The Op/ED piece below, written by Dr. Robert W. Radtke, ERD President, was published in the January 7, 2006 edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.

Who's Minding the Faith-based Groups Doing Relief Work?

January 7, 2006- Last year's spate of hurricanes, earthquakes and other disasters etched two related trends in sharp relief. One is declining faith in FEMA and other government relief agencies; the other is the ascendancy of faith-based organizations (FBOs), as aid providers, sometimes visibly succeeding where government failed.

In truth, the web of government and non-government institutions responding to disasters works symbiotically and usually succeeds. The 2004-2005 famine and drought in Africa, the Indian Ocean tsunami and the flooding in Central America all brought forth billions in targeted contributions that relieved much suffering and prevented untold numbers of deaths.

But this system was swamped by a hurricane season that exhausted the Latin alphabet naming system and got partway through the Greek one. If Katrina illustrated shortcomings in government relief, it is also clear FBOs have thrown themselves into the breaches. Churches, temples, mosques and other religious institutions fed, sheltered and cared for hundreds of thousands in Katrina's wake, often in partnership with larger FBOs.

Amid enormous human need and limited government resources, FBOs' visibility is greater this year than ever before. But their emergence occurred long before Katrina. International NGOs sprang up everywhere after World War II, and growth of civil society organizations including FBOs has been explosive worldwide over the last 20 years.

For disaster victims, today's prominence of FBOs in relief work is a godsend. A recent Louisiana State University poll of Louisiana residents rated FBOs at 8.1 on an effectiveness scale compared with 5.1 for federal government and 4.6 for local and state government.

But FBOs' very success and popularity point up perennial tensions with government, and raise thorny questions about FBOs' role as first responders and development engines.

In November the Washington-based Interfaith Alliance issued a report on the Katrina response highly critical of the federal government and praising FBOs for their can-do performance. It called for more tax incentives for charitable giving and more public education and welfare, but also reiterated the Alliance's call for separating church and state, for FBOs to part ways with government faith-based initiatives and assume their own independent leadership.

If FBOs are an integral and growing part of the safety net -- and they are -- how should they interact with governments? Should they be regulated or self-regulated? As their scope and resources grow, how should they be held accountable for outcomes? What steps must FBOs take to respect the religious and cultural diversity of people they serve? How can FBOs ensure that beneficiaries are defined by need, not religious affiliation?

The single overarching principle for who gets priority in disaster relief should be where the need is greatest, not where cultural and religious connections make relief work easier. If the line between relief and development work and activities that could be interpreted as evangelism gets blurred, FBOs risk exploiting those they wish to serve.

As the FBO sector grows, so does recognition that its effectiveness can benefit from a code of ethics. Many ecumenical and interfaith groups are launching initiatives to create them now. For example, InterAction, a coalition of over 160 U.S.-based NGOs, recently adopted into its broader standards guidelines for its faith-based members, especially concerning proselytizing and discriminating among relief recipients.

This trend should be nurtured. The great dynamism of the FBO sector won't be fully harnessed until it has a workable code and verifiable compliance mechanisms. Once those are in place, FBOs' strong donor appeal and efficient delivery can be optimized to bring relief truly wherever it is needed.

Dr. Robert W. Radtke is the president of Episcopal Relief and Development.