The Senate Finance Committee version of H.R. 7, approved on July 16, 2002, does not contain the "charitable choice" title of the House-passed H.R. 7; nor does it include a compromise "faith-based" provision (from S. 1924 as introduced) that sought to assure equal treatment for nongovernmental providers of almost all federally-funded social services. Remaining in the Senate Finance bill are tax incentives to promote private giving. The Charitable Choice Act of 2001 (Title II of the House bill) would apply its rules, which are significantly different from those in four existing charitable choice laws, to nine new program areas.

The 107th Congress did not pass tax incentives for private giving or legislation intended to assure equal treatment of religious organizations as providers of social services (provisions in S. 1924, the original CARE bill). The House voted to extend charitable choice rules to numerous new programs (H.R. 7), as the President urged, but the Senate refused. However, in an Executive Order, President Bush on December 12, 2002, directed six cabinet-level departments and the Agency for International Development (AID) to bring policies concerning social service programs into line with charitable choice principles set forth in the Order.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the 2001 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives have allowed any Faith-Based Organization (FBO) to compete alongside secular organizations to offer tax-payer funded social service programs. A dearth of research evaluates FBOs from the client's perspective. The current study analyzed data from chronic public inebriates who have accepted a secular organization's housing and service program and determined that 26% (95% CI: 18-34%) of them would not accept the same program if offered by an FBO; subsequent hypotheses about the importance of religiosity/spirituality and majority/minority status as predicting participant's report of accepting FBO services are partially supported with the current, small dataset. While results derive from a specific, difficult-to-treat population, findings are a milestone in contemplating who might be inhibited from treatment because it is offered through an FBO; study findings have social justice, clinical, pragmatic, and policy implications.