Citation
When religion speaks for the poor

Material Information

Title:
When religion speaks for the poor religious groups and the formulation of public welfare policy
Creator:
Kinney, Nancy Theresa
Place of Publication:
Denver, Colo.
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
293 leaves : ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Doctor o Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public Affairs
Committee Chair:
deLeon, Peter
Committee Members:
Cuciti, Peggy
deLeon, Linda
Guzman, Lucia
Wade, Jennifer

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Since 1993 ( fast )
Public welfare -- Religious aspects -- United States ( lcsh )
Religion and social problems -- United States ( lcsh )
Public welfare -- Religious aspects ( fast )
Religion and social problems ( fast )
Social policy ( fast )
Social policy -- United States -- 1993- ( lcsh )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 270-293).
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Nancy Theresa Kinney.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
48713776 ( OCLC )
ocm48713776
Classification:
LD1190.P86 2001d K55 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
WHEN RELIGION SPEAKS FOR THE POOR:
RELIGIOUS GROUPS AND
THE FORMULATION OF PUBLIC WELFARE POLICY
by
Nancy Theresa Kinney
B.A., Regis University, 1984
M.A., University of Denver, 1991
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Affairs
2001


2001 by Nancy Theresa Kinney
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy-
degree by
Nancy Theresa Kinney
has been approved
by
Peter deLeon
&
Is
ggy Cuciti
Linda deLeon
2 6 !
Date


Kinney, Nancy Theresa (Ph.D., Public Affairs)
When Religion Speaks for the Poor. Religious Groups and the Formulation of Public
Welfare Policy
Thesis direcved by Professor Peter deLeon
ABSTRACT
Recent changes in U.S. social welfare policy suggest that our understanding
of the social context of policy formulation is limited in certain ways. Cultural influ-
ences are inadequately explained in existing theories of policy formulation, particu-
larly in terms of their persistence, complexity and salience for important social is-
sues. The expanded use of nonprofit, specifically religious, organizations in the
provision of government contracted social services is suggestive of the influence of
these intervening forces.
To examine the significance of social context in public welfare policy, an in-
ductive policy formulation study was conducted of a provision of the 1996 welfare
reform act. The "charitable choice" provision specifically allows religious congrega-
tions and houses of worship to qualify as vendors of services under the new law.
How this provision became part of the welfare act and, in particular, how religious
groups influenced its adoption constituted the focus of the study. While religious
groups have been acknowledged as implemented of public welfare policy, their ac-
tive engagement of the policy process at the formulation stage has been largely un-
examined.
An integrated qualitative and quantitative design utilized three modes of
analysis. Historical analysis provided a conceptual framework for explaining the per-
sistence of religious group involvement in contemporary social welfare policy. Rhe-
torical analysis of the policy arguments presented by religious interests during the
formulation process deconstructed multiple layers of meaning surrounding the


charitable choice provision. Content analysis of newspaper texts assessed the salience
of policy problems and solutions tied to religious group involvement. Principal
component analysis (a form of factor analysis) disclosed patterns of word usage and
prevailing rhetoric in the texts.
In the welfare reform debates of the 1990s, organized religious interests did
not speak with a single voice on behalf of the poor, nor were they joined by a single
intent to defend or protect the poor and the powerless. The study contributes to
knowledge about the function of social context in the formulation of public policy
generally and social policy in particular. The study's emphasis on policy discourse
also provides additional insight into the strategies employed by advocates of social
groups that wish to shape public policy.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recom-
mend its publication.
Peter deLeon


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research effort was enriched and strengthened by the contributions of
many associated with the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of
Colorado at Denver. Peter deLeon, doctoral program advisor and my dissertation
committee chair, provided m.aring encouragement and helpful criticism throughout
my Ph.D. coursework and a lengthy thesis development process. In addition, the
members of my committee each supplied in turn a fresh perspective on my topic
when enthusiasm was lagging. I am grateful for their crucial assistance, as well as
those of GSPAs faculty and staff, in this undertaking.
Individual learning takes place, 1 believe, in a community of learners, and I
am appreciative of the insights and friendship offered by my classmates at GSPA.
My scholarly efforts have also been formed by the example of others I have encoun-
tered through several unique research opportunities. In particular, Francesca
Guerra-Pearson, Ph.D., provided much-valued modeling and survival skills.
W. John Shepherd, assistant archivist, and his staff at the Catholic University
of America archives in Washington, DC were particularly generous with their time
and patience during my exploration of the Catholic Charities collections. Amanda
Hankins, assistant librarian at Regent University in Virginia, offered inestimable
help in securing certain difficult-to-access materials. Lynne Andrews, M.L.S., and
my fellow Regis University colleague, John McKieman, Ph.D., stepped into the gap
to provide indexing and coding tasks under time and distance pressures. Catherine
Anderson and Marianne McKieman also performed needed but sorely repetitious
duties.
A dissertation grant from Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy al-
lowed me the opportunity to devote full-time to the completion of my thesis as well
as receive research support and the privilege of feedback from several "giants" in the
field of nonprofit studies. A John D. Rockefeller m Fellowship provided a ground-
breaking summer with the Program on Nonprofit Organizations (PONPO) at Yale
University in 1997. I also received a generous Church Training and Deaconness
House Scholarship (Philadelphia, PA) in 1996 that helped launch my studies.
Completion of the Ph.D. requires fortitude and a certain degree of mental
skill, but it would have been impossible without the love and tireless support of my
husband, Robert, our children, extended family and friends.


CONTENTS
Figures.............................................................xii
Tables ............................................................xiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................1
Establishing the Policy Context................................4
Welfare Reforms New Opportunities for Religious Groups........8
What is Different about Charitable Choice?....................11
Charitable Choice: an Odd Preference..........................16
Defenders or Judges of the Poor...............................20
Examining Religious Group Differences in Policy Formulation...21
Overview of the Thesis........................................22
2. CONTEXT AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................25
Social Context in the Policy Sciences.........................29
Organizational Logic and Theory...............................32
Human Agency and Social Institutions..........................35
Framing the Policy Context through Institutional Analysis.....38
Interest Group Advocacy.......................................46
Religious Advocacy Groups.....................................54
Policy Design and Formulation Theory..........................61
Conclusion................................................... 74
3. THE DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH.
75


Research Goals............................................. 76
Research Questions...........................................77
Propositions.................................................78
Principal Subjects for the Study.............................80
Sources of Data and Modes of Analysis........................82
Historical Analysis...................................84
Rhetorical Analysis...................................88
Content Analysis......................................94
Validity.....................................................97
Generalizability of Findings.................................99
Limitations of the Present Study............................100
Ethical Issues..............................................101
4 A POLICY HISTORY OF CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL SERVICE
CONTRACTING BY RELIGIOUS GROUPS.................................103
Historical Precedents for Charitable Choice.................103
Private Social Services Between the New Deal and the New
Frontier....................................................109
An Era of Transformation....................................114
An Era of Retrenchment......................................131
Summary.....................................................141
5. A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF P.L. 104-193, SECTION 104
(CHARITABLE CHOICE).............................................144
Legal and Constitutional Background.........................145
Legislative Origins of Charitable Choice....................151
The Ides of September.......................................164


Miles Yet to Go........................................168
Welfare Reform, Revisited..............................171
The Legislation in Retrospect..........................177
6. RESULTS OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS.............................181
Rhetorical Theory and the Analysis of Discourse........184
Rhetorical Analysis and Problem Construction...........185
The Rhetoric of Policy Solutions.......................199
Content Analysis.......................................205
Measures of Salience in Media Content..................207
Latent Content and the Framing of Discourse............215
Summary................................................222
7. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS.......................225
The Research Questions.................................226
Overview of Significant Findings.......................233
Findings in Light of Exisuvig Research.................235
Examination of Propositions............................241
8. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY.............................................251
APPENDIX
A. THE TEXT OF P.L. 104-193, TITLE I, SEC. 104. (CHARITABLE
CHOICE)...................................................256
B. A DIAGRAM OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PRWORA'S
CHARITABLE CHOICE PROVISION...............................259
C. ORGANIZED RELIGIOUS INTERESTS THAT GAVE PUBLIC
TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS DURING WELFARE REFORM
DEBATES, 1995-1996 ...................................... 260


D. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL................................262
E. PUBLICATIONS FOR RHETORICAL ANALYSIS..............264
F. DICTION 5.0'S WORD CATEGORIES (DICTIONARIES)......265
G. LIST OF ACRONYMS FOR ORGANIZATIONS................269
REFERENCE LIST.......................................270


FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Growth in Washington Representation of Organized Religious Inter-
ests and Social Service Groups.......................................54
4.1 Public Aid Expenditures for Fiscal Years 1984-1989 in Constant 1987
Dollars..............................................................133
6.1 Extent of Coverage by Word Count Totals Linking Religious Groups
with Welfare Reform in Seven Major U.S. Newspapers 1995-1996......... 213


TABLES
Table
4.1 Reported Estimates of Government Funding for Catholic Charities
Agencies, 1984-1989...............................................135
6.1 Frequency Distribution of Articles Grouped by Page Range.........209
6.2 Frequency of Articles Mentioning Religious Interests and Welfare Re-
form Found in Seven Major U.S. Newspapers, 1995-1996.....................211
6.3 Frequency of References to Religious Groups and Interests in Con-
junction with Welfare Reform in Seven Major U.S. Newspapers, 1995-
1996............................................................. 214
6.4 Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of Newspaper Descriptors
Component Loadings................................................220


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Whatsoever we did or ought to have done when we lived in
England, the same must we do and more also where we go.
That which the most in their Churches maintain as a truth
in profession only, we must bring into familiar and constant
practice, as in this duty of Love we must love brotherly
without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure
heart fervently, vre must bear one another's burdens.
John Winthrop, 1630
A Model of Christian Charity
Religious groups play a visible and valued role in the provision of social
services' in the United States. Their involvement in charitable activities for the poor
and vulnerable spans the nation's history, and even predates the Founding period.
Today, the work of organizations like the Salvation Army is so closely identified
with the welfare of the poor that their efforts have become a cultural icon (Winston,
1999).
1 The Social Work Dictionary (Barker, 1995) defines social services as those ac-
tivities that help people achieve self-sufficiency and other forms of "successful social
functioning" (p. 356). In this thesis, the term "social services" is used interchangea-
bly with "human services," defined as the "planning, organizing, developing, and
administering programs for and providing direct social services to people" (p. 173).
Six areas of basic human services are commonly identified: personal social services,
health, education, housing, income and justice/public safety. The subcategory of
"personal" or "general" social services outlined by Kamerman and Kahn (1976) in-
cludes child welfare, day care, services for families and the elderly, community care
centers, immigration and community mental health programs.
1


As a result of dramatic changes to public welfare policy in recent years, re
ligious groups are being asked to assume an increasing role in the delivery of serv-
ices and programs for the poor. Religious groups have been attributed with pro-
viding an important social link to informal systems of care and support in
communities, with particular benefit for impoverished areas that are difficult tc
reach. Furthermore, religious or faith-based organizations are assumed to conduct
themselves in "other-regarding" ways and to be concerned about the general well-
being of society.
In the past few years, various political actors have hailed the utilization of
faith-based groups as a popular policy innovation with wide application. For exam-
ple, during the 2000 presidential election, both Republican and Democratic candi-
dates went on record advocating greater involvement of religious groups in solving
some of our societys most intractable problems, from drug addiction to teen preg-
nancy to prison reform ('Texas governor urges use of faith-based treatment provid-
ers," 1997; Bulletin Broadfaxing Network Inc., 1999). Colorado Governor Bill Owens
used the occasion of his inaugural address in 1999 to laud a nationwide "new spirit"
of cooperation between government and faith-based organizations, claiming that it
was "time" for government to "recognize the essential role" of these groups in pro-
viding personal and caring support to the needy (State of the State address, 1999).
Then-President Bill Clinton dted the need for greater utilization of religious groups
in his final State of the Union address, averring that government "should help faith-
based organizations to do more to fight poverty and drug abuse, and help people get
back on the right track" (Clinton, 2000).
2


In January 2001, President George Bush launched a new White House Office
of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to facilitate the "mobilizing of the armies
of compassion (Silk, 2001). The Presidents executive order is one step among many
in a progression of recent policies aimed at expanding the use of religious groups in
the provision of social welfare services. As others have done, the new Administra-
tion contends that religious and other community-based groups bring needed qual-
ity and a desired lack of self-interest to their service to the poor.
As religious groups enter into these new and expanded service roles, the
likelihood of their involvement in policy deliberations increases as well. In fact, the
emergence of the new policies that advance the utilization of religious groups sug-
gests that such organizations are already substantively involved in the welfare pol-
icy formulation process. How confident should the public be that religious groups
are really acting in the greater interests of society and of the poor? More specifically,
does an apparently increased role in formulation for religious groups signal a shift away from
their commitment to advocacy and intervention on behalf of the poor?
This study describes the involvement of a sample of religious groups in the
formulation of contemporary public welfare policy and identifies their varied ap-
proaches to roles as both service providers and policy actors. A particular provision
of welfare legislation known as "charitable choice provides a unique opportunity to
examine the role of religious groups in the formulation of public welfare policy. The
1926 rpfcrm legislation was important for many reasons, but charitable choice may
be one of its most unusual contributions to U.S. public welfare policy.
3


I
Establishing the Policy Context
In the last forty years, the private nonprofit sector has had an increasingly
prominent and expansive role in the provision of social welfare. The U.S. private
sector provides many aspects of social welfare that are supplied by the state in other
industrialized countries (Noble, 1997). Other nations have progressively expanded
and strengthened their welfare infrastructure and benefits, while the American wel-
fare apparatus has been alternatively characterized as "precocious" (Skocpol, 1992),
"reluctant" (Jansson, 1997), "exceptional," and "incomplete" (Katz, 1996). The re-
luctance in U.S. social welfare policy to build a comprehensive welfare state is evi-
denced by a reliance on market solutions, such as employment-based mechanisms
for unemployment, retirement and health insurance (Gordon, 1994; Katz, 1996; No-
ble, 1997).
The involvement of religious groups in U.S. social welfare assumes particular
importance because of their role in service provision but also because they provide
needed intervention on behalf of the poor in this "stop-gap welfare system.
Through their efforts to influence policy in the media and in legislative advocacy,
religious groups have served as a reminder of the needs of the poor, a segment of
society that is sadly underrepresented in the policy formulation process.
As Kramnick and Moore (1997) suggest, the recent emergence of contracting
with religious groups as a favored policy innovation is the result of "diverse institu-
tional and ideological sources" (p. 49). As government policies have trimmed anti-
poverty programs in the U.S. in recent years, it has become increasingly evident that
1
4


social and cultural factors weigh significantly on the fashioning of public policy in
regard to the poor (Katz, 1996). These cultural factors may bear down hardest on
programs of public assistance2 presumed to be the most susceptible to variadons in
levels of support. Patterns of support have been demonstrated to be affected by
cultural norms, in particular those regarding women (Gordon, 1994; Ladd-Taylor,
1993) and race (Quadagno, 1994) as well as those associated with regional differences
(Wolpert, 1993).
Since the 1960s, we have witnessed a tremendous expansion of federal inter-
vention in social welfare as well as marked contraction or, more accurately, declen-
sion of programs and services. The Great Society era heralded a decade of rapid
program growth that culminated in the passage ct major social legislation indudirg
the Manpower Development and Training Act (1961), the Economic Opportunity
Act, Food Stamps Act and Civil Rights Act (1964), and, m 1965, Medicare, Medicaid,
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Older Americans Act (1965). The
scope and number of these programs were then drastically reduced during the Car-
ter administration. With the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, the Reagan Ad-
ministration collapsed many of these programs into nine block grants to the states,
ostensibly to increase flexibility and discretion in decision making at the state level
and to reduce the scope of federal involvement (Weimar, 1982).
2 Public assistance is defined as "a government's provision of minimum fi-
nancial aid to people who have no other means of supporting themselves" (Barker,
1999). Types of categorical assistance include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and
Old Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance (OASDHI). Means-tested assis-
tance like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is provided for those
v/ho are ineligible for categorical assistance.
5


The role of government has been altered with successive policy changes in
response to shifting political commitments in American society toward concern for
the poor. Fluctuations in the degree or scope of support for the poor as expressed in
social welfare policies underscore the importance of enduring cultural and ideologi-
cal factors that help to shape or constrain such policy decisions. Isolating those fac-
tors in the fashioning of political priorities, however, is an intricate process; the val-
ues and actions prompted by religious concerns are tightly woven into the fabric of
American society. Characterized as a "nation with the soul of a church" (Mead,
1975), the United States is often assumed to have developed its system of concern
and care for the poor from a legacy of religious and cultural values.
Religious groups that function as service providers are not the only faith-
based entities with a demonstrated interest in social welfare policy. Politically con-
servative groups with ties to rehgious interests like the Christian Coalition have de-
voted much energy to influencing social policy in recent years. A 1997 study indi-
cated that the Christian Coalition was the advocacy organization most frequently
mentioned by Congressional staff as attempting to influence family policy and social
welfare reform (Rees, 1999).
More generally, religious advocacy organizations are an increasingly vocal
force in public policy formulation. Social welfare is only one arena, however, where
religious groups have a demonstrated interest in influencing the scope, purpose and
content of U.S. policy. Education, health care and even foreign affairs are policy ar-
eas that regularly raise the concern and involvement of religious groups. Faith-
based groups are predictably at the forefront on issues like prayer Ln public schools
and sex education, and they are increasingly visible in the debate over vouchers for
6


private (e.g., parochial) school education. The emotionally charged social conflict
over abortion is fueled to a great extent by religious groups that readily mobilize
constituents to influence court decisions and legislative funding discussions; relig-
ious groups also often seek a voice in policy decisions about euthanasia and genetic
research. Concerns about religious freedom as a human rights issue have prompted
various expressions of legislative advocacy by faith groups, for example, in regard to
trade with China and economic aid to governments of the former Soviet Union. The
call for debt relief for the world's poorest countries is supported in large measure by
activist religious groups (Griesgraber, 1997; Sheridan, 2000).
Despite their manifest concern for the poor, increased involvement for relig-
ious groups in changes in public welfare policy may have a detrimental effect on
these groups. Robert Wuthnow (1988) argues that modem politics has had a signifi-
cant effect in creating new "fissures" among religious groups, resulting in a veritable
"restructuring" of religion in America. At the time of Tocqueville's famed visits to
America, government had a "minimal role" in society and religion's influence was
considerable. In the last century, Wuthnow writes, government has not only as-
sumed many of the social roles (i.e., human services) once served by religion, it now
plays "an increasing role in shaping the nature of American faith" (p. 6). Govern-
ment intervention in matters once regr-Jed as outside its purview has exacerbated
religious and cultural divisions, Wuthnow's theory posits, producing a dramatic
surge in "special purpose groups" that have splintered religious group unity. These
groups have engaged directly in political matters and the effects of their activity
have been far-reaching:
7


.. .[TJhe growth of special purpose groups in American religion may
have also contributed to the development of cultural cleavages...
many of these special purpose groups have also played a role in al-
tering earlier conceptions of the proper method of infusing religious
values into the political arena. The sheer growth in numbers of such
organizations has made it possible for religious people to mobilize
themselves much more effectively for attaining political objectives. At
the same time, taking direct action in the political sphere has sub-
jected the religious community at la^e to the divisiveness that in-
variably characterizes the pursuit of political objectives. (Wutinow,
1988, pp. 130-131)
The growing presence of religious groups in policy formulation suggests a
need for greater sophistication in our understanding of their role in the formulation
process.
Welfare Reform's New Opportunities for Religious Groups
The reform of public welfare policies during the 104th Congress resulted in
legislation that overhauled the system of benefits established with the Social Security
Act of 1935. The act, officially known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Rec-
onciliation Act of 1996 (or PRWORA, P.L. 104-193), converted federal welfare pro-
grams entirely to a system of limited state block grants, thereby "capping" the
amount of assistance states can make available for services to the disadvantaged.
PRWORA signalled a major shift in the federal government's role in a national pro-
gram of social welfare, affectir g a wide spectrum of social programs including
Medicaid, food stamps and child .. are.
Some of the most dramatic effects of PRWORA were seen in the termination
>f the AFDC program. Because funding to states was now limited, PRWORA repre-
sented a dramatic departure from viewing public assistance as a "right" or entitle-
8


ment. Although work programs and incentives had been in place since amendments
to welfare legislation in 1967 (Jansson, 1997), PRWORA established strict time limits
for recipients to secure employment Under PRWORA, poor families are no longer
entitled to cash assistance from the government solely on the basis of their level of
income; the length of time they now may receive benefit is strictly limited and they
must meet specific work requirements for eligibility.
To reflect the renewed emphasis on trans ->nal assistance rather than long-
term aid, PRWORA created a new program to replace AFDC, called Temporary As-
sistance to Needy Families or TANF. Instead of providing financial assistance out-
right, eligibility for TANF support now requires certain behavioral changes among
recipients: for example, engaging in work "activities" and demonstrating responsible
parenting. Further examples of this new behavioral emphasis include requiring
teenage parents to live in adult-supervised homes and for recipients with a sub-
stance-abuse problem to undergo treatment to remain eligible for benefits. The tran-
sition to a program that provides benefits but also requires such behavioral change
has been described as the "vw paternalism" in U. S. social welfare (Mead, 1997), a
move that entails a greater monitoring and supervisory role for government (Mead,
1996; Mead, 1998).
One consequence of the 1996 act was the shifting of considerable policy de-
sign and implementation responsibilities from the federal government to the states.
States have been granted a new level of flexibility and control in the forms utilized to
deliver services to recipients. The change from cash assistance to a cash-and-
behavior modification approach places new control over public assistance in the
hands of state officials. The emphasis placed on employment has superceded con-
9


cems for providing subsistence income to America's poorest families. For example,
states are no longer required to match in cash the assistance provided to recipients
through federal funds; instead, states can supply services through vouchers and
other contracted arrangements with third-party vendors.
The devolution of these program design powers to the states also encouraged
the increased involvement of private sector providers. Ostensibly to expand the
range of service delivery options for the states, the federal legislation included a
provision that allows religious as well as other charitable groups to participate in
TANF contracting. The so-called "charitable choice" provision of PRWORA (Sec.104)
permits even overtly sectarian groups to function as government contractors, on the
"same basis as any other nongovernmental provider" (Sec. 104 at b.).3 The provision
specifies that government may not discriminate against religious groups in estab-
lishing the eligibility of providers and that the religious character of such organiza-
tions should not be "impaired" (ibid., at c.).
Reaction to the provision has been decidedly mixed among religious leaders
and, not surprisingly. Constitutional rights activists (Mathis, 2000). The charitable
choice provision has been labeled a "charade" masking direct government support
to churches (Boston, 1998) and denounced as little more than "welfare for churches"
(Blumner, 1996). Some religious groups have expressed the fear that charitable
choice is a step toward compromising the autonomy of churches in America (Rogers,
1998) and a threat to church-state distinctions (General Board of American Baptist
Churches USA, 1998).
3 The complete text of Section 104 is included in Appendix A.
10


Mainline Protestant, Catholic and Jewish groups expressed displeasure with
PRWORA generally, denouncing it as drastic and disappointing. Although these
groups voiced support for more cautious reform of welfare, they protested the end
to a guarantee of assistance and the opportunity for states to alter drastically their
programs of support (1996; 1998). Sojourners, a prominent religious advocacy orga-
nization linked closely to evangelical Christian groups, labeled the 1996 welfare act a
national "sin" that would cast more American children deeper into poverty (Wallis,
1996). The Sojourners organization further criticized both liberals and conservatives
for doing too little, too late to produce either acceptable or comprehensive welfare
reform.
Despite such controversy, the appeal of the "charitable choice" concept has
been extended well beyond welfare reform. Subsequent policy making in areas like
federally funded programs of refugee resettlement, community services block
grants, and substance abuse treatment include similar provisions (Carlson-Thies,
1999b).
What is Different about Charitable Choice?
Government arrangements with religious groups to provide social services
are hardly new phenomena, despite the current novelty that charitable choice holds
for policymakers and politicians. Organizations like the Salvation Army, Volunteers
of America (VOA) and Catholic Charities have provided government-funded serv-
ices to the poor for many years. Religious groups have been actively involved in the
implementation of social welfare policy, particularly in regard to programs involving
emergency assistance, child care and homelessness.
11


However, PRWORA's charitable choice provision is the first instance of fed-
eral legislation that both warrants the inclusion of religious groups among the orga-
nizations eligible to provide direct services and promises the protection of their Con-
stitutional rights while doing so. No previous federal social welfare legislation so
plainly states their inclusion, thus signaling a "legitimation" of religious group in-
volvement in publicly funded social services (Davis, 1996). Even more remarkable in
a nation that has historically attempted to distinguish between church and state is
that the charitable choice provision suggests that religious congregationsnot just
religious groups organized to provide social servicescan be considered as eligible
providers of TANF services.
The passage of PRWORA's charitable choice provision and its application to
other social welfare policy issues is problematic for several obvious reasons. First,
the tacit approval of government funding for faith-based services raises questions
about the provision's Constitutionality. Despite their visibility in the human service
arena, religious groups have held a particularly "precarious'' position as government
contractors (Cnaan, Wineburg, & Boddie, 1999, p. 307). Religious group involve-
ment in publicly funded services has been constrained by Constitutionally based
concerns about "excessive entanglement" between church and state. During the ex.
pansion of social programs in the 1960s, for example, religious groups that provided
publicly funded social services were expected to de-emphasize their religious char-
acter or create separate, "religiously neutral" entities in order to receive funding.
The charitable choice provision of PRWORA included language that antici-
pated the legal challenges raised by the prospect of compensating religious groups
for services to welfare clients. An explanation of protections for both the client and
12


the religious service provider were incorporated into the Act, upholding in particu-
lar the Free Exercise tenets of the First Amendment. Establishment concerns were ad-
dressed in the Act to the extent that client beneficiaries are entitled to a choice of
providers (implying that the state cannot fund only religious groups. Sec. 104 at e.l.)
and that religious groups may not use state funds for expressly religious purposes,
i.e., sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization (Sec. 104 at j.).
The preservation of a religious group's autonomy and freedom from state
interference was a principle concern of Section 104's Constitutional considerations.
In regard to the free exercise of expression entitled to religious service providers, the
provision states:
A religious organization with a contract...or which accepts certifi-
cates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement...shall retain its inde-
pendence from Federal, State, and local governments, including such
organization's control over the definition, practice, and expression of
its religious beliefs.. .Neither the Federal Government nor a State sh*Jl
require a religious organization to (A) alter its form of internal gov-
ernance; or (B) remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other sym-
bols...in order to be eligible to contract to provide assistance... (Sec.
104 at d.l. and 2.).
The Constitutionality of charitable choice is only one troubling aspect of the
provision. Another is the paucity of research about the benefits of utilizing such
groups as contractors. Despite the public profile of groups like VOA and the Salva-
tion Army, there is little empirical research about advantages to faith-based services
in contrast to secular providers, either public or private. In fact, the most rudimen-
tary information about religiously tied social services is extremely limited. Little has
been established about the scope, quality and extent of the contracting relationships
between government and religious nonprofit organizations that serve as social serv-
ice providers. What is known about these religious groups is largely derived from
13


anecdotal evidence or from historical data gathered from well before the Social Secu-
rity Act in 1935. Admittedly, research about many religious groups has proven diffi-
cult, in part because of their informal structure. Most religious groups are shielded
from reporting annual income and expenses to the Internal Revenue Service, a re-
quirement made of other nonprofits (Biddle, 1992). This limits the ready availability
of significant data about religious groups.
Despite the prominence given to religious and other community-based
groups in charitable choice, such nonprofit organizations have had a "miniscule
role," as Gronbjerg (1997) points out, in the programs involving direct or cash assis-
tance such as AFDC and Social Security. With the changes under PRWORA, non-
profits (including religious groups) have become involved in this function of social
welfare to the extent that states utilize vouchers and other substitutes for cash assis-
tance. Thus, a new service niche has been created for religious and other nonprofit
organizations.
Filling this niche with competent private sector providers poses a particular
challenge for state and local human service agencies, as the research on nonprofits
shows. Contrary to popular notions of voluntary charity, the vast majority of non-
profit organizations serve causes and purposes that do not directly address the
problems of poverty. At least since the "tough times" of the 1980s, few nonprofits
identify the poor as their primary service population (Grenbjerg, 1990). Within the
human services contracting arena, nonprofits are far more inclined to function as
providers of services in areas like health, education and child care because of the
potential for needed fee-based or commercial income. Services such as emergency
assistance (shelter, food and clothing) and job readiness have limited potential for
14


generating "earned income" for nonprofits, income that might provide other reve-
nue streams to mitigate total reliance on public funds. Prominent among the pro-
viders of these types of services to the very poor are religiously based nonprofit or-
ganizations.
The expanded use of faith-based groups prompts additional concern in re-
gard to the privatization4 of public services in general. Issues of service quality, in-
novation, availability and accountability reflect only some of the concerns raised by
research on nonprofit group involvement in extensive social service contracting. At
a more fundamental level is the issue of the "democratic-ness" of privatization ap-
proaches. Smith (1993) contends that over-reliance on government contracting po-
tentially constrains the political actions of citizens in several ways. First, contracting
can compromise the independence of nonprofits to pursue their citizen-driven mis-
sions by limiting their range of services and responsiveness to particular needs. In
addition, nonprofits can be constrained by contracting relationships from serving
their valued role as an intermediary between the citizen and the state (Berger &
Neuhaus, 1977). The potential for lack of accountability to citizens for privately
contracted services is yet smother risk. Finally, Smith (1993) suggests, government's
presence as a contracting partner may discourage citizen participation in forms of
activism directed toward or on behalf of a nonprofit's cause. The choice of particular
policy "tools" or solutions has a reinforcing effect that, as Smith and Ingram (2000)
argue, can either sanction or stigmatize the beneficiaries of such policies.
15


Some critics of charitable choice labeled it as a mere "campaign tactic" that
favored "majoritarian religious ideals" (Kaminer, 1997), a position that inaccurately
assumes unanimity of interpretation among the groups that claim to elevate relig-
ious ideals in the public sphere. As Kaminer suggests, the threat of "religious sec-
tarian rivalries" could be fostered by policies that legitimate religious group in-
volvement in government functions. The intensity of recent Congressional
squabbling over whether the House chaplain should be a Protestant or Catholic
(Alvarez, 2000; Anderson, 2000; Broadway, 2000; Eilperin, 2000) and the viciousness
of 2000 presidential campaign divisiveness about the influence of the religious right
(Barstow, 2000; Thomas, 2000) demonstrate how "close to the surface" such religious
tensions seem to be.
Charitable Choice: an Odd Preference
Preliminary research on charitable choice suggests that the emergence of this
policy innovation represented an important reversal in the traditional political stance
toward social welfare taken by American religious groups. Chaves (1999) found in
his study of U S. congregations that those expressing the least interest in providing
services with government funds were those aligned with the conservative groups
that seemed to have promoted the charitable choice provision. A cursory view of
various religious orientations to policy engagement in regard to public welfare sug-
gests that charitable choice would have raised particular challenges for different 4
4 The U.S. Government Accounting Service (1998) defines privatization as
"any process that is aimed at shifting functions and responsibilities, in whole or in
part, from the government to the private sector through such activities as contracting
out or asset sales.
16


groups. Generalizing some of the obvious differences may be instructive for under-
standing the importance of this breakthrough legislation and religious group in-
volvement in its passage. A "thumbnail" analysis of four broad sectors of American
religion highlights these differences.
First, charitable choice was a particularly odd or unpredictable preference for
those groups with a history of involvement in service provision, for example. Catho-
lic Charities, Volunteers of America, and the Salvation Army. Maintaining collabo-
rative cross-sectoral relationships with government as a viable partner is a central
thrust of advocacy efforts by these groups (Brown, 1940; Volunteers of America,
1999). Although these groups stood to gain materially horn the provision, their typi-
cal stance has been to oppose government reductions in support for or involvement
with social programs because such cutbacks are considered ultimately harmful to the
well-being of the poor. Furthermore, these groups recognize from their own experi-
ence the limits to the responsiveness (i.e., giving, volunteering, political action) of the
general faith community to issues of social concern and the inability of the nonprofit
sector alone to respond adequately to them. The difficulties of mobilizing new ini-
tiatives among affiliate groups (i.e., congregations) would have been apparent to
these service provision veterans. If these groups actively endorsed charitable choice,
it would represent a significant departure from their support of a progressive wel-
fare state.
Second, charitable choice was also an unlikely preference for some religious
groups at the forefront of reform in social (particularly family) policy. These groups,
especially those aligned with or supported by individuals identified with funda-
mental or evangelical Protestant traditions, traditionally stand firmly opposed on
17


ideological grounds to government funding for religious groups. Southern Baptists,
for example, comprise the nation's largest Protestant group and maintain a long-
standing doctrinal proscription against state funds for religious groups (Southern
Baptist Convention, 1963).5 This particular position may be softening, however,
with the emergence of support for school vouchers, a concept favored by many
evangelical and fundamentalist Christian groups (Monsma, 1996; Walsh, 1999).
Many conservative Christian groups favored welfare reform, but their views have
been decidedly mixed toward the appropriateness of state funds for church efforts.
Third, mainline Protestant denominations like Methodists, Presbyterians,
Lutherans and Episcopalians, which have been characteristically liberal in regard to
social issues (Ahlstrom, 1975), have tended to prefer an expanded state welfare ap-
paratus with fewer constraints on individuals' eligibility for public assistance. The
imposition of behavioral norms on welfare recipients, specifically, would have con-
flicted with the emphasis these groups place on cherished liberal values. At one time
more visible and active in social causes like civil rights, these groups have declined
both in membership and political influence in recent decades (Finke & Stark, 1992;
Hertzke, 1991). However, the persistent influence of some of these denominations
among political elites has been documented (Davidson, Pyle, & Reyes, 1995) and the
representation of their interests cannot be underestimated. Historically, these relig-
ious groups have maintained that social responsibility for the poor properly belongs
to or can only be adequately provided by the state, a factor suggesting their opposi-
5 Section XVII of the Baptist Faith and Message (Religious Liberty, adopted
May 9,1963), states: "The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its
work."
18


tion to charitable choice. Mainline Protestant denominations broadly opposed
PRWORA (1996).
Four, charitable choice was an odd preference for the nation's historically
black churches, since these groups have come to emphasize social action rather than
social service alone as a means to redress differences (Johnson, 1980). The black
church has been recognized as a critical element in the political mobilization of the
African-American community (Johnson, 1980; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990) and has suc-
cessfully utilized legal remedies to advocate for social change and to demand gov-
ernment response where inequities persist. Members of black churches have been
found to be better prepared for civic involvement (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995)
and their congregations tend to be more involved in community affairs than their
white counterparts (Chaves & Higgins, 1992). Although black churches have carried
on a strong tradition of parallel programs and services to their poor members as a
result of patterns of discrimination (Quadagno, 1994), advocating a diminished role
for government and risking federal civil rights protections would make their support
of charitable choice illogical. To seek funds for religiously tied social programs
could have been perceived a serious setback in achieving such systemic change and a
costly a political concession. An additional complicating factor is that the represen-
tation of America's historically black churches in national policy formulation is con-
strained because these churches tend to be more locally (as opposed to federally) or-
ganized (Chaves & Higgins, 1992; Johnson, 1980; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990).
19


Defenders or fudges of the Poor
Another perplexing aspect of religious group support for charitable choice
involves the perceptions of these groups and their relationship to the poor. Indeed,
most of the world's religions take special regard for the poor by placing expectations
upon the faithful to give alms or otherwise care for them (Tropman, 1995). Faith
groups derived from the dominant Judeo-Christian tradition in the United States
hold in common a biblical injunction to "defend" the poor and to represent their in-
terests in society. Most religious groups in America subscribe to a notion of the cen-
trality of charity and compassion toward the less fortunate and report significant
participation in related activities (Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1992).
This role in defense of the poor, however, is interpreted differently among
religious groups and is certainly enacted to differing degrees (Tropman, 1995). For
some groups, this means upholding religion's perceived prophetic role as society's
critic, which is often an important ideological stance of religious groups (Mott, 1994).
For other groups, "defending the poor" means standing against social forces (injus-
tice, misfortune, or even governmental power) that might abuse or take advantage of
the poor. For yet others, defending the needs of the poor means encouraging their
religious conversion or salvation (Clydesdale, 1990).
In summary, although passage of the charitable choice provision represents a
marked "sea-change" in social welfare policy regarding the role of the state and its
partnership with the private sector, there is no clear, unitary explanation for the
20


various roles that religious groups might have taken in advocating for or against
charitable choice.
Examining Religious Group Differences in Policy Formulation
There are at least four reasons why the intent of these various religious
groups should matter to the development of social policy. First, given the dramatic
changes in the U.S. welfare state and the volatility of American commitment to the
poor, religious group activity provides a bellwether for the strength of private, non-
governmental support. This is most frequently captured in the concept of social
capital, and the significant role that religion plays in the development of civil society
in America (Ammerman, 1996; Greeley, 1997; Wood, 1997).
Second, the increased flexibility given to state and local jurisdictions as a re-
sult of PRWORA intensifies the influence of regional and cultural (including relig-
ious) differences. In particular, Wolpert (1993) and others have argued that wide
disparities exist between regions of the United States in the level of generosity ex-
tended to the poor and vulnerable. Third, the motivations of these groups are sig-
nificant because the social conscience of religious and other charitable groups serves
as something of a corrective to the nation's limited, market-driven welfare system
(Noble, 1997). If these groups are simply co-opted into a new scheme of service pro-
vision, their particular role as critic could be compromised.
Last, but perhaps most importantly, these groups provide one of the few
ways that the interests of the poor are represented in the policy process. As Soss
(1999) writes, "welfare recipients have an unusually visible material stake in gov-
ernment policies" (p. 363) and their participation in policy formulation is sadly un-
21


derrepresented. Religious advocacy groups provide one of the few ways that the
concerns of welfare recipients can be channeled into the policy formulation process.
If the motivation of these groups is diverted toward other endsnamely, supplying
government servicestheir policy formulation influence is potentially compromised
and the "democraticness" of the social welfare policy process in regard to the poor is
seriously impaired.
Overview of the Thesis
The emergence of the charitable choice provision has potentially far-reaching
effects for religious groups and their relationship with the state in regard to care for
the poor. To more fully appreciate the complexity of the interactions between relig-
ious groups and the modem administrative state, this thesis examined the emer-
gence of the charitable choice provision from the theoretical framework of policy
formulation. The following questions guided an investigation of the extant literature
on the participation of religious and other cultural groups in social welfare policy
formulation:
How can we explain the role of religious groups in the formulation of so-
cial welfare policy?
Do these groups have a specific or unique role to play in the fashioning of
social welfare policy in America's limited welfare state?
Does formulation of the charitable choice provision represent a significant
change in the advocacy efforts of religious groups?
The scholarly literature from several fields was consulted to begin to address
these questions. First, conceptions of social context from the policy sciences provided
22


a background for the research and led to an exploration of the logical constructs that
frame our understanding of group and institutional action. The motives and actions
of religious advocacy groups were central to this study; hence, the organization theory
literature was consulted. In particular, insight was drawn from the literature of in-
stitutionalism because of the particular logic deployed by groups balancing the in-
terests of religion and politics, two divergent realms of institutional concern.
Next, the literature pertaining to interest group theory was explored, especially
its contributions to our understanding of policy domains and advocacy coalitions. In
particular, the literature related to religious advocacy groups was examined. The
literature section concludes with relevant research offered horn the policy formulation
literature. Theory related to the definition of policy problems as well as the identifi-
cation of preferred solutions was investigated.
Following Chapter 2's overview to the pertinent literature, Chapter 3 outlines
the methodology used to address the research questions. The research findings be-
gin in Chapter 4, which offers an historical interpretation by chronicling the various
policy developments since the 1960s that contributed to the expansion of private
sector contracting and paved the way for charitable choice. Utilizing the conceptual
framework of policy history, the emergence of major religious social welfare and ad-
vocacy organizations during this same time period (1960s forward) was outlined
against a corresponding legislative background. A pattern of public action was
traced from the passage of a series of Social Security Amendments in the 1960s to the
point of introduction of the charitable choice provision during the welfare reform
debates in 1995 and 1996. These developments have been considered individually in
isolated accounts but have not been assembled into a unified chronology that might
23


help elucidate the significance of recent changes. Organizational accounts, gathered
from official publications and augmented by interviews and media reports, provided
the principal source of evidence for this chapter.
The historical background begun in Chapter 4 then narrows to focus on the
legislative history of the charitable choice provision during 1995 and 1996. The evi-
dence for this phase of the historical research was gleaned from the Congressional
Record and legislative publications, including committee reports and documented
legislative history regarding Section 104 of PRWORA. Interviews with organiza-
tional informants provided essential data about the emergence of the provision and
religious group response to it. Newspaper and other media accounts were utilized
to establish the political, administrative and social context in which charitable choice
emerged.
This multi-faceted historical analysispolicy history, organizational accounts
and a legislative history of Section 104comprised the first phase of the research
study. The findings from the second phase, incorporating two forms of discourse
analysis of textual evidence related to the formulation of charitable choice, are de-
scribed in Chapter 6.
Discussion of the study's findings from the three methodological modali-
tieshistorical analysis and two forms of discourse analysisis presented in Chap-
ter 7. Finally, conclusions and implications for further study are offered in Chapter
8.
24


CHAPTER 2
CONTEXT AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Religious values cannot be the only, or even
the predominant, guide to policy in a diverse
society. But it is equally misguided to
suggest that...the Christian Coalition or
any group cannot marshal religious
arguments behind their cause.
Rep. Glenn Poshard
The growth of religious activity in public life in recent years has prompted
many in various social science disciplines to reassess their views of the role of relig-
ion in society. In particular, the rise of the Christian right has prompted many in the
field of political science to increase their understanding about the persistence of such
movements as well as their political sophistication and constraints (Smidt & Pen-
ning, 1997). The field of social work, which distanced itself from its religious roots as
it sought professionalization in the 1900s, is beginning to re-assess the potential for
limited cooperation with faith groups under the new welfare regime (Cnaan et al.,
1999). Sociology, the discipline that developed the "secularization thesis about re-
ligion's declining influence in society, has retreated horn this position in light of the
groundswell of religious activity in America (Chaves, 1997; Finke & Stark, 1992; Ya-
mane, 1997). In public administration and management, the ambit of research is ex-
panding to consider the moral, ethical and even spiritual orientation of public ser-
vants and the people they serve (Moore, 1995; Stillman, 1998).
25


The social sciences have regarded religion as both a factor in the social con-
text (Emil Durkheim's "social function" of religion) and as an overarching framework
that structures the social context, a conceptualization developed by the work of Max
Weber, Paul Tillich and, more recently, Peter Berger (1969). Although this thesis is
framed from the perspective of the policy sciences (and not the sociology of religion),
a brief reference to conceptions of religion is instructive and necessary on this point.
Berger uses the metaphor of a "sacred canopy" to symbolize religion's role in creating
a particular worldview:
Religion is the human enterprise by which a sacred cosmos is estab-
lished. .By sacred is meant here a quality of mysterious and awesome
power, other than man and yet related to him, which is believed to re-
side in certain objects of experience, (ibid., p. 25)
The world of relations encircled by this "universe of meaning" (ibid., p. 175) includes
the religionist's view of his or her role in power relations, both with those who pos-
sess less power (for example, the poor) and greater powers, both temporal and
spiritual. Religion conceived only as the intellectual assent to a set of principles or
beliefs is a very limited and uniquely western notion. Whether viewed as a factor
within or as a comprehensive structure of social context, conceptions of religion en-
tail not only individual belief but situatedness in a network of relationships. The
present surge of interest in religion in public life is bolstered by a recognition of
these social interconnections.
Recent developments in court decisions, legislative politics and administra-
tive practice have indicated a shift in thinking about the role of religion in public life.
During the 1990s, in particular, serious questions were raised about the capacity of
America's religious pluralism to preserve a diversity of viewpoints, especially on
26


matters of pressing social concern. The remarkable political mobilization of Chris-
tian conservatives since the 1980 Presidential election of Ronald Reagan has height-
ened interest in the status of religious pluralism in America (Hopson & Smith, 1999;
Norgren & Nanda, 1996; Reichley, 1985).
Whether American religious and cultural pluralism can withstand the pres-
sures of increasing diversity has prompted extensive debate in the social sciences.
Some, like James Davison Hunter (1991), have argued that a cultural "divide" exists
in our country, representing a "cleavage" so deep in competing moral claims that
traditional precepts of pluralism and toleration cannot prevent a cataclysmic rift
from occurring.
Hunter's widely debated "culture wars" thesis has been criticized as over-
drawn, and his portrayals of extreme cultural polarization have been considered
"simplistic" and "exaggerated" (Kniss, 1997). The American cultural landscape is far
more diversified and complex, Kniss and others have posited, and the occurrence of
cultural partisanship is more subtle and diffused. However, even critics of the cul-
ture wars thesis concede that, within particular spheres of social life, cultural divi-
sions are more pronounced. Stephen L. Carter (1993) echoed a related but more
tempered theme than Hunter's in The Culture of Disbelief. Carter, a law professor at
Yale, contended that religion is too readily dismissed and discounted in social dis-
course, and that the divisiveness over critical issues like abortion and school funding
are symptomatic of the minimization of the importance of religious expression. He
argues that religion remains a "positive force in American society," despite efforts
among professionals in such areas as law, government and education to "banish"
religion from public debate of critical issues. Carter insists that religion must be
27


"taken seriously" in important matters of social concern if Americans are to remain
true to the Constitutional claim of religious liberty (ibid.).
Within the context of this emerging scholarly interest in religion's role in
public life, the thesis draws from the cumulative research of several disciplines.
Much of the research about charitable choice that is presently underway is concerned
with its implementation and the subsequent effects on program quality and church-
state relations. This thesis examines charitable choice from its origins in the legisla-
tive process, specifically from the perspective of policy formulation. How did the
charitable choice provision come to pass? Why has it surfaced on the public welfare policy
agenda? Which groups or factions favored its passage? To explain the reasons for its
emergence as a policy innovation, one must look broadly across several areas of the
scholarly literature.
The literature review that follows encompasses three main areas of concern
related to the role of religious interests in the formulation of public welfare policy.
The chapter begins with an examination of the ways that social scientists have con-
ceptualized and included social context (a hypothetical construct rather loosely bor-
rowed from the field of sociology) in the policy process. The literature from organi-
zation theory is also used as a source for explaining the logic of collective behavior,
with institutionalism providing particular applicability. Because the political and
legislative advocacy activities of religious groups are pivotal to the thesis, the review
then continues with an investigation of interest group theory. A focused examina-
tion of policy design and formulation theory completes the literature section and es-
tablishes the conceptual framework for this policy formulation study.
28


Social Context in the Policy Sciences
In its relatively short lifespan as a research discipline, the policy sciences
have considered social context as an important factor in the policy process. Harold
Lasswell, arguably the progenitor of the contemporary policy sciences, afforded the
contextual dimension a central place in his construct of a policy orientation
(Torgerson, 1992). He counted social context among three basic elements in the sci-
entific study of policy. In addition to the problem focus (or problem "attitude) to-
ward policy issues in the social context, he defined the modem approach to the pol-
icy sciences as multidisciplinary and "explicitly" normative in nature (Lasswell, 1951;
deLeon, 1988a).
The inclusion of social context in Lasswell's schema reflected his vision that
the emerging policy sciences would summon the best efforts of scholars from across
a wide range of disciplines (Lasswell, 1951, p. 3). He urged the use of "non-
quantitative" models as well as historical interpretation that traced trends in perti-
nent social values (ibid., pp. 9-11). Lasswells own scholarly pursuits spanned nu-
merous divergent fields, and he was convinced that the problems confronting soci-
ety demanded the highest level of research expertise and that no disciplinary
resource should remain outside the purview of the policy sciences. In keeping with
his attention to the role of public opinion in democracy (Lasswell, 1941), he argued
that the methods of studying human behavior from the social sciences (especially
psychology and sociology) were underutilized in the formation of public policy
(Lasswell, 1951, p. 7).
29


Today, the policy sciences continue to draw conceptual and theoretical in-
sight from many disciplines. The demands of a diverse, modem democracy require
a multiplicity of approaches to understanding social problems and framing applica-
ble policy solutions. As deLeon (1988b) argues, the policy sciences bear the burden
of incorporating in its scope nothing less than the "confusion and complexity of the
political and social environment" (p. 304). As a generic research term, social context
involves the total frame or "picture" within which a policy action or decision might
be situated. This frame encompasses as many factors of social life and political
events as might have some bearing on the policy under consideration.
Differences in the way that social context is conceptualized, however, raise
certain challenges for a focused investigation of religious group involvement in wel-
fare policy formulation. The term social context is not uniformly utilized across the
various social science disciplines that contribute to modem policy research. No con-
sistent definition of social context can be found among the disciplines of sociology,
psychology or economics; each held has defined significant elements of the total so-
cial environment (a generic definition of context) in their own terms. Sociologists,
for example, speak in terms of social structures (defined as "any recurring pattern of
social behavior") and social systems (defined as a "collection of interrelated parts that
"exist to serve some purpose or goal") (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner, 1994, pp. 391-
392). The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Sills, 1972) contains no entry
for social context; it does, however, provide extensive definitions of such concepts as
social structures and social conditions.
Casting such a broad conceptual net serves the normative purpose of the
policy sciences, since improving or changing a wide array of social conditions
30


through policy design constitutes a primary goal of the discipline. Sociology, on the
other hand, is considered a non-evaluative field that places tremendous emphasis on
hypothetical constructs and theories of general application (Sills, 1972). Borrowing
concepts from such a field can be problematic for policy research, as MacRae (1975)
has pointed out. First and foremost, sociologists seek to understand the social con-
text as it exists; policy scientists are compelled by a normative interest in improving
and changing the social condition. Sociologists investigate essentially "non-
manipulable" elements in the social environment; policy scientists identify factors
that might be altered or accentuated to improve public policies as remedies or solu-
tions.
The role, function and influence of religion or religious groups may be as-
sumed to fall into a category of largely immutable social forces. In-depth policy
analysis from a sociological perspective may reveal unrecognized social factors (like
religion) that have a bearing on policy formulation, MacRae (ibid.) would argue. But
the mere "unmasking" of social criterion, he goes on to argue, does not contribute to
the critical assessment of policy alternatives, a major benefit of policy research (p.
53). Elements in the social context (e.g., norms, values, structures) are perceived in
this vein as largely unalterable antecedent variables that affect the formulation of
policies (the dependent variables). Nonetheless, appreciating the social context is
critical in the determination of "conditions affecting the political feasibility of one or
another policy" (ibid., p. 53).
Conversely, sociological models may assist the policy scientist in appraising
the effect a policy option may have on social values, an essential aspect of the policy
context. According to Kelly (1992), policy experts have great concern for how poli-
31


des "affect particular values" like equality, effiriency and equity (p. 331). In this in-
stance, a policy is an independent variable that causes or contributes to change in
sodal values, correspondingly the dependent variables.
Organizational Logic and Theory
Policy scientists have utilized numerous constructs from the sodal sdences to
conceptualize the relationships between public policy and the sodal environment.
Because of soriologys prominence among the sodal sdences, changes in the disd-
pline's research paradigms have had a corresponding influence in the policy sd-
ences. For example, systems theory, regarded as the "dominant" paradigm in sodol-
ogy during the 1950s and 1960s (Abercrombie et al., 1994), heavily influenced the
ways that policy sdentists conceptualized the sodal context and operationalized
elements within it. In systems theory, elements within a particular sodal context
impinge upon each other to stimulate and create change. Policy researchers adapted
this paradigm and began to experiment during the 1960s with the use of social indi-
cators to identify and measure aspects of the sodal context. Sodal indicators were
constructed as complex quantitative tools and indices considered an improvement
over the more traditional uses of census, survey and economic data (Daneke, 1992, p.
269). By isolating a single element within the sodal context, the effects of policy
could be measured.
Systems theory gave way to network analysis, which has been utilized by
policy theorists as well. According to a definition by Burt (1980), network models
"describe the structure of one or more networks of relations within a system of ac-
tors" (p. 81). Such systems may be comprised of individuals, groups or large corpo-
32


rate entities. Interorganizational networks have been examined in order to under-
stand aspects such as their complexity, openness and interdependence among net-
work "nodes." The emergence of sophisticated forms of information technology
clearly advanced the explanatory potential of network theory (Rogers, 1981). Inno-
vations in information technology have also contributed to the dissolution of per-
ceived organizational boundaries and to greater interaction among network actors.
Network models emphasize interaction and interdependence among actors
rather than the isolated actions of one individual upon another. As a result, theorists
are able to conceptualize simultaneous and mutual effects among multiple actors
within a single framework (Burt, 1980). This has had particular benefit for the study
of government and government policies. As the modem administrative state con-
tinues to privatize many of its functions and devolve various forms of authority
downward, the advantages of network-level analysis are evident. For example, con-
cerns about the inadequacies of a "hollow state" (Milward & Provan, 1993) emerge
from interorganizational research. Intergovernmental research also focuses its at-
tention beyond the conception of a self-contained organizational unit. As Peters
(1996) has suggested, some of the most "significant social and economic problems"
that confront governance at the turn of the 2151 century exist at the "interstices of
government organization"(p. 40).
In the area of human services, an interorganizational perspective has allowed
researchers to examine the complex relationships between often quite diverse actors.
For example, Hasenfeld and Gidron (1993) studied the conditions that lead to rela-
tions between self-help groups and human service organizations. Glisson and
Hemmelgam (1998) examined the complementary but distinct relationships between
33


actors in children's service systems. Hardy (1994) investigated the relationship be-
tween the often conflictual intergovernmental and cross-cultural actors in refugee
systems.
Policy theorists have adapted the concept of networks to describe the advo-
cacy coalitions that form around specific policy issues (Sabatier, 1993). Two basic
premises of Sabatier's advocacy coalition framework (ACF) incorporate the concept
of a policy network. The policy subsystem (i.e., network) is viewed as the "most use-
ful aggregate unit of analysis for understanding policy change" and necessarily in-
cludes an intergovernmental or interorganizational aspect (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith,
1993, pp. 16-17).
Social psychology, another principal strain in sociological thinking, also
gained prominence and application within the policy sciences. Social construction
theory, developed largely through the work of Berger and Luckman (1967), attrib-
utes a great importance to human agency in the creation of social structures and in-
stitutions. Peter Berger (1969) applied social construction theory to his interpretation
of human agency in the formation of religion in The Sacred Canopy. The social con-
struction paradigm countered the perspective of structuralism, which maintains that
the existence of social structures and institutions (like religion and the family) pre-
cedes intentional, purposive human activity to form or change them (Abercrombie et
al., 1994).
The social construction approach has been utilized most clearly in the policy
design framework of Schneider and Ingram (1997). They argue that value structures
in society at large have a deterministic effect on policy outcomes, and they utilize
social construction theory to generalize an overarching framework for policy ded-
34


sions from individual belief. Their work takes aim, most particularly, at socially
constructed categories that limit the policy participation of minority (e.g., women,
racial minorities, the poor) populations.
The paradigm of structuralism has persisted in the social sciences with the
aid of functionalism, which "accounts for a social activity by referring to its conse-
quences for some other social activity, institution or society as a whole
(Abercrombie et al., 1994, p. 176). In particular, political sociologists have deployed
the resulting hybrid (structural-functionalism) to explain the existence and persistence
of policy structures. Laumann and Knoke (1987) have fashioned what they describe
as a theoretically sophisticated structural model of policy "domains" or "action sys-
tems" that display remarkable stability over time. According to their research, orga-
nizationsnot individualsare the principal actors in public policy.
Human Agency and Social Institutions
Which of these models is best suited to frame a study of the role of religion in
public welfare policy formulation? In all of these applications of sociological models
in the policy sciences, human agency emerges as a point of theoretical departure.
The extent to which individual actors respond to structures or help create them be-
comes a central concern of one's choosing among research paradigms from which to
frame empirical inquiry. This is particularly important for a study involving religion
(or religious groups, religious values, religious beliefs) as an element of the social
context concerned with policy formulation.
Both sociologists and policy scientists have utilized conceptions of rationality
to track the shifting boundaries of social context that have a bearing on the policy
35


process. Social scientists have struggled mightily, however, with establishing a di-
rect causal link between the social or organizational context and the motivations and
actions of the individual. Mancur Olson's (1965) economic argument is illustrative
of this dilemma: collective activity cannot be assumed to represent the interests of
all group members, in part because of the free-rider problem. Individual members
do not uniformly or completely internalize the values, preferences or rationality of
the organization or other larger social division (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). Each of
the sociologically derived models of the social context that have been presented thus
far -systems theory, social construction theory, and policy domainspresume con-
ceptions of group or individual rationality.
The shortcomings of systems-style conceptualizations of the interaction be-
tween individual and/or organizational policy actors derive, first, from the com-
plexity of network models and, second, from challenges to the rationality assumed
by the constituent actors. Network analysis has been criticized because of the often
baffling complexity that is created by an over-abundance of data (Burt, 1980). Fur-
thermore, the static character of network actors is illusory, and it is this feature of
policy subsystems that Sabatier (1993) in particular attempts to remedy with the con-
sideration of policy change over time and the persistence of core belief structures
among actors.
The second conceptual problem posed by network or systems models in their
application to policy formulation involves the form of rationality attributed to actors
within the policy subsystem. The network model bases its explanatory legitimacy on
functional descriptions that assume the rationality of group (e.g., network) actors
who maximize, satisfice, and otherwise serve a group's self-interest. Because func-
36


tional explanations lack a clear causal source, they are considered "suspect" and "in-
complete" in social science (Little, 1991, p. 102). Sabatier, in particular, states that the
rationality of actors is limited; yet the rationality of policy subsystem actors is under-
stood to be constrained by the exogenous social forces that remain unaccounted for
in Sabatier's model.
Schneider and Ingram's (1997) efforts to factor social context into the policy
process, however, proceed in the same direction as that of other researchers who be-
lieve that the resolution of the individual-group quandary lies beyond the bounded-
ness of organizational rationality. Although Schneider and Ingram's model help-
fully disaggregates power relations, their framework has been criticized for its
reliance on stereotypes to establish a fixed set of policy standpoint categories (Bosso,
1995). Though the aim is to dismantle those stereotypes as barriers to fuller democ-
ratic participation, their attempt at leveling the inequities of political power in policy
design raises a problem common to many social construction theories from Berger
and Luckman (1967) forward. That is, in order to understand power structures in
society we must replicate them in our models; in doing so, we run the risk of per-
petuating them.
Alternatively, structural models have been used to explain the character and
persistence of policy subsystems. As a result, they reject the notion of the rational
actor and prefer instead the "garbage-can" rationality of Cohen, March and Olsen
(1972). The research of Lauman and Knoke (1987) in two national policy domains
(energy and health) focuses on domain membership; the structured relationships of
information transfer, resource transactions and boundary spanning; and the signifi-
cance of policy "events" as critical factors in the making of policy. Subsequently,
37


Laumann and colleagues Heinz, Nelson and Salisbury (1993) examined four policy
domainsagriculture, energy, health and laborto further the sociological analysis
of policy systems from a structural perspective.
In their effort to construct a model with greater explanatory potential, Lau-
mann, Knoke and their structuralist colleagues have chosen to overlook important
particularities of the policy formulation process. Significant facets of the policy for-
mulation process are subordinated to their broader structuralist concerns. For ex-
ample, their research appreciably minimizes the significance of the policy entrepre-
neur (Kingdon, 1995; Polsby, 1984) and the subtleties of problem definition (Dery,
1984; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994). Laumann and Knoke argue that the integrity of their
structural model justifies this approach:
We do not deny the existence, and the frequently substantial impor-
tance, of processes internal to the legislative and executive decision-
making organizations, but our primary focus is on the contribution of
social structural variation in policy domains to an understanding of
ultimate policy decisions. (Laumann & Knoke, 1987, p. 18)
The structuralist in sociological analysis strives to avoid either purely func-
tional or deterministic explanations; structural models ostensibly provide a stronger
empirical link between the organization and the behavior of individuals and thus
has the confidence of greater explanatory (i.e., causal and thus predictive) value.
Framing the Policy Context through Institutional Analysis
Another paradigm in sociological theory offers the potential for greater con-
ceptual clarity and accuracy for the study of religious group involvement in social
welfare policy formulation. The new institutionalism in sociological analysis posits
that institutions are a "critical bridge" and a necessary "mediating concept" between
38


individuals and organizations in society (Friedland & Alford, 1991, p. 242). This
reconceptualization of the institution in society may account for many of the par-
ticularities of the policy formulation process involving charitable choice, especially
in regard to religious group involvement in its passage.
Institutions are viewed as foundational structures in the relationships be-
tween human beings. Institutions are formed, sociologist Earl Babbie (Babbie, 1994)
writes, to satisfy the common needs of society and individuals through the organiz-
ing principles of norms, sanctions, values and beliefs (p. 86). Family, religion, gov-
ernment, the economy and education are five major social institutions that have in-
trigued sociologists because of their important role in human relationships.
Selznick (1996) explains the thrust of institutionalism in sociological analysis
as tracing the "emergence of distinctive forms, processes, strategies, outlooks, and
competences as they emerge from patterns of organizational interaction and adapta-
tion" (p. 271). Following Selznick, institutionalism in organizational analysis refers
to both internal and extra-organizational (exogenous) forces that impact the function
and structure of organizations as social subunits.
Selznick and others contend that institutions are more enduring because of
the ability of the institutional form to adapt and change. Meyer and Scott (1983) em-
phasize that "institutionalization involves the processes by which social processes,
obligations, or actualities come to take on a rulelike status in social thought and ac-
tion" (p. 341). Zucker (1981) focused on the "cultural persistence" of certain institu-
tional forms, which she found attributable to these rulelike "institutionalized acts"
(p. 726). These views together form an understanding of the power of institutions
over individual actions, as described by Pfeffer and Salandk (1978):
39


Thus, the degree of institutionalization determines the extent to which
rational versus emotional and nonradonal bases of action predomi-
nate; it also determines the extent to which action is structurally de-
termined and comparatively stable or emergent and subject to new
interpretations (p. 240).
The "new" or "neo-" institutionalism is rooted in the institutionalist theory
most closely associated with the work of Philip Selznick and his study of the Tennes-
see Valley Authority in the 1930s (Selznick, 1980). Selznick had observed that the
TV A responded to economic and political threats from its environment in ways that
compromised basic elements of its own intended mission, suggesting that pressures
external to the organization can have a profound effect. He identified the concept of
cooptation with the example of the TV A bowing to various national and local inter-
ests. Though the project was intended to decentralize decision-making and foster
grassroots efforts, the benefits of the TVA experiment were not evenly distributed,
and poor farmers and the environment were actually hurt by the outcomes (Hall,
1991; Perrow, 1986).
The "new" thrust in institutionalism further questions the capacity of organi-
zations to remain autonomous and self-defining, given the exogenous pressures
from pre-existing as well as new and emerging social institutions. The rationality of
individual actors or the "atomistic" bounded rationality of organizations is seriously
challenged by new institutionalists, particularly at the macro-level, i.e., the field or
sector of organizations as arranged within society. New institutionalists ponder the
internal workings of organizations not because their actions explain a group's own
collective logic but because they are indicative of external activity at a macro-level
across an institutional field (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
40


This current stream of organizational research has been deeply influenced by
proponents of cognitive psychology, in particular the Carnegie school (Immergut,
1996; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991). As Powell and DiMaggio (ibid.) summarize the
Carnegie school's influence, much conventional thinking about organizations is
challenged by new institutionalism. For example, organizations are less reliably ra-
tional in their actions, members act first and then reflect on their motives, and prob-
lems are characteristically "decoupled" from the solutions employed to address
them.
The literature of institutionalism shares one theme, and that is "the power
which environments have over organizations" (Aldrich, 1992). DiMaggio and Pow-
ell have written extensively on the formal structure of institutions, attempting to ex-
plain why organizations "mimic" institutionalized patterns. Organizations pur-
posely choose to follow a particular structural model of an institution, or, in other
words, engage in "institutional isomorphism" (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
The rationality upon which the "older" institutionalism was based stressed
patterns that showed "how the informal structures deviated from and constrained
aspects of formal structure and to demonstrate the subversion of the organization's
intended, rational mission by parochial interests" (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991, p. 13).
Powell and DiMaggio suggest that, in contrast, the "new" institutionalism "locates
irrationality in the formal structure itself," as the result of organizational response to
"interorganizational influences, conformity, and the persuasiveness of cultural ac-
counts" (ibid.).
Because it does not theoretically support a direct causal link between indi-
vidual rationality and organizational functioning, new institutionalism turns its fo-
41


cus instead to the interorganizationai and/or institutional field to examine the role it
plays in stabilizing and legitimating perceptions that influence action. Individual
and group behavior is thus dependent upon the ambiguous goals reinforced by in-
terorganizationai fields and the "routines, scripts" or other "schema" used to inter-
pret "appropriate" or "suitable" action (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
The new institutionalism severs the hypothetical link between individual ra-
tionality, including an individual's assent to organizational logic, and the structural
logic (either informal or formal) of an organization. Interpreting the relative impor-
tance of institutional rules, scripts and routines becomes paramount. Immergut
(Immergut, 1996) summarizes this aspect of new institutionalism as stressing the
"importance of symbolic codes and the role of institutions in generating meaning, as
well as norms and 'appropriateness' as a category of action" (p. 8).
A difficult challenge for new institutionalists has been providing explana-
tions of how institutions change, given the ambiguous character of institutional goals
and the diffused nature of institutional structure. Powell and DiMaggio (1991) frame
the question this way: If institutions exert such a powerful influence over the ways
in which people can formulate their desires and work to attain them, then how does
institutional change occur? (p. 29). The present study raises a related question: If in-
stitutional forces beyond the immediate policy actors involved in charitable choice
underwent a significant shift in direction, how did this change occur? To answer
this question, new institutionalism looks to the multiple organizational logics at
work in the formulation of charitable choice, as well as to the symbolic codes (rules,
laws, procedures) that proscribed organizational actions.
42


The new institutionalism has several variants in fields other than sociology.
Similarly named but theoretically distinct concepts have been touted in economics
and in the emergence of an historical institutionalism that has been particularly well-
regarded by political scientists. It has been argued that the new institutionalism in
economic theory continues to rely on conceptions of the rational actor to explain
modem developments in economics (Blom-Hansen, 1997). The sociological strain of
new institutionalism creates particular theoretical difficulties for state-centric politi-
cal science; the concept of state autonomy is contested within new institutionalism
(Jordan, 1990).
The new institutionalist approach to understanding the behavior of individu-
als and organizations within a societal context offers the best fit for a study of the
role of religious groups in the formulation of social welfare policy. The problems of
rationality inherent in other organization theories are mitigated by the adjusted fo-
cus upon institutions rather than on unitary actors alone. The consideration of social
and cultural factors is expanded and enabled in new institutionalism, allowing for
richer contextual descriptions and explanations of embedded societal elements like
the religious motivations for political activity. Its application is particularly well-
suited to the study of government and its interaction with other societal sectors, as
Selznick's early research on the TVA so aptly demonstrated.
More recently, institutional analysis has been particularly beneficial to re-
search on nonprofit organizations and their growing interdependence with both
government and the business sector. Our understanding of the role of nonprofit and
voluntary organizations in social welfare in particular has benefitted from an appre-
ciation of the permeable boundaries between social institutions like government.
43


community, family and religion. Although some of the nonprofit literature is char-
acterized by a rigid "sectoralism," research in the field is increasingly concerned
with the multiple environments engaged by voluntary activity. Melissa Middleton
Stone's (1993) study of the governance structure of a nonprofit organization involved
in government contracting emphasizes the need for research that "documents the
richness and complexity of institutional environments, paying attention to situations
where organizations are enmeshed in fragmented or competing environments" (p.
25). In particular, her study found that a resource dependence model (Pfeffer & Sal-
ancik, 1978) does not sufficiently account for the precarious balance such organiza-
tions must strike between the demands of funders (in this case, government) and
their voluntary and grassroots base.
The trend in sociological analysis toward a focus on institutionalism has
greatly enhanced research on religion generally and on the extra-organizational ac-
tivity of religious groups in particular. DiMaggio (1992) outlines the benefits of de-
velopments in organization theory for the study of religion and specifies the ele-
ments of new institutionalism that pertain to their unique social circumstances. He
identifies the elements of 1) the organizational environment, including regulatory and
legal aspects; 2) institutional legitimacy and how related actors acknowledge such le-
gitimacy; 3) taken-Jbr-granted practices and routines (in place of self-interested rational-
ity) that characterize the logic of an organization; 4) change as institutional diffusion,
explored in processes of isomorphism and imitation (pp. 12-14).
Nonprofit researchers have turned to new institutionalist approaches to
study religiously tied organizations particularly because of the "embeddedness" of
these structures in multiple social networks and across different levels (individual,
44


organizational, institutional) of analysis. For example. Hall's (1998) history and so-
cial "ecology" of African-American religious and voluntary organizations in New
Haven presents quite a divergent pattern of civic engagement when viewed from the
perspective of inter-organizational fields. Milofsky's (1998) case study of a religious
nonprofit involved in social service provision suggests that the internal dynamics of
organizations alone explain very little about the multiple constituencies that place
demands as well as directly affect them.
The "new" institutionalism in sociological theory underscores these ideas,
positing that patterns of rationality and action are determined across rather than
within closed institutional boundaries. Feeney (1997) applied a new institutionalist
lens to five case studies of nonprofits in an effort to demonstrate the advantages of
this theory. Her research revealed the shortcomings of conventional "rational man-
agement" approaches in explaining and describing the actions of organizations that
function within a system of typically "nested" multiple organizational logics. Not
incidentally, four of her five case subjects were religiously tied organizations that, in
Feeney's estimation, could be studied only in a limited fashion if boundedly rational
organizational approaches were used. New, transitory categories of institutional
identity are formed across the lines of what traditionally have been understood as
formal institutional categories such as family, church, and state (Demerath, Hall,
Schmitt, & Williams, 1997).
The salience of new institutionalism for the study of religious group in-
volvement in public policy rests with the theory's incorporation of multiple group
interests as well as consideration of nonrational decision-making. Linear cause and
effect (e.g., rational actor) models of policy formulation are not well-suited to the
45


contextual complexity of the emergence of charitable choice. Nor are functionalist
descriptions of religious group activity in the provision's formulation likely to cap-
ture its societal and contextual richness. As an overarching sociological model for a
policy formulation study, the new institutionalism allows an appreciation for the or-
ganizational field of religious group advocacy for the poor. In addition, the model
incorporates many elements of interest group and advocacy coalition analyses while
avoiding some of the functionalist tendencies of these constructs. The literature horn
this research is examined next and helps provide a framework for analyzing the re-
lationships among various actors in the provision's formulation. In addition, the in-
terest group literature on religious advocacy helps to identify the "organizational
held" within which rules and processes are instituted that shape policy formulation
actions.
Interest Group Advocacy
The American political process has been characterized by competing group
factions since its inception (Berry, 1997; Browne, 1998; Hula, 1999; Truman, 1951).
However, the prevalence and influence of interest groups has increased dramatically
in recent years (Berry, 1997). Schlozman and Tierney (1986) have documented this
trend, identifying a sharp rise in interest groups between 1960 and 1980. Since then,
studies by Berry (1997) and others have traced a steady increase in the number and
specialization of interest groups.
Truman's (1951) definition of an interest group is commonly dted as the basis
for understanding this form of collective activity. He defines them as "any group
that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other
46


groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhancement of forms of
behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes" (p. 33). Interest groups have
many names in the research literature, each reflecting variations on their perceived
roles or functions; they are also known as factions, organized interests, pressure
groups, and special interests (Cigler & Loomis, 1998).
Berry (1997) focuses his definition on the aim of such groups to "influence
government" and disqualifies from this definition those groups that are "part of the
government they are trying to influence" (p. 5). He also distinguishes between
groups that happen to share a common "interest" and those that actually take steps
to organize as a group to protect or expand their interests through political means.
Browne (1998) draws a similar demarcation, arguing that the interest group label
should be reserved for those groups that are either "organizing their members
around politics" or "bringing politics to the joiners" (p. 15). Heinz, Laumann, Nel-
son and Salisbury (1993) hesitate to draw so fine a distinction, explaining that it is
"risky" to presume what motivates a group to engage the policy process to serve its
interests. For Heinz and his fellow-researchers, definitions of an interest group
"must be framed in terms of the public policy goals and objectives" sought (p. 25).
Interest group theorists disagree on whether democracy is aided or con-
strained by the influence of factional interests. Truman's (1951) work presents a
more favorable view of interest group activity in democratic government. He con-
sidered the threat of excessive interest group influence to be mitigated by the insta-
bility of issues and institutions and of the complexity of modem government and
social life. According to Truman's more benign view of interest groups, the overlap-
ping of personal interests (e.g., religious, political, societal) provides an inherent
47


source of balance in the complex network of social relationships, thus preventing the
domination by any one group.
Theodore Lowi's (1969) work on "interest group liberalism" exposes the de-
rogatory effects of interest groups on democracy. Because of their access to the gov-
ernmental process, Lowi contends, such groups enjoy a level of privilege that com-
mon citizens do not share. One of the detrimental effects of interest groups is that
they "shut out the public. ..at the most creative phase of policy-makingthe phase
where the problem is first defined" (p. 86). In addition, interest groups circumvent
accountability to the public because they encourage programs that are administered
by and for the benefit of private organizations.
In his analysis of interest group activity, Mancur Olson (1965) extended the
economic concept of the production of public goods to private organizations in order
to explain the incentives and inducements used by non-governmental groups. The
lobbying function of an organization offers limited incentives for group members
and, consequently, Olson determines that such advocacy efforts are better described
as "by-products" of a group's organizational intent. Organizational power comes
from a group's principal purpose, not from its "pressure" activities. Also, Olson cri-
tiques Truman's notion that collective activity tends toward resolving disequilib-
rium, particularly in the political sphere, and that groups will inevitably emerge to
redress such imbalance. Olson counters Truman's contention that when a political
disturbance occurs, disadvantaged groups that "need an organization will in feet
come to have an organization" (p. 123). Political reality does not bear out this idea,
Olson contends.
48


By Olson's own admission, his theory of collective rationality is limited in its
ability to explain the logic that guides "noneconomic" lobbies: groups that pursue
political ends without an immediate or obvious economic gain. Olson includes re-
ligious lobbies among the groups that prove an exception to his theory:
The theory is not at all sufficient where philanthropic lobbies, that is,
lobbies that voice concern about some group other than the group
that supports the lobby, or religious lobbies, are concerned. In phil-
anthropic and religious lobbies, the relationships between the pur-
poses and interests of the individual member, and the purposes and
interests of the organization, may be so rich and obscure that a theory
of the sort developed here cannot provide much insight, (p. 160)
Olson goes on to mention the inapplicability of his theory to explain the ra-
tionality of groups that face overwhelming obstacles or work for seemingly "lost"
causes, for instance, the eradication of poverty. He suggests that the cognitive sci-
ences (like psychology or social psychology) may be a more adequate source of ex-
planatory theory than economics where "nonrational or irrational behavior is the
basis for a lobby" (p. 161). Religious groups that advocate for reversing the detri-
mental effects of poverty might conceivably be placed in either or both of these cate-
gories.
Cigler and Loomis (1998) have identified ten significant developments that
account for the surge in interest group influence. In particular, they mention the
"growth of activity and impact by institutions, including corporations, universities,
state and local governments, and foreign interests" and the "penetration" of group
interests into the government bureaucracy as well as the executive and legislative
branches (p. 2). Other developments pertinent to the present study cure the concen-
tration of interest group offices in the nation's capital, the increased technological
49


sophistication of interest groups and changes in campaign finance laws that have
propelled group interests into electoral politics (ibid.).
Numerous explanations have been given for these developments. Hedo's
(1978) work on issue networks suggests that interest group activity has emerged
with the expansion of the administrative state. As government provides less and
less direct service and instead relegates provision to subsidiary actors, the preva-
lence of interests vying for funding and concessions is bound to increase. He argues
that policies themselves foster what he calls "hybrid interests" (p. 96) and uses the
example of the health policy network that has formed in response to government
policies.6
Cigler and Loomis (1998) identify additional elements in the American social
and political "climate" that encourage the proliferation of interest groups. Constitu-
tional government that promotes free speech and maintains a separation of powers
between the branches is a primary condition for the growth of interest groups. Re-
flecting Hedo's policy network construction, they dte the growing interdependence
between the economic sectors (i.e., private, public, nonprofit) as also encouraging the
activity of interest groups. A fundamental fador in the increase of competition
among interests, they argue, is the presence of "substantial cleavages": those differ-
ences in cultural values that motivate groups to protect or promote their divergent
interests.
6 Hedo (1978) uses the example of health care to argue that federal polides
have splintered rather than solidified medical interests like hospital assodations, in-
surance companies, etc. His contention is that government actively (but perhaps not
intentionally) encourages such differentiation or "hybridism" (p. 96).
50


As Olson (1965) contends, there are a number of incentives that motivate in-
terest group activity. Financial gain, of course, is an obvious motivator especially for
groups with a vested interest in government contracting or protection from unfavor-
able regulation. Manufacturing and trade associations are typically involved in in-
terest group activity motivated by these same incentives.
Alternatively, there are also social benefits to be gained by belonging or asso-
ciating with certain group interests as well as expressive incentives for attaching
oneself to a particular cause. As evidence of these alternate incentives, there has
been a marked increase in groups Berry (1997) categorizes for their active support of
particular "public" interests. These groups do not seek their own economic self-
interest but the "collective good." Common Cause, the Sierra Club, and the Nature
Conservancy are examples of this type of public interest group.
Interest group activity by nonprofit organizations (including religious
groups) spans this wide range of motives and incentives. Nonprofit and voluntary
groups engage in advocacy to benefit their members, their clients as well as the
"common good" (Independent Sector, 1996; Smucker, 1991). Although the advocacy
efforts of nonprofit groups are typically characterized as those that serve the "non-
commercial collective interests of the general public," the benefits may be considered
marginal that the "general public" actually receives Qenkins, 1987, p. 296).
Group activity in the public interest by nonprofit organizations is further
complicated since the line between "service" organizations and "advocacy" organi-
zations is not absolute (Bremner, 1989). In establishing their nonprofit status, orga-
nizations in the field of human services can elect either to be recognized by the IRS
as primarily service organizations that might have occasion to actively lobby (501c3
51


designation in the IRS code), which allows tax deductions for contributions or as so-
cial welfare organizations (501c4), which disallows deductions for contributions be-
cause of the eminently political nature of the group's intended primary lobbying
goal (U. S. Government Accounting Office, 1995). This line was blurred by changes
to lobbying law in 1976 that allowed 501c3 nonprofits to engage more deliberately in
legislative advocacy and lobbying as long as this activity does not consume a "sub-
stantial" amount of an organization's resources (Smucker, 1991).
The locus of advocacy is also an important element for understanding the
interest group politics of religious groups. Religious groups have been among those
that have benefited from a loosening of restrictions on nonprofit lobbying. Reid
(1987) differentiates between nonprofit advocacy at the local level, where personal
contact with policymakers is more prevalent, and advocacy at the federal level,
where interests are represented largely through intermediaries (e.g., professional
lobbyists, congressional staff) and less personal forms of communication (letters, po-
sition papers, etc.). Furthermore, religious groups may have an advantage in what
Reid labels the organizational "building" that advocacy groups must do to ready
their constituencies for mobilization (through volunteer recruitment, fundraising
and education, for example) and the specific steps of "action" advocacy like testify-
ing, writing or telephoning, demonstrations and boycotts (ibid., pp. 297-298).
Religious groups utilize a range of advocacy approaches, like other non-
profits. In an important state-level comparison, Saunders' (1998) study of social
service nonprofits in New York showed that groups utilize multiple forms of advo-
cacy, from case advocacy to public information and education to legislative advo-
cacy. Furthermore, many factors influence a group's choice of advocacy avenues.
52


Sturtevant's (1997) exploratory and descriptive study of 35 poverty-based service
delivery agencies in Michigan identified the concepts of resource dependence, orga-
nizational autonomy and professionalization as particularly salient factors in the
types, extent and effectiveness of advocacy efforts by these nonprofits.
Are religious groups more resistant to the "co-opting effect of interest advo-
cacy? Selznick's (1980) concept of cooptation describes the process in which private
or local group interests are diverted and absorbed into the larger aims of govern-
ment or industry. The lure of government funding, in particular, is often attributed
with "corrupting" the interests of private sector groups, making them the tools of the
public sector rather than the collective expression of independent private interests.
Resource dependence theory, in particular, posits that funders hold particular influ-
ence over the control of such organizations (Pfeffer & Salandk, 1978). External con-
trol through resource provision becomes particularly problematic when private
nonprofit groups are engaged in serving minority or economically underprivileged
populations (Smith, 1993).
Nonprofit groups can and do, however, receive public funds without neces-
sarily compromising a critical stance their organization may hold toward potentially
controversial or unfavorable policies. Gonzalez Baker's (1993) study of the effects of
massive government funding on immigration services shows that cooptation is not
inevitable. Her research showed that advocates for policy change in the 1986 "am-
nesty" program for immigrants were not hindered by funding concerns. In another
example, a 1996 study of community-based HIV/AIDS services, researchers found
that competition for funds did not preclude nonprofit organizations' ability to serve
narrowly focused populations (Bielefeld, Scotch, & Thielemann, 1995).
|
1
53


Religious Advocacy Groups
Religious groups have maintained a visible advocacy presence in Washing-
ton, DC since the early 20th century. They have had many reasons for representing
the interests of their constituent members. Wood (1991) cites numerous examples
throughout U.S. history of religious group legislative advocacy, from issues as
seemingly mundane as a prohibition against the delivery of mail on Sundays pressed
by the Sabbatarians in the 19lh century to the mobilization of religious leaders in fa-
vor of free and equal Civil Rights in the 1960s.
1908 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 199S 1998 1997 1998 1999
Figure 2.1. Growth in Washington representation of organized religious interests
and social service groups. Total number of entries for the categories 'Religion" and
"Social Service/Social Welfare" from Washington Representatives (Columbia Books
Inc.) for the years 1988 to 1999. Vertical lines depict the standard deviation.
54


The involvement of religious groups in the mobilization of support for pro-
hibition in the 1920s contributed to describing the United Methodist building across
from the U.S. Capitol as the "house that prohibition built" (Hertzke, 1991). Known
today as the "God Box," many mainline Christian and Jewish groups keep denomi-
national offices of government relations in the building atop Capitol Hill. Today,
more than 100 groups with religious ties are represented in Washington for the pur-
pose of influencing Congressional legislation (Steele, 1998).
Denominations and other organized religious bodies are not the only groups
with religious ties that maintain formal representation in Washington. Missionary
and other parachurch groups are often registered as lobbyists. In addition, groups
organized to apply pressure about faith-related social causes or movements also en-
gage in legislative activity. Groups with religious ties that provide social welfare
services are particularly prominent as political activists for their organizations.7
As interest group participants in policy formulation, religious social welfare
organizations hold influence on both sides of the formulation "coin": they influence
the making of policy for the benefit of their organizations as well as for the clients
they serve. These groups represent potentially large constituencies through their
affiliated religious organizations, so they are taken seriously by policymakers. Their
7 Hofrenning (1995) categorizes this assortment of entities as "organized re-
ligious interests" (p. 21), following the work of Schlozman and Tierney (1986). The
term "interest group, Hofrenning argues, emphasizes membership organizations,
and he prefers the more inclusive "religious interests" as a better descriptor for the
range of denominations, alliances, and causes that are actively involved in legislative
advocacy. Both terms (religious interest groups and organized religious interests)
are used interchangeably in the thesis.
55


association with the poor through direct service delivery means that the issues con-
fronting the poor can be meaningfully represented in policy discussions.
Research has been conducted on some aspects of advocacy activity on behalf
of the poor by religious organizations, usually in conjunction with non-sectarian or-
ganizations. Imig's (1996) study of the hunger lobby in Washington, DC, examined
the efforts of six national advocacy groups to respond to the social policy dilemmas
during the Reagan administration. His research characterizes advocacy for the poor
by religious groups as lacking the continuity needed to gain the "positioning" that
successful political advocacy requires. Imig's work also suggests that government
funding tends to "entrench" the "existing patterns of interest representation" (p. 36),
a point well-demonstrated by Whiteley and Winyard's (1987) similar study of the
poverty lobby in Great Britain. Their detailed descriptions of the lobby's group
membership (including the size, age, diversity, funding and tactics of such organiza-
tions) provides a "snapshot" of poverty-related interest group advocacy.
Both studies include a consideration of the role of religious groups in legisla-
tive advocacy concerning the poor. One case subject in Imig's study is an organiza-
tion called Bread for the World (BFW), a 25 year-old advocacy organization that de-
scribes itself as a "Christian voice for ending hunger" (Bread for the World, 2000).
Although Imig's analysis does not isolate the factor of BFW's specifically religious
orientation, his investigation of its funding mechanisms and membership strength
certainly underscores the importance of religious group infrastructure in represent-
ing the interests of the poor. Similarly, Whiteley and Winyard's (1987) study of the
British poverty lobby identifies religious groups as "increasingly involved" but in a
rather vaguely defined role as more of an "ally," given their "significantly different
56


position in the policy-making system from the voluntary organizations" of this issue
domain (p. 17).
Furthermore, Imig's study, in particular, supports the proposition that the
advocacy "arms" of sponsoring organizations tend to become more independent
over time, loosening their ideological ties to a parent organization in order to operate
more successfully in the world of legislative compromise. For religious groups, this
suggests a tendency toward secularization and a potential for distancing an organi-
zation's Washington representatives from doctrinal or theological views.
This distancing may seriously impair the strength or credibility of their inter-
est representation. Many religious groups tend to downplay actively mobilizing
their formidable constituencies to engage in interest group lobbying. Although the
advocacy "muscle" exercised by membership groups as influential and large as the
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the AFL-CIO is impressive,
groups like these are outnumbered by the nation's largest organization, the Catholic
Church (Cigler & Loomis, 1998).
Religiously tied groups engage in a wide range of activities to advocate for
their causes, like other nonprofits. Greenawalt (1994) suggests that religious groups
exercise their greatest influence in opposing policy positions (what may be charac-
terized as a "naysayer" effect) rather than in the proactive formulation of policy op-
tions. He considers the greatest contribution of religious group involvement in pol-
icy formulation to be their promotion of values and ethics in political decision-
making (p. 159). However, the particular advocacy competence that religious
groups bring to the policymaking arena, Greenawalt would argue, is not their policy
formulation expertise but the strength of their assumed electoral threat, specifically
57


through their connection to wider voting constituencies. This is a particularly influ-
ential wedge for groups with active and effective communication with an organiza-
tion's membership.
Relatively little has been written about religious group involvement in the
Congressional welfare reform efforts of 1995-1996, although there is evidence that
this sweeping legislation emerged as a result of significant upheaval in established
welfare policy practice. According to Conlan (1998), the policy formulation envi-
ronment surrounding the welfare reform debates of 1995 and 1996 was made par-
ticularly complex by the intensity of political partisanship, the extent of public ani-
mosity toward the status quo, and the engagement of new policy actors. So many
policy options were introduced into the welfare debate that reaching consensus on
comprehensive reform at times seemed unlikely (Weaver, 1998). While Weaver at-
tributes much of the foment to the "primacy of partisan competition" in the policy
formulation process, his recounting of the evolution of PRWORA underscores the
dramatic upheaval that occurred in the familiar "pattern of welfare policymaking"
(p. 369). In particular, the intergovernmental lobby exercised tremendous influence
over the policy decisions regarding welfare (Weaver, 1998), and the increasingly
blurred distinction between expert advice from partisan sources, think tanks and
interest group activity made intervention difficult for some organizations tradition-
ally involved in welfare policy formulation (Weaver, 1989).
Whatever "traditional" or patterned process of policy formulation might have
been in place prior to the 104th Congress, there was no evidence of an "iron triangle"
between committees, agencies and interest groups. Nor could the actions of relig-
ious interest groups be explained by the concept of "corporatism." Smith and Lipsky
58


(1993) define corporatism as the direct involvement of nonprofits in the policy for-
mulation process. Corporatism is characterized by "a political arrangement by
which professional and industrial sectors acquire state-like powers in order to coor-
dinate social productivity" (Metafora, 1999). This concept is more closely associated
with private sector contracting in other (notably European) countries where long-
standing relationships between voluntary agencies, religious charities and the state
result in formalized bargaining about the allocation of government contracts. The
concept of corporatism, however, does not adequately fit the American experience of
policymaking and privatization (Laumann & Knoke, 1987). Metafora's (1999) ex-
amination of the Catholic Church's provision of publicly funded human services
identifies important differences between the church's involvement in the United
States and Europe. He contrasts the characteristically European spirit of church per-
ceptions concerning its worldly role with the adaption needed to survive in the
unique American context. In the U.S. welfare policy subsystem, conflict rather than
consensus among diverse public interests make the nonprofit's place at the policy
formulation "table" highly uncertain, even where religiously based advocacy for the
poor is concerned.
As the previous discussion of Olson's (1965) work suggests, non-rational
groups like religious organizations may not be compelled to policy activity by the
same incentives that motivate other interest groups. Conventional wisdom would
suggest, however, that the incentive of government contracting seems to provide a
strong and persistent motivation for religious groups to advocate for the poor. In
particular, social welfare organizations that get actively involved in legislative advo-
cacy are driven by their mission and purpose to represent the interests of the poor.
59


but they must also represent their own organizational interests. As a result, these
groups are not immune to the pressure of having to decide between defending a re-
source stream (including the support of members or an internal constituency) and
client interests (Carr, 1996).
To be sure, groups have served as advocates for the poor without attempting
to secure government contracts. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO)
was formed in the 1960s to defend the rights of poor mothers. However, the organi-
zation was eventually fractured by disputes among its various coalition partners.
Racial and class differences among NWRO supporters contributed to its demise by
1975, as did tensions between religious groups and the emerging women's liberation
movement (Brown & McKeown, 1997; West, 1981). The NWRO alliance was fragile
and fleeting, but it appears quite remarkable from the perspective of the late 1990s.
Today, American women are "profoundly divided" by class and ideology over is-
sues like abortion and equal rights (Skocpol, 1992, p. 539).
The policy environment of public welfare during the 1990s in which religious
groups intervened reflected this same level of divisiveness. Competition among in-
terest groups and issue networks has intensified among religious groups as well.
Yet, despite the increased involvement of religious groups in welfare reform policy
deliberations, the poor remained remarkably un-mobilized and invisible (Imig,
1996).
To summarize their participation, religious social service groups bear the in-
terests of their own multifaceted constituencies in a complex and competitive advo-
cacy environment. No single set of factors can explain the forces that influence the
actions of these groups. As contractors, they are accountable to government As re-
60


ligious groups, they are responsible to the polity of their church structure. As advo-
cates for the poor, they nominally represent the needs and aspirations of a vulner-
able population. Moreover, these religious social service groups are met in the ad-
vocacy arena by other religious groups, often with competing values.
In the next segment of this review, the policy formulation literature provides
a more refined analysis of the policy process, in particular the aspects of problem
definition, policy learning and the role of advocacy coalitions.
Policy Design and Formulation Theory
The research on interest group behavior provides this study with a frame-
work for describing and identifying the various categories of "players" in the legis-
lative arena involved in the development of the charitable choice provision. How-
ever, interest group research must be complemented by more in-depth policy
analysis if the emergence of charitable choice is to be explained. According to some
scholars, interest group research has shown a tendency to omit "substantive" treat-
ment of the particular issues that compel group involvement (Heinz et al., 1993).
Furthermore, much interest group research is considered only "descriptive" and not
adequately explanatory (Laumann & Knoke, 1987).
Truman's (1951) conception of groups competing to reach a stage of equilib-
rium has been challenged by depictions of the policy process that show far greater
complexity and less evidence of clear, persistent goal orientation. Closer examina-
tion of the processes of policy formulation shows considerable variability in the ac-
tors (both groups and individuals) who engage the process of policy formulation
(Kingdon, 1995). Furthermore, the actions and behaviors of these policy "players"
61


exhibit more discrete differences than described by the categorical observations of
interest group theory. In contrast, the policy formulation literature focuses on the
processes of policymaking as the unit of analysis, allowing more finely grained ex-
planations for the emergence of particular policy solutions. Policy formulation lit-
erature posits that a more useful or potent frame of analysis is the policymaking
situation itself.
Like many findings from interest group studies, policy formulation research
underscores the important constraints of the public policy process. Policy formula-
tion theory does not provide much in the way of reliable formulae for the production
of successful policy. Solving social problems is beyond the capability of public pol-
icy; as Dery (1984) suggests, the best that public policy can offer is the possibility for
improvement of politically and institutionally framed problems. Wildavsky (1979)
echoes a similar sentiment that the identification of an acceptable solution deter-
mines whether policymakers will address public problems. "A problem is linked to
a solution," Wildavsky claims, "a problem is only a problem if something can be
done about it" (p. 42).
The political and institutional constraints on the recognition of a problem as
well as the solutions designed to address it are particularly evident in much of the
literature specifically concerned with social welfare policy. Much of the published
research on social welfare policy is intended for the use of social work practitioners
and is designed to narrow the scope of inquiry to the issues that directly impact their
profession. Practitioners have understood social welfare policy as "the policy of
governments with regard to action having a direct impact on the welfare of citizens
by providing them with services or income" (Marshall, 1955), "collective strategy to
62


address social problems" 0ansson, 1984), and "policies [that] set forth principles,
and.. .deal with human health, safety, or well being" (Flynn, 1985). This applied fo-
cus of much of the social welfare policy literature is characterized by the work of
Gilbert and Specht (1986), who frame their concern with social welfare policy by the
analysis that informs the "course or plan or action in public and private voluntary
agencies" (p. 5). The field of social welfare policy is often presented as a subcategory
of a broader range of social policy, which encompasses activities like education,
criminal justice and health (Gil, 1970). Some (e.g., Moroney & Krysik, 1998) consider
the terms "social welfare policy" and "social policy" to be synonomous.
Although a considerable literature exists on the intricacies of social welfare
agency involvement in local and state policy issues, the practical understanding of
social welfare policy as the immediate concern of the human services professions
does not adequately explain the institutional and organizational constraints that
function at the level of federal policy formulation. Congressional and electoral poli-
tics on the national stage play a significant role in the making of social welfare pol-
icy. To understand the policy processes that produced charitable choice, therefore,
theoretical models must be employed that have greater sophistication than those
used to understand policy formulation at the agency level.
For all the emphasis placed on the cost of welfare programs, expenditures for
means-tested public assistance (previously AFDC, now TANF) are a relatively small
part (about 1 percent) of the federal budget, an estimated $25.9 billion for FY1994
(Bruce, 1998). The amount spent on AFDC that year equaled about 0.37 percent of
the nations gross domestic product (GDP) (Ozawa & Kirk, 1997). Spending for
other social programs like Medicaid and Social Security far outpaces the amounts
63


spent on public assistance. The disproportionate level of attention given to the
problems of welfare dependency is indicative of the values-intensive debate sur-
rounding them.
Welfare policy gamers national attention because it is a volatile political issue
involving important social values. The conceptualization and definition of a social
problem determines the policy that can address it, and these processes are inherently
value-laden. As Dery (1984) writes: "In serving certain values, we usually do dis-
service to others. The essence of problem definition involves not merely identifying
threatened values, but deciding which of those values counts" (p. 34). The process of
weighing the relative merit of different social values is a delicate one. Such values
are often difficult to isolate and define with much accuracy, and policy actors can
utilize the ambiguity of values to their advantage. Even commonly recognized val-
ues deployed in policy analysisequity, efficiency, security, liberty, for exam-
pleare subject to ambiguous interpretations (Stone, 1997). Particular attention,
then, must be paid to the determination of values and how they are deployed in the
policy formulation process. The source of these valueswhether they are culturally
or institutionally derivedis typically examined as part of the social context of pol-
icy formulation.
Following the earlier work of Lemer and Lasswell (1951), policy scientists
have operationalized the value-based aspects of the policy process from the frame-
work of the social context. In fact, concern for the values and social context particu-
lar to each policy controversy has driven much of the policy literature in the past 15
years (Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987; deLeon, 1988a; Schneider & Ingram, 1997). This new
emphasis stems in part from reaction to theories about policy analysis that construe
64


policymaking as an eminently rational, "lock-step" process of expert advice given,
received and dispassionately applied. Policy formulation did not appear to follow a
logical, clearly reasoned process but instead emerged from the messiness of political
conflict, as Schattschneider (1960) observed two decades earlier. Kingdon's (1984)
qualitative studies of policy agenda-setting in the areas of health and transportation,
as one reviewer observed, reflected a policymaking process more like "natural selec-
tion" than that of typical "mechanistic models" (Levine, 1985). The interplay of
power, influence and conflict characterized many studies of policy formation devel-
oped during the 1980s (Polsby, 1984).
Subsequently, policy scholars have broadened the scope of their concern with
context and values in order to assess the democratic characteristics of policy formu-
lation. This has been done to determine the extent to which democratic processes are
either enabled or prevented in policy formulation, and the actions of advocacy
groups figure prominently in these constructions. Models of the policy formulation
process include interest groups and other players in policy subsystems, defined as
the "set of actors who are involved in dealing with a policy problem" and that par-
ticipates in the "generation, dissemination and evaluation of policy ideas"(Sabatier &
Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 17). These networks or advocacy coalitions bring pressure as
well as knowledge to bear on each policy formulation setting. They also provide an
opening for widerand presumably more democraticparticipation in the policy
process.
Bobrow and Dryzek (1987) effectively demonstrate this concept by applying
different modes of analysis to a fictional policy problem in Policy Analysis by Design.
From each policy analysis approachwelfare economics, political choice, social
65


structure, for examplea distinct set of values and perspectives are raised. No sin-
gle perspective takes into account all of the interests and groups that comprise a
particular policy analysis setting. A policy framework that accommodates differ-
enteven opposingperspectives has important theoretical and practical implica-
tions. For example, feminist epistemology, as Rixecker (1994) has argued, has im-
portant contributions to more comprehensive policy design.
It follows, then, that the particular framework or conceptual lens used to ex-
amine policy formulation will illumine a different set of values in each policy setting.
In regard to treatment of the poor in welfare provision, this means accessing cultural
values that can be deeply embedded in individual and social structures. Further-
more, since the poor have a significant material interest in the formulation of social
welfare policy, a particular framework must be deployed that brings such values
into relief. The values of the religious groups that claim to represent as well as serve
the poor must also come under this particular policy "filter."
Policy formulation theorists have approached this analytical task from sev-
eral perspectives. As mentioned previously, Schneider and Ingram (1997) utilized
social construction theory to weigh the ability of democratic policy design to incor-
porate a balance of voices. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of their framework
is the contention that pluralism provides no guarantee that many voices will be
heard in democratic process, a theme also raised by Lowi (1969). They add that
merely embracing pluralism as an ideal does not prepare citizens for involvement in
democracy. Simply recognizing the existence of many voices and many values does
not, Schneider and Ingram contend, result in policy that is inherently democratic.
66


Other policy formulation theorists have developed schemas that allow rele-
vant actors to be "self-interpreting" rather than to impose on them the social roles
conceptualized in social construction theories. Schon established the groundwork
for this type of interpretive theory in The Reflective Practitioner (1983). Roe (1994) and
Forester (1994) have tailored this approach into forms of a narrative policy analysis.
Exposing the value dilemmas faced by policy actors, both Roe and Forester contend,
brings needed complexity to a deceptively simple process. They contend that policy
actors reveal the "ambiguities of power relations" in their weighing of various con-
stituent interests (Forester, 1994, p. 196). These interpretive approaches are not
without detractors, however. Roe's work, in particular, has been criticized for its use
of a narrative model that does not acknowledge the literature of the communication
disciplines and a more discrete appreciation of rhetorical theory (Klumpp, 1996).
As Hajer (1993) explains, the study of discourse in political life has become an
important object of study. "Language is recognized as a medium, a system of signifi-
cation through which actors not simply describe but create the world of meaning in
which they operate (ibid., p. 44, emphasis in the original). The use of discursive
methods is the result of the influence of critical theory, particularly of Jurgen
Habermas's concept of communicative rationality. The "argumentative" or "lin-
guistic" turn in the field of policy analysis evolved from ideas proffered by Haber-
mas and others that democratic discourse is still possible in advanced capitalism
(Agger, 1991; Braaten, 1991). Applied to policy design, critical theory posits that
there are multiple levels of meaning attached to our understanding of existing power
relations in society (Harvey, 1990). To be more fully democratic in the exercise of
policy design requires analysis that goes beyond surface (e.g., approved, sanctioned,
67


preferred) meanings. In particular, this involves the viewpoint of the "other," the
members of society who may be most affected by the resulting policy (deLeon, 1997).
From the standpoint of critical theory, Dryzek (1990) posits that a democratic
public sphere manifests political process in two principle waysthrough discourse
and social experimentation. Discourse in this context is defined as "free and open
communication in political life, oriented toward reciprocal understanding, trust, and
hence an undistorted consensus"(ibid., p. 38). As Dryzek employs the term, social
experimentation is based upon the most optimistic conceptions of collective activity,
where citizens share equally in the design and construction of social change. Both
these tenets of the discursive policy design framework depend upon the ideal that
democracy benefits from the mutuality resulting from communication among and
between citizens.
Dryzek (1990) also borrows from interpretive approaches in his development
of a "discursive" model of policy formulation. In contrast to Roe, his work is well-
grounded in the epistemology of hermeneutics, in particular Habermas's theory of
communicative rationality. By allowing constituent groups to articulate their own
perspectives on a particular policy issue, Dryzek's discursive design framework
avoids the stereotyping of social construction theories and provides policy "know-
ledge" that matches an issue's contextual complexity.
Dryzek's discursive policy design model can account for many aspects of the
present inquiry about charitable choice; it allows for the incorporation of multiple
views and values, without necessarily imposing a particular ideological framework.
His situation-specific design helps create a cross-sectional "snapshot" of policy per-
spectives. Although the conceptual frameworks of democratic policy design are
68


more sensitive to questions of value and culture, they are not severed, however,
from the political processes of policy formulation. Policy design is "inevitably politi-
cal" (Dryzek & Ripley, 1988, p. 715). The political aspects of policy design are par-
ticularly evident as various actors weigh public input or reaction to their decisions.
They are more likely to seek "validation from a broader public" than to act as policy
elites driving a coercive process (ibid.).
Several strands of research link this public character of policy formulation
with the actions of interest groups in the formation process. The public's role has
been specifically identified in policy agenda-setting and the timing and ascendance
of particular policy issues in accord with public sentiment. Kingdon (1995), in par-
ticular, cited the importance of interest groups in contributing to the emergence of
issues on the public policy agenda. The public's influence is also felt in the intro-
duction of political innovation. Polsby's (1984) "natural history" of political innova-
tion was derived from a set of case studies that showed the importance of policy
"subcultures" and the perceived salience of change among the broader public.
The policy formulation aspect of particular relevance to this study, however,
is problem definition and, correspondingly, problem redefinition. In the formulation
of PRWORA, the problems of the poor were defined not as social problems per se
but, predictably, as institutionally defined problems. Welfare dependency, not the
suffering induced by poverty, was established as a primary problem to be addressed
with this new policy initiative. Furthermore, the inability of government to end such
dependency or limit its responsibility for the poor was also identified as a significant
problem that required policy action.
69


Numerous sources mentioned in this literature review have suggested that
charitable choice reflects a major change in the structure or pattern of U.S. public
welfare policy formulation. This structure is created and supported by multiple
policy actors. Rochefort and Cobb (1994) argue that problem definition is typically a
barometer of the realignment of policy subsystems when dramatic change occurs.
They add that problem definition and redefinition are used to either restrict or in-
crease the participation of various policy actors. PRWORA is a singular example of
what Baumgartner and Jones (1993) describe as a dramatic "burst" or punctuated
policy change that re-organizes policy "monopolies."
Identifying such dramatic welfare policy change can only be effectively as-
sessed by taking into account the element of time. While Dryzek's model of discur-
sive policy formation offers a cross-sectional "snapshot" of participation, those who
have examined the political processes of policy change (e.g., Kingdon, Polsby,
Baumgartner & Jones, Rochefort & Cobb) include the element of time in their con-
sideration of shifting policy agendum.
The function of time as a factor in policy design has led to the development
of important contributions to the policy formulation literature. In his effort to trace
the "rise and fall" of policy items on the political agenda, Kingdon (1984) tracked the
development of federal policy in the areas of health and transportation over four
years. Baumgartner and Jones (1993) determined a longer time frame (in some in-
stances, an entire century) was needed to uncover the occurrence of certain policy
formulation features. The advocacy coalition approach of Sabatier and Jenkins-
Smith (1993) is premised on the idea that policy learning "requires a time perspective
70


of a decade or more" to monitor significant change, a finding that evolved from Sa-
batier's (1986) study of policy implementation.
This longitudinal perspective raises the question of organizational or policy
"learning" as another important factor in formulation. Dery (1984) identified orga-
nizational learning as a centred influence in policy formation because organizations
serve an important role in interpreting information to constituents. Houghton (1998)
calls this influence "policy learning" or the study of how "individuals, organizations,
administrations and sometimes entire nation-states 'learn' from past policy failures
and successes" (p. 151). In other words, policy learning explains how experience
with one policy influences the crafting of other policies. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier
(1993) offer a similar definition of policy learning (specifically, policy-oriented learn-
ing) as "enduring alterations of thought or behavioral intentions that result from ex-
perience"(p. 42).
For Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, policy learning affects most immediately the
"belief system" of individuals and groups involved in the policy process, in particu-
lar, the members of advocacy coalitions formed around specific policy issues.
Changes in the structure of a subsystem's beliefs are predictive of policy change. To
conceptualize a structure of policy belief systems, Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier bor-
row, not surprisingly, from religious terminology to describe the variations of beliefs
among policy subsystems. They differentiate the belief systems of policy actors into
three categories: "deep" core beliefs (most resistant to change), "near" core beliefs
(less resistant to change) and secondary aspects (least resistant to change) (Sabatier &
Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 31). According to numerous aspects in their belief system
71


schema, the policy changes represented by charitable choice would have challenged
policy actors' belief systems at all three levels.
Because of the history of American experience with voluntary char-
ityparticularly the pre-existence of religiously sponsored social welfarean ele-
ment of policy learning over time must be included in a study that examines the
context of religious group involvement in public policy formation. It is likely that
apperceptions (specifically, impressions from past experience) of religious group in-
volvement in social welfare affected the formulation of charitable choice. The expe-
riences of the past provide a form of policy "shorthand," a usefulif falli-
ble"shortcut to rationality" (Jervis, 1976).
Both concepts of policy learning and problem definition are closely related to
the rhetoric of languageanalogy and metaphor, for examplein political decision
making. Policy formulation takes place according to rules, money and favors as
Stone (1997) admits, but, above all, political debates rely on "words and ideas." In
Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process, Majone (1989) presents a
similar view: that the linguistic and rhetorical conventions of policymakingas in
legal argumentationis of crucial importance (Majone, 1989). Rochefort and Cobb
(1994) underscore the significance of language in policy formulation this way:
The uses of language are crucial to the political analysis of public
policymaking and problem definition. Language is essential to un-
derstanding, argument, and individual and group expression, which
all figure into the definition of social problems for public attention.
Language can be the vehicle for employing symbols that lend legiti-
macy to one definition and undermine the legitimacy of anotheras
when professional groups try to gain control over the way a problem
is perceived by introducing symbols of their expertise and authority,
(p. 9)
72


To summarize this section, the policy formulation literature provides further
dimensionality to our understanding of the actions and words religious groups
might have used to influence or affect the passage of the charitable choice provision.
Prevailing theory holds that emerging policy change is limited by political and in-
stitutional constraints, and that the policy decision-making process is inherently
value-laden. Furthermore, critical theory has profoundly influenced conceptions of
policy formulation, challenging rational models and emphasizing multiple levels of
meaning in political and institutional action. As a consequence of recognizing the
multiplicity of viewpoints toward policy, "democratic-ness" has become a compel-
ling normative concern of policy formulation theory. Finally, studies of dramatic
policy change necessitate the consideration of policy change over time as well as
policy learning.
Four aspects of policy formulation have been identified as particular salient
for this formulation study of charitable choice:
1. political and institutional constraints
2. the central importance of values in problem definition as well as in the identi-
fication of innovative policy solutions
3. the role of problem definition in the realignment of policy subsystems when
dramatic change occurs
4. the function of organizational and/or policy "learning."
These four aspects, combined with the temporal context provided by histori-
cal analysis and the understanding of interest group activity outlined previously,
provide the theoretical structure for a comprehensive explanation of the formulation
of charitable choice.
73


Conclusion
Religion, rather than losing influence, has grown in significance for its influ-
ence in public life. As a result, a framework for understanding the social context of
the formulation of charitable choice must include the recognition of social values,
particularly those held by religious groups. Religious values infuse many aspects of
social life, but we can capture a sense of their import for policy formulation by
studying the religious interest groups that engage in legislative advocacy. The pol-
icy goals and aims of religious interests in welfare policy formulation are most ap-
propriately understood in the context of the interorganizational "field" in which
these groups are situated. Political discourse emerges as an important intersection of
purposes for religious advocacy groups and other policy actors; both religious expe-
rience and political process rely on language to create systems of meaning. The dis-
cursive elements of policy formulation, therefore, assume particular significance.
The language of problem definition, combined with the perspective of policy learn-
ing over time, constitute the essential ingredients for a formulation study of charita-
ble choice.
74


CHAPTER 3
THE DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH
For the first time in this countrys history, we would be
saying that faith-based organizations could receive federal
funds and then put up a sign saying no Jews, Catholics
or Methodists need apply fir a federally funded job.
Rep. Chet Edwards
Recent developments in government expansion of the utilization of religious
groups as service providers suggest that a fuller exploration of the social context
could explain the source and potency of religious influences. To capture a rich de-
scription of these events, a policy formulation study was chosen as the appropriate
research approach to explain the policy phenomenon known as charitable choice.
Although the utilization of religious groups in social services contracting is not a
new development, the charitable choice provision of PRWORA should be considered
a critical policy formulation case that features "multiple and conflicting values" (see
Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987). The specificity with which religious groups were included
in the provision, combined with PRWORA's overall aim to end dependency on pub-
lic assistance and encourage private sector solutions, made the selection of charitable
choice a unique case analysis opportunity.
This chapter outlines the methods that were used to delve into the origins of
PRWORA's charitable choice provision. It begins by outlining the design of the
study, then presenting the research questions and an initial set of propositions. The
qualitative and quantitative components of the research are then described by pro-
75


viding a rationale for each approach and an explanation of the specific procedures
used. A discussion of potential threats to validity and generalizability that may limit
the study follows the section on procedures. Finally, the chapter concludes with an
overview of the organization of the remainder of the thesis.
Research Goals
The goal of this research is to explain whether and to what extent religious
groups have had an effect on specific reforms in U.S. public welfare policy. The re-
view of pertinent literature indicates that numerous factors contributed to the sig-
nificant change in social welfare policy that charitable choice represented. Among
the broad social factors that potentially influenced this policy environment were the
enduring legacy of religious charity from the 19lh century, a shift in Constitutional
interpretation regarding the basis of religious expression in free speech and the pre-
sumed electoral threat posed by conservative religious voters.
For reasons discussed in Chapter 2, however, these factors alone do not ade-
quately explain the actual formulation of this ''pro-religion,' policy or its broad ac-
ceptance as a policy innovation. A more nuanced explanation was sought from an
examination of four specific components of the policy environment: more recent
(post-1960s) religious group involvement in social welfare contracting; changes in
the approach to legislative advocacy by religious interests; a realignment of the wel-
fare policy subsystem that enabled charitable choice; and the purposeful redefinition
of the policy problem that charitable choice was designed to address.
The purpose of the thesis is to identify the religiously motivated forces that
were present at the provision's inception that encouraged the emergence of this sig-
76


nificant departure in social welfare policy. By examining the policy formulation role
of religious groups, the thesis explains what happens when the set of policy actors
and conditions in a given policy arena undergo significant change.
Research Questions
Two overarching concerns govern the explanatory purpose of this research
and four focused research questions provide the investigative framework. In broad
terms, the thesis seeks to contribute to understanding about 1) the role of religious
groups in the making of contemporary American social welfare policy and 2) how
extensive their role can or should be in the formulation process, in light of Constitu-
tional constraints. Using the formulation of PRWORA's charitable choice provision
as a specific instance of religious group involvement in the making of social welfare
policy, this thesis addresses four focused research questions:
1. How did charitable choice come to be regarded as a policy innovation?
2. What internal or external inducements motivated religious groups to engage
the formulation process that produced charitable choice?
3. Which religious groups actively sought to qualify as service providers under
the new welfare law and why did they do so?
4. Does the adoption of charitable choice signal a shift in the role that religious
groups play in social welfare policy formulation?
77


Propositions
Based upon theory and concepts drawn from the relevant literature, we
would expect to find the following initial propositions about religious group advo-
cacy to be supported by further study:
A. Religious groups are increasingly involved in attempting to influence the for-
mulation of social welfare policy rather than take part in its implementation
only. Conventional wisdom suggests that religious groups have focused their ef-
forts on implementation of social welfare policies in the modem, post-1935 era.
However, like other organized interests, various types of religious groups have
presumably increased their involvement in policy formulation by committing
more resources, personnel and expertise (Browne, 1998; Cigler & Loomis, 1998;
Greenawalt, 1994; Hertzke, 1988). Research conducted here should show that re-
ligious advocacy groups are attempting to influence policy in more direct and fo-
cused ways, particularly through active participation in the problem definition
phase and in proposing innovative policy solutions.
B. Religious advocacy groups with weak denominational ties are more likely
than those with strong ties to offer innovative policy proposals because they
are subject to fewer institutional constraints. Policy solutions are derived from
institutionally and organizationally recognized problems (Dery, 1984; Wil-
davsky, 1979). Denominational structures represent one aspect or variant of re-
ligious institutions. As such, they impose certain constraints on the activities of
subsidiary as well as affiliated groups. Denominations appear to have an effect
78


on the extent of civic and political activity by religious groups (Chaves & Hig-
gins, 1992; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). The structural and formal relationships
between religious advocacy groups and denominational bureaucracies may have
a comparable impact on religious group involvement in policy formulation as the
ideological divisions in American religion characterized by liberal and conserva-
tive differences (Ahlstrom, 1975; Chaves, 1999).
C. The prospect of providing expanded services to the poor through new funding
lured previously uninvolved religious groups into the formulation process.
Without economic incentives, groups in general have limited motivation to rep-
resent the interests of the poor (Olson, 1965). However, many religious groups
(whether liberal or conservative in political orientation) have been reluctant to
accept government funds for fear of increased entanglement with the state. The
charitable choice provision offers a level of protection to the religious character of
faith groups, thus removing a barrier to their use of government funds. Since re-
ligious groups have not been prevented at any time from providing services to
the poor with their own resources, the potential of government funding offers a
new potential for increased social services by religious groups (Chaves, 1999).
D. The participation of religious advocacy groups in the policy formulation proc-
ess contributes to greater democratization of social welfare policy. Religious
groups commonly espouse rhetoric that positions them as advocates or defend-
ers of the poor. Economically disadvantaged persons are underrepresented in
policy formulation as in other expressions of democratic political life (Imig, 1996;
Schneider & Ingram, 1997). Advocacy by religious groups may be one of the few
(if limited) ways that the poor are represented in policy formulation.
79


A policy formulation study is, essentially, a case study that examines the
process of development surrounding one policy, in this instance, the charitable
choice provision of PRWORA. Inquiry into the processes of policy formulation typi-
cally involves the recognition of problems, the placement of such problems on the
policy agenda, and the generation of alternative programs and solutions that address
those problems (Brewer & deLeon, 1983). It is important to note that policy formu-
lation does not occur independently of the rest of the public policy process and can-
not be examined in complete isolation; to concentrate on the emergent aspects of
policy formulation is a matter of emphasis rather than clear conceptual distinction.
As with all case studies, a basic difficulty is limiting the scope of the study.
To understand the processes of public policy that include the participation of relig-
ious groups, the field of inquiry must be narrowed to focus on a specific time period
and a manageable set of variables. Religious values are particularly pervasive and
find expression at many levels of society; they infuse and affect so many aspects of
our individual, group and national experience that no single study can incorporate
them in any comprehensive way (Bellah, 1985; Butler, 1990; Marty, 1984; Norgren &
Nanda, 1996; Reichley, 1985). By narrowing the focus of the research to the role of
religious groups in the formulation aspects of charitable choice, some features of this
religious influence may be identified for further policy research.
Principal Subjects for the Study
Much interest group research tends to categorize organized interests accord-
ing to a particular cause or style of representation. The present study used the wel-
fare policy deliberations of the 104th Congress (1995-1996) as a sampling frame and
80


considered its principal subjects to be the groups with religious ties that entered the
frame's ambit. This included a broader range of organized interests that identified
themselves as representing a constituency with religious convictions than has been
found in other studies (Hertzke, 1988; Hofrenning, 1995). Advocacy coalition and
policy domain research, as well, focus on a structured set of policy actors (Laumann
& Knoke, 1987; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). A wider "lens" was necessary to
capture the possibility of change among advocacy roles and actors. Consequently,
the religious groups included in the study expressed divergent reasons for their po-
litical and legislative involvement in public welfare policy.
The relevant religious group actors were identified through Congressional
testimony, media coverage, and through referrals mentioned during interviews.
Denominational representatives, social service providers with religious group ties,
and cause-related groups were among the types of religious interests included in the
study. Several groups could be defined as research organizations. Some of those
that exerted the most pronounced or timely effort were very loosely organized affin-
ity groups without clear membership requirements. Information was elicited from
twenty-eight (28) respondents when interviews were conducted between February,
1999 and May, 2001. Interviewees were assured that their responses would remain
confidential; therefore the identity of individuals who consented to interviews and
the groups they represented is not disclosed in the study.
Furthermore, not all of the groups consented to be interviewed or were avail-
able for contact. Some consented and then refused to answer the interview ques-
tions. Others objected to the consent arrangements, saying that the consent form re-
quired by the University of Colorado was "off-putting." In such cases, the printed
81


testimony or media accounts offered by these groups had to suffice. Those who did
consent to interviews also offered comments about other groups and their activities,
providing additional information that needed verification.
Many of these organized religious interests have only a marginal, policy
"outsider standing in terms of public welfare policy formulation. They lack either
the resources and single-mindedness of lobbying groups or the purposive intent of
government-funded service providers. Despite their peripheral role, these groups
often exhibit considerable persistence in their attempts to influence social policy. As
"lurkers in the public welfare policy formulation arena, such organizations have oc-
casion to interject their views, often with timely accuracy.
Sources of Data and Modes of Analysis
To develop a rich investigation in this single-case study, the design incorpo-
rates multiple sources of evidence as well as multiple methods of data analysis. Data
for the research derives from four principal sources: legislative records, organiza-
tional documents and publications, informant interviews and media accounts. The
published reports, records and statements of religious advocacy groups are particu-
larly important because they provide insight into policy formulation developments
from these groups' own perspectives.
The significance of religious group involvement in the formulation of chari-
table choice is explained through the application of three methodological ap-
proaches: historical analysis, rhetorical analysis and content analysis. Multiple ap-
proaches are used, not only to satisfy questions of validity through triangulation, but
82


to capture both a longitudinal and cross-sectional perspective of religious group in-
fluence and a sense of its import for public policy concerning the welfare of the poor.
However, instead of "atomizing" separate elements within this narrowed
sphere of interest, the research design emphasizes the relationships among different
aspects of the formulation of charitable choice. This process, called "contextualiza-
tion" by Maxwell (1996), differs from categorization processes common to qualitative
research that rely primarily on coding strategies (ref. Miles Sc Huberman, 1994). The
advantage of using this approach over categorizing methods only, as Maxwell sug-
gests, is that contextualization does not
.. .focus primarily on relationships of similarity that can be used to
sort data into categories independently of context but instead look for
relationships that connect statements and events within a context into a
coherent whole (p. 79, emphasis added).
Preserving a sense of the context of the formulation of charitable choice is
pivotal to this study, and the use of both history and discourse serve to capture the
richness of the contextual framework. An epistemological tension exists, however,
between the uses of history and discourse; both are reliant on the other in interpret-
ing social and political experience. This is readily apparent in such issues as the role
of gender in interpretations of history; an example is Stivers's (1993) reconstructive
history of modem U.S. public administration that relates the previously unexamined
role played by women and women's groups in the Progressive era.
Foucault and others insist that discourse cannot be reduced to history or vice-
versa (Thacker, 1997). Thacker describes a connective tension between discourse and
history:
83


... [Ajctual historical experiences may be one beginning for historical
research, but they should not be valorised as an explanatory principle
without considering the contingency of such experiences and the way
that any concept of past "experience" is itself already the construction
of the historian in the present (ibid., p. 44)
Consequently, this thesis utilizes both history and discourse as methods of
analysis. Qualitative techniques drawn from both of these research methodologies
help elucidate the significance of charitable choice as a policy innovation. Content
analysis, which is presented as the third leg in the analytical triangle, contributes a
quantitative perspective on the importance of this provision to understanding relig-
ious involvement in public policy, particularly in regard to its salience with the gen-
eral public. A brief explanation of the rationale for each of these forms of analysis
follows, along with more detailed description of their application to specific sources
of data.
Historical Analysis
The advantage of using an idiographic explanatory model like historical
analysis is that it allows the study to be inclusive of cultural and social influences
that nomothetic models cannot readily incorporate. Religious involvement in
American social welfare history is acknowledged in large part because of the various
historical accounts that have chronicled the role of charities and religious orders. A
particular benefit of historical analysis, according to Tosh (1991), is the ability to
counter the "damaging effects of historical myth." For instance, the thesis explores
whether policymakers considered the modem equivalents of these groups merely as
vendors of services (perhaps preferred as low-cost bidders) or because of their avail-
ability and demonstrated dedication to the needs of the poor, as Marvin Olasky
84


(1992) argued in his popularized historical account. Historical analysis of contempo-
rary religious group involvement in social welfare provision aids in the assessment
of these various interpretations.
Contrary to popular wisdom (i.e., "history repeats itself'), the predicative
power of historical analysis is minimal. It can, however, offer useful projections of
trends (Tosh, 1991). In addition, historical analysis can provide a complementary
and more comprehensive "measure" of human institutions like government and
voluntary organizations than the partial explanations provided by nomothetic mod-
els. Even Lasswell's (1951) early framework recognized the importance of an histori-
cal basis in policy research.
To be sure, establishing a chronological narrative of a phenomenon's course
of development is a form of analysis. Creating a "temporal scheme" through
chronological analysis can be considered a form of time-series analysis, according to
Yin (1994). Determining a sequence of events is essential to establishing any degree
of causality. Legislative records, media accounts and personal interviews provided
considerable evidence for the historical narrative of this policy's emergence. Secon-
dary sources, like published histories, also offered needed evidence.
Assembling a credible chronology, however, cannot provide satisfactory in-
terpretation of the temporal factors contributing to the formulation of charitable
choice. Description and narrative are two of the three basic techniques of historical
research; analysis through historical interpretation comprises the third (Tosh, 1991).
When utilized in policy research, historical interpretation provides a "distinctive
knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of social change" and "a distinctive basis
for forecasting societal developments" (McCall, 1994, p. 207). In particular, policy
85


history incorporates "the work of political and institutional historians (whose work
focuses on the state) and social historians (whose research often addresses the effects
of state policy)" (Bowling Green State University, 1998). Policy historians contend
that because of the interpretations of history that permeate our awareness of events,
the process of policy making begins even before a social problem is recognized
(Stemsher & Fish, 1995). As part of its historical analysis, this thesis explores how
such perceptionsor more accurately, apperceptionsof the past influenced the
framing of policy problems in regard to charitable choice.
The use of historical analogue in the formulation of charitable choice consti-
tutes an important aspect of the provision in terms of its policy history. The use of
analogues (or like situations) from history in the formulation of policy has been ex-
amined from a psychological-behavioral perspective by Jervis (1976). He argues that
formative experience with historical analogues creates "perceptual predispositions"
in policy makers that influence their decisions. Neustadt and May (1986) applied a
less cognitive approach to assessing policy makers' use of historical analogues. They
posit that policy decision-makers are able to intelligently select analogues from his-
tory that can help them critically evaluate issues. An alternate explanation is offered
by Houghton (1998), who deduced that situations of particular risk and uncertainty
are precipitating factors in the use of historical analogue in policy formulation.
The historical framework presented in this thesis begins by chronicling the
contemporary (1960s and later) policy developments that both preceded and con-
tributed to the emergence of charitable choice. Policy changes regarding govern-
ment contracting with, first, private groups and then religious groups are traced
from the passage of Social Security Amendments in the 1960s to the point of intro-
86


duction of Section 104 (the charitable choice provision) during the welfare reform
debates in 1995 and 1996. The focus of this policy history centers on the creation of
federal-level provisions that allowed government funding for private contracting of
human services, particularly with religious groups. These developments have been
considered individually in isolated accounts but have not been assembled into a uni-
fied chronology that might help elucidate the significance of these changes. Charita-
ble choice should be viewed in light of this broader policy history.
Against this policy history background, the emergence of major religious so-
cial welfare and advocacy organizations during this same time period is also exam-
ined. Two questions frame this historical account: How did religious groups exploit
the opportunities presented by changes in government contracting with private sec-
tor groups? And, does this history suggest a trend that corresponds to the emer-
gence and implementation of charitable choice?
Organizational accounts, largely from archival data and official publications
were augmented by interviews to provide the data for this section. A relatively un-
tapped historical resource is organization histories from religious social welfare
groups. Histories of some larger organizations have been published, either in vol-
umes dedicated to the development of a federated organization like Catholic Chari-
ties (Brown & McKeown, 1997) or of a field of charities, as in Oates's The Catholic
Philanthropic Tradition in America (1995). Many of these organizations maintain ex-
tensive archival resources.
Next, a comprehensive legislative history of the charitable choice provision
was established from the Congressional Record and other legislative publications
regarding Section 104 of PRWORA. To present a comprehensive legislative history
87


as outlined by Goehlert and Martin (1988), a chronology of the provision's passage
through Congress comprising dates and committee actions was expanded with the
consideration of additional documentation such as hearing testimony, committee
reports and amendments.
Further evidence for a complete legislative history was provided by the con-
tributions of interest groups, executive departments and pertinent case law. Inter-
views with informants representing religious advocacy organizations in Washing-
ton, EXT provided essential supplemental data about the emergence of the provision
and religious group response to or involvement in its formulation. Newspaper and
other media accounts were utilized to help establish the political, administrative and
social context in which charitable choice emerged.
This dual-pronged historical analysiscomprising the policy background
and a legislative history of Section 104constitutes the first phase of the research
study. The second phase involves discourse analysis of the participation of religious
groups in the welfare policy environment from which charitable choice emerged.
Rhetorical Analysis
The propositions of the thesis concerned with innovation, problem definition
and democratic representation (A, B, & D) hinge upon the importance of language in
policy formulation. Rochefort and Cobb (1994) emphasize its importance in formu-
lating policy because language provides the tools for definition and redefinition.
Defining a policy problem is a primary factor related to innovation and how a policy
problem is presented in terms of new solutions. Language is also related to the
processes of formulation that allow for the participation of varied groups. Dryzek
88


Full Text

PAGE 1

?/6@.A/.B 6@@.C /6.'64?6.64D "A" $#)"$<2;: $)"C)$<22< )"4C) &# C."

PAGE 2

E>88<""A" #)

PAGE 3

C." #" "A" ) .6 ##"4 66 6@F G C

PAGE 4

A"$"+. C $., ?#(. #@. ?." "..6 '4 # %"### !"%" 4H &"!!#"$H "$!"H !$"#$#* )#))##) )# !#!%"$H )""%)<220% II)"%###H %&"))%% /%)%$$%# #" ?# #)(%#%"$H )##"##"H #&)&)#* )%(!#H ##))"%" "#"## "##

PAGE 5

) %! "##)) "+",%# )#! %<228$#*# (%#)$%"J"# % (%#!" #"" "F" )##"") #%" "F H .6

PAGE 6

4A?6C@ %#" "%@.)" 4C) .6$#)" $) ### ". C %(#") $ ")" %%### #$% @.1"$(# )#($<)$"$ )#""@. "")"!)H #)& $ @-.$. C $)-)#))( ? G$)$4)" )?#$C4%"#% #"!44 /($#)"K#$ #-6"%$ 6 $ "%#)"#$GA$. C $# )!##( 4 A" #)"F4."H %")-"% ))#()I#I GC (%)#H (#%.##*+..,D )"<22L )#4#C /+.$.,<220" 4. C &# ($%)%)" $$$!"

PAGE 7

4 # ! 4/. < C4 < #."4! : ?1%#@ ; ?C44M << 44B. <0 CG#. >8 !##@C." >< ))% >> > 4NCK?/6 >= 4!." >2 #*6#" 7> /#" 7= #."4!#" 7; @)" :0 #)"@ =: ."C#" 0< 4 L: 7 /C@/4/ L=

PAGE 8

@ L0 5 LL L; .J" ;8 C" ;> /" ;: ;; 4" 2: K" 2L @*"# 22 6." <88 <8< .64D/D4.D46K4 44@'D6@@. <87 /.44 <87 .))'%%C% <82 <<: <7< <:< = 6@6K/D. 6 <8:-<27$4<8: +4/'64/4, <:: 6#4'(# <:= 6#)#44 <=< <0:

PAGE 9

D@ <0; ?$) 8= 4 >8L 64#C ><= >>> L C4C6DC@ >>= 5 >>0 ))%## >77 #6#!)# >7= !. >:< ; D$446C.64 /CD >=< ..CN /N. 6 <8:-<27$6$4 <8: +4/'6 4/4, >=0 C@/6@6K/D.?F 4/'64/4.K >=2 4 @9C6@/@K.'64 D'4@C@?6 C'$<22=-<220 >08

PAGE 10

C K?.46 >0> .'64/466D >0: ?C4@+C4, >0= @ 64D@9 >02 46 >L8

PAGE 11

@ # > <@%?##*#H )@ =: : <.!D<2;:-<2;24<2;L C <77 0 <7

PAGE 12

'6 : <@)#44 #$<2;:-<2;2 <7= 0 <&"C@".## >82 0 >&"##?H )J %$<22=-<220 ><< 0 7&"#@4H J%?)J %$<22=<220 ><: 0 :.4"+.4,%CO 46# >>8

PAGE 13

P 4/.< C4 !"#$$%&"$##"$ '&$())%#$$)##& #)%)% *(#)%+&)$ *($%,"#)%"+ #%$)%(#)%"#*% "(")%++%$ G?$<078 ##"))) )F ))) )F"$)# "$%(#*()"" %%)+?$ <222, < !+'($<22=,)H ))-"I #I+ 7=0, $I)I#H "%I)$II#$#*#$)#$ ##)#)I+
PAGE 14

#%""$ ###(#)")H # ##)%H )#(" $%) $#-#* )I-##I%"#%H #" %"$))* -#")%% !H $#>888$CH %)##))##)# "1$##H "+F!#)#-)H $I<22LR''!#%( $<222, 4@)'% #<222%I%I %#)-#*$# %II#)I#*I#H )##"+$<222, -.'4#*## $)##)I#*#)"#$# (#(I+4$>888,

PAGE 15

G">88<$.@#'%?/ -'4")I*# 3+($>88<, .1!)#" #!### )%) )$%H #"-##&H "(-) ##%!)$ ())"% $ #%)*###H ##*")"))%H /%## "##"M"$ $**$)%&%&%*&#) )))$"$"+*. "))## "%")H ))" ) %#(%I3)&" !##%" <2>0#%"$" %"

PAGE 16

#."4! ""$)#" !))% ) )"%" *+$<22L, )#)"! #%$%%H )"*II+($<22>,$ II+G$<22L,$I!$III+A*$<220, H %")%)H "($""$+@$<22:RA*$<220RH $<22L, ))## % ))") )I-#3%" #"#))"$ ##))$# """ A(+<22L,##$## %##)")I)H #I+ :2, #)))"# "$#") :

PAGE 17

%##"#" #+A*$<220, "% #>) ) .)" $##%+@$<22:R6-"$ <227,+5#$<22:,%%# +?$<227, <208$%)%!H )%%($"$ $ #) @" ##%#J## %C)#+<20<,$" $4)#+<20:,$$<20=$$$ ""$+<20=, #%"#4H ?<2;<$#H "#(#$ "!"(#) ))+?$<2;>, >.I#)F)H %)#)I+'($ <222, & "+, #$))$C"$/+C/, /$ (""+,) )Q## =

PAGE 18

#)%)"# #"% #! %##H #H #$%)$R)H "##"%) 4*I%I+$ <2L=,$))" #"#) ##))"%%" ."H ))#%#(44)H )#"#"" <22L"H 44%)"#*&" "4##"" %+$<222, #"$#)"#*#") %"$%)$% ##)#$ $)#"H #"))## #"("6 !$"#")))

PAGE 19

)+ # $, "# )#!"##"* #)#R#H #()"# 4##) )!#))""#$!$# %4#)) %F#" )##+@#$<22LR$>888, C$))#H ##%"") # ?%+<2;;,##H #%II###$#) I#I# &)F) $#)II"#F% "$?%%$#)"H "+ $),)"#$% "I##I+ 0, @)H )#-G)%! #)$?%F"$# #I#I)##" #)##")" )-#B L

PAGE 20

ST#%##" )))# "#)"H ### ) #% #*#* ))"#J) $(#H J#"U))H )"*J) +?1%$ <2;;$ <78-<7<, #%###"## ## ?F%#@ %#<8:4# #)"%" <27= $"(%."?(H <220+.?$. 6 <8:-<27,$)%H #""(#$"I#I ()))# .?#J#)FH #%$#%## $ .?% ,C4# '#%%$.?H )%#I#I

PAGE 21

#%(#) %#<20L+G$<22L,$.? ".?$# #)") R#"%")V"" %(&#" %-W#H $.?%#C4$"H )#H #$#"%&)## B!$###%(I)I# # !%)&# #)-)%-## H #)&)# IX)Y%I %+$<22L,$ )##)"#)+$ <220R$<22;, &<220%#"H ##) )#%)!"* )) #-)%) "2

PAGE 22

)#F !$ #&) #R$")#) #%-") )##%# )))) "! #))"$# )%#%# # -II).?+ <8:, ))"##)$ I"#))I+ <8: 7) #)"###H ##")##*H II+ $ )"!## $#" 4#)+$>888, )II(##) +'$<22;,I%I +'$<220, ##)! %#"+#$ <22;,-+@'' 4$<22;, 7!<8:!

PAGE 23

.$4G%#!% .?#"$## # #)%$" #"" #+<220R<22;, J$#)"#H *(")#4#$<220% II%)"+?$ <220, J#**)) #$)% C)"$II !%"% &"(#( "##$")( #$)+4-$ <222, ?C44M @)#%##)) "%$)" "( #*()"$K +K,44))#)-)H "" ##))")) )*) %"$"##))# #"$

PAGE 24

/%)$.?F)H #%####H *#))4H #%# )%# "$##I#I##H ))")+C)$<220, )( "#% )### && OJ ###*))O# )) #.?F) %")) $ )#)#-)& )F4" C)") $##)"IFF#) +4$?#$Z'$<222$ 78L, ##))H ")"4" I!)#I% C#! #<208$!$##) ")%!-*#H $I#"I)# ).?##H ##"### )% <

PAGE 25

#))%$#H 0'1 '+) %H )+"#"## <8: ##"!"#$ $%$$"*+ <8:J )##F" %<8:F4 # !!#))$ )B ##*% %H $)$ H $$#)$# #*F)$$! # @)[G &##*+,#)H R+',)#$$$"H #) + <8: > 4""# ) "*# # C#(K)H "$)#-) )$) $H "#")!" 6 $&"!# %#)##*))H ) ?(%###") <7

PAGE 26

)#%H "<27= "$"##)H $ ## #!))$H &+'$<22>, ")" ### C#)#"#$#*)I $I@J#+<22L,$#))#H C4" ?#.?$H +###,))) %!*)H $%)# #* #%)) #)#$ % 4")""$)J"H #*)" )" I#I<2;8$% "")+@J#$<228, ? )#$ ))($ )#" +$#,J) <:

PAGE 27

##II$#))H # .#H )"))"#"H #* !-#H #)*:)# )&"$H )$)"""" #))!))# )I-I)*H +<227,)-#)#H "*)%" $# *-)H "##)) $"#)# )"%*+'#Z $<2LL, ("*)" )"( "$+<227,##$#)F #"#* )%F "II#$#+>888, #$#* <=

PAGE 28

I#I )IJ#I+A$<22L,$" "##)#H A##$I#H )I"###H ))#) "4# &#)%/.4 +)*$>888R$>888R'%"$>888R$>888,) >888#))## +'%$>888R$>888,%II# 44B. ."### ")) %%("## 4)+<222, ##!# )# )%#)%#%))# )) ")% )#"###%#H #%)# : @)#)+<22;,)* I"#$% $#))#)# $3 <0

PAGE 29

# @*#)")H #(####H ))# II" ### $%" #%"))))$! 4H 4$K$)" #H )-%#)) )""#+'%$<2:8RK$ <222, ###")$"H #))) %#(" %-# $##*%!H )+ $#)#$)#$, #"" &" *#%H )##+ $##,%) ))) #)"$ %##)%H $%("# #+""," #$ "#%")%H )#.$""
PAGE 30

###)### '$ !$F#.##H ####+ '4)$<207, ="#$%)$ %#)$)"" )#4#+$<220R?$<222, "))4#)%$)%) "!% $.($."$ 6$%)"# +$<2L=,$)!%H %%)F#" )%$"$%)H %#) ))()#$#) +(Z($<22>R /*($<22<, /%)$ #+C)$."$Z"$<22=, /"$#H #)""# "&")"$###=NK'#+#6"$ "2$<207,$BI)%" %( I <;

PAGE 31

." .?+<220, $%F" ($#)* )+G$<2;8, ( #** -"+G$<2;8R6Z"$<228,H "*#)##)H %& () )))+K$*$Z'"$<22=, ##))" %+4)Z/##$<22>, #() ##) +5#$<22:,$)# #)(#)#%( # (#"# ))()#"# #H F"("H "+",H #*+4)Z/##$<22>RG$<2;8R6Z"$<228, <2

PAGE 32

C#. !### ))# $ %F#(#"#! #)%+$<22=, #)G-4 JIIH ##H ""%# )+/#(Z?*$<22>, $%)$"# ##"##+$<22=, #$##F)"F $%###+$<22:, #$I#I##+JH $$)#)%,#()# "$### #))+4"$<228, "$##) (I-#I%"## %)$$"!

PAGE 33

)###)()## !##@C." %")# #)" $#) # %)" $##)")%#)$H #) &" $##"))" +$<220R@"$<22LR?$<22L, $!"#)JH .?#+##H $?+<227,)#% !%#)#"!H ) $)##H ##) #)F$(-)%" +$<22L, #"-%)H )$ 6$"$#)% %"" +<222,%$I%)")(#)H I+ 707,""

PAGE 34

#)"#)%%" %" )#)%O"$"# #))O"" II%"# ))% #)"-# ##%# "!"%#H #)$!H #)%(" %#&#)#! ##%" B \/%%!##H %"M \C#)&"# %"F%M \C)# #)"##M ")%# & $ 1 ")

PAGE 35

(#!# ## ) #)"#%"R$ &2 % $#%%H #""##H #$%)# !$# &%* %!$" #")" $#)"#%! %) *)% "" *+) %H % %)# %#4>F))%$47 #"& #H #4:$%"#) ")<208!) #)%" *# %(""$#J#%H )"#*#+<208%,% ###)(# % #"<208 )#% <22=<220 )))" )#"# >7

PAGE 36

## #*$# #")%$) ) (##4:% #)")#<22=<220 )H %#4# #)$# #)"##<8:.? )%%#*H )#) ## %%* $)!% # -"O""$#* #)"<8:O #$#% "!)$H 40 C"F##H O"%"O4H L "$"4 >:

PAGE 37

4/.> 4NCK?/6 &%"%+(" *$)(&%$*$" 3%4%)&%$$ %&& &%*)&% &%)+$% #%#)"" "))%#H $4#" # )%+Z.H #$<22L, %($%# #*<288$##%#%%#+4 $ <222, #"$)I*3H #F#"$# #%#)"+4)$<22LR(Z($<22>RD$<22L, #$!H #$)H )")+$<22=R$<22;, >=

PAGE 38

)##H !+C(FII#,)#%( !$*)"%(! ?$.$"$.'#+<202, # )"+#"#,$ #)" '#I"I"*#F# %)%B #"%H '"&""% %$"$%)H J!$+ $ >=, %"I)#I+ $
PAGE 39

# (*4H ))<2;8.##H #+/Z$<222R #Z$<220R"$<2;=, ?#%H #)"!) $(GC)/+<22<,$)#I)I! "$#I)#I# )" # /F%"I%I*)H %$"!*) III!##I+A$<22L, )!$A)$ /%)$)H %$%$)H 6 4+<227, /F %%+ 4$% D$#"H $)))(# "*#! / ##I)"$I #%$#)II # 4# >L

PAGE 40

I("I 4#"+ ?!##"#F $%)) "%" %&#&"!##H )$")" #$$ +*")*.!%$*%+#* &$.!&%*"$*&. #")$(") )%% #%" #%!%")H 1 +""H %#"," #H *"!##))$ %)#" #))")##)$)% %)##" !H "#"H %(""

PAGE 41

4!." )"$" ) 1 / 6%$#"#""$ !" +#$<22>, /!#H "" +I3,H %"!$H ""I!"I)+6%$<2=2

PAGE 42

"$"%H #" )$"& "##H 6+<2;;,#$" ##I!" )I+ 78:, #$ 1 ))II%%"# )#)#" C%"!*$%)$ #)###))%H 1 "* )" H 1 ##"$ "#"R#H )+#!,% #$ !$( %% +I"# )I, ) +I3 I!)#I,+$/$ 5 $<22:$ 72<72>, '*$ +$<2L>," 1 R$%)$)!) %% $ 4#)) "$)###%" 78

PAGE 43

#"#"# #"$ $-)) "#+$<2L>, '%# "$+<2L=, $#(H !!R""))# ## #)#"II)R"" #)H $###"H #"#" -" "#)")#*+( #,)#"$+ ,%# I(#I$##$ ")$J"+ =7, !+ # $$)$,) )#") +), $#! I#" "3+ $ =7, 4)"$#""# ""))$" #A"+<22>,$"!)#%7<

PAGE 44

I)I(&"$"&"+ 77<, H $")# )$#") #*6#" .")* *%") '#"1#$#F#)#"H !$""$#II##"#<2=8<208+ $<22:,$)" %""*!* % ""$%! ## ." ##!#<208% $ "! % !&)) )$)"+C($<22>$ >02, '"##%!$" ""#)%"%("$%*" "% #"'+<2;8,$%( I%(%"H I+ ;<, "")$##7>

PAGE 45

#*%()!H !"$#H %(I I##" ")!"%("+#$<2;<, H )#")H )#*##%( %(*# ) $ *# %#%(+'$<2;8, #)#) )H )*")))" %%$)#%(-)") !$H &I%I+%Z.)$<227,# #* #)H "-#* +<220,##$I#I #)><=<"!I #)#*I+ :8, )$#*)% !!%&) !$/@+<227,H %-#)#* @ /#+<22;,!"% 77

PAGE 46

F)" /"+<22:,)#H %#)-# .")%()H ""+$<227, % F)"%(+4, "%( ""+ $%(,)%IH ###"#"#I"H #)#*+ZG(-$ <227$ <0-
PAGE 47

) %(($"$" #""+ # $%$ $, #% %)( %I)""#H &)"$"%3 + $<22:$
PAGE 48

)###"$%)$%#H (%#*!) ) F+<20=,#) B))" #$) ""*)$" #*#)+.%ZC##$<22<, #")!) -""$"$"OH #)" #"-"*H %)Q#*")$$H !"%($$#" %("* #!"")-+'$<2;8, H $%("$ ""+<227,"%H "#) # "%(" "))" %"" %(!"#" "#+ # $%(, %!*$$%)#F'70

PAGE 49

!($"IIIH I+6$<22<$ <8>, $$ "R""""H "!# F #F+<22L,!" $%)$%H ))-#&""H #*" ##FH "###%$%(* "!"#+'$ <22=, #"H $)#&%" #"'# 6(+<20L,% $% "%R#$%(H # )"$)! "" $"J I##-I"4$ +<2L>, 6A(+<2;L,%" +#",R $"#R#H "I)I(#" &"$ 7L

PAGE 50

6#/*$"+<227,!" O#$#"$O#" "") %#!"$6H $A(#))( #"H !H $"*#"H +A#$<22=R."$<2;:,+C"$ <2;:RZ4$<22:, 6A(##" JB ?"!$&"H $#)!)H (##*$" )"# +6ZA($<2;L$ <;, #"))"H !R")# (%#*)) #!"+ $),) #."4!#" ##"#H """##)) %" %#" I#I"I#I% 7;

PAGE 51

)#*"+Z$<22<$ >:>, *"""H "))#$" ###))# )%H %# $#'+'$<22:, %$"")##*H #$$)+ ;0, "$#$#)H $")J)H ## *(+<220,!#" #I#)$$#$($ "##*H I+ >L<, %#*($#*" !-#*+!#, #* *(# "# "+<2;7,H *I*))"%$ #$((#H I+ 7:<, 9(+<2;<,IIH $%(I*I + L>0, )%##% ))$".(+<2L;,B 72

PAGE 52

P $#*!% )H R!%"H )"#J% + >:8, I%II-I" "%%(.*("H K""<278+*($<2;8, *() K)%" %$### !#*) / %!K%#)H #J%*-(# #$K!%)"$ )%""+/$ <22
PAGE 53

#*"" #)"#"$4#+#$ <220R.%ZC##$<22<, .%C##+ ,* 4#F$)(##* #"% !$#*"H $)$H "II" $I% %)))#*I+$<22>, C##.%H )%!)"$#!H %"#*II* #*H "%$$ %$##II+.%ZC##$<22<, "%II% %I%) )#*F $"I+.%ZC##$<22<$ <7, .%C####$$I%II "$I#* I#*$"$)H I+ '"(%H )"#*#$%:<

PAGE 54

#*Q! "*### ) #)##"H #*I$IIIH IIII+.%ZC##$<22<, %)"(%)H "$#)F#*#$ #+,#* #)H $ # +#$<220,*%# I"###$ %FF#"I+ ;, #%)#!H %#$#)## .%C##+<22<, &%"B!%)%" %%($% #M+ >2, "&BH "")) %#$%#M% &$%(#*# %($%"+$ %$,#* :>

PAGE 55

%))#" "") #"%#" #% ""! )+'-/$<22L, # %-H R"%% +G$<228, %#))H #*%!" ##%" "#*#"JH !%$%# !!( #))" "%"#)%$ *(F"K" "$""H #*#%#% #) # )"#*%H %(#) :7

PAGE 56

"$"# #H *"#I$I#" %)##")")" F+<227,"#)#*)) #)#*I !")$"# %#*##)I+ >=, $"+.Z($<2L;,"#*H (%+$#), )"# #"% #"##"!-#*H )"## C##+<22>,H )#*""#H %& / <, &2")( ##" #R>, %&) %(%#H #"R7, -6+&$*$% +-H ",*##*R:, &%$%( !+ <>-<:, )% "#"#*"II %()+)$ ::

PAGE 57

#*$," /F+<22;,"H I#"I-#)"#*% /)&)#)##%)% )-#* ("F+<22;,"# ))))##" #*!)" %" I%I#"$ #" % "+<22L,% ))# /)#)IH #I!###* %"""II#*# "$)J%#"#*$ "F$"" #*% %$"# "%") #"$$+C$/$ $Z?$<22L, %"##H ))"%"F# %-(# 6 + # $,"%:=

PAGE 58

!!"# ##)")F("H )## ""$%%H #*##)" $ "#)""% )# !!)%("*#H #))F $H ##)""I#* I%%" @)" *"## +'"$<22LR'%$<22;R/$<222R$<2=<, /%)$)#" "+'"$<22L, *"+<2;0,) $"##%<208<2;8 $ "'"+<22L,)" *# F+<2=<,#" #))" /I"# $$( :0

PAGE 59

#"$$ )"I+ 77, #) "$#)) R"(%$#*$ #$+4#Z6$<22;, '"+<22L,#I #)I&#I #)""#I+ =, /#% #II"( #*#!# '%+<22;,%$### )#I#*# II##JI+ <=, /*$6$H "+<227,%$!# I("I%)###") /*%-$# I"#J)I#+ >=, ##%"H F+<2=<,%( ))%#)"#) /H !)##"H "!"#) #F#)%#$)H #+ # $#$$,) :L

PAGE 60

!%($)# ""# 6%F+<202,%(I#I!H #"#" '#)H $6%$#J"))#H # "I )"-(#O %I+ ;0, $#) ""## ")#* "#)"$+<20=,! #)#* !)"-#)# "##*)# $&"$)" I"-I#F#* #*% #F$II) $H &F))"%)#&H $"$#%)"# F% $)##I#*% )#*I+ <>7, ."$ :;

PAGE 61

'"F%$")" "!##IIB# %)# H ###)!"B "%$$ )## "$#$ H #$%H )$ #*$"" ))#$+ <08, #""!H "#)%#%(#"II $$)" /###)H +("#""#","&!H ""%I) "I+ <0<, ##))#H )"#)"H # 4#6+<22;,)#) ## $" I#%)""$#$)$ #)$#III# #)"%!)#) + >, )"H #F$# :2

PAGE 62

###%) #+ !)#)) /F +<2L;,%(%(###)"# %!) #)) )#)"$)H )"## /# )%I"I+ 20, !"%(#) 0 4#6+<22;," II## 4H #)% %"#%# H #/F"%($"#%# %+ $)$$,## )"# #$"#$I)#IBH ))#)# 0/+<2L;,!# )($H $ /#))"+ ",#I"I+ 20, =8

PAGE 63

+<20=,$))H #)" #$$))" #%)#)#)H # #""))H #)")") )"$#"##H #%#%!))# ))$ (#'"+<22L,#*) II #(%I)# I44$4$ 4)"!"# #)""#*+## #,%#)) )" ###)"$% I#I+$<220R($<22<, #)" #""*)IH )#$I" #I#I")+G($<2;L$ >20, @)""#* %I)I#*I)"I#H *+'$<2;2, #$#H *)#*" ")#*#))""+=8<7 =<

PAGE 64

#,$%%!H %#*+=8<:,$%%H "#F""# #+ @)#$<22=, %"# "#%<2L0%=8<7##" #))""##)"IH I#*F+($<22<, )"# ### ##)# )#"# +<2;L,%)")$% %"()$)")$ %#"#+ # $ "$#,+$H $ $##"))#% #*I#I)"#" *+#)$# $!,II)"("H #$%##$"+ $ >2L->2;, ##*#)"$(H -)$F+<22;," )%D(%#*)H "$)"#))H $"#F)") =>

PAGE 65

)F+<22L,!")"7=)"-) )"##$#H *"*" "$!))"" ##I-#3)H "M*(F+<2;8, %) #)##)H #)#$$ %I#I)#$(# )!) "$$H )#*+.Z($<2L;, !H #)"%) ###)#"")# +$<227, #$%)$)%H "##*"%" )) @**'(F+<227," )#)##)% ) /%)"#<2;0IH "I##%"# !$<220""-/KQC)$ #*F") %"+'$$Z$<22=,

PAGE 66

#)"@ ##)))"?#H $C4">8" ")"# ?+<22<,! # "###))"$ #"#)"" "<2"*#H )&4)#<208 >88 <08 -<:8 <>8 08 08 OO)Q? -]O#^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^:8 >8 <280<202<22822<<22><227<22:<22<228<22L<228<222 #> < @%?##*# )# #I#I I)Q?I !&*" +4'( ,"<2;;<222 K) =:

PAGE 67

))##*H <2>8## 4II+/*($<22<, A% "I@'!$I"4G%#(H #)#4/ "$ <88#%#?#H #4##+$<22;, C#*#"# %#?# ##" $# #*"-)H ###))" @%#)% )")#* L #"$#% #*IIB" (#"#*% ") #"## ##*$"("""( L/#+<22=,#*I#*H #I+ ><,$%#%(*"+<2;0, I#$3/##$*#*$ )I#I #$$)"))#) )" '+###*#, #" ==

PAGE 68

%#))"H ##"" )")" "##*$"J%-H #* #F+<220,"#"?#$C4$! !)"#" ## /*)" "##(#"#I#I )"& #F%(###) #III!#I+ 70,$ %-"?"?"F+<2;L," )""@' "F# +#*$#$)"$##*H ,)II)"-#)" '###H ))"# J#F"#*H '?+'?,$>="-)"#*H I4)##I+'?$>888, ##F"'?F"# $)### "##H # "$?"?"F+<2;L," ')""##I#"))I )#"I"$I#)I#" =0

PAGE 69

"-(#")"#*I +
PAGE 70

#%)# "H %##%))%#*H F )"%##)) 4#%<22=-<220$#) %####) %" #4+<22;,$")H #%<22=<220%H "!""$!H "%&$##%" "%%# )("+?)$<22;, ??)H I"I" $#).? )I%"(#I + 702, $#)"! )"##%+?)$<22;,$#" %!)$(( #)")#*H "))%"+?)$<2;2, ?)II"#) <8:4#$%)I#I %$## #H #!"I I6(" =;

PAGE 71

+<227,))"H 4*"I#" %&-(%H )"I+$<222, %)#+",%#H #%)"#$# *###) $%)$&"! "(#)*+6ZA($<2;L, F+<222,!H 44F)") %F)) /"H #%"%)) &! %""$ #)(F" II#"$)%#")" )F+<20=,%(##$#(##*"")"" ))# 4)%% ##$%)$)#)#) #)##) $%#*#)"))#))H ")"$ =2

PAGE 72

"%#* $ #)#%#H +#", +4$<220, $#)))%# #) ?##*+?, %<208# /%)$#H *%)""#) #?" <2L=$%####%F )+'%ZA%$<22LR?$<2;<, ?%# #$&()<228 "$%I")I"#")H (&#+($<22>$ =72, ")%#<228%# #)))) 4#H #%(###% D$))##%" $("-*)+#$ <220, *$#)#H %!))H ") #! # $"#)08

PAGE 73

##$"" )H $"")H )$#)#H )""##$%#) !#)%$") ""$ $"#)" ."C#" #))"%H %(#"#)#I"I#H ))))) /%H )$#"-" "#! # $#%"I)IH #))+/* $<227, $#"I)I &"!"+6ZA($<2;L, F+<2=<,###&H #""%# !")$# 4!H "%)"H +#),%##" +A#$<22=, $)"I"I 0<

PAGE 74

!"#) #" $" "(#"$%#"#!H #" ."H ""(# 6("##$" ."H ")%" )#""H "RC"+<2;:,##$"" )"" ?)("+<2L2, H %"(% I( $I?)("$I"# I+ :>, # %#") "%%" %"%( #%&"" .)%"I" #)%#)#%* ")#%)I+$<2==,$I)#" 0>

PAGE 75

I8$<2;:,$IST$ %$"$%#I+"$<2;=, H %"*"%( @+<2;0,$%%%"" "I))" #I+ =, %"#" #"$%)($ J+@$<2L8, + # $"ZA"($<22;, I%"II"I" #!% #"))"$# %") &"!#* )" 4#H #"#(#%H "$$ ")# "#") %#$! -+)"C4$%,)" +<,#$`>= 2D<22: +'$<22;, C4"&8 7L 1#+@C.,+*%ZA($<22L, # #(" 07

PAGE 76

)#) %"))-)H # ?"#) ))#) "$" )C"+<2;:,%BI)#)$%"H ) ))""# )$#%)I+ 7:, %##)) ) %"$" *#"))# )"#*)H """O&"$"$"$"$!H OJ#+$<22L, .$ $)%"" )O%"" ")O""!!H %#%(66%+<2=<,$" )*)-"H %(! $)!H ")")"<= "+'%ZC"*($<2;LR6$<2;;RZ#$<22L, % "" 0:

PAGE 77

"(#"$I(-I!)#)$ )" ."% #$"# $+<208,)% A#F+<2;:, &)"#-#$ )%)$"(#(IH I"II+6)$<2;=, %$*"")H #<2;8+."$<2;:, &"$")% !)"H !% )"$)" ##" #"""$ I%))#%"IH I#$)"I+Z G(-$<227$
PAGE 78

$!O)) H #)(# ""# "%(H O)#O)H !$#"$!(+<22:,#$H )"# %$$%(!H "%)"# #%)$# )") H $)# %"$%("#) )##%) "I I .")"()H ) )"$#+<22L,* "%#""#H ) .##%( )#")% $"6%+<202, "#*)) "#*#!")") $#$""

PAGE 79

"))%H )I-#I #%( ")" "7 +<2;7, +<22:, +<22:,))"" !#)""$$ #!")" "" )I#%I%##)H +$<22:$ <20, ) %$%) F%($$* )(%# "+A$<220, /J+<227,!$" J" I6###* )$%)( "#H #%" %3# %"+ $ ::$#, ) "$"G# /F)" I#)IIH #I""))"/H ) +##$<22
PAGE 80

,# $)))%I$I "%""#"+6$<22L, "$C"*(+<228, %%"O# C!I $%#$$ I+ $ 7;, C"*("$ !))"$ %*&"## )"#%( ""## %* C"*(+<228,%)) I)I" $%(%##"$/F" )" '"%##% )"$C"*(F)#%( )"#)"I(%H #IF!!" C"*(F)"#" &"R% )%)$%"##%( /-#-II"H ) #%("#

PAGE 81

)&)$")$%)$ ."#I)"H I+C"*(Z"$<2;;$ L<=, "#H "))%# "("(I)I" )#)+ )(" %# F ""#-## "% A#+<22=,$H $### "# FH ) ."F+<2;:,I"I)H %)%" II)## ")"$%)$ $#"$ .?$% $"$" ?"$ #")"$%" %%") $"#) ""%# &" 02

PAGE 82

)%)## J# %" " 4+<22:,#"" #""%# "H )" .?#! %'#G+<227,II "#-#*"I I "#%"#")"H "(# ?C"*(FH )"-II$% )!"#+ # $A#$."$ '# 5 G$Z4,H #"# "#) II"#$A#+<2;:,( )") '#G+<227,#+H $",%)" )"G(+<227,"#I&) L8

PAGE 83

I##$#))H F+<2;0,"" #)&#*" I#I C"+<2;:,#H *#"#* )# /#+<22;, I"#I"%I)$#*$ -FF" I+ <=<, %$"#!%! %"# G(+<227,"#+"$ *$ &9 I##)!I+ :>, G(-$"#" I"I)#))"$H $)"" 4#"F)"# *""$G(-H %$#"$##") #"" """ #BII+#,$II +#,"+#,+Z G(-$<227$ 7<, #" L< <

PAGE 84

$"#"%)# "F") '"!%)"H "O"-!#"%OH "#)"! !##))" (" *** +"$!,##H ))% !H )"I$IOH OI"I+G)$<2L0, '"#" ##O#"$!O (# ."(#$") +<22L,$$)$"I% I '"$(8&%)($7%77( J+<2;2, )%B#)"(#O ##O+J$<2;2, 4 +<22:,###"%"B ##" "(# 6##H #$#$)#!$% # 6##)"#"#H "#"O %#"#)%" )"#"!" + 2, L>

PAGE 85

*$") "#%## #)#) .)#"##"#"H $"-(#" )$"" "$##*#) # &#*# ")%%"$I-IH #)"" "$ "#"#)% "# ") "B < > )%H ))" 7 #""% # : #*Q"I# I $%!)"H "##)")"$ ))! L7

PAGE 86

4 #$#$#%#H $%(#! #)$ ""## #)" $%"" "######))" H "##%"H "!#*II% # .# #)"#"R#!H "##"# H )"$$# ##$%)"H #)$#"H L:

PAGE 87

4/.7 /C@/4/ 0)%:(##%$+ &+$&2%$"$ %$$*%%*&&6#( /$$**$%$$;+ )#)!*# #))##!! !"# H )$""% !"(% #*##)# %)$).? "I#)I+ '%ZC"*($<2;L, "%%##% )$%.?F)"H #)$ &"" %)# .?F) #"## "$#& &)&)"L=

PAGE 88

)#! )"#*"" "% "$% ))%#* @ #!%%!# #) %" H )%#H #%" # "")% ##"#"<2"$4 ###!H "))#) 4>$%)$H &"!FF-#$F"H ") !%# !")B +-<208,##))%#R# #))""#R#%H ""R "%# "#") %)F###L0

PAGE 89

%" '"!#" ##$!%%" #)"### 5 %)##)!" &))#)%( $(#<,# #(#"%">,% !)$#4H #.?F) ##))(#% "$&B < /%#")M > ?!)#### M 7 ?##)"#&")) %%%%""M : C## #"%"M LL

PAGE 90

. '"%)$% %!%###)H """B ###"))#H %"( 4)%####)H %$-<27= /%)$(#*$)"##) "))""# $!+'%$<22;R4#Z6$<22;R @%$<22:R/*($<2;;, %H #)"##"H %"$"#) #))" #)"#%%((" %#))"" J% .") "#*"#*+C"$<2;:R?H )("$<2L2, C)H # $") "%# C) L;

PAGE 91

!))""##+4)Z/#H #$<22>R6Z"$<228, %#)"#") ##))" #)#*")H )+$<2L=R4)$<222, 4 )#!)#%# )"))## ?)$##))H +$<20=, /%)$"## +%)),) #)#% ))# #$)##) H ##))")#) %%$#)# %)"##+4)$<222, C #)"#"H #*%" # #")H ")# "!+#$<220R Z#$<22L, )""##"% +,%"" L2

PAGE 92

""$"$"! )#"$$ ).? &"""H "))#$ "#$#)# +'%Z6$<2;7, "H ""H !R# %$"#" "#H #$&"% #) #)")) !")"R"" )$#!#" ")%"+'$<2;=R'$<228R"$<2;:R#Z $<220R"$<2;=, '"%# ##$ #"" .J" ##*#*H #" "%H "<8:4#+<22=-<220,# ;8 P

PAGE 93

J#%# F ##* )#"%#) +/*($<2;;R/#$<22=, )" "$%$"+6 ZA($<2;LRZG(-$<227, %II%" "##)" 4&"$ ##"!)#H #)))%" )##%#4# "$)#$##)% C)$))%##$ -#%#"# )##* !"%)""#*H "#%& % %"-#+>;,%)%%%"$ <222"$>88< )%%% R")%)% #"" $#)%%)H %)%&H J#$"#H &")"4%I-# I$ ;<

PAGE 94

""# % )%#)$ )#) "#*#)"#$" I3#%" "( #-"##) #)-)) C$# !" I(3%"$#*)H J)%$%"" C" ))##-"$#H )%" C )B#)$#*H $)% $#)"#H "")#") #F%) ###))H !##H B"$"" H $""&)"##$

PAGE 95

#-)##H "#% /%)$I*#I%% $#*# $I!*I"!%+<220,$ &2 &) ""##+ /$<22:, )##)#*#"$!%#H #$!* "" #"!( )$"#1 # + L2$, .)#! )"$") !%( #!$%)$ %"RH #! #"R!)F+<227,) )"! ""%%F#.#) "))+($<22L, ()% "B ;7

PAGE 96

SJ!"## $")!" %##"!%" "I!I" + $ ::, 4&"$*" 5)&%# #") 4 "$%#"#$ &)))##H ))"$"#%#H !" %$#% /" )###!"( "%") #)) %"(%##) )# "$#+<22<,$" I##" I$! %"(&)#" ))+%-,)H "$)(" ;:

PAGE 97

+<22>,#* /"H "##))%) ) 4"%+ $I"[,Q) %" $%)$J +$<22<, $")" )II(#) )"#*!)"H )6%1+<2=<,"%(#*H $##)F )" 4#II# #"-"$# D+<22:, C#&)#"# 6#)$)%) ))"F# H "$($) ##"$%)$)"H # +C)%& R"#+$<22<, ?*"$)I) (%#$#$#II) #)I+4$<22:$ >8L, $ < =

PAGE 98

I%(+%%( ,+% ",I+'%#@)"$<22;, ." "%)$ "(##)#* +Z$<22=, "$!% O"$ *** O #"# #H )"" #+(,""!H "#-))"G)+<2L0, /# )!%#II "( "+<2;0, #)#"(F# "-(#"#H "") "/#+<22;,$%(" ##" %(#"# "+<208,")H # ."####)H #%$$)### #"<208

PAGE 99

<8:+),#% <22=<220 "" -))%#)#)# )$"%## )) )")H #"### 4H )%#"" #""(#$#J#H %)"#*#!H %&B/%##! "##)#%)H #M$"##H #M #*$#") %#")%) )"H #*#% # /##*)$)H )#*(44H +'%ZA%$<22L,$F 7*$8) +<22=, "#*!H )) !$)#)") %4##) ##<8:.? )#)" ;L

PAGE 100

"@+<2;;,$#")F# #4##%!% #"$ )#)"%)"H #$!)% H )%%##)"#*?#H $N)#) ##)) % %*$) !%# -#"O#"(# #)"<8:O ))"# #%")%# %)$ +$'$ZC,### 4+<22:,*H #"##) C#"")%" % 6## %)# C"*(

PAGE 101

+<228,""#H &""# '## "(#$" "#" "!## #""$")))H # & $" (+ 9( !F!##"+?$<22=, @?+<22L,##)" "I!"H !%!$$%!$$ #"I+ <=2, "&" !B !1*$+1. !$1*%$ + $ $*9. !%1&. !$**+<22L," +(IJ"$II$II$II$III, "4" F+<2;L," .#)% ""%$* @+<22;,#)%#(I"$I ;2

PAGE 102

I"II-I %"H "!$#R## " ""$"%) ""##+6$>888, H ""H "#!1 O 1& ) #O)" !#" ?+<22=$ ;=,I#3)$) H F## % !# B +!, + $"$)"$ $# )##" #+ 9 # 6+>888, # +#%),$ $+" +#H $, *$ +##$$ ><7, ##$##""# "*)" #O%)28

PAGE 103

"O)# )) $"*%"$) "## ) )"## ")"%("H ""#)"##%H <22=<220# *##)) B< ,)#%## "!H ##"R> ,%#H ##) ")R7 ,"%"%## ) ##*# R $$7$ +!#4$>88<,$ $)>$888#"##" %#$#(# #"%$$$ )# #F788$888###% %"$$)$ 2<

PAGE 104

# ""#H # "# /%)$##))H %"$)" )"## ))%)H #! %"$)%% #%" "%) ##<,)##)#)##)H #$-R>,%#* "*#1)%H "R7,)"4# #%<22=<220 )#* +), $)+ $ ,# +#",%H %#1%# "#H )% $)# #*%"*#%"+<22=-<220, <8:4# @#))% 2> <

PAGE 105

%%# #* )")#<22=<220%H $<88% %" "%)#) II% %#$ %)$%) %O"$H O%$#) "+ ;%9 %!# >%$ &%7$ ""+<220, "+<220, ) ?#0( )"F %",%!"#!# ("+ #($"(&")(++(*(*(*9 H #%H ##))%+,$%H %""%! >8-! #"%"+;L,#/F+<202, ; ;/1%B"a>Q$b % / H ## #" 27

PAGE 106

#)% #%# %)*!"#H #+4, 5C[$%"&) $%!! & 4" ."+<2;:,#$") +"#",)" " # # ##)"#"#) )"$"%*! ###)" $ %$# #+@($<2L8, $H """) ") *+)$ +$<22:, *% )+."$<2;:, --#+(# #,$"$) %(")$."+ ,*" )) 2:

PAGE 107

+ ,*## $"%H $#" ."!#"+ $&, ")$##%# )F %)H ))")+,###R+ # $ .Z?)("$<2;:,%#")H (%#" .$H #))"%#*"# &"$"H "+A#$<22=R."$<2;:, C%#% % )##" *+) """ )&#)# BC##)"" M$%%"M$%##+ #,"%H "M?#)"#%) #)H 4"%" !##&2=

PAGE 108

(<, % >, # )* #+? 5 C($<22<$ #+<2;<,#F&)" IJ)III#$"H ))# &)+ II,+$<227, )%<22=-<220% "*!%!#H #))%Q)%# # "%#!# )$N-6N) !#) )"J %(#=8H "" '$57%+@3+>888, ?! 6%(#@-)(!&7(, 8&)9 %R+ 8 6%$%(%(& %)9 % ") #+"%, 2)"!#!)% %" 2# '$57%+@3+>888,$ 78$<222"(%# #% B 6% +$027,R #@-) +7$<$8;0$>27,R ,8& ) +:$<$8L;$<;0,R !&7 +=$L07$78=,R % +2$=:>$:<:,R & %) +<<$:0;$2$78L$00L, 20 <

PAGE 109

$%!%"H )"H &"!("% ##%%""&)""* 4#"!)#+"#, %#+%$ $#,%) &"")# % *##%)) )<22=#.?<220%J )$") ) ") !##)""(# /%H )$#%""# $"# !##))" K" )#"F)"$H "#" &)$)" III%I+Z$<22=, 2L P

PAGE 110

# )"&)&"(& "+C$<22:, !%+<220,%)" &)B)" &)II #" )"RH #$("# )%J$#)"H # #%H ")" %# !)")%$) %##%H %" $ "+#*H ,%"*#+ ",))J) )"" )% #!$H )%)#" &)% #O"$" "O))" 2;

PAGE 111

)""#IH !-I&"I)#I)% +@*$<2L7R!%$<220RZ/$<22:, @*)# !%+<220,/+<22:,## &)#*$# "!""-## #H %)"#*)) #+#,%"R% "#))%"H #"H $%)$%(# #%Q#") !"&"!"$$# #)) #*"%!%+<220,H I#*"$I"I) )"#"I+ 2L$#, !% ##)""## "#* $ ##))%H ##)"##)" $!22

PAGE 112

%#%# ##*$#""/+<22:, 6." ""%H ))##" #%)"R" #%))%) $.% $")" %) $(!##H #J)" #%( "##$H %)( /%)$"% #*###" ###%" % "$%%")" !#! %# %""$%##)H /%)$% %%#%# ##)%

PAGE 113

&44#*)H ""H ) ? 44+$4H 44,!)) %) !$%#*#% ))# #$%)$%")H ##%"R#")H ##)$"44(# #))"<208 $"*#)" #B"$#")# %" 4! %#(4444$" #"#H #)## ) "("I3"% # ")%"$#" )#*)) )%H )"!")

PAGE 114

""#" % ))%" "$$!") #+&)&),"+Z/$<22:, C#%)%H ""F+'$ <22=R.$<2;L, "%)")" 4C)F/J4 %)% "$"%)H )%%

PAGE 115

4/.: .64D/D4.D46 K444@'D@@. &%* +&&+1*$(+% 1($"4% C "$ <2L7 /.44 ##"%) #""")" %"$A*+<22;,/+<22>,$#$) $"##))% ""##* !##))")%" "%" #)H )"$$&"! / %%)I!I%# 4" ) %"$"<22>C% I%%(%$I" II% $A*+<22;,$IF" <87

PAGE 116

"I+ >::, ?"(%#$ A*$ /(A*"%""H %%!H $ (+<220,$$! %)%"( #-&") #+ 0=<, ##$ A*+<222,$"%I!%H <228I+ >L;, /%)$$A*+<22;,$ )"! %"$$ I#)#I+ >::, / %)""H )))+, $"$#) H #<278)"%))H !$%)# H %(#)! )!%"%"!H ))" 'F 0)*A"7"B$ +<2=0, )%F) #)))"#<8:

PAGE 117

'F#)"#H ")$%( #)( /))&" "###%(H )% F 0)7,#! A8 !8) +<222,"'F %()%& )#%#)H (+<22>,"% *"II"#) %)% '(%*+<222, ""%$ "I%!#H I%+ >, #$"IIIH I*##)H % $#%) "# #*) # '%A%F+<22L,"44H #*#<208F# ##) "G F 7 *$8) +<22=,%H ""#)#4<8=

PAGE 118

))"H )#* C ?F $$&%AB+& "8) +<222,H )")" )#"(#*H '"#+$ $,$?)!"FH )" /)%)"#*H )*I%I"*$ )""-#)% %( 8 #+'($ <2;8R$<22<, /""#)H )( !H $A*F+<227,"#* 0!)(7+)> !### /F+<2;2,%("%' !"!" #") &F%## %$)))#) >8""" ?% <2"$)"# <80

PAGE 119

)#" %" #!$#%)) )%$H ##"! ## -#*))) $" "$ $#*")# #!) '"$"<20L(H )"#)-)# )+C($<2L=R@$<2LLRZ6("$<227, ) #%*-#)) "#"# #<208 /)#*%## %#"#R!% "%!)+$"$, ") %"#"# <208O"#$)O! ))")# "#%) )%!##)F#$ $"%%)#<8L

PAGE 120

"$-%#% # /%)$#)*))" %"#")I? .)"I #)#"B4.#+. 6 ;2-L=:$<200,4"H .#+. 6 ;;-:=>$<20:,"%! $( +. 6 ;2-2L$<20=,$)"%H +$<22:, <208$"II%#)# )")))!"H )%")%)* <208 6("+<227,#))H #%#)"#)H -) $"#%#)% *")" ##%%%"+ =:, ")+H #&,%##% @) )%-#)" % 4%)%" <2=;+. 6 ;=-;:8$<2=;,$"I$H $#$##&I + $ <8=>, <8;

PAGE 121

C(+<2L=,)#%% ##<208"<2L8" )) $#H ##)#!))H !)#%" %"#+"%#),# II"<2L8 $%H *#!##*$C()$ %I%#I# ))"+ <<7, 4&"$<208#)) )# %%$ )##))#H )*<208 $) !###%H "<22=<220 .))'%%C% '%C$)#% ()) IK"II)I%)% #$"#")" #"))%##* I)I%#* %#))"# #) GF<278($ !<82

PAGE 122

% <27<$G+ G,% #"*%) %" 7%+7$7"A8 %$,&B$ $8$) +G$<27<, "##)F#"H #C$#%#" +,")")# )##+$<277, %##" )%"#$)#%"%# %#)) .)#$%)$# ))$@-.+<220,%" #*#% D(4" .)#)#F ")!#%##%C$H + $ =7=, ))%# ##))( #$G/(+<2L0,!))( ))#C ?"H ##))#$H 444+444$"F4 4,)##")"

PAGE 123

)#4% +'%ZA%$<22LR$<22=, #")#F4)?(H <27:$)#### "<27=+$<2:="$))#* )#)$## ) <2:8<2=8%" F#)"$## *"%##-%"H "#F"# #%#+/-'$<22:, $ .%#)))+C) $<22=, ##$4 '" "3$'$% +78 <$<2:L,%%# I##I#)# #$)%###

PAGE 124

#F%%%H $%) ))#)+ $)""")"#, % F+>888,##4%" )#)%+#),%H /%)$#)%)# )##%$#*)H %#??$##H "(*) /)"4<2:0+. 6 L2-L>=,$(%/'$)#)""H #!)" )`7 LH <2L7+6)Z6)$<2L:, "#"()H #/-'#R4#F+<20=,"F <$088))#-" <208 /-')%" "#)"%# ##"+4 $<222, 4#F%(%" ####)H )4G%#*! ".#)#P P

PAGE 125

###""%#) H )""#%%-#4$)H 4-#*"J )%("4 #.H #$)#%-#H (6$%)H #))$)).#+)#$H $'$'$!,%)"H ))%+4#$<20=$ <00, ## 4#F#-H "##<228 <208$%)$#)# )#% 6("+<227,$<20=" #%")$ #)"")#*$ %";#) )+ =:, (##)H ")$") !$4#F+<20=,"## ##)+#,#R :8L)"#)"$L8 ? a>28,H )#"<208 4#*%# #+;7,.+0:,G%+0=, <<7

PAGE 126

# '"$#)%% "%) # %"$!H )-))%)#H #"#) %"F 4.$4#"<20>+. 6 ;L-=:7$<20>, #<20>%H "#%)H !))%+@$<2LL$ 0>L, #4#<20> .GAH ") +#4#$<20>, H #)L=!$% %)JH #%C4+C4, F%"(F $I)$I"))"%( )R))#" "%"I#I %)+$>888$ >2<,# I#I+C($<2L=,"H # $<<:

PAGE 127

#%<20># #%$C( + ,##!)'))# *!##*C/$ ? /%)$<20>#! ))"%($ ) )))*$)# "-#)#%)H ##%#"<208 6(" +<227,I!)#%"I ##%)*+ =;, +>888$ >2<,# 4?6#+4?6,$FJ)") #*+'($<222$ L=,$)* # #"%)IH I*##)# <20<$4?6F!H )$G$(#4H 4?%!" !#))%# $J #)6$."). #$%"4 %+$( ##II# <<=

PAGE 128

<8"#)$$ )%B S"T$%") ##$# .$# ##).H << ?)$$%")" #I%I" #/?"4# ""<20>$4?6F#"IH "I#))#+$>888, $)*<20>%H )")"(44 4$#"G @#$444F" @# $#GF@"+%)"444<2>8<20<,$*)"##)F%H #"+4$<2;7, "#)"<20>$@# #%#) $%#)"# <8/+<22;,"I4 )I+ 0, )I-I+,II+% %,$")I)H I+ <<'(#%%$<20<$'!<:L$@H #Q4$4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <<0

PAGE 129

!##))$#$%H ))B "$" #)#%)H ))")""* # ?$ %)#"")# S %""*# ##%%&" ) <> !4))4 )# '@##"#H ))"O)I%"IO%#)H B +#,% )% J ") %&(" "#%"")" )%% *$)"#&%# ")"#")#$#H $(%#"$" ##)$"#$" #'()%%) )%-#)$ )$-$+ $ ;$ #, #@#)#" )# )-#"F <>."$"G @#$<7"<20>$'!<:0$ @#Q4$4444H $C)Q$4)"?#$N <
PAGE 130

"$$%"#"#*F I#%I+ $ 2, "#&+/ <887>,$@#H 7L=444%#H $#I###) I <7/*J)I%I%% #(#)#"# I#I+ %"$+/ <8080,"H %<20>.?+. 6 ;L-=:7$ <20>, ?@#""&$ *)# $H I-$I"H /H #*-)%I& %I%B SJ$"$ "#)*#H *)#%" #)%#*)*H "" ?)#$$ ))")"*#$%H $# ?#)@)<74$<="<20>$'!<:>$@H #Q4$4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <<;

PAGE 131

!!#"H )# %##"%H )*$%#H &%%)) % [: "$<20>)") "-#)# %& >=-L=$F+>=, !) ?)"$@+<2LL, $#)##$ $)")) #")%#*))# %")$%H #*# #4%#" %(%?(FC#" <20>I##I#" II)")" <=$ ? #H 4?@$@#H *444#"B D)!) ? %)")$ "+ ? ,!)"%% <:.$"G @#$<0"<22>$'!<:>$@H #Q4 4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <=6$@#$$'!<70$@H #Q4 4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <<2

PAGE 132

C#"$ )# $#% $$ $ ? !)H ")"$"JF #" "$(%# #%(#%%( #(#%) ? & <0 ?#%($) %#%))#"(H %# #F)#*%H #-<208#)) # !" J$## F+/*($<2;;R<22<, <20:$# @# /4.)"/) %)#$(" / %)#%## "F##%B 444#H %)"#$) #$#H ""#H ##) #$ #*(%() <06$@#$<;C<20>$'!<70$@H #Q4 4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4

PAGE 133

#))"@)% ##&"* %)H #)$" ") $<20:,$) #?.)" +"$<202R.$<22:R$<222, <20:F" #+4.,$%-)$*"H %+$<227R$<222, 4.%#*%#" 6#-)%)#<20= +. 6 ;2-2L$<20=,###H )+#)),#+)%$>888, H #")" "#%%+K-,H # "$#I#H *"&2 "))I+ <;<0$, $#) )$"#I"I )#))) ")F #))) CD .$ L-;$"G @#$
PAGE 134

"4+ <;0<" 4% $)#"#H ""+4$<2;7, @#44%(* ##F##)H )" <20;")H "4.?$444*) ))"%B ST) %) #")& )"$#"$&) ) #$ # $""H $"$NKNC4 # ))!")H %"#*#)"% #)") <; $444))II+ ),%"$#)H $*+II"),# + #%)* # C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <;$ =-0$78G"<20;$@#Q4 4444$C)Q$ 4)"?#$C4

PAGE 135

%%)*% ")" .*) #)#%# +#$<2;>R?%$<220, $#) #%#%") -# %#")H )#%#B """ST%##`>8 !"#F0=$"%(% `:8 /%#)$ "(% /%#%F "#"#)$STJ +)%$>888, )%#)##.#%" !$4#F<20=+)",% % %"$"I)I# <20=##) #)$4?H 6###)H "I-#I% %%+$<200, #"# %#)$( $)##B -#""(%%(H #$%)#)$ %)"))<>7

PAGE 136

-#")$ ##$*"H ()$+ $ 7;L, .)%#*##) J%I! 3/%)$ %%(IH #I%#"FI%I$" -")#4#B +"),$ $#))# $%)$&"H #O" !)-O$$#O#$ %$$)# ") #%" )#))#)"H #$"S#*"T)H ##)") %$(#-#!"H $ +Z"$<20=$ <>-<7, %#)#H )### )F .#$##"% )% #$4 44+%.#,H #"#* +",%*%"B )%%%###*) #)"))#" $""<>:

PAGE 137

#"#")" ""*##H +)%$>888, ?"@#444<20=$H %(4# /%H "6%G 4$%)"H )#*" ?%"@#F $<20L"+. 6 28->:;$<20L,% ))R%)$# @+<2LL,!$I)#" F>=#)# +%"$$: I+ 07>$, H )##(?"+$% (%,O"))O%) )+)",I I $<20L"* %")) #"%( ?(+<2L0,! <20>F)#I)#"I+ =;<, $##%#%# II+#%#,II )(### % $<20L)J#$ ?().#+$"$?.,%(H J)%I)#*I#"% <>=

PAGE 138

I)I+. 6 28->:;$<20L$ :77 H (%####O 4##O#H )#*#I)#'I+ =<= <28L, $%")H IJ+$$#H J,##I+ <20L)$444 #* #%)"%#F"&") 4" 4))<2%# #4?6#%#I* #)$H ##)I >8 '"$#)#)%# #%" <202$44"%)) I)I"+,<2'(+<222,))I)H %#))#I#$ $+ L7, >8)%)$ 7$<20L$!<:L$7$@#Q4 4444$CH )Q$4)"?#$C4 <>0

PAGE 139

#>$888<88 >:88,%) J $%(&"# +",%"J$H """%%(%"$ %"))#0+$<222, .!$C.("+<2L7,$% ))!#$% ##II+ >20, ><$6%G 4$<"<202$!<7;$:$@H #Q4 4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <>L

PAGE 140

!%)## C "####22L, ""%"!" -)#R(-#*%!+ $ >2;, $%$")$#"" .# 444F4*. I)I%#-#<2L<@#?"$ !)?##*+?, >> ?)".$4#I)IH I?%(?##*F-F$I 4444)+ ##)%$4$ #### 444"H ").# /%)$) ") 4 G%)"I"%I. >>$6%G 4$>>"<2L<$!>8<$ @#Q4 4444H $C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <>;

PAGE 141

%.+#""44,!H )+"$<2L7$ 78>, $".")FH "")) #"* H &")%( /%)$ ))#)"# ?+<22;,##.% )""!#%# ##"#)# "<208%)"")$ "!$ +:<8 <<7,<2L7 "H ###%"" #%F)+"$<2;=, H ###?%""H )"$@?F+<2;<,"%-#H %"4F#$ #)#*") F#)+"$<2;=, H )4#*))"$#) ))##"<208 %)"%-)(#H "$4#<2L:#" %NN" NN$ <>2

PAGE 142

%)%(##*%# )#)%%))" #NN%## *& $##" ) #)+@$<2LL, #)* NN#))# $")#*% I(((I# #%#))###H ))"#""($)%#H #"%J*#!-!% <2L> # 4F%J"("& #-#)####))" )"# >7$ #C?9?F9&2 M# #%+$,&% #)$%"%"%J "# $ #%$%**&%+*) +&%&%* M#!##)H "%"II)" $4H I#"# >7/%/<7L>8$6%G 4$>><2L>$! <72$@#Q4 4444H $C)Q$4)"?#$ C4 <78

PAGE 143

)"RI"#)"%I#H I+, !#)# #%#%4.)." .<2L= 4$G $))"#" )#)##%#"#) ) #)##%#H "#H #)#%&" I-I+4.) .".$<2L=$ <:, ?%"%# 4F%-* 4#))H )##)#H #)## ?#)*) #$#))%##"H ##)<2;8) %"$#4@) #)"#)*))-#4$)H #-4+"$<2;=, #$#% <7<

PAGE 144

))#$)#)H "%#$!F.+?$<22;, ?"#$##% '#+',<2;<+. 6 2L-7=$<2;<, ))"!1I%I### #!"+?$<2;>, #"# $''(@H #) '%<2;8<2;0$ ")+D<2;8,">7H +?$<228$ L>,%##"! <8#+ %%(#H #%%)#" CH "6+<22>,I$I#%% #"II#% #+ $ :;-:2, %$#%%%# #-<2;8+/#(Z?*$<2;:, <7>

PAGE 145

`<:8 888 F 7dQ ` <>8$888 \ #: < .!"<2;:-<2;2<2;L #"!% %())"# % #+%L 8L L,! ##%@." +'!"$<22<, +<22>,#%$(%#)# ))#%% $%#)")"# @J#F +<228,"#*4#<2;> ##*1#) #$"#) /" )"%)I"I)#R #"$%(")# "$"#")H #*##-'<77

PAGE 146

'F@J#F4#-"!#H #* /#(?*F+<22>,"#H "<2;8# )#*+(44,#)#) #+ <82, "##"###)#H #+%#)), <2;L+ "#)""44<2L:<22L %-)#!( ##-<2;8 >:?) )")"$-$ #)44##<2;8## #%"$# ""<2;=+: <, )!)"+<2;=-<228,$#) )#44%("% +>88,<2;;<2;2 ) !#%"# %)"#)# <2;8 #")%)"( ##$44#%>:)""<2L:-<22L+,$!>8L$@H #Q4$4444$ C)Q$4)"?#$C4 <7:

PAGE 147

)$"$!#)#%)" : < @)#44#$<2;:<2;2 "# ## ""# "#" # $%%&'(& )(*$%'(((& )%))'$#F F%&"## "# /)"#H #% # $%.%4 )##)F$ )# @()#+,$" #*<2L8$)" %"% ;% #*$ .)#"-I IG? <7=

PAGE 148

-<2;8$'$#%%!)" FI)#IA"$% + +<2;=, %('### )#F ##*$#) <2;0$ 44'%" ')6%8 +44'H $<2;0, )% $44"* %#) 4%FR%(% *"#J )($%$# 6"44# "$ (-)J)I I#+6"44 # "$<2;:R)($<2;2, ")##$ %J%)<2;8###H ###" $C /#C)+/C," ##)#"@.# <2;0+. 6 22-=88$<2;0, #$%!I"# #I#$" <70

PAGE 149

4#$%/C)# # /4@)+ ,$ /C#I"IB ##)"#" @.###4#!H "##*I)-H #*3#)# /CFH 4#" !)#+ >, "$# %# %##*#) "$% /C# %+ /CF%%## ##)#&## #I#"%")I% I"&III+ 7, )#H #)+#)44#6),)"#<2;LH #%# %* /4@) &)H ###B <7L

PAGE 150

4#H ## "%#))+ 7, "+ #, .##%" +. 6 <88-:;=$<2;;,*J)%G'+GH "'(,# ?)%# +$$!$ !,%"$# &"J)# ) !#)#H %)#"%% ) ?"#)) $"%I%(I)" %#@$*# )) %%)# "##'$ J)%# @)H C(($?$#H "#)!))) +'$<22<, ?@)"%% #%)R$" %"%*C4 <7;

PAGE 151

+$<222, %H %##$@)A(IZH I#<22:(%% ")#%( +K$<220RD"$<220, ##))#%J -#"4##<2;8 <2;2$<8
PAGE 152

"$44%I# %"I+44 4$<2;:$ :7, $$#I #I+ %"##$% )# #*)# $44F%"" )).# C#!) <2;8$####" % 6$#)) '4)$#*F# 4<2;2!)!H %I) -I+4#$<2;2$ ><>, #")%")$# 'G4$#*#'#+%!'4), ? <2;2#!+J %",%%4$H !%"& #"#))+ $ >2;->22, <:8

PAGE 153

" ##))"% "$")%)* )*%)))#" % %"#)*BH #"###!H ") 4) )%"###)*R!" ##")#H )*""#" #<208$.# ##)#)% /%)$()H %.%) # %A"#"H (#")##) # ## 44$% )* #*%)") "II$))(# ##J"# "% )$# @###))% #I I##%)<:<

PAGE 154

"##$"#) %%## )%#* %$#%%#%%(4)+<22L,H #"". )%#%#%"+#", ##)+",H !-))% 6.# "%$%#% %))) ")#%##<208$<2L8 <2;8%! .)%"## %")#*<208 '"" <2L8$%)$"#))#%)"(# # C#<208$II%)*# )%) ) %"<208$##%) )($+" %6$4$G%,#( ) &$#*#! ##F#) (!)%#"$( <:>

PAGE 155

#)))" )!% )))"#)# "H ##))%"% !)#))## #"" ()$#)H ))#"""#" "%##"<27=+)*$<220, %%% !)")) .#%)$H "##)$%(H %"<228 #% #)!" <:7

PAGE 156

4/. 6@6K/D. 6 <8:-<27$ 4<8:+4/'64/4, $)+$#) $#*%$###$&" 4%#$#**&)-* )$($:$*) )*%")$&**$ $/#!$%$* )#:#). 4 #$ <22= )$%#H ))JH %"<27= ?""#% "*$#%)## "<228%)"J(%" 4$###%"$ %###)" #% #<8:4#<22=<220 #@ +<2;;,$#)""")H #$#"F ##4#$)% + =;, $""$ #)!# <::

PAGE 157

# $#)") +,. 6 <8:-<27)#H ##*H #)" # ))F#)"!' 6#4'(# ))"##*H *c#"I+($<2;<, ()H %"#+%$!,$#") %"+ 4$$ #"%")#H &""##*$H $)##"$(# H $())$ )###*"$H )"$%#)F% !H $"#R$ #!##& #)# ))$#*H %##)# $##*&"))#%I<:=

PAGE 158

-)I"H # 4+
PAGE 159

#%))) %" #$4($)"!H 4#)##" ) %(!)"$ "")#)% C #$$GFI% I)%#+/$ <22;R$<22<, 6## !$%)$)# "<88""+$<22<, ##$#"$!"* )%))#)!) #$""<288 +@$'$$Z"$<228R#Z$<220, >8"$") 4B 3$$"+ +2<$<;22, #)%"4 "4#C4 %II# #)%4 II!#4H ">8" H 4F<2:L '""3$'$% +778 <,<:L

PAGE 160

"##+($<220R$<220, '" #)H #%%% I#$#$#)I +778 <$<=, '"( #) %#)##$)) $ 3$$ +J%H <8:4#,$ 3#"G$+:;L =;2$<22:,##H ))"6+6,) #-# ,)"G%2) +:87 08>$<2L<,$$ $6<,)$>,))# ##$7,I!)#)# %#I+0<>-0<7, /%)$" 6")4%H ? 3#"G$I) IF#))+C)$<220$ L>:, )#6))" #"# (+<22L,$%# G$-( I)4)")H ##)I+ <=, ?" <:;

PAGE 161

))"J#### +#,###$# G$H -#*)" %")) #)$4F%# ))"### 4F## B+($<22L, -I&I I)"I#!#%#H #J$"##"))+)$ <22;, <2;07, #### !$)( )" #*%#" ##)# (+<22L,#I&II&H I##)"# ))#(#"#H #+ ,)+:*"/ ( <227,$#) #"+ 4%"#$8$"3$" 7( <<= 4 >::8$<22=,$)"H ##+ +&"$HB" H&( <<= 4>=<8$<22=, <:2

PAGE 162

(###)) ")#H "# /* ("J"J%#%"B $##)) #)!%### #%## &$ 4$ !$) )#$) % #%# 4)%$$ #)")H %## +($<22L$ 7=, #($%) )!%##H ##)) )* ))#)$)" H (+<22L,#)% # #)##)" #))$## $ H )(#$#) ##%!"# # ))"#"*# # 44'(@<228+:> 4 2;8<,% #!"%#))" $--# <=8

PAGE 163

<228%#"%# #)) $ #O%)H ))#"#)O)# )# <208$ #%%#%#H #)% "#%#H $## +C)$<220R%$<222R#$<2;>, 6#)#44 #)##$( *# # ##$("%#) +6$<2;8, C#" #)*## ))$%#*)) %##-(#$#$! #+$>888, .4F<22>#I%%(%I "?/ /)# ."$%#J"4# -<22:$<8:4# %G"<22=%#4 % "#O <=<

PAGE 164

O%$))%H %I%IC(H %C"#) %4##G"<22=$/)&(")% ) ?"#%$/# #%I) I"$ )!)"$#/ ("))#*( /$/#$ 4 #)#% %)##"J$))) J" ))%G$-H # <22:$#)" #GC+,%H "<;" '#$) @)+<2;:-<22>,%"@ #@$%)) ?" !$#)"% %")#<8:4#%!" )) <=>

PAGE 165

#"% <8:4#%)("$J#+ '"%%/#,%( &$8) )* +("$<22>,$/ ("1%(")" #))<278$)%H "#%#)## ")%) /(H /4?"G"<7$<22= ))#)# % #%)"$(" I? (%%#)"$I$I?)"# "#I+/4?"$<220$ 02, %#I)$I(")* )<88"%#)! #)%%)" /# ))I&*I"#)B %))#) #%(%%(% >88788FH '")#$+ $ 28, "%"!%"%) !$("F" )) / ##*+#<=7

PAGE 166

))/#%),$"%% #) C#!""+G">8,$) $ 4)#"$H )%#)"H 6#44F!)H %#)$ %)"H #% I)"!%H ))"))(#"$I $# S@)" $#) 1 6F%$ "$(#" %F (%(J$ $+ $ ><8, 44)% ) A$44$ #*I)4 4I4#+ $ L<:, /$$%<88-""#*1H ))%$(" B##O)H OI$!3#.H "+ $ L<=, /( <=:

PAGE 167

%44)II%$!H #%B ?)#" %=C4$) % $##%%$ "%%)#"( $%""%# $+ $ L$<22= GK$ <==

PAGE 168

!)$!4F) 4%$")-# )""% + $ <80=, /"4%H "%$4%" "# "###/ #"%##%H ")%#*$(-!H )#)# C##H "<22=/4#$ #//)%($1## #*$" %H #)B /)) ##$%(% ))" ? &("#%$)% @) @) # +/4 #$<22=, "# #*F=8$888 6#)H %)(-#H #(#".#+., )##<=0

PAGE 169

##%$# #C 4")%) ?4H #$#+/.,C ## #$# '+,#%%H 4"# /#%I%" (## ?%".)%"I+ $ >80, #%$B ?%"(# "%F%)#H #$" "H %%(#$"O%(% ")$( $+ ?%%#"$ ##%## ((# 4% )#I!"I%%#% ") %$%#%%# /#("<22="H 46/R 4##<22=$H )#"##* <=L

PAGE 170

"@"$!)4)/$# #")$## )%) 4#H )##"#II I@)"$I $I""# ?"( $I+4$<22=$ <<, %##( #%) ) C6 $!)%@%# 6$J)#(# %--%(J #@%H "-#*$"# )#I))I $%##$#))H "%)+ $ <7, $#" (#%))"" ">7$<22=$ %(#H ##4))4# +4K4,$%#) 4)+@#,$4#+-,$C?+-,$+-%/,$+(,$A+-,%##J%## <=;

PAGE 171

(# "%)## %(##J%#B + ;:7,$+ ;::,"+ ;:=, I4K!4)I+ ;:0,#! )%)I&I#*H ) ###$" %##*%I<=8 )"IL8! !+ >7$ > Z7 I)"<22=I+ ;:>, #FI"II) %I+L>:0>=, #%* #I#"#)#)H I+ ;:>$ :8< ## (#$##)I!!"I" &#<22=B"H &%($" )$ $ ))$(&##-$ ""%%#$) -)-# #% >=4"III/3#4#H $<8:$4# <=2

PAGE 172

;:>#%)# (#%!<8:4# ""-%$F ;:> )%%# #%) !#%% 4($%)"4 4##" )+.$:$/)/ :$.H "<22=$>7:-<22) #% &("4$" '.(%+#, )"4$/ :) %)#%##* <08

PAGE 173

/%)$%4.(%%(# G2$#%" *##))B ST4)"##H *#F#H ""#H $$#)$##*F )# +4H $<22=$ $%(H #B S"##*T" #$#$H #+ #<<$J"6 C%/ : #"4# I?("<22=$I%(% IC$I%%)"(% )<$ <8>$I))"$#$H )#* I =$ ( /%(# /*%/ :#)#" /)#H F%"$(#!## I% I +<7L=8, /" <0<

PAGE 174

I#I+C4$$" ,+ *#?# I)%$I I(IH "%"%I #$!I#%H $%#H B (!" "%"!-#) "!H )""@) %) ))$#)H $)-#* #"!" )J%+ F% !& 7 +<22=,##$I@4D 4(I %%" /% "F%#$I#%% %""#) $% )#") )))"1#)#I)% %I#)%)#*+$ <22=, @4'G4J %"$#I%""!#$!H @-#)#""$ I+?($<22=, <0>

PAGE 175

))%() #$&###><8 +I4$I<22=, .41H #%(%("$# #%"I#! #I+.$<22=, H #%($%)" )")%#%H +.$<22=, &)%$H $")") '.(%1# %<22= %# .(%##H !+.$<22=, (4)" -#.(%F$ )F .(%"H / :(#))H #R#-) FG #)$ISJ %"#)"!I+#$ <222$
PAGE 176

!)/% <7 )!"$% J#% #/ : %(%#$ $I"$I %#$#)%%% "F$%"4 4 "-'+C-,#)"# I&I%#"%-# +<7:;<, !"####H %)# H $44 444%# .?$4 6#.+<7<;7, ) %"44 4"+"44 44, C#)"<7$ J"'C#) <0:

PAGE 177

% )(4H #$CF#B (%4)"#"$ 44$"% )(%4H ")" )(%4 4 ")" ')( %J#" +<7:;L, "$%#))C4+,+ >=72,$-" H $!)H "#*)))%( #H )"" #*)" ($ "+C-%D(,+-."),$% #%! )!%$ %)$)#)## )%#)# )"$"#(#"H @)%")##I&*I ))"%" -#*H )(% $ 4%%$!# %I!$I%I)I <0=

PAGE 178

% $))H ) "%%4 '4+,/%(# ")+ >=;0, )%("H +#$<222, 4%$H #))## %+<7=<0, /### ##BI ## S)"##T% 44I+ 4% #%()"##)# /%)$/%%"%$4 #$I##*# ##I+ ?4F"$ ) / ))%H )&###*IH I)#+<7=
PAGE 179

#"$ ( "# #"% ###@$4$ ##"% # "4F #II+<7=<2,##* #)) %"##% &#$"#.# "6 %I) "#I##*"*% "/ : CJ $4F%)$#" ))#)+=2-:<, )##%" #C% )#+##, )%"##$ #*%)""##)H *#)"#$%)$% "%)$#! #) ?) )$##"H #)" ? <0L <

PAGE 180

))#$"" )%44 4 4'%#"H #!GG+-K, (+ >=;<,)( $#A$H 44 G*#I-I 44$ #%")#" /H *#*F-$"%" ))##*F%H )#%# D@ ?/.% O#'4F#OH (#<:$ "!("%(#%H "IIB $% # ?"% %%4#$H "$*#$*#M <0;

PAGE 181

$ .$!"#"% "#%"78"#$>="# "#$%(`:8H J$%:8H )))"# )"%)"# D% $ .$(#4O %)% $) )"#)# %-"-% "H #"*#"-M "?/M" /"% "%#%)"H B #%?#""(% %#4 44 "% "%?# #$#$# +<7=08, ?%"$/-% <2"+;L-<>,# %<8:4#$?)+<22;,#F #<22="I#)" #I+ 728, /F#IH "##)%I+ #H ### ?)##$#I% #$I"% #%#"+ <02

PAGE 182

$H #% )%#"+#$<222, ) )## #%%###$ 1# $BI# ") !"##*H I+/ <8:-:78$<22=$ /<=7>;, #+<222,$%)$ -%#%$$ % $#%&))H $I"*I% I64.I +/ <8:-:78$<22=$ <8:$ J, $#4#% "A4 +C-C(,G6+C-4,(`788 ##)#" ##II%% ))) # "@"4) /% #$" *44
PAGE 183

44$%4 44+ $ <7=2;, C)%#$ ###%. 4C>2$<22= G"2$<220$)$# J#%(%()%II I"I### +/ C <8:-<0:$<220, ? ) "#)# & $( #))"##% )-)# C#%H <8:4#$"A+4 4,"@"+4)/,H "R"#-)%/4 4K4 #H *I((I%## # $""%/H #$)"! #% ?")%#)# $#)"##%. %*#
PAGE 184

'G4$%(%)" $J%.#" ) 4))##$%$# #%) 4)%###)$ $##$%$#" .H )#F!#)+IH I,$4# (#%) 4)")H #%)J"6C +#$<22=, ?#<220% /4'# %&"H /%#" '"+-, )%) H )/ 7L7:G"<;$G">7%## <2=0$%) #% %"%#%H #)# G">7$ %%%#R #%#(#%))H '#$)"(%I'"3

PAGE 185

%A"+C-,#)'">0%)% $##%+ :2==,"# ##+ :2=0, '&%)% #J">=#$ C+-%!,('"%)" ("))B$ "$#$ %)&08" )"-J" %)'"$ 4## F)%I) "I#(# II+;=8;, +%, )<22=%IH I#)# 1%#)" "I$I$"IF-H #)#* ))")#H %"%(#"I+ !"%H %I)--I+ >0I'"3)4# '#%I!I# # )F#
PAGE 186

.+C-,1$ %#))# # + -%#$H ")(I"*3H ## $"CF&%)'" "$#"! %$)":>)H $%%)) O%H %O%#"")) "$" #)%) %)%)%H )%) #)#%) '"% 4$%##%)H %<22= %#) 46)+C-#,H )% F##B "4%%H ##*%" #))"") 4 $FH ##&$><8:4$#H % 4H ) '"+C-?K#,
PAGE 187

?1##%#" +;=8;, %#%)""L:>:) "& #/$%% '"#%".1($" ##)+)%% )$>888, % % .4#%%#>>$<220 $)%& +4$<220, #)"#%"H %.1( 4-.%())%R %)$)+#$<222, #4#)))"% <220%$)% $G "% I#I+,%# O$$"OH #(# !%H #)"))I)" I)$H #%#)"# #$$%
PAGE 188

#F%$%)$)# %")))###) )) ## F#+ ;:>,##*H ##))%)"%-$ #"). 6 <8:-<27$ <8: ##)#""H ###)%#) %)%##"#"!H %#%#%$!#H "% %& )%"G"<$<22L "%$ ?#$C4 ## % "4.G$"#H *%?#C4 F% ##%R 4.G(% $%)$-(H )"&)4# ))))(# $#"
PAGE 189

##$$%$*K+## ),"" 6# ?<220%$).? "##)) %# 4#)")H )%##+C)$<220, H $)%%)))" #$##%#H )% #F!H "%$"#"$"# % $%#!<22844 '(@$##H ###+ > ?#")))## #$# 4%II $%#"#"#)$ %##II# $$"H #)4 H #)### H #")#
PAGE 190

#$#")FH +%$<222, %##.?)$H ##)#)#"## B) 4% H %### "4.G##% 4 !I&$II#I #)#%%#)II +4-$<222, +C)$<220R%$<222,%H $###I"#IH +C)$<220$ L>;, ### $%#H ##!I&IJH ##)-)) ) -$## H 44##H ###$!$%$"# %$#)IH ##I+114-$3>888, $%%)#"% ##)% $"
PAGE 191

)#! # I&I*## ))!)#+ $, # ? $##)#") "(I#I $)#)# #")) #%<8:$4# !H #%###H $G /#)H %)$%)$%))# #$## 4%)" %)##)& "##%##)" #%#%)!# )#*% +44$", 444%"#*% I& 3)"$!#%#H $%#)% #)%)%)" ##"##+4H ?$!, $F#
PAGE 192

%)"H ))#*"((( /#$/ !$)##! )#%" "##"H %"# $#H #))%# "%

PAGE 193

4/.0 6C46D %)-$J+% -& ""#)"$%#H #( )"%)#)) 4&"$ #%))%)" "# #)"H *I%"(#"?##)#)I+?)$<22;$ 7L8, #%&$#%")# "#%J% <228 ?%#"4# <22=$#%#%#H *#)%#%(%" #) GF# )##))" "## %#%# #"%%" ? <;<

PAGE 194

#(%"##%" )#M "I3+A#$<22=,%% #))"$%##H ) !H %<22=<220 ###)% %)#"-# $" )#" /J+<227,#"H ))I"I%" # %" <8:4#$##) #%"+ $%%% "/J, %###) +(,$#") ###))%"H @)"J""#4# %"#" # C")#"!# ""$/J .")H ##" !4 <;> J

PAGE 195

7$J""% ##"# 4&"$# #%%" ##")"# "))"#"#R *$%)$"))&H ") %"% ## '""#)" %#)$ #)F)("$!H ## %"H ")H & $$&" !%MC#)#H M$$ )##$%)#M ))%)H ##)# #$#""F# # $## )$% "%*B <;7

PAGE 196

# H # %!" "&###H )##" CH "%*## ##"B) "F#$") !#% J" $!%# <22=<220!#)" "1 %$ ))!)##$ #)""H ) #"$!#H #<22=<220%!! #%" $ "%%(##H #%%<22=<220 ""C "!#B$ #)### %" $"##<;:

PAGE 197

!%# ##O # $)$$#O# 4+<22:, #####" C"*(+<228,*"" "#&""#$H ".4 !# %"##H )"%#<22=<220 5 "$#&!##)H # ?)""%H "#$#)%)#" (I#)#%#$3 +G2=8.,>L###IH #)%#%(#I+GG2=8., %"#)#) (I4?II#)H )I+GG2=8., #%"B >L""" C[ <;=

PAGE 198

@"#<208")! $#"$" "%"H +.207:, "##)H #$#)%BF<%% ##<208) F" J()F )"###I+K.20, ?### )$#)%" $%)$#"#)H #%"% "" %)" %H #)##$%%)"%(#% "#+H ,) !%"B )#)%"$$! C)"#""" )#$%)##%!H &+%"1" #)),)+"F$ %$, +.G2=0, )"% "R!## # !H #+ $% ##, %!# <;0

PAGE 199

)#H )! ? "%)#$ %)%*")F $!#+?1$<22=, $"#***#H )" "("# R%(# "JFG?<22=<220%%-) ""(# )" )#!-#*!"#H #%$%)#)) #J" + ,#)#F )")( % )F)"%!)#<8: 4#$%%%H %" #%)"% F)+/ :,<22=$# #&"%H ##)##H #)&)" % )$%)$# <;L

PAGE 200

%#"!)"H %)#*)) +"#%44,"IH F!)")I+.C2=7,$ #+)#,)) -))) *%I%I)H #"%"+.8>2=, )#* ))F!)"$#"I"H I"$&"#IH #$(%(O)%#JOH ")%I+.8>2=, II%#" #"F%)"$%F !### +I#$I442=<5RIF#$I442=>5RI ")$IGG2=8.,#+I$I G20, !)"%H ## "% % !$%4 )4F") %I!)" *&% I+442=750, 4 %#!"R <;;

PAGE 201

%##)## $"F %"*#H $% %#*##))$ )#)(+(!## ,) #*H %#%)H %)#* B 8( 44$.A-% /?"4G"78$<22= /% "I" #)* #%%I+442=>5<$H %"I$## %%$"% $#" #"( $ %"$"%# I 44$$ %#I#)J1!3+42=., )"# 8) + 44,%#) #I%I+42=G, #"$ $)H 4 I(#I+42=, I)(<;2

PAGE 202

%#"$##" %($3<22=+42=, $%)$% )##+ ;% $)H #1 7 / )"1 #09 H #$)" %II ?)" $###H B ?%#%I"I% # )"" "$#J"$@1) )"$#$ .H #)#)# # +<7<2=, )#)")) )# $##H ""#) $H #))%B ?#%##% %) %"%1# ? ?#)## #6 F F#-( ?#%OH # +GG2=46, ##)")#H %"(%"44 <28

PAGE 203

"%-#*##" #"$#R #")#) #I*#I%) +.G2=,$#"#-)))#H *% #$$H #F#"+.G2=>, <22=$ %##II #B &##S)T"1IH I)"&#(BI?%O )#"MI"1 ##)%" ) #" ')%)" D$ $%#% ) D$)#"$ #"%#)"4) +2>>2=, '")#$ "#)" -))4#%" (%%IF) 44F)"4R" )##"#"#-%#H I+GC2=46, '"&)# )"%)%# 4))"?#$ <2<

PAGE 204

)#%)# %#B%)##) $!##" )# I3% "()#F%"##H $##)#%#%)#H "!) #I)I%)44 C#44##)"H )$#%#"H ?")#"H $$%####)H #$ )# "$"% %(###% "H $%)#" "44 4F4% "$"<22=$<8-$IH ##) I(#%4F#)H $-!$%)$)% )+##,(#!#) <2>

PAGE 205

#)#)#+H "$I-3,##-<22=$"% )# $%###*+ J,("#)H %(+()"44,%#) "J "#*+#*,$%H %"#*( >; ;% #* 7 /( )#$%-I#)I)# %%))## % ""))4#$ "#%# #)) )##* J#H *#))")# "J ?")" #)%-+) #%$!,$"%%%(%%#H %))## >;J#*#+`;77$022 )D<222,"#*H I##(#I+228 J$ ?)J# 4$%)#+=8<222, <27

PAGE 206

I)I!) ###))%"H )"$##) "I$3)) $"#$H %##)##%" ?#%4%+"H J!)$G?,)4#"<22=$ "%$"#C% J44 ;% #*B #!"("1)H )4#%"1) I4I$# %$"%4 ) +GG2=46>, #)44" ))##$"% )%) ?))##)H ")%$%)$% "### )H )#)"%) )#&$I?"%%# +>>, <2:

PAGE 207

#))%(%##%H (%MI+.G2=, #))#*) )")"# ? "44F#)%$ )#(%%) "!%!"?F" 4%1###4/"$<22=B ?%# $% $$)))# # $%%("" %(O"-$)-$H -+!#,#)H ) "$%%##%%( +GG2=46, ###%%)#H )$%##)"# "# ;% ".)#" I%)II3+G2=, F!H )#"G"# <22= 7 /A "%"%#H ##"$H ")#%#-%#"H )" #"$" ()#)#)H !) +.G2=, <2=

PAGE 208

%$44%# #*1%)#) )#$%)$ 4#+ (,(4 +) $#-44 ))$/?"G"78 A$441+,$ <22=B (#)(4 4 4"$$( (#)# """ #)""# +442=75>, %$ )#)$ "% I'(""% 4%)#*$I 7 / G"<22=+.G2=7, $ I4#)$3)"* #)%(#$%()% $I)#I(#"%$%""# ?@$%"##J$%"H )#%% +<<>;20, ."####-"<22= %!)$ 44)"B <20

PAGE 209

?)%#$ #)%%#" ")) +442=<5:, #! 8)( %)$44H #%%")" #%#)" 44) #%#I#3+42=., #*F%#) )$(44+42=G,% -.4%/")+42=G>->, #)#44"<22=%I% %"-F"FI+42=., 4H (4%FI*I #)+"$II,$%%#*H FI"3+42=<, $ 8) #$#%H ")% I)##)I )%)"#%(% !)#B )##)%"%%!H $%))H "H "(O# ) +42=G, .I%%$I"-G<22=H #BI#*I%")#)I# %#)"I+42=G7, $$ <2L

PAGE 210

)#I#)"I+42=G7, # %#$"%I %#I#)II%(+42=G7, .# "-"#I&*3 "$B #$#)H %# % )# "$%)" #$$%( %# +42=G7, @)-%%"#H )"$.A")% <22= 8)A #%#)# @)) 1%"%# #) #H ()%# %" !###)"( )+42=., ;% $%)$" J"4444 #H %!)"$# (#"#<22=<220$ #))44 %" ) #&""#)% "#)#$<2;

PAGE 211

)#F))! ""(! ." #"H ))##" $ #"*" "## !$%$#"$"#"H @)""+ $-,H $"%""##)" ##)#H #$%)$%##H $" )+ ($+"(*$9 *"# 44-)) )4%"$"<22= "$%)$#"H )"# %$)) *$( #H # ))"##)#)H -#)" +) <22 P

PAGE 212

?")##! $ 7 /( ;% % +@, $+" +H ),"B"# ##)) ## ")%#) !$ ;% ))"& %)B .)*#*#)"(# "$")" #%""" "$)##H ##"H "-H )-$"-$ )J $$)O "#)# "###)) +G2=8., #$###%%##$"##%H /%)$-%%H "(B #"$"$)-$"#J-# -# ")" ) J#)#$ %C)$""II )#H # #@-) ((#)$

PAGE 213

%)#"`>=8$888 +GG2046, ?#$## $#### 44# /%)$#H !#"$"% ")# G"<22= 7 / #*$ )" %J"4#% /H 4)### )#)B )-#H ##" )#" 1#) "#)! 'F#H !# "" ?%1+ %,"$%%# #)%O"$" (%$)$O# 5" $"$% % +.G2=7, 6##%%%H #$("#H )*"#( @*## "+G20, )"!)" # 0( %#)" "<22=$

PAGE 214

%)"%% ##)%)#%( #H "I#II%)#I %%$#*% I?%(##"%%##H $3$I"%))##%% "F" "$%(I+<>2=, ) "" #"$H )+("#),#B %#$ %%%%# %% F%(%1%(%S" %#T %#)H ) 4"$ % %#" #J +<7<2=, ?.)#%#"H "# 44 4#%)##H "%-( B 8( "" #"B ? $ %)#)FH ")H ""% )##"""# )#"#$% & +442=<57,

PAGE 215

)-#-"% )%"44O#*))# )<27=O#)) !4 4"#" !#H $# )&") """ #"# )##"))#"H #%<22=<220 1" !##%-## -#-) $%)$I# (I#" )) I"I#I)"H #$I+@Z?$<22L$ 87

PAGE 216

I#F'F&"")" <2;8 *$"""# ##%<22=<220)%(H ##%I" 3#) #+$"$#", )# "$)#4#% )#% ##+"##%,) ) /%)$!##O"# ?9 ,O#%"4#" $")#I)3%H )-)$6F +>888, #####"+,R ####"%H ) "$"#% ##O. 4"O%))%) ) !%"I#3#)(% J"#% >8: P

PAGE 217

4" "$%)## "") *"%)# # 4"% "% "%###) $#"% +%,##)"" #))) $!#<8:4#!H )!%!## )) A#F+<22=,)$)IH %""I+ =2,I#3")"" %"+ 08, /**"" "I$3%I)## ##)I+ 0<, #-!#$%%!H $$II#<22=<220 /%)$ II% <22= #%)#"! F #<22=$II" >8=

PAGE 218

"%C$<22= +I#)## $3($<22=, C<<$<22= $ %"+$<22=, I 3%"!" J$#6N-N$@+#* !, !!$?$?4# #$)% $+II,%" !*-#H %)) ? <8: .?#%#1# #)$ $!%! %(###% K&(&%((((%(%9 !" +%=%$#',I%3 %# $<=8%) %#)& %$%"*)H $% # 4% + )) *) F%)H +##)# & J+#% >80

PAGE 219

!#)J, 4% ##% 4 "J) "$!"%!" $)")!+?Z C($<22<, $%)$# ) %# <=86N-NB%$#$" #$% )%H /%)$#"& &" ##$ *&%)+ +<7=<=8H $28,#% #+>7<->7$!, % #"#"+!$>>,$# %" %" )#+$'$4$ ,#) + $a<88$'a>88,%!## >8L <

PAGE 220

!$#8>%>+$ #F,#<8> 3 #J###"$% )$" % %%H ))+ # $,"FH ))###+, "+"$##, # CF#"" ")$""+ $ %$$,#+ $$,H #-$## "#& %$)" $$" H #I#I(#%""H <8 >2?-#")"#H $("#H $#II+ $>L, ))"+",# 78&R) ###H +@$<228, $"%-" #%#% +"-, >8;

PAGE 221

<<+a#%H %-+0:, %#>7 <7 ? a<2,%%H F!+ $3F,# "$%)$#H #)"#*)%R $#+"J####, ##) 0 < &"C@".## 7 7 474 75 -74 !"879 5 7: .7 4 7 76 ) 5 7 7 +%! 5 6 %;% 5<"".%85 7 7 6 < %1 44 4 9

PAGE 222

#"#6N-N!H #$ %#H #")#" %#*%+?,"%%+H #%'$#$',$%"%H $##IC(3IC( IJ)" #I#%I 'II %)%I3% % "$%#* +.,%I$II$II-$I# "$"I($IIK%$I I.?$II4G I"$%#* %#I6II6I+6, $% #"$0 > #$%(""H +"%,%##H &"!% /%)$" %%-#+a8:8$e ==0,$#AH F-"" ?"$H %"#%+ 86%$ %(%(& %)9 %+ #@-)(! 6%(!&79 % -#+a8<7$e ;L<,

PAGE 223

0 > &"##? )J %$<22=-<220 =>&!" ?1@ 2+ !"8"7 ?%A@ ?5%A@?%A@ ?%A@ .7 6 ?5%A@?-%A@?%A@ ) "?5%A@?%A@?%A@?%A@ + !" 54 ?5%A@ ?5%A@ ?-%4A@ ?%A@ *;B 9 ?5%A@?%A@?%-A@ ?%A@ <"".8" 6 ?5%-A@ ?-%A@?%A@ ?%A@ < 1 4 ?54%-A@ ?9%4A@ ?%9A@ ?%A@ "-95 ?%A@?4%6A@?-%A@ ?%A@ <6! & %)( % #<22=-<220 )#$% +?C4,%"* # #;:7L<0%+a;L=, !)#+H %,%#"&"+

PAGE 224

a ;;L$e8 8<, ###%#"H #%-"<22=-<220+?C/,%)#H ))###J)# %"?# ##0 <)) #%# J%%4###H )##))%" #0 < %")% (#$"%H $)#)%?#H #Q#)$% ###)%$"H $)"##)) )### !H $ )#) (#">7$<22=R%%#H ##%%+>$:7=,%-" $4#%H <22=!)# ##L$<2=%R#%" "+<8$27L%#<22=, +<>$<;2%<22=, %%%

PAGE 225

##(+<7$7:;,G"<220$ .?%" <0888 <:888[ 8888[ 0888 0888 :888 >888 ] +,++,,,+,,+-.#0 < !)#"%(###% %)J %$<22=-<220 &"###H %"* <22+ ,#% H *0 7$%%4% &" ? a70,##% &%44+Xa7>, H *##* "#)%"R #%"$% ><7 P

PAGE 226

" %#+##, !)#+#%, !%# 0 7 &"#@4J% ?)J %$<22=-<220 /(% &('(& 012('* 3'%(& )('($ (* 4$% 5$6%2&67&8,559 : 56'&$5$%" : ;$7& : <(=&6 : 5$6%56$'(&,3": ,$%$3'1>": )'(&2>('$: ?6('$": 0$$%5%*56'6(&80559 : @7&7$% : &%$1 : 56'6*56'&" : 4'$$%.$%(&5$%" : (56'6*56'& : 4$% : ><:

PAGE 227

64#C $"<=8 ) #"$ %! !)%H %"**# #))<22=-<220% )H )"#" #"% +/$>888,$! %%"*)H #*# "!)" %%#F>8$888-H %% #!&"+#% ,!##%# $ #+II,#% <<+*,% 7=+#*%-,. %%H #"! 6+a<<,%!" "%#"$)# 7< %.#L$782H !J %%%)<2:;-<220 ><=

PAGE 228

<72 %-+",%% )#!"#+ $ +*($)(() 9 (# #*#$"% ""0 % )"<:>#H %R)#&"%<7+a<7 >;, %)"% %R%#"% +&",% 7> "#%"## %##$!""H +.4,%7=H .4"##R$ )# %$+<220, &"H AB"% #)#+NW<, /%)$"H ""+%, ) %#"+@$<22;,$7>!$"@#?%%% %&(#"BI#"(#M4 %I+ 86%%( 2=Q2Q<:,IH )#%#$I+ %( 2=Q2Q<:, ><0

PAGE 229

#+NW< =,% 477)) I-1%#)!08 777) K! #)$## =% $"### +@$<22;, )"#$@+ ## %#))% $C%#! %)"# #!7; ;)H +W =,#)$%! 4>%") H %0 : /%)$#)H ))#" !H $)#""$. 44$%%)I%(I+e :,#"H )%)#%CKD$ #"%)#I# 3$)#)!+/$>888$ 7L, )77#)+N,#R %#)$#I%$3-H >
PAGE 230

"!)"##)) %"%## (#)#+ $, H ))()#)-"# %4664K+#"I#H #$(###IR $ 77,44+ )$##$ 4 .R $ 70, (H ##%)##H %)#%) )$# )#))!H "))"4< <> 87L)% ##%#")B.KD$$ .$6-4 ?#"6H 4+46#[46a 007, ?(()9 )I (%# ""(%## (F)I+/$>888$ 77, #"%#"H %-!%.+46a L<7,$%[# .1 $46 ><;

PAGE 231

%&%H #)4<) #.4B%)+.KD, .KD#"+46a L22, %I##")"I%#$ "$+ 7=, #"+46a L:7,% #)" #+ ) *$& $$"+9 $ ##4#)$/+46 a 0==,$!<8+<8 <;7,) # .4))%##H $)"# ><2

PAGE 232

)$"%""+@$ <22;, )/%H $)+ $ 70, ?%! "%H %#/ %+$$ "%$$H ))4#$H #%## 0 : .4"+.4,%CO4 6# 517( )$&&> A ! ! &7'$ !! ,(%*!/(*('(( !! B1$('(&! O 5 ( !! 312$%(( !!A )'$&( !!"A ;%$1( ! $1%$'> !!! B$'&67 !!! :$'$*' " 0$CD3* ",% "$ #" *#" %$%

PAGE 233

47+$ I+&**%I9 #H #%#4@K$'K64 )$4@K+46a LL=,$% $%)"$#$$* +/$>888$ 7=, !%#"'K64+46 a 00;,$%%I!"$"# (F"%#)*#3+ 77, "J)#"$.+46a 0>7,R I$#$"I% #& %%)"#47 %%!%#H )) )! ")+4@K, )%"#.* %##%$% )" %H $%#+W =,#)'6$6D /C/. #"'6+46a L<2,%I#H #$I$&IH ## 3?)6D+46a 0L2, ###B$$H J+/$>888$ 70, #"/C/.+46a =0:,H %##)$I) )"

PAGE 234

I+ $ 7:, % I!***(I %)#*"H !)" !$ ###)#( # #%))H (#$#%( "#<22=-<220% ###)#O# #O##% ."%)$ )"%%)H +,)+),"%) $")$% )4H 7 ?I+&**%I9 )() "#"))% ###"))#)" %! "$%#" $## #" "$% J

PAGE 235

)#O))4#) O)"#" ?) )####H #($"!##H )""#)) ##)(#) )"$)# <22=-<220% ))# &+"#,F%)+ ," ")#H )#*# %" %(##)H #+44$!,##"H %##)#) +44,+, #)"+)# $)"$!,*)+), "%%H )#)#)## #))%" "$ %)$*##)))H /%)$)#%#""$ >>7

PAGE 236

#)1% #" !)###) $)!) #-# "%$% ))##%" )# + ,%)! % !#)+ $"-,$H %##)#"" I##I#% >>:

PAGE 237

4/.L C4C6DC@ $("%&2"%$ I&$&&I*$%M***( %)+2($*$"*)($ %&)*$%#"( *$)%$&&%$-* ) O *%"&M-%*% -1+&*$ %&H #).?$<220% #"$)#)"% "$!#"F !)")" '"!##)H ")#*#$#H ")H ""#)( '##))) %( %)$## ##%"# ###)H )$")" %%%%%" >>=

PAGE 238

)%)#) #%"<220 4#H )$%%%%H )))))%<8:4# $####)# #) # %$#)#H "%$##) % *#"H "" &)))% "F# #!###))% "$%"! %%( 5 < #$$+)+&$$*). F)%"#* ))"R)" 4#%">7$<22= ) 4/"#"$%)$ )"## $>>0

PAGE 239

#%####H "44 4#%"# %)#)#")% ""44%()H $")#4#% 4F" #F%#H %"+",%% # $#%### ##44 )"$)%))) %" ""#" ##<208""<228 "" $)"<208%#) "F#%#%) ## %")#%")# )$$#)!H #"#!# <228$"%H %) % "" /%)$%# "#)" % !#%"&## $ )%"%(#>>L

PAGE 240

)#) $ %)%%" # "%"%##H %"$(H 4##)%#)"IH (I##"$ #)%)"") ##%)"O%% 4#O%)# # ?##%# %%$#%)"#%H )) %)")##% %"$"##)H ""% 44 )%""% )" #)"-#$%H )$)"H ###"#)# 4#F<20= "#-R)##!H ##) # )+")H #,$#)#%%)) >>;

PAGE 241

##"))))#H # #%)))#)% #)#+44$6)$ !,)"" #$ %"!#"")$#) )"% .#"$%") %""#%%% #))#)"44H '"#)%#%4# #$()#II# %"")"J" > 1$%))"$&%&%*&&)% **$%$+. ####%""H $%" #!$ .4#)# !#" #)"$4% "### $"##%'G4H $)"#)%# 4# 4))! >>2

PAGE 242

##") ##)H # $"#)"H )"%"%4#%)H # $)###"H %)%# 4#$"44 H #%%)"%" #)) 44%)")H #"%H ")##%)% #%))#) ))%" $ ")"III)I #" # $#)#% ))) ) #&%%%%)#F)#) #-)#1&)% "" "%#%) "# 4##) 1& #R >78

PAGE 243

.)# # H ####) !$%)$ #%(#%#* $ "#-#+##H ##%,## I)H 3)"##<228 #<208%"%# 4%-#%O#H #"O)"# ""#"%* "( #)$(#$%&" ##H 7 !&&%*"%&4%"*"$%$# ##$#$$$. "$")#) #)) /%)$" "#$"())) H )##%! $#*"#(J$)#H 4.G)))"#H #%))#" $(>7<

PAGE 244

%)-# %#)##*H R#$)H "# $*+&&%&%** #*)%. ##)"*#$ #%& (%"## "##" "$ #*#)#"%+<20=,H II##%)"+#)" ,#) "%$##""H ""%-" "#"H #"$)#!H #-)H (%#"$$%"$ #(") >7> P

PAGE 245

$##"H "" "#*-$#) "$)) @)#)II"" ### ))%## ##))) 1#$)%-(% % <208$%)$###)""# ))#)#)H /-'/4)%"## )#)#$)## )#))"<208#*H ##)##* ##)#)) @)"H -#*$#))" ##)# %#%) 44#*$ #"#))+H "1@"@#,$")"#4#H %##))%# >77

PAGE 246

%""4 #)#"$"#$##%#4 4%($)##" )O))%O!#% #)"%$##H %%#)#H # $#4" !)####) '" % #H *#$H )-#)##)% "" 4$$H #) %##!)# )# %#! ##))%<22=<220%" )))$)"#)" %&""#" #"))H %#4(#)#-# %"%)H #%#"%!###"% >7:

PAGE 247

#%" #H "<22="#)H )"%"# H F *) "# "-##H )"### #6#!# ")#%#H #<208%) 4"$#)( )" % #%")) "#"%#%H $("1+<22>,")" ))"##"# /#+<22;,##$" "#"#%H $)##I&*#I ("1## % %"""$#% %)")# >7=

PAGE 248

)) "$(##)# <208%()#*$#% # "##"! )*)#))#)$ ##")% )"##%#" $"")#R#)# #%""J#)H % 4&"$###"#)H %))# 4#))) ) ?4#)(# ))$#")#.# #%#)%H # $)"K+" .,)%)"#)H $) /%)$# ")#*R)$%% )#%#*##%H # %# "#B "4#%" ""#) ?#%>70

PAGE 249

)")&R%)$!H #)#%"!# #"))" +",4)%H B"$)#) # #F#")#)" #()# 4I)"I%#) #%() !" $%)$ ")&"##*# #)#)%) ##*H #)"$"%#) )"("#*# 4" (#+)#)%",$ %"44 4# )#%"*#) #$#F+<220,%($"H ## /%)$#)#" 4F%)# $"#")# #)"4# >7L

PAGE 250

)) 4 "# "%$1) %)""4 4F"" # #*# #")$IFF% &"!"'#G+<227, #*##%"$## ")##+4 )",!#%#" 4"?"?"+<2;L, A $# ))#))"#%" "#II "$4% %)#%$)" #*44 #! "%"##%"$#) *I"3+A#$<22=, #"F#$*## (#I"I#))""# +<220,""%" ## %%"$4/)H # $4#%)" >7; J

PAGE 251

"%)" # [ .)# #" ) ""%# H "#!#-" ?##$%)# #)$)"#H ""# ## +'(%(Z#$<222R 4)$<222,!%)% (--###) #-) )$#)"# )###%# ##"$##H "I(%)I%# #<8:4# #)"" )# $$ #%&) ?%# ###%"" 7=)"$%#)#?H #+$<22;,""% <22=-<220 >72

PAGE 252

J$#)*#" <220% % #%#" C##" H $II"#<22=<220 &#)###% )" "$##)"H # $(#)") #"-#" 4"6%1 +<202,#$%)$" ))*$"#H /*(F+<2;;,##H )"))%" ))!"##) "%#)$?%F+<2;;,! )))""##" # -"! #%)"H )+, ."$*+ ,)) ")#") >:8

PAGE 253

% #"## ##")#% "$)") # !. &%&%*&""$)*&% )%#*-*)*) )####" ))% /%)$#" -) 4&"$)) ##!"%) ## #))"") )" )"$###* "$)%" ##)))"##)H #*" ####)H ) ##)"%" !"I%3I I. )#)"#)" #%" >:<

PAGE 254

#(" #)"#*# )) "#*H R)#*) #*#%% ))() ()#4####)H "#"))#))") #J )#* #$$##"%")"H #) $)IIH ###))"# %"$ ###*# !)))!%" I"3 ") %<22=<220$##"H %#)")"#" %)) $)"%## #R") $##)BH #"### # $#I3 >:> P

PAGE 255

")#*# #! ##"###R #))$#*) #"$#*#)H "% ") )##"" %("" #)##"?%"" )#)H "##!" !#44$%)$!H "#"# #)) $#"$#)#H !R))#")## ""F <220$ #% # *#") 44F% H $$%#))#F ))4# #$ ##%")) )%))##"# >:7

PAGE 256

$#*#"" %#")"%" #$%)$#)H )##))## %"#)#"# )#%#%4 ## ?#*# )# %?/ -'4")O) )#+$>88<,O)# ")%#"% ?"*I)IH .' &%$"&%*##-$))#&""***+%%+ ;#% )#%<22=-<220%H ##)")"II %## ##)) *"$H %"I""3 >::

PAGE 257

"@%+<22:,$/#+<22=,/*( +<2;;, #*##%#%H "%"%#H # #*#J"!" %%H J"# 44$!!$)%#H )$4%" #4"#))##$44 #())) #"#(J)#H #)(H "#*#" !%"$%H )$"))#$%H ""# $"#H *#) ##%"H #"#+<220,$?H #)%"! (I#3*)" )#%" R$#*# >:=

PAGE 258

"#" ?#H )#%("%"H ")))" %)""#* /%)$4$%+#"$ ,J"#"#)"#$#H )##" ? .!%#" "+4)F,$J 4" $#))"" )#")# $ 4#)#%" #"#$"#H # .4 ***"$&1*$$"*%&#%$ &%$*"%%""$&%&%*)%* )-)#H ###")"!## # .H )"#" 4 #)!##$%# 44H #)#) >:0

PAGE 259

#)#R")%#H ##$)!# "'H #%#%'G4$)H "# "#))##*%(H %"#&" !##% H #*#"$")#)# ") %#)#*% (.)#O)"KH O%"#"))" #))"H %#"#*)"## ##% %!)"H %)#)#!#R## #)""%&" "# 1+<20=,# I3#)"#### .C **&%$"&%**)% *+%&$)2#* >:L %

PAGE 260

#"#"H R#+<22L,"H "(# H #)$%% )#####%" C""I$I## #)) %%#("#*H #" 4$%)"%# <8:4#$### ")4#$ #%%JF $ %)$F)") #")"#)H # $.%% )"#""J# #(-(#$ ## #"))) #)""#%<22=-<220$H "%)")# <8:4# #")%)# >:;

PAGE 261

R%)""H ##% 44$%# $####) % )##$"%) ""II#"I(3"% '#" ###$!$%# )"% "H %%#")H %"## /%)$#-# ")###) -## %<228$#*# (%#)$%"J"# % ##%H ")" ? ####*<228 "M #)"##H ##"$"" ""##%#"% "#$(.?F) "##F#$%)$>:2

PAGE 262

("-%) $"#%-#1 >=8

PAGE 263

4/.; D$446C.64 /CD &8)-$*&") (+%)%"+&$$ )*%%J $)*$)(% %C$-##8) "&+%) $+$*+) *%+% "#$% &'()* ?### "$#%"(% !)") )%$%" #%1"%)%(% #(44$K$)"$6 )"$# #)"### #"I#*3 )$# ##)$# %#%" 'F%)##-#* ")##) #) 4#"%#H )"#% ()%$# >=<

PAGE 264

%%)# ?##)%"#H *))%"$H )##"##"H )#"(# %%#)$"("H 4"I"I")%H $-#%)""H ")(### %%)H )" ?$%" )"#%" +", #"#"!"$# I%I"##)" )## ) #"$"%" I#I*"%$# -"& #)F%" ##))H )#" )#)"(# # >=>

PAGE 265

%"!$)% #(# ?%("%#(H %"M##%% )O#)O) #" ## %#%O"( $O)" #"$#)#)H )#)%#) $")I##IH )) #("H "!"+" %#,$%%%#) ""#& .?F )$#)") #*$I)I%##") #*%)) )# ?#(4.$6$H 6#)(###H $"%J" # %###" "% >=7

PAGE 266

"1)OJI% #%%"3I%")3O& )#%##* %" $ "# "" #"##) #*#)#)H #" ##1"H "!+,H )*" #) !$)#H *")#) !-" ##%&H ##%R)" # $%##""# #)" *## !# #%%-)$ ") .?F)% !)#-B %$#"#H #"##)$) >=:

PAGE 267

#%" ?"I%3 )$#"") ("" $"##% ))"###*H #B#)#) C"+(, ")4))H $$# /%)$"" )%)###B)$H $#"#""H )#" #)##OH "##O"" O%$)O "$-%#!" $&" !*#H #"%#"" #!#%#(")#" F(-)% >==

PAGE 268

..CN /N. 6 <8:-<27$6$4 <8: +4/'64/4, 6O'64A@.D4CD 6$4 <8: K4.KCC'D4/'6$6@$ .K@9 = @6+<,.-"O +,))# #+,+',+,#+>,#% $#$)#*R +',)# #+,+',+,#+>,%$ )$%% #* +>,.@C4'C-## %##B +,#KH "+"<87+,, +',"# $ +,%#*R +,$)$H )$)# +,6@@9-% %##*$%##* $)$"# +,+>,$"#))%H ###*$%# ## +,C4@6@@9)!"+,$##* #$")#*$>=0

PAGE 269

)$$)$$ "#+,+>,##H %44H !)+(,$@) )####*H %)$% $)$$#*H # +,6@4/4CC +<,6@@9-##*% +,+<,+,$%$)$ +,+<,+',$H $$#)$##H *F)$)$$! # +>,CC6@C-@) &##*O +,#)R +',)#$$$"R #)$ $)$$ #+,+>, +,@/'44+<,@6-)#+>,JH ##*% ))$%)$"H #+,+>,$%) ))+%#,% J% )))) %)%) %))#* +>,CKC6C4'C-)# )%)$$&"$ #+,+>, +,.6D.44-##*F!)H L8>4)#<20:+:> 4 >888-,##H ""$ $#+,+>, +#,C4@'4-!%H )%$##*#) ##"# >=L

PAGE 270

+,+>,#$#$)" # +,4644'6D+<,@6-!)#+>,$"##H *#)"#H +,+>,J# %#"# )# +>,6CC-#*##) #$"H )%J +,4.64-""%(# ")J)!)" #"#"#" ) +J,6C4..)"#*) )#+,+<,+, !%$$"* +(,..-#")H "##* >=;

PAGE 271

..CN' C@/6@6K/D .?14/'64/4.K )2.E .E!E G" <22= C CNNO / : ." )46$-/ :Q2= OPCCPN")$ &%"*"$ #2Q<2Q2= 4#R <>Q>LQ2= 0"%$$+ *1" ;:> )" <22= G8 =Q>7Q2= 4 $%$+ *" 6%CNNO .)LQ20 B&%" *"$$%$ &%" *"$)6%CNCNNO" 0 ) %$$+ *" #".;Q>>Q20 6<8:-<27 <<8><8= :=4>77 =7 .%95 ."$?( "$( #<220 .) $LQ<0Q20 &% ) *"$$%$ '/ 7L7: >=2

PAGE 272

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

PAGE 273

)2.E7< $ !"# $ FF95 G!+;.)!02%?G1 $."1"" %.%!@ .E!E7=H !"#$ % F679F95 !E0=0EG?0#%@?1 $" %.%!@ )2.E7< $ )0 &"'( &)&**+ FF95 .001)EG)%?GJ#0" "@ .)E+G2!G0E!?GJ#!&& $"D" "@ J0E!G;..E0!0;0%?1 $#) @ .E!E7+ $)0 (!$," &F5F95 !E0=0EG?0#%@?1 $" %.%!@

PAGE 274

..CNC K?.46 5()%#))B < ?"44)M > ?%"M 7 ?"44M : /%%"!#")# 44.?M = ?44)M/%#%H #M 0 ?%("#44M L ?("#M?""M ; C"#*)"Q)H .?M 2 ?##"#*#Q%%H #<22=220M?44M <8 ?%(""#*#44M << /%"#*F))% #"44M <> /%44) %#"#*M <7 ?"%)M/%%"! #)M))M <: ?%II44"(M <= ?%))44M! <0 /%!##)) 44M
PAGE 275

>8 I."## I?%# )M >< /%%"%44) )%"M >> /%%"%44) )M >7 /#)#)F #M$%%"#M %####M >: ?#)44MC +.?,(%#"### "M >07

PAGE 276

..CN .'64/466D 2, "&1" =>"K& 997995 .! .! >"6 "FH "5 5 "&J H ?J-@ 0 E#"" &."! 1 "FH "6 ."#!*=9 *B" 5 .L F""0*" .L D" &!. 70&"#%#"" #A[[[4# 7L#<220@ 7;&"#%#"" #<8:4# 72"%#)" ) >0:

PAGE 277

..CN : ?C4@+C4, !21+.)EC<$ 3 B7" ./''&'$0 $ ,$# ."'&''01 "$ ./&'$&'$'0' $ &3 .'''& @ $"&" .''&'&$&01 !" "$$ H "C '''$1 !JJ0E..2C!$$&&"% H ./''2$'0' "$ .3&'' $'"0' "7$$ .&'''"01 $H $%*$ $* .'/&&'$&0' 3 .$'$'$&'"0' $ .''"&'"0 $ .$"'&''&/0 "$$% !'D!+EEC<$ 3 BM "*""H #",$%"$$$ .'$$' 0' &3 .'$$2'"&'0 $& ./'$&44'01 !" "$$*$ & $ .&'&' #0 $ .'&'&$$'01 '+!EC $ .'"'$$'&$0 *"" $* #" .'/*'$&'&0 $%$$$L# $ & ./&$''/'/0 "$#H $ .'"&'$&'0 "$$%$" H $ C &''"' 2JDEE0.C<$ &" &"$#%"$$ $ &$ # .'/''$0 $$ & $ ./' $''01 $"$ """ .3&'' 2'$20' "" .&''0' *"" & &""C" ."'$"'$&'$0' .'2'/'0' $"# .'4'' 01 2++EDE.C." ""&$ &% *$ &"$$"$ &%"$$ .' ''&0' B .''&'0 $"H .&'''$&/01 2!2C & "&77& .'"'' $0 $$$ .'"$'$'*01 $"$ $ & .'3&'$'/0 $$ & .'' '01 2 & .$'$$'"' $0 $#& .'/&'$'$&01 20EEE..C!"$ "$"H %"$$ "" .$'*'0' .$'&&'$0' $""" .&'* QO

PAGE 278

'5&$01 !" $ .&&'$'0' & &$# ."'/'*0' & .'' 0' $$ & .$'$'/01 $$$H "$ $ .''$0' &" .'$'0' "$ .''0 $&$ && .''&0' $"" &H .''01 221E0!2C $ #" "& $%"$$$ &&"*B" .&''&&0 $ &" .&'$'0 .' $'01 !" "$$" .''0' L7 "$ B .''20' "#"# .''/ &0' $ "&7$" .$&/*$'*'*01 GE!+C!$ & $$# .6�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

PAGE 279

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

PAGE 280

.E+=70E=E0EEC!""& 7 & "$ '#1#'8'#"''''1 ."&7 & $ &$3*" & $ B$*"$"?""B*"$ BM "$#H @% .1!!+!" ."'&***'0 $ .$''10 E120!+!888C#!$ $$! >0;

PAGE 281

..CN@ 64D@9 4?64?6# )# ") 66) ? ?( 44444$ 444444+#4 4, K K >02

PAGE 282

46 +<22L, !#)#-) 8) 5%&8+%!-( 2+:,$<-> +<20>$">, #4# #@-)( < +<22=$<>, 4 !&7( 8: +<22=$#><, @"( !&7( >8 +<220, ##"% %( LL0+LL>, +<22L, !#)#-) 8) 5%&8+%!-( 2+:,$<-> +>888$"<:, 4!&7( <0 $@ +<2:<, 0)%($"*)#*%+# "$$) 4#B)"4#. $ $/$ $Z$' +<22:, 7&%$& 6B.# )*$ +<220, B$-(&&+-A!)$#B$ %D(B")%. ##$' +<22<, 4"$$B#H ) 8%"# &(CNNC?CD9( <8=-<7< $ +<2L=, 8&%8)** @4"$DBH #'( $/ +<22>, #MK#H ) Z /#+ ,$ -&&2A#$ &2$ %".($4B#. )*$6 +>888$>:, $(4 / #@-)( <2 >L8

PAGE 283

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

PAGE 284

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

PAGE 285

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

PAGE 286

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

PAGE 287

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

PAGE 288

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

PAGE 289

"$G +<2;=, &*A8$*))%* 4#B-/. $G +<22:, .J##) #B'##/ / + ,$ H%$ *& + >7<, '($KB#. 4 $ +<22=$C <<$<22=, ###) $(F<( 0= $ $Z$ +<22<, '#"(B"$ ? ? .%Z. G C##+ ,$ # %)&2 + >7>->07, 4#B)" 4#. @$@ C +<22;, A81+fT 4H )" )B BQQ%%%> Q#QL0=Q S:Q<>Q22T @*$4 +<2L7, *%% %D(B''( @''4 +<22;, 0A +1*A $@'' 4$ @$C +<2L8, """ $ "#(?9( :<<-:>0 @$ +<2LL, ) ""#( 0>:-0:< @$ $Z$/ +<2;0, )#* #%4$ GB.-/ @$ $Z?$A +<22L, )CJ(+ ,$ %% %$* + <=0-<;:, 6B#. @$C $'$G $$ $Z"$/ +<228, /))% #A$)) += .$B?.#4" @$4 $Z/#$ +<22;, #*#*&"F )" $8+%$&( >>+=,$:8<+:><, @$ $Z$ +<2;;, &$#)-&A&& "* +> '$4B'4-46 >LL <

PAGE 290

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

PAGE 291

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

PAGE 292

/$ -$Z$C +<222, 4##B"4 #% 6% %$&( 7;+<,$<-<7 /#$C +<22;, ##"(#B?% M 7 (FC( <=<-8$>7$ >L$78R">$<22= ?#B @).# /-'$G +<22:, ,-&$%+%+ %'%($GBH #)". /$A ? +<222, ,++&&A&%*&"* ?#$C4B@#%)". /$G C +<22<, %%#A%&&$8) %D(B''( /$G / +<22;, &$%$&8)*%+ ?#$ C4B6"4# #$C +<220, 7"$*#A***8) 6H $B)"(. #$ +<220, )"#%)A %)$)*"*%$( ST )"A* )BBQQ%%% -(* QQK%Q#QH Q(7 S:Q<:Q<22;, +<220, ,++.@%. ?#$C4B )$@ +<22;, .@$)R#H ))# /$ @ ($Z4 ?!+ ,$ &%*A'&(++&($*)-&!& + >;2-78<, 4$GB4/.$ G$' +<2;:, $*#*A8(*($ %% '$4B?%.#4" >;8

PAGE 293

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

PAGE 294

A#$G ? +<2;:, 8&$("($*%+* '$B6$ '%4" A#$G ? +<22=, 8&$("($*%+* +> %D($ DB/44#. A$G +<220, )""B" E%6% *( ;>+7,$7<7-7<: A#$' $Z"$ G +<2;0, 7&8) 4#$6B/. A$ +<22L, 4%+M,B## / ? + ,$ %%#8)*A"#**%) + >=2->;8, %D(B@" A($ $Z$ 6 +<22L, 4)M)4 8)7*(")+)+ <22L+7=,$:L-=7 A*$ @ +<227, 0#)(*+)&AB)$)$* 2+"(C<-7:>, %D(B# 6%$/ C +<2:<, )%&*%+* $?B@#' .#4" 6%$/ C +<2=<, C 6Z/ C 6% + ,$ *A + 7-<=, $4B)". 6$ $ZA($C +<2;L, &2A *$) $?B)"?. 6)$G $Z6)$6 +<2L:, *%J"% 3%*&)(CN;>

PAGE 295

6$G +>888, ? 'Z@ @(+ ,$ E%" ()&($%$ + >8L->>0, 6B#.H 6$C $Z6%$/ C +<2=<, %D(BH ) 6)$4 / +<2;=, ?"B$)$# '()% 7%+8$)"# +G"Q"<2;=,$ >==->=; 6$4 $Z"$6 / +<228, +-%88)1* C$4BC()". 6$C +<22<, H1*A8$%** '$4B?)%. 6$ +<2;8, 3-&"A0)&)%)"&2 .$.B)". 6%$ G +<202, $+) %D(B? ? Z4"$ $C G +<2L=, #""" #+ ,$ 7 %$$ + :2-=0, 6!#$B6!#$ J$@ +<2;2, '"$(&%)($*%** %/)$ 4BD)". $ +<22:, B$$&) %/)BD)" $4 $Z$@ +<22=, &&4%" +> H ($4B#. $ / +<2==, 6B/)"6" $ +<227, 4*#" / #Z + ,$ 7%+*$) + <<2-<7=, ?#$C4B'(# "$ +<2;:, 7&)#$A&8) % D(B.#'( $C +>888$>8, #%"#! "7( >= >;7

PAGE 296

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

PAGE 297

$ / +<22=, &*%+"%A &)&)&") 4H #$B/))". "$ $ZA"($G +<22;, *$#-A # +> %D(B@" $ 4 +<22:, %"#) 7 *"&% %$( >>+?,$70<-7;8 "$C +<202, /1)%)+)%$$&A))% #*" %D(B. "$C +<2L7, *&%$)A18$) $0)87 %D(BK#'( $@ +<22:, .!" # C Z ? 4+ ,$ **+) $ + < $, %D(B44 4 #$ +<2;>, %$"&$)&&% A%$ )"4#$ 4# $ $ 5 "$ +<2;0, -&)A%$ )%D(B. $4 +<22L, !#-"A8*8)# %D(B!)". #$G $Z$ +<220, 8)%%*%)$# +> ?H $4B.# )($ +<2;2, 0*$))&$ 6$CB'( 1)$ $Z$@ +<222, )$*%+$) +7 %D(B6# $ G +<22=, **$8) '#$B )". ("$ +<22>, &$8))* ?#$C4B#" .# >;=

PAGE 298

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

PAGE 299

.$6 +<22=$<<, @.)% B 8 $( << ."$ ? +<2;:, 7"8)A** %/)$4BD)". .%$? ? $ZC##$. G + +<22<, #%)&2 4#B)"4#. .$G 6 $Z?)("$ + +<2;:, )*) +7 '("B )"4. 5#$G +<22:, #A#)%$)$!7" %D(B!)". $ +<222, #) *$H% E%(Q$ =:=-==0, )#$CBH ?( !($ +<22:, !#)!"#B #" 7 ( >L+>L,$<<2-<:> $ K +<22=$<8, C*4/ #( 77 $C $Z4$ ? + +<22:, **+)$A &*&$ 6%$AB)".A $ +<22:, "* C$4BC()". #$ +<2;<, ))%#-A#$#*$& % D(B. #$ +<22;$G"-#, #B4#H #)-# ;%( >2-78 $ @ +>888, .)1)M.)*H ""#( L:+>,$>;<-78= $. +<2;0, -%-"B "##" 6%7%+7(O( ><-:; >;L

PAGE 300

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

PAGE 301

$ C $Z"$ 4 +<20=, #" #* !-(C?F +G"<20=,,$7-<: #$ +<22=$<=, %%(# 8&)( ($ +>88<$">0-:, % !& 7!-'$( >> $C 6 + +<2L>, *$ +K <=$<0Z , 7&$$)A*&* B$ 4#$B'(. ($ +<220, %% "#8)( >:+:,$0:L0=< $4 $Z.#$G + +<22L, ;%#$A &)*"**" 6$CB%Z6.H $ $ +<200, -#"" $! +L,$7;>7;L $ +<227, %#B4* / #Z + ,$ 7%+*$) + <2;>><, ?#$C4B'(# $ $Z#$/ +>888, "H "$)* $ $Z6("$ +<227, *A#& & 4#$B/))". ($' +<22<, *++&&%$ BG"-'. $ +<227, 4"B1 +(8*CNNF( 0>-0; $G +<222, 6%B"#$#$H 8)7 "#(NF?Q9( 707b '4) +<207, #" )$ $ +>88<$>0, 3%!-( <8:$<80 >;2

PAGE 302

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

PAGE 303

$? +<222, 0)*##A8#8) +0 %D(B. $G +<22=, 4. @ )$ K /#($Z @+ ,$ $))%)$)A 7&$"%%& + >02->2>, H $4BG"-'. $C +<2=<, &")*A7$*%+* %D(B A @)# +<22=, 11)*&2A) $*&2 +#)@Q@@C-2=-;:', ?#$C4B @# @)# +<22;, 7"2AE%$ $)-%$#$&*"2* +#)H @Q@@C-2;-;L, ?#$C4B @# 44' +<2;0, ');% ?H #$C4B44' 4# +<2;2, 4%#!H B#4 4 + ?H #B @).# K$ +<220$<8, #$ %( < K$ $*$A 6 $Z'"$/ +<22=, H$4%A"%) 8)* 4#$B/))". K +<222, 7%+*AH%8)7%+7( SH K )BBQQ%%% ) #QQ"QQ^# S<222$7$ <222, ?$ +<22;, %#B!F". #<228% 6%8) %$( 7>+>,$>87-><; ?($G +<22=$, FFBJ !&7 ?$G +<220$-, # ;%(Q( L-; ?$ +<222, K)# &#( >+7,$L+>7, >2<

PAGE 304

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

PAGE 305

?$ 6 +<22L, B@H 8)3" (?9( =2=+=<<, ?%$ +<2;;, %%&8)&A $!$ %'%($GB.)". D$C +<22L, *B*H # 6% %$&( 70+<,$<82-<>> D"$G +<220$78, )#% 8%( 80 D$ G +<22:, %$A&$)$ ($4B# 9($6 @ +<2;<, #* '+ ,$ 7* "&2&A$ @%$4BG. >27