Social Work, 47(4), 401-414.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2003a). The challenge of spiritual diversity: Can social work facilitate an inclusive environment? Families in Society, 84(2), 348-358.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2003b). Spiritual assessment: Handbook for helping professionals. Botsford, CT: North American Association of Christians in Social Work.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2003c). Differences in worldviews between social workers and people of faith. Families in Society, 84(2), 286-295.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2004a). Developing cultural competency with Evangelical Christians. Families in Society, 85, 251-260.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2004b). Deconstructing assumptions of prejudice: Understanding the role of power and worldview in assessing Christian attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Arete, 28(1), 48-64.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2004c). Working with Hindu clients in a spiritually sensitive manner. Social Work, 49(1), 27-38.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2005a). Spiritual lifemaps: A client-centred pictorial instrument for spiritual assessment, planning, and intervention. Social Work, 50(1), 77-88.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2005b). Social work and the house of Islam: Orienting practitioners to the beliefs and values of Muslims in the United States, Social Work, 50(2), 162-174.
 

Hodge, D.R. (2005c). Spirituality in social work education: A development and discussion of goals that flow from the profession's ethical mandates. Social Work Education, 24(1), 37-55.
 

Hodgson, M. (2002). Rebuilding community after residential schools. In J. Bird, L. Land, and M. MacAdam (Eds.), Nation to nation: Aboriginal sovereignty and the future of Canada (pp.92-108). Toronto, ON: Irwin Publishing.
 

Hoover, D. (2000). A religious right arrives in Canada. Religion in the News, 3(2). Available from http://trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol3No2/contents_vol3no2.htm
 

Ilcan, S. & Basok, T. (2004). Community government: Voluntary agencies, social justice, and the responsibilization of citizens. Citizenship Studies, 8(2), 129-144.
 

Jackson, A. (2000). Why we don’t have to choose between social justice and economic growth: The myth of the equity/efficiency trade-off. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
 

Jaco, R.M. (2001). Social agencies and human service organizations. In J.C. Turner and F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian Social Welfare. (4th ed.) (pp. 362-387). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education.
 

Jansson, B. (2005). The reluctant welfare state: American social welfare policies. (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
 

Johnson, N. (1987). The welfare state in transition: The theory and practice of welfare pluralism. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press
 

Kramer, R.M. (2000). A third sector in the third millennium? Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 11(3), 1-23.
 

Lauzier, M. (2000). The voluntary sector initiative: An opportunity to strengthen Canada. Perception, 24(4), 2.
 

Lefebvre, S. (2005). Religion in the public sphere. Canadian Issues, Spring 2005, 87-90.
 

LeRoy, S., Clemens, J., & Gudelot, G. (2004). Non-profit performance report 2004. Vancouver, BC: The Fraser Institute.
 

Lightman, E. (2003). Social policy in Canada. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press Canada.
 

Lipset, S.M. (1991). Continental divide: The values and institutions of the United States and Canada. New York, NY: Routledge.
 

Lloyd, J. (2000). The left discovers Adam Smith. New Statesman, 13(609), 21-23.
 

Lyon, D. & Van Die, M. (Eds). (2000). Rethinking church, state, and modernity: Canada between Europe and America. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
 

Marty, M. (1980). Social service: Godly and godless. Social Service Review, 54(4), 463 - 481.
 

Maurutto, P. (2003). Governing charities: Church and state in Toronto’s Catholic Archdiocese, 1850-1950. Montreal, PQ and Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
 

Mawhiney, A.M. (2001). First Nations in Canada. In J.C. Turner and F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian Social Welfare (4th ed.) (pp. 153-166). Toronto, ON: Allyn & Bacon.
 

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society: Community and its counterfeits. New York, NY: Basic Books.
 

McLachlin, The Right Honourable Beverly. (2004). Freedom of religion and the rule of law: A Canadian perspective. In D. Farrow (Ed.), Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion, and Public Policy (pp. 12-34). Kingston, ON: McGill - Queen’s University Press.
 

McFarlane, S. & Roach, R. (1999). Strings attached: Non-profits and their funding relationships with government. Calgary, AB: Canada West Foundation.
 

McQuaig, L. (1995). Shooting the hippo: Death by deficit and other Canadian myths. Toronto, ON: Viking.
 

Meilicke, C.A. & Storch, J.L. (Eds), (1980). Perspectives on Canadian health and social services policy: History and emerging trends. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.
 

Middleton, R. & Walsh, B. (1995). Truth is stranger than it used to be: Biblical faith in a postmodern age. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
 

Miller, J.R. (1999). The state, the church, and residential schools in Canada. Paper presented at Religion and Public Life, Queen’s University, May 13-15, 1999.
 

Minow, M. (2000). Choice or commonality: Welfare and schooling after the welfare state. In M.J. Bane, B. Coffin, and R. Thiemann (Eds.), Who will provide? The changing role of religion in American social welfare (pp.147-177). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
 

Mishra, R. (1999). Globalization and the welfare state. Northampton, MA: E. Elgar Press.
 

Morton, W.L. (1982). The kingdom of Canada: A general history from earliest times. (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: McClelland and Stewart.
 

Myles, J. & Quadagno, J. (2002). Political theories of the welfare state. Social Service Review, 76(1), 34-57.
 

Nisbet, R.. (1982). The social philosophers: Community and conflict in Western thought. New York, NY: Washington Square Press / Harper & Row.
 

Nevitte, N. (2000). Value change and reorientations in citizen-state relations. Canadian Public Policy, 26(S2) s75 – s94.
Noble, C. Welfare as we knew it: A political history of the American welfare state. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
 

Noll, M.A. (2002). The old religion in a new world: The history of North American Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
 

Novick, M. & Shillington, R. (1996). Crossroads for Canada: A time to invest in children and families. Toronto, ON: Campaign 2000.
 

Olasky, M. (1992). The tragedy of American compassion. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway.
 

Orr, S. (1999). Exploring alternatives: Government social service policy and non-profit organizations. Calgary, AB: Canada West Foundation.
 

Paul, E. F., Miller Jr., F. D., & Paul, J. (1997). The welfare state. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
 

Phillips, S., Raham, H., & Wagner, K. (2004). School choice, policies and effects: An international literature review. Kelowna, BC: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education.
 

Picard, A. (1996). A call to alms: The voluntary sector in the age of cutbacks. Toronto, ON: Atkinson Charitable Foundation.
 

Pierce, D. (2004). The changing styles of American political discourse: Implications for social work. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 9(2), 1-8.
 

Reamer, F. (1999). Social work values and ethics. (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
 

Reimer, S. (2003). Evangelicals and the continental divide: The conservative Protestant subculture in Canada and the United States. Montreal, PQ and Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
 

Roach, R. (2000). Building better partnerships: Improving relations between governments and non-profits. Calgary, AB: Canada West Foundation
 

Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in public service: Government - nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
 

Schick, C., Jaffe, J., & Watkinson, A.M. (Eds). (2004). Contesting fundamentalisms. Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
 

Scott, K. (2004). Funding matters: The impact of Canada’s new funding regime on nonprofit and voluntary organizations: Summary report. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
 

Seligman, A. B. (1992). The idea of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 

Sider, R. & Unruh, H. (2004). Typology of religious characteristics of social service and educational organizations and programs. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 109-134.
 

Sweet, L. (1997). The fourth ‘R’: Religion in our classrooms. Toronto, ON: Atkinson Charitable Foundation.
 

Tangenberg, K. M. (2005). Faith-based human services initiatives: Considerations for social work practice and theory. Social Work, 50(3), 197-206.
 

Townson, M. (1999). Pensions under attack: What’s behind the push to privatize public pensions. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
 

Trattner, W.I. (1999). From poor law to welfare state: A history of social welfare in America. (6th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.
 

Turner, J. (2001). The historical base of Canadian social welfare. In J.C. Turner and F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian social welfare (4th ed.) (pp. 80-95). Toronto, ON: Allyn & Bacon.
 

Valverde, M. (1995). The mixed social economy as a Canadian tradition. Studies in Political Economy, 47, 33-60.
 

Vanderwoerd, J. R. (2002a). Is the newer deal a better deal? Government funding of faith-based social services. Christian Scholars Review, 33, 300-318.
 

Vanderwoerd, J.R. (2002b). When religion and sexual orientation collide: Ethical dilemmas in curriculum standards for social work education. Social Work & Christianity, 29(1), 53-64.
 

Vanderwoerd, J.R. (2004). How faith-based social service organizations manage secular pressures associated with government funding. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(3), 239-262.
 

Van Die, M. (Ed). (2001). Religion and public life in Canada: Historical and comparative perspectives. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
 

Van Pelt, M. & Greydanus, R. (2005). Living on the streets: The role of the Church in urban renewal. Hamilton, ON: Work Research Foundation. Retrieved November 8, 2005 from wrf.ca
 

Verhagen, K. (1997). Organized religion: The forgotten dimension. In J. Burbidge (Ed.), Beyond prince and merchant: Citizen participation and the rise of civil society. New York, NY: Pact Publications.
 

Voluntary Sector Initiative Secretariat. (2000). Introducing the voluntary sector initiative. Ottawa, ON: Voluntary Sector Initiative Secretariat. Available from http://vsr-trsb.net
 

Wagner, D. (2000). What’s love got to do with It? A critical look at American charity. New York, NY: The New Press.
 

Wallis, J. (2005). God’s politics: Why the Right gets it wrong and the Left doesn’t get it. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
 

Watksinson, A.M. (2004). Equality rights and re-privatized public services: Religious fundamentalism meets the Charter. In C. Schick, J. Jaffe, & A.M. Watkinson (Eds.), Contesting fundamentalisms (pp. 137-151). Halifax, NS: Ferwood.
 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (2005). President highlights faith-based initiative at leadership conference. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary. Available from http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050301-4.html
 

Wineburg, B. (2001). A limited partnership: The politics of religion, welfare, and social service. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
 

Wuthnow, R. (2004). Saving America? Faith-based services and the future of civil society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
 

Yelaja, S. (1992). Canadian Social Policy. (3rd ed.). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

[Return to top]