"Government Dole" v. Church's Welfare System

[smac97]

A very interesting article by Allison M. Kelley, a visiting assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University: Why the LDS Church Welfare System Cannot Replace Government Assistance

Some excerpts:

Quote

Last month, ProPublica co-published a piece with The Salt Lake Tribune that exposed what the Tribune’s editorial board later dubbed Utah’s “unholy merger of church and state.” Investigative journalist Eli Hager explained how intertwined Utah’s public assistance programs are with those offered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hager revealed that Utah’s state legislature has been able to avoid spending at least $75 million on alleviating poverty over the last decade by counting a percentage of welfare provided by the LDS Church as its own.

The article referenced here is an interesting one.  It seems to be trying to rake some muck by noting the following syllogism:

A) The Church has a fairly extensive welfare system in Utah;
B) State actors in Utah sometimes refer welfare applicants to the Church for assistance;
C) Utah has a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Church regarding the latter's welfare efforts to "count" toward the state's obligations under federal law relative to providing welfare assistance to the public, to the tune of $75 million over ten years; a few excerpts:

D) Bishops purportedly impose religious obligations on people who seek assistance from the Church (including, it is claimed, people who are referred to the Church by state actors);
E) The foregoing arrangement purportedly creates "entanglement" problems.

I'm not quite sure there is much muck to rake here.  We don't have the entire contract, but we can see a few things abou it:

First, the arrangement between the state and the Church appears to comply with federal guidelines.  A state representative is quoted saying as much, and the agreement has been in place for over ten years with no apparent legal issue raised.

Second, the arrangement appears to cover "employment resource centers, teaching family relationships, marriage, and parenting classes; handling parenting classes; and adoption hotlines."  

Third, the arrangement apparently does not appear to cover "food" provided to poor folks (that the state can "count" for federal purposes) but instead covers "volunteer hours associated with food production and distribution and other social and humanitarian services."  In other words, it looks like Utah and the Church intended to segregate what could and could not count toward federal guidelines.

Anyway, back to the article:

Quote

This shocking disclosure has far-reaching ramifications. Not only does Hager show how particular LDS notions of morality have been prerequisites for receiving material assistance, even compelling some Utahns to join the church to receive aid, but the blurry lines between church and state have allowed proponents of “small government” anti-poverty initiatives to herald Utah’s system as a model. For example, the LDS Church’s welfare system has resonated so strongly with many conservatives and libertarians across the religious spectrum that a young Tucker Carlson once insisted that its “themes are ones the secular world would do well to study.”

Yeah, this seems to be working hard to disparage the arrangement Utah has with the Church.  If it's legal, and if it is working, and if it does not create "entanglement" issues, then what's the problem?

That's not to say that the state plays no role in creating and maintaining a social safety net.  I think it's pretty cool that private organizations are using their own time, money and efforts to help society.  The Church is far from the only private religious group doing this, and far from the biggest.  Many of America's biggest charities are religious or derived from religious origins.

Quote

However, studying the church’s history reveals that the government has done more to alleviate poverty and vault LDS members into positions of financial security than the church’s welfare system. Latter-day Saints have depended on government aid across the twentieth century, despite church leaders’ expressed aim to make all members “self-reliant.” The “unholy merger” between church and state in Utah is thus not merely confined to the state’s reliance on LDS welfare services. Rather, “unholy merger” could also be used to describe church members’ reliance upon government largesse.

A few weird things here.

First, it's rather weird to fault the Church for encouraging its members to become less reliant on government programs.

Second, "the government has done more to alleviate poverty" seems a pretty risible claim.  "The government" only has the means and resources to "alleviate poverty" by using its coercive power to tax private parties and redistribute such funds, a process that usually involves massive amounts of bureacratic bloat, waste, graft, ,and so on.  

Third, I think comparing government programs to voluntary charitable programs to be rather an apples-to-oranges sort of thing.  Note how the other references "reliance upon government largesse."  "Largesse" meaning "generosity in bestowing money or gifts upon others."  Not much generosity involved in the government forcibly taking resources from A and giving it to B.

Fourth, I think the Church's philosophy has been to reduce reliance on government welfare, particulary long-term reliance.  I don't think the Church has ever said the government should not provide any safety net at all.

Quote

The Great Depression of the 1930s transformed the relationship between the LDS Church and the state. Even before the stock market crash of 1929, Utah’s economy was in peril. Industries that had seen a massive boom during WWI, including mining, stock raising, and transportation, suffered greatly in the postwar economy. Moreover, Utah’s high birth rate, combined with the scarcity of arable soil in the state, exacerbated these trends. Historians Garth Mangum and Bruce Blumell found that in 1930, well before the Depression had taken full effect, only 33.5 percent of Utah’s population was “gainfully employed,” fewer than any other state except Mississippi. In many counties, Latter-day Saints were unemployed at a far greater rate than their non-Mormon counterparts. For example, in Salt Lake City’s Southgate LDS ward, or local congregation, 110 of the ward’s 173 heads of household were unemployed in 1932.

With seven-in-ten Utahans belonging to the LDS Church during this period, local bishops tried to help members in need. They created storehouses full of food and clothing, but these efforts proved insufficient. In response, the church-owned and operated Deseret News ran an editorial that deemed the government the “appropriate agency” to “meet the emergency.” Indeed, the government was the only entity capable of supporting Utahans through the crisis. 

Not sure what this means.  Church members in some areas in Utah were doing worse than their non-member counterparts re: employment.  How is that an indictment of the Church's efforts to become less reliant on government?

The Church's efforts in 1932 to address the needs of its members during those desperate times were "insufficient."  Meanwhile, the government - with its mighty nice coercive taxation power and nationwide reach - had more resources than the Church, when its membership was around 700,000 worldwide.  Seems pretty apples-to-oranges.

Quote

From September 1932 to March 1933 alone, Utah received $2,560,299 from the federally funded Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), an average of $5 per capita (nationwide average was only $1.87 per capita). The state, and by extension the church, was so reliant on this aid that one Federal Emergency Relief agent called Utah the “the prize ‘gimme’ state of the Union.”

Shocked and embarrassed by Saints’ reliance upon the government, LDS Church President Heber J. Grant and fellow member of the First Presidency, J. Reuben Clark, created a “work-centered” system of relief in 1936.

And this attempted system, according to the author, was . . . bad?

Quote

Later named the Welfare Plan, Grant and Clark hoped to save Latter-day Saints from debauching themselves on the morally stultifying government “dole.” “Our primary purpose,” Grant explained, “was to set up … a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self respect be once more established amongst our people.” Grant and Clark did everything in their power to convince Latter-day Saints that the government was not, in fact, the “appropriate agency” to meet members’ needs, and they had no qualms deriding the very programs that were sustaining their members. Clark was so confident church leaders had developed a superior welfare system, he publicly declared that they intended to remove all Saints from federal relief within five months. His estimation proved naïve.

So his prediction was overconfident.  So the answer is . . . what?  That private parties and organizations should give up efforts to be less reliant on government?

Quote

While church leaders publicly and ardently proclaimed that the Welfare Plan was a roaring success, statistics suggest otherwise. Historian Joseph Darowski found that during the plan’s first full year of operation (1937), the church spent $1,835,000 on direct relief and distributed an additional $115,000 worth of clothing, fuel, and produce. However, federal relief efforts amounted to some $48 million in 1936 alone and $300 million throughout the Depression (some $6 billion by today’s standards). While Saints proudly declared that they were making every member “self-supporting,” the Welfare Plan did not come close to meeting Saints’ needs.

More apples-to-oranges.  So the Church's preliminary efforts "did not come close to meeting Saints' needs."  Has there been any improvement from 1937 to now?  I think so.  Quite a bit.  But the author doesn't address that.  

Quote

During WWII and the Cold War, the federal government continued to play a key role in revitalizing Utah’s economy. “Like a gigantic elevator,” wrote Mormon historians Leonard Arrington and Thomas Alexander in 1965, “World War II lifted the state of Utah from the depths of depression to the heights of prosperity.” No description could be more apt. During and immediately after WWII, the federal government provided the infrastructure, jobs, education, and vocational training necessary for many white men to attain financial stability. To that end, a 2015 article in The Salt Lake Tribune described how Utah traded one form of federal welfare for another: “News photos of skinny men with shovels in the Civilian Conservation Corps building dams in the canyons were replaced by images of men and women assembling aircraft in giant hangars or rolling out steel by the ton.”

Work for pay is not, in my view, "welfare."  The Civilian Conservation Corps was not the "dole" which the Church found problematic, which dole now creates generational reliance on governmental welfare.

And the Latter-day Saints were paying taxes just like everyone else, and so were free to participate in work programs.

Quote

Not wanting LDS men to miss out on these opportunities, Brigham Young University set up a “veterans guidance committee,” which gave returning Mormon servicemen information about the “privileges of the G.I. bill of rights and the veterans’ rehabilitation acts at BYU.” Moreover, the university designed classes to train Mormon men for newly created defense industry jobs. These benefits allowed many Mormon men to attend college, secure affordable housing, start new careers, and begin to build generational wealth. As historian Allan Powell summarized, the G.I. Bill expanded recipients’ earning capacity, effectively creating a larger middle class in Utah.

The G.I. Bill is also not "the dole."  Sheesh.

Quote

Still, church leaders once again obscured Saints’ reliance on the government by touting the Welfare Plan’s successes. While federal aid was pouring into Utah, church leaders simultaneously boasted that the Welfare Plan had restored the church’s ability to “provide for ourselves.” In 1952, for example, the Deseret News insisted that it was the Welfare Plan that had made every “needy” family in the church “self-sustaining.”

Hmm.  The author seems to be abusing her sources here a bit.  Here's the "provide for ourselves" quote in context:

Quote

The basic elements of the Church Welfare plan may be shortly put thus: All funds and materials received for this service to the needy are considered as marked with the sacred trust of brotherhood of man, and are so administered. All welfare relief is distributed by the Bishop of the ward, or under his immediate direction, that is, it is help at the hands of a friend and neighbor who bestows it with the sole thought of giving needed succor to a neighbor in distress. The bestower had nothing to gain or to lose materially by the gift. This is of the essence. The welfare relief is not a blind giving of money, but a furnishing to the family of the things which the family actually needs, in the quantities which are actually necessary. An able-bodied family shall work for what it gets; the confirmed idler is not entitled to aid. Self-confidence and self-reliance shall be built back into the character of those receiving welfare relief.
...
As a people we have lived to see the counsel of our leaders fulfilled in respect to this and other phases of the Gospel. Pres. Wilford Woodruff in April, 1875, said: So far as our temporal matters are concerned, we have got to go to work and provide for ourselves. The day will come, as we have been told, we shall all see the necessity of making our own shoes and clothing, and raising our own food, and uniting together to carry out the purposes of the Lord. We will be preserved in the mountains of Israel in the day of God's judgment. I therefore say to you, my brethren and sisters, prepare for that which is to come. You have a great future before you. We have got either to make ourselves self-sustaining or we shall have to go without a good many things that we now regard as almost indis-pensible for our welfare and comfort. 

(The ellipses covers a part of the quoted article that is garbled due to OCR deficiencies.)

This doesn't sound like "boasting" to me.

Here's the "self-sustaining" quote in context (from a 1952 article) :

Quote

Work has been enthroned as the essential of temporal security {} the practice of paying tithing or the contribution of a tenth of one's income, and of fast offerings made possible by the savings from a monthly fast day or abstinence from food one day each month; has been fully invoked. The bishops' storehouses in our day, as in other days, stand throughout the land as symbols of great faith translated into action. In 1936, following the disestrous economic period known as "the depression," during which thousands of Church members faced the possibility of requiring public assistance, the Church of Jesus Christ- of Latter-day Saints organized a Church-wide movement which is referred to today as the Church Welfare Plan. Through the workings of this program of Church-directed welfare activities, every needy family may be aided by the Church In its efforts to become independent and self-sustaining, provided the family is willing, if there are able-bodied members to do, all possible with the aid of near relatives to help themselves. This aid, as needed, might include the necessities of life from a bishop's storehouse, or money for cash needs from the fast offering fund to which reference has already been made. Until those in need can be placed on jobs in private industry-at a salary or wage sufficient to supply their needs, or have been rehabilitated on an independent basis, those who are able-bodied are expected to work on Church owned-and-operated projects in producing, processing, storing or distributing food, clothing, fuel, or household commodities, that there may in our day "be meat in the (Lord's) storehouses,' -both for themselves and , their unfortunate neighbors.

This looks like a description of the Church's welfare efforts in 1952, not during the depression.  And even then, the language here is conditional.  "May be aided..."  "Provided the family is willing {to become independent and self-sustaining}..."

Quote

These claims raise consequential questions about the meaning of the term “self-sustaining.” LDS leaders did not discourage Saints from accepting federally funded college tuition, federally funded job training, federal employment, or low-interest mortgages. “Self-sustaining” was thus more synonymous with financial security than a lack of dependence upon the government. This logic allowed church members to utilize unprecedented amounts of federal aid while simultaneously insisting that the Welfare Plan had pulled impoverished Saints out of the Depression and allowed the church to “stand on our own.”

"Federally funded college tuition" is, I think, a reference to the GI Bill.  It is not "the dole."

"Federally funded job training" is somethign of a non-sequitur, since the federal government doesn't generate "funds."  It confiscates the money of its citizenry.

And once again, the author seems to be abusing her source re: the "stand on our own" quote.  Here it is in context:

Quote

The depression had left serious scars and wounds everywhere. The Lord pointed the way, one hundred years ago, his way, as to what we should do relative to taking care of our own. Economic conditions had changed, membership increased, so that it became necessary for this plan that the Lord had given a century ago, to be enlarged so that it could meet the increased membership and changing conditions, and so the Prophet of the Lord from this stand gave us directions. Subsequently there followed other instructions as to what we should do. Well, I remember when President Grant spoke in this tabernacle, I was president of a stake and sitting next to me was a man from my stake, a good man, and as we walked out after President Grant had spoken and had told us that we should stand on our own, he said, "Well, that was a good political talk." And so, it has gone—questioning motives—we have not learned, as I see it, to conform. It seems that it takes us a long time to learn. In some stakes of Zion where the welfare program has been taken hold of wholeheartedly it has not been difficult, and the men and women of those stakes bear testimony of the divinity of the thing that they have done and are doing, but in some stakes where we have half-heartedly undertaken to carry out the instructions and the counsel, whereby our people may stand independently upon their own we have met with difficulties.

Nothing here about the Church bragging that its nascent efforts to create a welfare program enabled the Saints to "stand on our own."

Quote

The church’s ability to obscure members’ mid-century dependence on government wealth-building programs has also allowed the Welfare Plan to serve as testament to the efficacy of private philanthropy. Upon touring an LDS welfare center in 1982, for example, President Ronald Reagan ironically proclaimed: “If more people had had this idea back when the Great Depression hit, there wouldn’t be any government welfare today or need for it.” In 2012, when Mitt Romney was running for president, Wall Street Journal commentator Naomi Schaefer Riley praised the LDS Church’s Welfare Plan as a “symbol of strength and self-sufficiency” and a “safety net that government can never hope to create.” In what has become a common pattern, the church reprinted these laudatory accounts, reinforcing the idea that the Welfare Plan alone deserved acclaim for helping members become financially stable.

Again, this is weird.  The Church's welfare efforts don't deserve acclaim?  We should reject efforts to be self-reliant and instead look to the government as the answer for all our needs?

And yet agan, the author abuses her sources.  I don't think the Church has ever said that its welfare efforts "alone deserve{} acclaim for helping members become financially stable."  But it sure is better than the dole.  

Quote

To its credit, the LDS Church created one of the most impressive charitable systems in the world. The architects of the Welfare Plan believed they had a responsibility to their fellow church members to confront poverty in the “right” way, and members have since sacrificed greatly to that end. The church’s generosity is not even confined to its members. The Welfare Plan has provided relief in the wake of countless disasters (including Covid-19), and bishops have regularly aided non-church members in their communities (albeit, often with strings attached).

I'm glad she finally gets around to giving the Church some credit, albeit begrudgingly and through gritted teeth.

And yes, I am grateful that the Church attaches "strings" in its welfare program.  The Church doesn't want its members reliant on the Church's "dole" any more than on the government dole.

Quote

However, the Welfare Plan does not prove that Americans do not need government assistance, nor does it serve as a testament to, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “what the people could do for themselves if they hadn’t been dragooned into believing that government was the only answer.”

This seems awfully facile.  How many Latter-day Saints have avoided or reduced reliance on the dole by following the principles espoused and practiced by the Church?  Lots.  Lots.

More self-reliance.  Less dependence.  These are beautiful concepts.  To be sure, Americans may need "government assistance" in times of difficulty and/or to get a leg up (such as through educational/vocational programs that develop work skills and such), but endless reliance the "dole" is not the answer.

Quote

Moreover, this narrative of self-sufficiency does not account for the hidden ways the government still aids many members, especially some of the wealthiest, through tax breaks. The LDS welfare system may help the state provide for its economically vulnerable citizens, but many members would not be in a position to donate so much to the Welfare Plan had the government not revitalized Utah’s economy and created generational wealth. Rather than serving as a testament to Saints’ “self-sufficiency,” the church’s ability to provide for Utahns in need also exhibits the triumphs of an active, innovative federal government.

The size and scope of our government, the massive amounts of waste and corruption, are a "triumph," are they?

The article is, overall, pretty darn pessmistic and critical of the Church's efforts to help its members become less reliant on the government.  That seems pretty weird to me.  The author's master's thesis, about the Deseret Ranch, is pretty good, particularly where it addresses the Church's teachings praising "work" and condemning idleness.  Consider this:

Quote

Despite the Church’s dire situation {during the Depression}, Mormon leaders vehemently opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. Because Mormons had developed an insular community in the nineteenth-century to protect themselves from governmental persecution, Church leaders were thus incensed by notion that members might turn to the government in their time of need instead of turning inwards towards the Church for assistance. Additionally, Church leaders worried that Saints who received government assistance would succumb to a “dole mentality,” and expect something from the government with no expectation of ever paying it back. This sentiment posed a direct affront to the Saints’ call for industriousness and selfsufficiency. For those reasons, the Church crafted their own “Welfare Plan” under which able-members would not be “put under the embarrassment of accepting something for nothing.”
...
President Roosevelt “endorsed the program as one of real helpfulness” and said he hoped it would “inspire other people to something of a like nature.” Conservative publications also lauded the Welfare Plan but emphasized its mission to instill positive values in needy Church members. “Among the Mormons it is an emphasis on self reliance,” reported Susan L. M. Huck for American Opinion. “Self reliant people are proud and independent,” she continued, “not weaklings and whiners.” Regardless of one’s religious background or party affiliation, then, it seems many Americans could agree with one man’s statement: “I sure as hell wish we could run the Federal Government with one-fifth of the Mormon’s efficiency.”

It's weird, then, that the above article takes such a negative and critical stance toward the Church's efforts.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2022 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

The article could easily have been shifted to a general article on religious organisation support alone not being enough. Just seems like she's using the MOU (which if didn't exist would make the Utah Govt look even worse) as a jump in to take a dig at the church for not being able to get its members completely off government support.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Allison M. Kelley

Just FYI:

Quote

Allison Kelley is a doctoral candidate at the University of Virginia. Her teaching and scholarship examine the history of religion, culture, and politics in the twentieth century, particularly as it relates to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has received fellowships from the Social Sciences Research Council (SSRC) and the Charles Redd Center in Western American History, as well as research grants from the American Historical Association (AHA), the Buckner W. Clay Endowment, the Mormon Women’s History Initiative (MWHIT), and the University of Virginia. She received her M.A. in history from the University of Virginia and a B.A. in history from Davidson College.

https://allisonmkelley.com/about/

https://history.virginia.edu/people/profile/akc8py

Quote

Allison Kelley is a PhD candidate at the University of Virginia. She is interested in religion, capitalism, and politics and is currently examining the intersection of these topics as it relates to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Allison graduated magna cum laude from Davidson College in 2015. She was part of the Kendrick K. Kelley Program in Historical Studies, and her senior thesis, “Hardly a Cultural Aberration: The North Carolina Eugenics Program, 1933-1977,” examines the gendered, racial, and class dimensions of North Carolina’s eugenics program. She received an M.A. from the University of Virginia in 2017. Her master’s thesis “No Place for Zion: Deseret Ranch and the Mainstreaming of Mormonism, 1950-1985,” details Latter-day Saints’ struggle to uphold dual commitments to faith and business within a society hostile to their theocratic vision.

Allison’s dissertation, tentatively titled “Faith and Free Markets: Latter-day Saints’ Social Welfare Ideology from the New Deal to Reagan’s America,” explains how Latter-day Saints’ opposition to the “Welfare State” initially emerged within the Church’s leadership after the Great Depression and became popularized among Saints as the century progressed. Her dissertation research has been funded by the Buckner W. Clay Endowment for the Humanities, the Mormon Women’s History Initiative, and the University of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

 

Quote

Biographical Sketch

My name is Allison Kelley and I am a PhD candidate in history at the University of Virginia. I have a BA in history from Davidson College (2015) and an MA in history from UVA (2017). I am writing my dissertation on Mormon social welfare from the New Deal through Reagan’s America. Broadly, I hope to explain how the Church Welfare Plan fostered an antistatist position that ultimately helped ingratiate Saints into the Republican Party

http://womeninmormonstudies.org/individual-expert-record/?pdb=33

Seems like an interesting field of study….

Edited January 12, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

Anyone have a subscription to the Washington Post and can summarize her article? (Please do not just repost it)

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv-8ecuKv1AhVMHc0KHRUpDx4QFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Foutlook%2F2020%2F01%2F03%2Fshould-mormons-use-medicaid%2F&usg=AOvVaw0iqcM6-u-qs2hwdjqjcsVx

[Chum]

I read thru the Propublica story when it came out. I felt some of it was a little driven and I don't know if they get that bishops are volunteers so nitwits bishops are going to be a thing. That said, that last bit could probably benefit from some sunshine.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone have a subscription to the Washington Post and can summarize her article? (Please do not just repost it)

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjv-8ecuKv1AhVMHc0KHRUpDx4QFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Foutlook%2F2020%2F01%2F03%2Fshould-mormons-use-medicaid%2F&usg=AOvVaw0iqcM6-u-qs2hwdjqjcsVx

See this?

https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2020/01/should-mormons-use-medicaid/

[The Nehor]

So the state gets a federal block grant to cover TANF. The state has required uses for that money under the grant conditions.

Utah counts Church welfare which the government does not provide as part of the money “spent” and pockets the money and spends it elsewhere. I know that TANF money is notorious for going to patch up state budgets and cover other spending but this is pretty egregious even for that money.

To put this in perspective Freddy (federal government) gives money to Stan (state government) and requires Stan to use it to help specific groups of people. Meanwhile Charlie (the church) is helping others pretty much on their own and use their own discretion on who to help. Some get help and some do not and there are no strict guidelines. Then Stan turns to Freddy and tells them that Charlie’s help counts as Stan helping so Stan pockets the money and spends it somewhere else.

That is pretty shady. It also means members are more likely to be helped than non-members.

I don’t think it is the rake’s fault it found so much muck. It is pretty discriminatory. It is not really the Church’s fault but I kind of want to question whoever in Utah’s state government thought this was ethical. I don’t have a problem with the church helping people. I do have a problem with the state grabbing federal funds and then using someone else’s charity to count as those funds so they can use the money elsewhere. This means the state spends less on welfare and the church is expected to pick up the slack and naturally the church is more likely to help its own members so the federal funding to help those in need doesn’t go to the people intended and the substitute (which should never have been a substitute) discriminates to some extent based on religious belief. 

That is awful. It might be legal but it is wrong and it shouldn’t be legal.

Edited January 12, 2022 by The Nehor

[JustAnAustralian]

Sam Brunson gave a good rundown of the MOU over at BCC https://bycommonconsent.com/2021/12/05/the-church-the-state-of-utah-and-welfare/

Two important things:

The state directing members to the church isn't part of the MOU. It's just the case workers trying to find other sources of help if they can't

If the MOU wasn't in place, the state would lose federal funding.

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The state directing members to the church isn't part of the MOU. It's just the case workers trying to find other sources of help if they can't

It isn't just the state. Local utility companies would send people behind on their bills or facing imminent shutoff to the Church, because they see so many Church checks for utility payments.  I don't blame them for pointing people towards possibilities, but the flood of people in the community looking to get their bills paid was annoying. I helped them, case-by-case, depending on circumstances. Anecdotally, many non-members were more willing to go work early morning, daily pay day labor to show good faith (or actually earn needed money) than Church members were. 

Some people would work "the trap lines" (Salvation Army, Baptist Church, etc.) before coming to the Church. I was amazed by how little other churches seemed able to help with payments (there are a lot of food banks). The fast offering program is more "big ticket" than other churches' capabilities, but it draws on a literally unlimited checkbook. Bishop Burton told us that North America regularly runs at a fast offering deficit while areas like Africa run at a fast offering surplus. I think I read that fast offering donations increased in 2020 during Covid --- it would be interesting to see if that trend has continued. 

[CV75]

@smac97

In my particular situation, MOE can come from any source: public funds, private non-profit funds, in-kind from any source, and collaboration with for-profits. I think the Church fits in to a couple of these categories!

What does TANF stipulate as sources for MOE?

Edited January 12, 2022 by CV75

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So the state gets a federal block grant to cover TANF. The state has required uses for that money under the grant conditions.

Utah counts Church welfare which the government does not provide as part of the money “spent” and pockets the money and spends it elsewhere. I know that TANF money is notorious for going to patch up state budgets and cover other spending but this is pretty egregious even for that money.

To put this in perspective Freddy (federal government) gives money to Stan (state government) and requires Stan to use it to help specific groups of people. Meanwhile Charlie (the church) is helping others pretty much on their own and use their own discretion on who to help. Some get help and some do not and there are no strict guidelines. Then Stan turns to Freddy and tells them that Charlie’s help counts as Stan helping so Stan pockets the money and spends it somewhere else.

That is pretty shady. It also means members are more likely to be helped than non-members.

I don’t think it is the rake’s fault it found so much muck. It is pretty discriminatory. It is not really the Church’s fault but I kind of want to question whoever in Utah’s state government thought this was ethical. I don’t have a problem with the church helping people. I do have a problem with the state grabbing federal funds and then using someone else’s charity to count as those funds so they can use the money elsewhere. This means the state spends less on welfare and the church is expected to pick up the slack and naturally the church is more likely to help its own members so the federal funding to help those in need doesn’t go to the people intended and the substitute (which should never have been a substitute) discriminates to some extent based on religious belief. 

That is awful. It might be legal but it is wrong and it shouldn’t be legal.

So it basically went like this:

Feds: Hey Utah, we'll give you $75 million if you promise to use it to help needy families. We believe you can distribute the money to needy families more efficiently than we can, so we'll partner with you on this. We'll provide the money, and you have to promise to use it to help needy families.

Utah: Sure, we can do that. We promise to use the money to help the needy.

Then Utah doesn't use the $75 million to help the needy. They pocket the $75 million. Their rationalization is that they don't need to use the money from the Fed to help the needy because the Church already takes care of the needy.

Yea, I have a problem with that.

[Bob Crockett]

When I was a transient bishop (bishop without portfolio called to help the homeless and needy) the California state and Los Angeles county would routinely call on me to help non-members.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

So it basically went like this:

Feds: Hey Utah, we'll give you $75 million if you promise to use it to help needy families. We believe you can distribute the money to needy families more efficiently than we can, so we'll partner with you on this. We'll provide the money, and you have to promise to use it to help needy families.

Utah: Sure, we can do that. We promise to use the money to help the needy.

Then Utah doesn't use the $75 million to help the needy. They pocket the $75 million. Their rationalization is that they don't need to use the money from the Fed to help the needy because the Church already takes care of the needy.

Yea, I have a problem with that.

For sure! This was frustrating to see this happen, especially when many in Utah aren't active or members of the church.

[pogi]

I don't personally like the idea of my tithing money being used to pay for things my tax dollars are supposed to cover.  If the government wants to count my tithing money for tax use purposes, then they should tax me less.  It feels like I am getting double dinged here.   

I am am happy to let the church take over government welfare as much as possible, as I am confident that we do a WAY better and more efficient job than the government, but the government should either be paying that tax money to the church as a contracted welfare provider for the government, or tax tithing paying members less. 

[Danzo]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't personally like the idea of my tithing money being used to pay for things my tax dollars are supposed to cover.  If the government wants to count my tithing money for tax use purposes, then they should tax me less.  It feels like I am getting double dinged here.   

I am am happy to let the church take over government welfare as much as possible, as I am confident that we do a WAY better and more efficient job than the government, but the government should either be paying that tax money to the church as a contracted welfare provider for the government, or tax tithing paying members less. 

Actually, the government often taxes tithe paying members less.

 

 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't personally like the idea of my tithing money being used to pay for things my tax dollars are supposed to cover.  If the government wants to count my tithing money for tax use purposes, then they should tax me less.  It feels like I am getting double dinged here.   

I am am happy to let the church take over government welfare as much as possible, as I am confident that we do a WAY better and more efficient job than the government, but the government should either be paying that tax money to the church as a contracted welfare provider for the government, or tax tithing paying members less. 

If my understanding of the situation is correct (and everything I have read suggests it is) then it is actually your Fast Offering money that is being used this way.

I don’t want the church to take over government welfare. You couldn’t run the system on the promptings of the Holy Ghost at that point. You would have to have (mostly) clear criteria to meet to get assistance. To be clear the criteria has to be somewhat clear to the people disbursing the money. In practice a lot of states and communities intentionally obfuscate what the requirements are, hide how to access help, and litter the area with traps and requirements designed to trip people up.

[rpn]

There was a rebuttal/explanation to the Trib article a few days after it ran.   I don't recall details but I felt it resolved any concern I felt by the original article.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

There was a rebuttal/explanation to the Trib article a few days after it ran.   I don't recall details but I felt it resolved any concern I felt by the original article.

Could you provide a link?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Here is a discussion of the situation:

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1064221048/the-links-between-welfare-in-utah-and-the-lds-church

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Here is a discussion of the situation:

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/14/1064221048/the-links-between-welfare-in-utah-and-the-lds-church

"Several other states count their private charitable spending toward their obligations to spend welfare money as a state. This was made legal under the 1996 welfare reform law signed by then-President Bill Clinton."

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"Several other states count their private charitable spending toward their obligations to spend welfare money as a state. This was made legal under the 1996 welfare reform law signed by then-President Bill Clinton."

The legislation was a general disaster.

https://talkpoverty.org/2016/08/22/everything-wanted-know-1996-welfare-law-afraid-ask/