6: Faith and Community
Faith-Based and Community Initiative Other Information:
THE PROBLEM • Despite a multitude of programs and renewed commitments from federal and state governments to battle social
distress, too many of our neighbors still suffer poverty and despair amidst our abundance. • Traditional social programs are
often too bureaucratic, inflexible, and impersonal to meet the acute and complex needs of the poor. • The federal government
too often ignores or impedes the efforts of faith-based and community groups to address social problems by imposing an unnecessarily
and improperly restrictive view of their appropriate role. In some programs, year after year the same providers get the bulk
of the funds, even though there is little or no evidence of results. • Despite heartening exceptions, officials seem generally
to doubt the full legitimacy of explicitly faith-based groups as partners, whether or not statutes or regulations include
restrictive language. In some cases, organizations that officials deem "too religious" are not even permitted to apply for
funding. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has categorized some faith-based organizations as "primarily
religious" thereby excluding them from receiving Community Block Grant Development Funds, even when the services provided
by such organizations meet program requirements for providing social services. In other cases, restrictions are placed on
religious expression that go beyond what the Constitution requires. Although religious organizations have a Title VII exemption
that allows them to take religion into account in their employment policies, the Department of Justice requires all providers
to agree not to discriminate on a religious basis in hiring—even when the pertinent statutes make no such requirement. • Community-based
organizations and all newcomers to federal funding have great difficulty understanding the federal grants system and how federal
funds are often distributed through state and local agencies. The Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Grant Program application
kit for new applicants is 74 pages and it references some 1,300 pages of federal statutes. • Agencies often create requirements
that go well beyond what the law defines. Even though statutes often require providers only to incorporate as a nonprofit
group, agencies often require them to gain 501(c)(3) status, which can be expensive and time-consuming. Some programs require
applicants to demonstrate past receipt of government funds or to gain the cooperation or approval of public entities that
are likely to see them as competitors. For example, the Department of Labor’s Susan Harwood Training Grant Program requires
applicants to prove past receipt of government funding or a firm commitment from an organization that has managed government
funds in the past. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requires applicants for the National Caregivers Support
Program to gain the support of the local area Agency on Aging, which is competing for the same pot of funds. • Charitable
Choice legislation, first enacted into law as part of the 1996 federal welfare reform law, provides explicitly that community-serving
faith-based organizations may seek direct or indirect federal support for the provision of certain social services on the
same basis as any other non-governmental providers without having to strip themselves of every vestige of faith. Nearly five
years after enactment, however, Charitable Choice has not been well or fully implemented, as evidenced by the fact that in
most States no new faith-based organizations have become service providers with access to federal funds. In addition, HHS
has not given any guidance or encouragement to State and local authorities to comply with Charitable Choice as adopted in
1998 to cover the Community Services Block Grant. As little as seven percent of urban faith-based organization leaders know
about Charitable Choice. THE INITIATIVE The Faith-Based and Community Initiative will identify and remove the inexcusable
barriers that thwart the work of faith-based and community organizations. Legislatively, it builds upon existing Charitable
Choice legislation, which safeguards both the religious character of providers and the religious liberty of beneficiaries.
It does so while simultaneously affirming that no public grants or contracts shall be expended for "sectarian worship, instruction
or proselytization." The President initiated action on the Faith-Based and Community Initiative by issuing two executive orders
on January 29, 2001 creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiative and parallel offices at five key
Departments: Health and Human Services, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Education. The White House Office
for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has the lead in promoting a policy of respect for, and cooperation with, religious
and grassroots organizations. It will establish policies, priorities and objectives for the federal government’s comprehensive
efforts to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and community organizations. The White House
office will work to increase the capacity of faith-based and community groups to effectively deliver federally-funded social
services through executive action, legislation, federal, and private funding and regulatory relief. THE EXPECTED RESULTS •
Greater participation by faith-based and community groups in delivering social services because of regulatory and statutory
reform, streamlined contracting procedures, and improved coordination and outreach activities to disseminate information more
effectively at the grassroots level to faith-based and community organizations. • Improved participant outcomes by placing
a greater emphasis on accountability and by making federal assistance better tailored to local needs through the use of faith-based
and community groups. Devolution of services should not stop at state and local governments, but should move to support neighborhood-based
caregivers, where appropriate. THE NEAR–TERM RESULTS Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives established in key
Cabinet agencies have conducted a comprehensive review that will result in the removal of unnecessary and counterproductive
regulatory or administrative barriers to full participation by faith-based and secular grassroots organizations. This will
ensure that: • Community-serving faith-based leaders, who decide in good faith to attempt to collaborate with government for
the purposes of administering social service delivery programs, will be treated fairly. • The religious character of these
institutions will not be treated as a stigma. The institutions will not be made to remove all religious symbols before so
much as getting a fair chance to demonstrate how they might qualify to administer programs in partnership with government
and achieve measurable civic results. • Existing Charitable Choice laws are fully implemented. Survey data show that once
faith-based organizations learn about Charitable Choice, 60 percent express an interest in entering into public-private partnerships
to deliver social services. • Community-based organizations, which are deeply rooted and often have strong ties with people
in need, will be utilized more extensively to provide federally-funded services, as their administrative and service capacity
is expanded and unneeded federal requirements are relaxed. • The ongoing process of streamlining the federal grants process
will take into account the specific concerns and needs of grassroots groups and faith-based organizations.
Objective(s):
|
