This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-616
entitled 'Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in
Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance
Accountability' which was released on July 18, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2006:
Faith-Based And Community Initiative:
Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could
Enhance Accountability:
Faith-Based and Community Initiative:
GAO-06-616:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-616 a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Administration’s efforts to improve the federal government’s
provision of social services through its Faith-Based and Community
Initiative have sparked considerable interest. GAO was asked to examine
(1) the activities of the initiative-related centers in five federal
agencies; (2) the grant award procedures for selected grants; (3) the
extent to which selected federal and state agencies are providing
information on and ensuring compliance with safeguards designed to
protect faith-based organizations (FBO), beneficiaries, and the
government; and (4) how the progress of the initiative is being
measured. We interviewed government officials administering 10 grant
programs and officials from 26 FBOs.
What GAO Found:
In 2001 the Administration introduced the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative and established initiative-related centers in five federal
agencies. The centers employ a range of activities and resources to
implement the initiative. Since fiscal year 2002, these centers have
cumulatively spent more than $24 million on administrative activities.
In reviewing grant applications and awarding grants, federal and state
agencies reported using the same process for FBOs as they do for other
organizations in the 10 grant programs we reviewed. Since 2001, federal
agencies have awarded over $500 million through new grant programs to
provide training and technical assistance to faith-based and community
organizations and to increase the participation of these organizations
in providing federally funded social services.
The government agencies administering the programs that we reviewed
provided grantees with some information on the safeguards designed to
protect the interests of FBOs, beneficiaries, and the government. Most
of the agencies provided grantees with an explicit statement on the
safeguard prohibiting the use of direct federal funds for inherently
religious activities. If these activities are offered, they must be
offered separately in time or location from services provided with
direct federal funds and must be voluntary for the beneficiary.
However, we found that Justice’s regulation and guidance related to
these activities is unclear for its correctional programs. We also
found that only four programs provided a statement on the rights of
program beneficiaries and only three provided information on
permissible hiring by FBOs. While officials in all 26 FBOs that we
visited said that they understood that federal funds cannot be used for
inherently religious activities, a few FBOs described activities that
appeared to violate this safeguard. Four of the 13 FBOs that provided
voluntary religious activities did not separate in time or location
some religious activities from federally funded program services.
Government agencies are not required to monitor FBO grantees
differently than secular organizations. Few of the federal and state
agencies administering these programs included references in their
monitoring guidelines on grantee compliance with the safeguards.
OMB and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
assess agencies’ progress in implementing the short-term goals of the
initiative and highlight this progress through a number of published
vehicles. However, it is unclear whether the data reported on grants
awarded to FBOs provide policymakers with a sound basis to assess the
progress of agencies in meeting the initiative’s long-term goal of
greater participation of faith-based and community organizations.
Moreover, little information is available to assess progress toward
another long-term goal of improving participant outcomes because
outcome-based evaluations for many pilot programs have not begun. Also,
OMB faces other challenges in measuring and reporting on agencies’
progress in meeting the long-term goals of the initiative.
What GAO Recommends:
We recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) ensure that all agencies with initiative-related centers include
information on the safeguards in grant documents and in monitoring
guidelines, improve data on grants awarded to FBOs, and develop a plan
for reporting on progress toward the initiative’s long-term goals. OMB
generally agreed but expressed some concerns about the practicality of
implementing a few of the recommendations. We also recommend that the
Department of Justice clarify its regulations on allowed activities and
clarify relevant language in its contracts, and Justice generally
agreed.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-616].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Andrew Sherrill at (202)
512-7252 or ASherrill@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Centers Employ Different Activities and Resources to Implement the
Initiative:
Agencies Use Same Grant Award Procedures for Faith-Based as Other
Organizations, and Some New Grant Programs Established to Encourage
More Faith-Based and Community Organization Participation:
Government Agencies Generally Provide Grantees with Information on
Safeguards, but Most Do Not Have Procedures in Their Monitoring
Guidelines for Assessing Compliance:
OMB and WHOFBCI Assess Agencies' Progress in Implementing Initiative,
but Data Limitations and a Lack of Information May Hinder Ability to
Measure Progress toward Achieving Initiative's Long-Term Goals:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Centers' Estimated Expenditures by Category, Fiscal Year
2005:
Appendix II: Selected Characteristics of Faith-Based Organizations GAO
Visited:
Appendix III: Best Practices for the Initiative's Standards for
Success:
Best Practices for Outreach and Technical Assistance:
Best Practices for Implementation of Equal Treatment Regulations:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice:
GAO Comments:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Executive Orders Related to the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative:
Table 2: Equal Treatment Safeguards and the Key Parties They Are
Designed to Protect:
Table 3: Selected Federal Programs Providing Funding to Various
Organizations, Including Faith-Based Organizations:
Table 4: New Grant Programs Intended to Encourage Faith-Based and
Community Organization Participation in Federally Funded Social
Efforts:
Table 5: Extent to Which Safeguards Are Included in Program Grant
Documents:
Table 6: OMB's Green and Yellow Standards for Success for Executive
Agencies with Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative:
Table 7: Most Required Outcome Evaluations Not Completed, and Some
Design Plans May Not Support an Evaluation of Program Outcomes:
Figure:
Figure 1: Estimated Expenditures of Centers for Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005:
Abbreviations:
FBCI: Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
FBO: faith-based organization:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PMA: President's Management Agenda:
WHOFBCI White House Office of Faith- Based and Community Initiatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 19, 2006:
The Honorable George Miller:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Pete Stark:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Health Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
Each year the federal government provides billions of dollars to
organizations that provide social services to needy families and
individuals. In large part, these funds are provided through
competitive grants and contracts either directly to organizations or
through formula grants passed through state agencies to local
organizations. Organizations providing these services have
traditionally included both secular and faith-based organizations
(FBO), which include churches and religiously affiliated entities. In
the past, as a condition of receiving public funds, FBOs were required
to secularize their services and premises so that their social service
activities were distinctly separate from their religious
activities.[Footnote 1] More recently, courts have become less
concerned with the religious nature of the organization, and in 1996
Congress enacted "charitable choice" provisions which authorized
religious organizations[Footnote 2] to compete on the same basis as
other organizations for federal funding under certain programs without
having to alter their religious character.[Footnote 3]
In 2001, the President created the White House Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI) to establish policies, priorities,
and objectives to further expand the work of faith-based and community
organizations. In that same year, the President, by executive order,
created centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI) in
five federal agencies that administer a broad range of social service
programs.[Footnote 4] Then, through a series of executive orders, the
President incorporated charitable choice principles in social service
programs administered by federal agencies, created initiative-related
centers in six additional federal agencies,[Footnote 5] and established
fundamental principles for FBOs receiving federal funds. Modeled after
the charitable choice legislation, these principles included safeguards
designed to protect the interests of FBOs, beneficiaries receiving
social services, and government agencies providing federal funds. For
example, FBOs are allowed to retain religious icons and symbols in the
facilities where they provide services and generally are not prohibited
by federal law from making employment decisions based on religious
grounds, even after receiving federal funds. However, they are not
permitted to provide "inherently religious" activities such as prayer
or worship with direct federal funds or discriminate against
beneficiaries on the basis of religion.
The Administration's efforts to expand opportunities for these
organizations and to strengthen their capacity to provide social
services through its initiative has sparked considerable interest both
among various parties involved in providing social services and among
researchers, religious leaders, and other groups. Some have lauded
efforts to encourage more FBOs to seek federal funds, maintaining that
these organizations are more in tune with the needs of their
communities than other organizations and can better serve individuals
that may need a range of social services. Others have expressed
concerns about the potential for federal funds to be used for religious
purposes and the extent to which organizations are monitored to ensure
the appropriate use of federal funds. Government agencies primarily
monitor grantees by reviewing grantee documents, conducting site
visits, and conducting single audits. The Single Audit Act requires
state and local governments and nonprofit organizations that expend
$500,000 or more in federal awards in a fiscal year to have a single
audit, which is an audit of the federal grantee's financial statements
and compliance with laws and regulations governing federal awards.
While government agencies are responsible for ensuring that grantees
comply with grant requirements, little is known about how these
agencies are working with FBOs to ensure that these organizations
understand and comply with the safeguards.
In addition, a sound performance and reporting system for the
initiative is important in light of claims by some interested parties
that the initiative has increased participation by faith-based and
community organizations in providing federally funded social services.
It is also important as Congress is likely to continue to discuss
efforts to formalize--by establishing in statute--the WHOFBCI and the
work activities within the federal centers for the faith-based and
community initiative. An informed debate about these issues is helped
by the availability of credible performance information focusing on the
outcomes achieved with budgetary resources and other tools.[Footnote 6]
To shed light on how centers and federal agencies are carrying out the
initiative and how the government is assessing the initiative's
performance, you asked us to explore the work of the centers and
agencies in implementing the initiative, including the extent to which
government entities are providing guidance to, and oversight of, faith-
based grantees.
Specifically, you asked:
1. How do the activities and resources of the initiative-related
centers in five federal agencies compare?
2. What are the grant award procedures for selected project and formula
grants, and are they the same for all grant applicants, including FBOs?
3. To what extent are selected federal and state agencies providing
information on and ensuring compliance with the safeguards designed to
protect the interests of FBOs, beneficiaries, and the government?
4. How is the federal government measuring the progress of the
initiative?
To understand how the centers administer the initiative, we interviewed
center officials in the five agencies that were the first to establish
centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. These are the
Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS),
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Justice, and Labor. We analyzed
data on their expenditures and work activities and, to assess the
reliability of the data for expenditures, we conducted semistructured
interviews with agency officials about data quality control procedures
and reviewed relevant documentation. We determined the data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Our review
focused on 10 programs, including at least 1 program from each of these
five agencies. To obtain information on how these agencies award and
monitor grants to FBOs, we interviewed program officials administering
six federal project grants (competitive project grants awarded by a
federal agency directly to a local organization), and one competitive
procurement program. We chose programs that awarded grants to numerous
FBOs and that provided a range of social services, including mentoring
of children, housing for the homeless, and business development grants
to refugees.[Footnote 7] We also met with federal program officials
responsible for overseeing three formula grant programs (program grants
that are passed through state agencies to local organizations) that
attract or are likely to attract significant FBO
participation.[Footnote 8] For the 10 programs included in our review,
we also analyzed pertinent documents provided to grantees and
prospective grantees, such as grant applications, contracts, and award
letters. Our findings pertain to the 10 programs included in our review
and are not generalizable to all programs administered by these five
agencies. To understand how the federal government measures the
progress of the initiative, we spoke with officials from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and analyzed pertinent documents.
To obtain more specific information on how the three formula grants are
awarded by the states to local organizations and how their grantees are
monitored for compliance with the safeguards, we visited four states--
California, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas--and interviewed numerous state
officials. We also interviewed county officials in California and Ohio
and several federal regional and field office program staff. We chose
these states because they each received significant funding from
federal direct programs in 2003 or 2004 and because FBOs in these
states received funds from at least 3 or more of our selected programs.
In addition, we considered geographic dispersion and diversity in terms
of whether the state established an initiative-related center.[Footnote
9]
We also conducted semistructured interviews with 26 selected FBOs in
these four states to determine their understanding of program
regulations and the extent to which they have been monitored for
compliance with the key safeguards related to the initiative. We
selected FBOs that had received federal project and formula grants in
2003 or 2004 from the 10 programs included in our review. Finally, we
interviewed independent auditors in three states who had completed
single audits for a few of our selected FBOs. Because we used a
nonprobability sample of FBOs, our findings are not generalizable to
all FBOs receiving federal funds from the programs included in our
review. Our work was conducted from March 2005 through June 2006
according to generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The five centers for faith-based and community initiatives that we
reviewed employ a range of activities and resources to implement the
initiative, in part based on what activities center officials
determined was necessary to fulfill their responsibilities for the
initiative and differences in center staffing levels and administrative
costs. One of the centers' first tasks was to identify and eliminate
barriers to the participation of faith-based and community
organizations in federally funded services. The centers' ongoing
efforts include collecting data on FBOs' participation in federal grant
programs, developing pilot programs, and providing outreach and
technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations. The
centers adopted different approaches to technical assistance training
activities based on what they needed to do to support the initiative.
In general, HUD's and Education's centers help organizations learn how
to apply for funds, while Labor's center helps grantees learn how to
manage grants. Justice's and HHS's centers coordinate with program
offices that provide training to these organizations. The next phase of
the centers' work will focus on encouraging partnerships between faith-
based and community organizations and state and local governments.
Since fiscal year 2002, the five centers estimated that they had
cumulatively expended more than $24 million on administrative
activities, but these estimates generally did not include additional
funding that agency program offices provided to assist in the
initiative's implementation, such as administrative costs associated
with program offices' efforts to assist faith-based and community
organizations. In fiscal year 2005, four of the centers spent the
largest proportion of their funding on staff salaries and benefits--
ranging from 35 percent to 87 percent--followed by other expenditures
for such administrative costs as rent, contracts, and travel. Factors
such as the number of staff and differences in administrative costs
such as rent and travel account for, in part, the differences in
resources across centers.
Federal and state officials told us they do not treat FBOs any
differently than other organizations during the grant award process in
the 10 federal programs we examined. Some new programs have been
established since the beginning of the initiative to provide training
and technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations and
increase faith-based and community organization participation in
delivering federally funded services. In the programs we reviewed,
agencies used standard criteria and independent reviewers to evaluate
applications for funding, and reviewers do not necessarily know whether
an applicant is faith-based because organizations are generally not
required to identify themselves as FBOs. Funding decisions were
generally based on applicants' scores that were awarded for various
criteria, such as the quality of the project plan. While the process to
award funds is the same for faith-based as for other organizations,
between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, federal agencies have awarded over
$500 million through new competitive grant programs that are intended
to encourage greater participation of faith-based and community
organizations in providing these social services. Some of these
programs, such as Labor's Prisoner Reentry Initiative, limit
eligibility to these organizations, while others, such as HHS's
Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration Program, fund intermediary
organizations that provide capacity-building assistance to faith-based
and community organizations.
The government agencies administering the programs that we reviewed
provided grantees with some information on the safeguards designed to
protect FBOs, their clients, and the government, but few agencies
included in their monitoring guidelines checks for grantee compliance
with the safeguards related to nonallowable activities and
nondiscrimination against beneficiaries. Specifically, 7 of the 10
federal programs that we reviewed provided a statement to grantees
regarding the prohibition on the use of direct federal funds for
inherently religious activities. Officials at Justice told us that they
believe FBOs in the Community Corrections Contracting program are
exempt from the prohibition on providing inherently religious
activities because of an exception specified in the agency's
regulations. However, we believe that the scope of this exception is
left unclear and thus could create uncertainty for FBO program staff
about allowable religious activities using federal funds. Regarding the
safeguards on nondiscrimination against beneficiaries and permissible
hiring by FBOs, only 4 provided a statement on nondiscrimination and
only 3 provided information on permissible hiring by FBOs based on
religion. While officials in all 26 FBOs that we visited told us that
they understood that federal funds could not be used for inherently
religious activities, 4 of the 13 FBOs that offered voluntary religious
activities--such as prayer or worship--did not appear to understand the
requirement to separate these activities in time or location from their
program services funded with federal funds. For example, one FBO
official told us that she discusses religious issues while providing
federally funded services if requested by a participant and no other
participants object, and a few told us that they pray with
beneficiaries during program time if requested by the beneficiary.
Government agencies are not required to monitor FBO grantees
differently than secular organizations. Only 2 of the 7 federal
agencies providing project and procurement grants, and 5 of the 13
state agencies administering formula grants included references in
their monitoring guidelines on grantee compliance with these
safeguards. Agencies' single audit reviews, which can be used as an
effective tool to monitor organizations, only apply to those
organizations expending $500,000 or more in federal funding in a given
year, and generally do not include specific checks for these
safeguards.
OMB and WHOFBCI assess agencies' progress in implementing the short-
term goals of the initiative, but data limitations--such as the
difficulty in identifying an FBO--and a lack of publicly available
information hinder the federal government's efforts to measure
agencies' progress in achieving the initiative's two long-term goals.
OMB and WHOFBCI assess agencies' implementation of the initiative and
grade agencies' efforts to carry out activities in accordance with the
Standards for Success that outline the centers' responsibilities, such
as collecting accurate data on the participation of faith-based and
community organizations and conducting outcome evaluations of all pilot
programs. OMB and WHOFBCI award a green grade to agencies that meet all
of the initiative's standards for success. In the first quarter of
fiscal year 2006, three of the five centers we reviewed received green
status. OMB established two long-term goals for the initiative--greater
participation by faith-based and community organizations and improved
participant outcomes--but data limitations may hinder efforts to assess
the initiative's progress in achieving these goals. Importantly, there
are no criteria for what constitutes a faith-based organization that
all agencies must use to identify FBOs, and FBOs are not required to
self-identify, leaving individual agencies and states to determine
which organizations are faith-based. Determining what elements
constitute an FBO is challenging. Although no method can ensure that
all data collected are accurate, having consistently applied criteria
or requiring self-identification would provide greater assurance that
agencies are collecting accurate data than the current method.
Moreover, while the WHOFBCI has published data on trends of FBO
participation in providing federally funded social services, it has not
reported on the participation of community-based organizations--the
other group of organizations specified in the long-term goal.
Consequently, it is unclear whether the reported data by the WHOFBCI
provides policymakers with a sound basis to assess the progress of
agencies in meeting the initiative's long-term goal of greater
participation of faith-based and community organizations. Progress in
achieving the initiative's long-term goal of improved participant
outcomes is not yet known because most agencies have not completed the
OMB-required outcome-based evaluations of their pilot programs. Of the
15 pilot programs under way, 1 outcome-based evaluation has been
completed, 6 evaluations are under way, and 6 are planned. Outcome-
based evaluations are not planned for 2 of the pilot programs. Outcome-
based evaluations may involve several years of data collection before
the analysis can take place and several of these pilot programs were
initiated only a few years ago. OMB also faces other challenges in
measuring and reporting on how agencies are progressing toward
accomplishing the initiative's two long-term goals.
To improve grantee understanding and federal agency oversight of the
equal treatment regulations for programs in which faith-based
organizations are eligible for federal funding, we recommend that the
Director of OMB ensure that all agencies with initiative-related
centers include information on the equal treatment safeguards in their
grant documents and direct agencies to include a reference to these
safeguards in their monitoring tools. To ensure that contractors for
Justice's correctional programs understand the exception to the
prohibition on using federal funds for inherently religious activities,
we recommend that the Attorney General clarify the exception in
Justice's equal treatment regulations and include a clear explanation
of the exception and its scope in the contracts for its correctional
programs. To improve accountability of the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with agencies to
improve how federal agencies identify which organizations are faith-
based and develop a plan for measuring and reporting on agency progress
in achieving the long-term goals of the initiative.
We received comments from Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, Labor and OMB
on a draft of this report. OMB officials stated that they generally
agreed with the report's recommendations, although they had comments
pertaining to several of the recommendations. With regard to our
recommendation that program-specific single audit supplements include a
reference to the equal treatment safeguards, OMB stated that for some
programs that already have extensive audit requirements, expanding the
program-specific audit requirements could pose additional burdens to
the independent auditors conducting those reviews. In response, we
modified the recommendation to indicate that it might not be
appropriate to include a reference to the equal treatment safeguards in
some program-specific audit supplements. OMB officials raised issues
with our recommendation pertaining to getting better data, saying that
while they agreed that obtaining better data would be helpful, there
are obstacles to obtaining better data and that they are uncertain
about the extent to which the data could be further improved. While we
acknowledge the challenges in obtaining data, various agency centers or
program offices are currently applying criteria--whether explicitly or
implicitly--that determine whether they categorize an organization as
an FBO, and we believe that greater consistency in their use of
criteria could improve the data. With regard to our recommendation that
OMB develop a plan to measure and report out on long-term goals, OMB
said it was reasonable for OMB to report out on the results of
agencies' outcome evaluations of pilot programs but that the White
House was already reporting data on participation of faith-based
organizations. OMB proceeded to acknowledge that there is a lack of
clarity about how the two long-term goals of the initiative are linked
with OMB's Standards for Success and that it may be appropriate to
clarify their connection as part of a reassessment of the long-term
goals. In response, we broadened the wording of our recommendation to
note that it may be appropriate to clarify the connection of the long-
term goals to the Standards for Success. In its comments, Justice
generally agreed with the two recommendations we made to the Attorney
General. Justice, Education, HHS, HUD, and Labor raised various issues
with the report, which we discuss and respond to in the agency comments
section of the report and appendix IV on Justice's comments. Education,
HHS, HUD, Labor and OMB also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.
Background:
Citing the crucial role faith-based and community organizations play in
areas such as curbing crime and overcoming addiction, in 2001 the
President introduced the WHOFBCI with the goal of expanding
opportunities for these organizations and to strengthen their capacity
to provide social services. The President issued executive orders that
created the WHOFBCI, initiative-related centers in several federal
agencies, and rules to ensure that organizations are treated equally in
government programs.
Executive Orders Establish Centers and Responsibilities:
Beginning in January 2001, the President issued several executive
orders to implement the Faith-Based and Community Initiative (see table
1). These executive orders established a WHOFBCI and centers for faith-
based and community initiatives in a number of federal agencies as well
as principles for ensuring equal treatment of faith-based and community
organizations in federal government programs.
Table 1: Executive Orders Related to the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative:
Executive order: Executive Order 13199 January 29, 2001;
Purpose: Created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives;
Description: The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives is given lead responsibility to establish policies,
priorities, and objectives for efforts to expand opportunities for
faith-based and community organizations to provide social and community
services.
Executive order: Executive Order 13198 January 29, 2001;
Purpose: Created Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in
five agencies: Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, and Labor;
Description: To coordinate agency efforts to eliminate obstacles to the
participation of faith-based and community organizations in providing
federally funded social services.
Executive order: Executive Order 13280 December 12, 2002;
Purpose: Created centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in
two additional agencies: Department of Agriculture and Agency for
International Development;
Description: To coordinate agency efforts to eliminate obstacles to the
participation of faith-based and community organizations in providing
federally funded social and community services.
Executive order: Executive Order 13279 December 12, 2002;
Purpose: To provide, among other things, guidance to federal agencies
in formulating policies regarding faith-based and community
organizations and to ensure equal protection under the laws for these
organizations;
Description: Set out criteria on fundamental principles and
policymaking that designated federal agencies can use in establishing
safeguards applicable to FBOs providing services under federal
programs.
Executive order: Executive Order 13342 June 1, 2004;
Purpose: Created centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in
three additional agencies: Departments of Commerce and Veterans Affairs
and the Small Business Administration;
Description: To coordinate agency efforts to eliminate obstacles to the
participation of faith-based and community organizations in providing
federally funded social and community services.
Executive order: Executive Order 13397 March 7, 2006;
Purpose: Created Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in
the Department of Homeland Security;
Description: To coordinate agency efforts to eliminate obstacles to the
participation of faith-based and community organizations in providing
federally funded social and community services.
Source: GAO analysis of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives Information.
[End of table]
These executive orders identify the key responsibilities for each
center:
* an agencywide audit of barriers to participation of faith-based and
community organizations in delivery of social services;
* removal of barriers to these organizations' participation in
providing federally funded social and community services;
* a comprehensive effort to incorporate faith-based and community
organizations in department programs and initiatives;
* development of pilot and demonstration programs to increase these
organizations' participation in federal, state, and local initiatives;
and:
* development and coordination of outreach efforts to disseminate
information more effectively to these organizations.
The executive orders also direct the centers to coordinate their
activities with the WHOFBCI. Centers do not award any federal funds to
faith-based and community organizations. However, they coordinate with
agency program offices that are responsible for awarding federal funds
and monitoring grantees. For example they review program funding
guidance to ensure that the program does not contain barriers to these
organizations' participation and interact with agency program offices
to develop and coordinate department efforts to disseminate information
more effectively to faith-based and community organizations with
respect to programming changes, contracting opportunities, and other
department initiatives.
Equal Treatment Regulations Set Forth Safeguards Applicable to Direct
and Formula Federal Grants:
As noted in table 1, Executive Order 13279 of December 12, 2002,
directed designated federal agencies to establish safeguards for the
participation of faith-based organizations in a broad set of federal
social service programs, including mentoring, housing, and job training
programs. Congress had previously enacted charitable choice provisions
as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program,
Community Services Block Grant program, and the Substance Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Block Grant several years earlier.[Footnote
10]
To implement this executive order, federal agencies with centers for
the faith-based and community initiative subsequently issued "equal
treatment" rules. These rules apply to project grants awarded by the
federal government to faith-based and community organizations, formula
and block grants awarded to states where funds are passed down to these
organizations, and other financial agreements.[Footnote 11] These rules
state that FBOs are eligible to participate in federal programs on the
same basis as other private organizations, and include safeguards to
protect the interests of FBOs, beneficiaries of social services, and
government agencies providing funds (see table 2). For example, FBOs
are not permitted to use direct federal funds for inherently religious
activities such as prayer, religious instruction, worship, or
proselytization. If an FBO conducts such activities, the activities
must be separated by time or location from federally funded services or
programs and must be voluntary for the beneficiary. However, they are
allowed to retain religious art, icons, or symbols in the facilities
where they provide services. In addition, for the programs in our
review, FBOs generally are not prohibited under federal law from making
employment decisions based on religious grounds, even after receiving
federal funds.
Table 2: Equal Treatment Safeguards and the Key Parties They Are
Designed to Protect:
Safeguards: FBOs are eligible to compete for funding on the same basis
as other nonprofit organizations;
Government entities: [Empty];
FBOs: X;
Beneficiaries: [Empty].
Safeguards: FBOs may not use direct government funds[A] to support
inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious
instruction, or proselytization. Any inherently religious activities
must be offered separately in time or location from services directly
funded with government assistance and must be voluntary for
participants;
Government entities: X;
FBOs: [Empty];
Beneficiaries: X.
Safeguards: FBOs retain control over their internal governance and do
not have to remove religious art, icons, and symbols;
Government entities: [Empty];
FBOs: X;
Beneficiaries: [Empty].
Safeguards: FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion or
religious belief in providing services to clients;
Government entities: [Empty];
FBOs: [Empty];
Beneficiaries: X.
Safeguards: FBOs generally retain the ability to make employment
decisions on religious grounds, even after receiving federal funds.[B];
Government entities: [Empty];
FBOs: X;
Beneficiaries: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] This safeguard does not apply to federal funds provided indirectly
to religious organizations. For example, it does not apply to funds
that a provider receives as a result of an independent choice of a
beneficiary, such as programs that provide vouchers to beneficiaries
who then redeem the vouchers for services at a provider of their
choice. Providers may offer voluntary religious activities without
separation of time or location from the social service if beneficiaries
are given a genuine choice between faith-based and secular service
providers as part of indirect funding, such as a voucher program.
[B] There are exceptions to this protection as some programs, such as
Workforce Investment Act programs and Head Start, currently contain
statutory language that prohibits faith-based organizations receiving
funds from making employment decisions on religious grounds. In
addition, FBOs may be subject to state or local laws prohibiting
discrimination in employment based on religion.
[End of table]
Charitable choice provisions enacted by Congress for the TANF and
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment programs contain an additional
safeguard that entitles clients who object to the religious character
of a provider to receive services from an alternative provider to which
the client has no religious objection. However, this safeguard is not
part of the equal treatment rules agencies issued in response to the
President's 2002 executive order and does not apply to other federal
programs.
During the federal rule-making process for the equal treatment
regulations, some interested parties expressed a need for greater
clarity and safeguards in the proposed rules. For example, commenters
stated that it was unclear which activities would be considered
"inherently religious." Agencies declined to clarify which activities
would be considered inherently religious apart from the general
examples provided in the agencies' respective rules, noting the
difficulty in establishing a list of such activities and that the
Supreme Court has not comprehensively defined these
activities.[Footnote 12] Of the agencies we reviewed, most cited the
Supreme Court decision of Mitchell v. Helms as support for the view
that aid provided to religious institutions does not necessarily
advance the institutions' religious purposes and emphasized the secular
nature of the federally funded services.[Footnote 13] The regulations
state that if a grantee engages in religious activities such as prayer,
such activities must be voluntary for the beneficiary and the grantee
must offer them separately in time or location from the programs funded
with direct federal financial assistance.[Footnote 14]
Some commenters on agencies' equal treatment regulations also urged
agencies to adopt additional assurances to prevent funds from being
diverted for improper religious purposes.[Footnote 15] However, in
their final rules, agencies stated they found no basis for requiring
additional assurances or greater oversight and monitoring of FBOs, as
all participants must comply with all rules applicable to federal
grants, including the equal treatment rules. In addition, they stated
that agencies' current monitoring and oversight practices for all
grantees would be sufficient to ensure that federal funds are used for
eligible activities.
Agencies Monitor Grantees Through Various Means, Including Desk Audits,
Site Visits, and the Single Audit:
Federal agencies monitor their grantees for programmatic and financial
compliance. OMB provides general guidance, through Circular A-110, on
the administration by federal agencies of grants to and agreements with
nonprofit organizations.[Footnote 16] OMB guidance also notes that the
awarding agency may make site visits part of its monitoring procedures,
but it does not require site visits or prescribe how many grantees
should be visited or how often.
Nonfederal entities (i.e., state, or local government, or a nonprofit
organization) that expend $500,000 or more annually in federal awards
are required to have a single audit conducted for that year. The Single
Audit Act, as amended, replaced multiple audits of separate grant
awards with one organizationwide audit.[Footnote 17] Federal awarding
agencies are responsible for such tasks as issuing a management
decision on audit findings within 6 months after receiving the audit
report and ensuring that the recipient takes appropriate and timely
corrective action.[Footnote 18] OMB Circular A-133 requires the auditor
to report on compliance, and include an opinion by the auditor as to
whether the entity complied with laws, regulations, and grant
agreements. In addition, federal agencies provide specific audit
guidelines for selected programs that direct the auditor to check for
program-specific compliance requirements. For example, program-
specific compliance requirements include a section on allowable and
unallowable activities that detail what a grantee can and cannot do
with federal funds in a particular program. For those programs that do
not have program-specific guidelines, an auditor is to use the more
general single audit guidance provided by OMB.
Centers Employ Different Activities and Resources to Implement the
Initiative:
The five centers for faith-based and community initiatives that we
reviewed employ a range of activities and resources to implement the
initiative, in part based on what activities center officials believed
was necessary to fulfill their responsibilities for the initiative and
differences in staffing levels and administrative costs. Initially, the
centers' activities focused on identifying and eliminating barriers to
the participation of faith-based and community organizations in
federally funded services. The centers' ongoing efforts include
collecting data on FBOs' participation in agency programs, implementing
pilot programs, and providing outreach and technical assistance to
these organizations. The centers adopted different approaches to
technical assistance training activities. The centers' future work will
focus on encouraging partnerships between faith-based and community
organizations and state and local governments, according to center
officials. The centers estimated that they have cumulatively spent more
than $24 million on administrative activities, although their resource
levels and administrative costs varied depending on the number of staff
members and rent and travel costs.
Centers Have Acted to Remove Barriers to Faith-Based and Community
Organizations, Collect Data, and Tailor their Outreach and Assistance
Efforts to Meet the Agencies' Needs:
Initially, the centers set out to identify and eliminate barriers to
the participation of faith-based and community organizations in
federally funded services. These barriers included regulations, rules,
and outreach activities that either discriminated against or
discouraged the participation of these organizations in federal
programs. To identify barriers, the centers reviewed selected programs
and gathered information on program eligibility and program
regulations, among other things. Each center submitted a report to the
White House with its findings, and in August 2001 the White House
published the results of the centers' efforts.[Footnote 19]
Specifically, the report found that the centers identified barriers
such as programs that excluded FBOs from applying for federal funds,
confusion on the part of agency officials and FBOs about the ability of
FBOs to consider religion in employment decisions, complex grant
applications and agreements, and limited accessibility of federal grant
information. Each center then issued equal treatment rules in
2004.[Footnote 20] These rules were intended to help ensure that faith-
based and community organizations could compete on the same basis as
other organizations for federal funds while retaining their
independence and protecting the rights of beneficiaries of social
services. The adopted rules were largely identical across each agency.
Since 2003 the centers have collected data on, and WHOFBCI has reported
on, funds awarded to FBOs in direct grant programs that allow faith-
based and community organization participation.[Footnote 21] The White
House published the results for all five agencies for fiscal years 2003
through 2005, characterizing the information as a snapshot of federal
grants awarded to FBOs. For the fiscal year 2005 data collection
effort, the centers also obtained these data from state and local
governments administering formula grants. The centers we reviewed each
tracked funding to FBOs for one formula grant program within their
agencies. The White House notes that because the majority of federal
social service dollars are awarded through formula grants, such a
review is critical for understanding the extent of FBO participation.
Center officials noted that they do not have a standard definition to
identify FBOs, leaving each center, some working with program offices,
with the responsibility of identifying FBOs using a combination of
methods. For example, a nonprofit organization that applies for federal
funds may self-identify as a faith-based organization or a community-
based organization as part of a voluntary survey that is included in
grant application packages.[Footnote 22] In cases where an organization
elects not to complete this survey, center officials told us that
program and center staff applied a number of other methods to identify
organizations, including the review of information from grant
applications, information provided by program staff familiar with the
organization, Internet research, or name recognition.
Each center has also assisted in developing pilot programs within its
agency to strengthen the partnership between faith-based and community
organizations and federal agencies. In general, these programs provide
services related to the policy focus of each agency. For example, Labor
has pilot programs to build partnerships between faith-based and
community organizations and the workforce system. Similarly, Education
implemented a program to educate these organizations on how to become
providers of supplemental educational services. Most of Labor's and
HHS's pilot programs, as well as one of HUD's two pilot programs,
represent new grant programs that either award funds directly to faith-
based and community organizations or to intermediary organizations that
help these organizations expand their services. In contrast, HUD's
second pilot program and most of the pilot programs at Education and
Justice do not provide funds directly to faith-based and community
organizations or intermediaries. Education and HUD's programs provide
information and technical assistance to these organizations to help
them access federal funds or provide services, while Justice's pilot
programs promote the participation of faith-based and community
organizations in areas such as juvenile offender mentoring and fraud
prevention.
In addition, the centers provide outreach and technical assistance
activities to enhance the opportunities of faith-based and community
organizations to compete for federal funding. To inform these
organizations about the resources available to them, the centers engage
in similar outreach activities such as posting grant and funding
opportunities on center Web sites and disseminating information to
these organizations via e-mail. However, the centers adopted different
approaches to their technical assistance training activities. In
general, HUD's and Education's centers help organizations learn how to
apply for funds, while Labor's center helps grantees learn how to
manage grants. Justice's and HHS's centers coordinate with program
offices that provide these services. Center officials said their
approaches to technical assistance were based on what they determined
would best meet needs within their agency and fulfill their
responsibilities to enhance opportunities for faith-based and community
organizations. For example, HUD's center--citing the need to educate
faith-based and community organizations on how to access resources to
meet needs in their communities--has conducted a series of free grant-
writing seminars for faith-based and community organizations since
2004. HUD has also designated staff in each of its regional and field
offices to serve as faith-based and community liaisons and to provide
outreach to these organizations. Education's center sponsors technical
assistance workshops for faith-based and community organizations that
provide information on the agency's grant opportunities as well as
information on how organizations can become approved providers of
supplemental educational services.
Labor's center reported that the large size of Labor's grant programs
was an obstacle that prevented small grassroots organizations,
including those that are faith-based, from participating in its
programs. As a result, Labor's center officials said they tailored
their outreach and technical assistance efforts to focus on providing
assistance to smaller organizations to build their capacity to manage
grants and to encourage partnerships between small grassroots
organizations and the workforce system. For example, the Labor center
sponsors technical assistance training for small faith-based and
community organization grantees on how to manage grants and measure
program effectiveness, among other things. In contrast to the centers
at HUD, Education, and Labor, the Justice and HHS centers coordinate
efforts with program offices that provide these services. Among these
services are grant-writing seminars provided through the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in HHS and the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Justice.
Center officials at the Justice and HHS centers told us that they
adopted this approach to take advantage of efficiencies from working
with program offices that provided these services prior to the creation
of the centers.
According to center officials, the next phase of the centers' work will
focus on encouraging the establishment of state and local government
partnerships with faith-based and community organizations, as the
majority of federal social service funds are distributed through
formula grant programs administered at the state and local levels. OMB
has directed each center to help implement an action plan to enhance
the opportunities of faith-based and community organizations competing
for federal funds provided through state and local governments, and to
provide guidance to state and local officials on the equal treatment
rules. The President has also encouraged states to create offices or
liaisons to provide information and resources for faith-based and
community organizations interested in partnering with state and local
governments to provide social services. Thirty-two states have now
established state offices or liaisons for faith-based and community
organizations, according to the White House.
Five Federal Centers Cumulatively Spent $24 Million since Fiscal Year
2002, but Their Funding Sources, Staffing Levels, and Administrative
Costs Varied:
The five centers that we reviewed estimated that they cumulatively
spent more than $24 million on administrative activities related to the
initiative since fiscal year 2002, although the level of resources and
their application varied across the five centers. As shown in figure 1,
centers in HHS, HUD and Labor spent between $1 million and $2.3 million
annually, while centers in Education and Justice spent less than $1
million annually. HHS, HUD and Labor's centers also had more staff in
fiscal year 2005 than Education and Justice. In fiscal year 2005, HHS,
HUD, and Labor had between 7 and 9 staff members, while Education and
Justice had 5.5 and 3 respectively.[Footnote 23] In Labor, Education,
and Justice's centers, the majority of the center staff members were
appointed rather than career staff.
Figure 1: Estimated Expenditures of Centers for Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, and Labor data.
Note: Figures adjusted for inflation. Education's fiscal year 2002
amount covers the period from May 19, 2002, to September 30, 2002.
In fiscal year 2005, salaries and benefits of center staff members
constituted the largest proportion of the funds spent in four of the
centers,[Footnote 24] ranging from 35 percent to 87 percent of their
total expenditures.[Footnote 25] The centers' remaining expenditures
went toward such administrative costs as rent, contractual services,
travel, printing, and supplies. The centers' estimated expenditures,
however, do not include other federal initiative-related expenditures,
such as the administrative costs associated with program offices'
efforts to assist faith-based and community organizations.[Footnote 26]
For example, Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention has allocated $1.87 million since fiscal year 2003 to fund
federal grant application training for community-based, faith-based,
and other nonprofit organizations.
Funding for the centers comes from a variety of sources. Education's
center receives its funding through the Office of the Secretary of
Education and HUD's center receives its funding through HUD's salaries
and expenses account, while Justice's and HHS's centers are funded
through internal agencies such as the Office of Justice Programs in
Justice and the Administration for Children and Families in HHS.
Labor's center receives funds from both its agency's departmental
management account and from program offices. In addition, although not
required to, HHS has included information on funding for its center as
part of its congressional budget requests for several years, while HUD
and Labor have included similar information in past budget requests.
These agencies have in turn received guidance from Congress in the past
on the amount of resources to allocate to their centers. In contrast,
Education and Justice have provided limited or no information on their
centers' funding to Congress as part of their budget requests. In turn,
these agencies have not received guidance from Congress on the amount
of resources to allocate to their centers.
Differences in staffing levels and administrative costs account for, in
part, the differences in centers' total expenditures. Staff
compensation represented the largest category of center spending, and
the centers with the largest number of staff spent the most on
activities to implement the initiative.[Footnote 27] Different
administrative costs also accounted for some of the variation in the
center resources. For example, in fiscal year 2005, HHS spent more on
rent, communications, and utilities than HUD's center, while centers in
Education and Labor did not report any expenses for these
services.[Footnote 28] Centers in HUD and Education spent more in
travel expenses for fiscal year 2005 than the other centers we
reviewed. These higher travel expenses were likely associated with the
training and technical assistance workshops that these centers
conducted across the country for faith-based and community
organizations.
Agencies Use Same Grant Award Procedures for Faith-Based as Other
Organizations, and Some New Grant Programs Established to Encourage
More Faith-Based and Community Organization Participation:
Federal and state officials administering the 10 programs we examined
told us that they do not treat FBOs any differently than other
organizations during the grant award process. They use standard
criteria to assess all applications for grant funds, and grant
reviewers do not necessarily know if applicants are FBOs because an
organization is not generally required to identify itself as an FBO
when applying for funds. While the grant award process was similar for
all organizations in the competitive programs we reviewed, since the
beginning of the initiative, agencies have awarded over $500 million
through new competitive grant programs to provide training and
technical assistance to faith-based and community organizations and to
increase the participation of these organizations in providing
federally funded social services. In its fiscal year 2007 budget
request, the Administration requested increased funding for some of
these programs.
Faith-Based Organizations Compete for Funds on the Same Basis as Other
Organizations:
In the funding programs we examined, federal regulations require
federal and state agencies to use the same processes to evaluate grant
applications from FBOs as they do applications from other
organizations.[Footnote 29] When rating each application, reviewers for
these programs used standard criteria and assigned numerical scores or
other ratings to assess how well an application addressed the
criteria.[Footnote 30] Funding decisions are primarily determined by
these rating scores, although other factors, such as geographical
dispersion, may be taken into account. For example, selection criteria
used to evaluate applications in one program included factors such as
the quality of the project design, quality of project personnel, and
quality of the project evaluation, with points assigned to each
criterion. None of the programs we reviewed awarded points specifically
for faith-based organizations. One of the programs in our review,
Education's Mentoring Program, awarded five points to "novice"
organizations applying for mentoring funds in 2002. Novice
organizations were defined as ones that had never received a grant from
the program before and had not received a discretionary grant from any
federal program for 5 years.[Footnote 31] (See table 3 for a listing of
the programs covered in our review.)
Table 3: Selected Federal Programs Providing Funding to Various
Organizations, Including Faith-Based Organizations:
Program: Mentoring Programs (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
National Programs); Agency: Education; Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To promote mentoring programs for children of
greatest need.
Program: Community-Based Abstinence Education Program[ A];
Agency: HHS;
Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To provide funding to public and private
institutions for community-based abstinence education project grants.
Program: Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program;
Agency: HHS;
Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To award grants to organizations, including
community and faith-based entities, to provide children of incarcerated
parents with mentors.
Program: Microenterprise Development Program (Refugee and Entrant
Assistance Discretionary Grants);
Agency: HHS;
Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To assist refugees in starting or expanding very
small businesses.
Program: Abstinence Education Program; Agency: HHS; Type of funding:
Formula grant program; Purpose of program: To enable states to provide
abstinence education and mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision
to promote abstinence from sexual activity.
Program: Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant;
Agency: HHS;
Type of funding: Formula grant program;
Purpose of program: To provide financial assistance to states and
territories to support projects for the development and implementation
of programs directed at the prevention and treatment of alcohol and
drug abuse.
Program: Continuum of Care (set of three programs: Supportive Housing
Program, Shelter Plus Care, and Single Room Occupancy);
Agency: HUD;
Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To address the problems of homelessness in a
comprehensive manner.
Program: Emergency Shelter Grants Program;
Agency: HUD;
Type of funding: Formula grant program;
Purpose of program: To improve the quality of emergency shelters and
transitional housing for the homeless, to make additional shelters
available, and to provide services to the homeless.
Program: Community Corrections Contracting;
Agency: Justice;
Type of funding: Competitive procurement program;
Purpose of program: To provide assistance to inmates who are near
release and provide a structured, supervised environment and
counseling, job placement, and other services.
Program: Small Grassroots Faith-Based and Community-Based Organizations
Connecting with the One-Stop Delivery System (Small Grassroots
Program);
Agency: Labor;
Type of funding: Project grants;
Purpose of program: To expand the access of faith-based and community-
based organizations' clients and customers to the services offered by
local one-stop centers.
Source: GAO analysis based on agency information.
[A] In 2005, the Community-Based Education Program was moved from HHS's
Health Resources and Services Administration to HHS's Administration
for Children and Families.
[End of table]
Because applicants in most programs we examined are not required to
identify themselves as FBOs, the grant reviewers do not necessarily
know whether an applicant is an FBO.[Footnote 32] A voluntary survey
that may be submitted with the standard federal grant application asks
the applicant, among other things, to self-identify whether it is a
faith-based/religious organization or whether it is a nonreligious
community-based organization. However, federal officials told us that
this survey, if submitted by the applicant, is removed from the
application, and is unavailable to the reviewers. Nonetheless, an
organization's identity might be reflected in its name, or the
organization might disclose its identity in its application, for
example, when describing the history or mission of the organization.
New Programs Established since Initiative to Provide Training and
Technical Assistance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations and
Increase Faith-Based and Community Organization Participation:
In four of the agencies we reviewed, new programs have been created to
provide training and technical assistance to faith-based and community
organizations and to increase the participation of these organizations
in providing federally funded social services. Some of these programs
are the pilot programs established by the centers and program offices
in response to the initiative. Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, over
$500 million in competitive grants has been awarded through these
programs.[Footnote 33] Some of these programs, such as Labor's Prisoner
Reentry Initiative, limit eligibility to faith-based and community
organizations, while others, such as HHS's Compassion Capital Fund
Demonstration Program, fund intermediary organizations that provide
capacity-building assistance to faith-based and community
organizations. (See table 4 for a list and description of these
programs.)
Table 4: New Grant Programs Intended to Encourage Faith-Based and
Community Organization Participation in Federally Funded Social
Efforts:
Program: Access to Recovery[A];
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Start date of program: 2004;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $198,000,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: States, District of Columbia,
territories, and tribal organizations;
Grant purpose: To provide client choice among substance abuse treatment
and support service providers, expand access to an array of treatment
and recovery support options, and increase substance abuse treatment
capacity.
Program: Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) Demonstration Grants[A];
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $125,594,965;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Nongovernmental organizations; Indian
tribal governmental organizations; nonprofit agencies, including faith-
based organizations, public agencies, state and local governments,
colleges and universities, and for-profit entities;
Grant purpose: To help smaller organizations manage their programs
effectively, access funding, train staff, expand programs in their
communities, and replicate promising programs. Intermediary
organizations receiving CCF grants also provide subawards to a diverse
range of faith-based and community organizations.
Program: Mentoring Children of Prisoners[A];
Agency: Health and Human Services;
Start date of program: 2003;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $100,047,432;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: States, localities, private, nonprofit,
community and faith-based entities, and coordinated networks of such
entities;
Grant purpose: To support the establishment or expansion and operation
of programs to provide mentoring services for children of incarcerated
parents.
Program: Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity-Building Program[A];
Agency: Health and Human Services; Start date of program: 2003;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $22,587,556;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Nonprofit, faith-based, and community
organizations;
Grant purpose: To increase the capacity of faith-based and community
organizations with a proven track record of serving the needs of at-
risk or low-income individuals and families.
Program: Ready4Work[A];
Agency: Labor/Justice;
Start date of program: 2003;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $21,700,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Public/Private Ventures (non-profit
organization) provides subgrants to lead agencies at 18 sites;
Grant purpose: To assist faith-based and community programs that
provide mentoring and other transition services for men and women
returning from prison.
Program: Prisoner Reentry Initiative[A];
Agency: Labor/Justice/ HUD[B];
Start date of program: 2005;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $19,840,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Faith-based and community
organizations;
Grant purpose: To reduce recidivism and re-incarceration by helping
inmates find work when they return to their communities.
Program: Grants for States for FBO/ Community-Based Organization
Partnerships;
Agency: Labor;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $11,874,147;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: States;
Grant purpose: To increase the number of faith- based and community-
based organizations serving as committed and active partners in the One-
Stop delivery system.
Program: Grants for Workforce Investment Boards for FBO/ Community-
Based Organization Partnerships[A];
Agency: Labor;
Start date of program: 2004;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $10,706,389;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Workforce Investment Boards;
Grant purpose: To encourage the formation of long-term partnerships
with faith-based and community organizations that meet community needs
related to hard-to-serve populations.
Program: Grants for Intermediaries for FBO/Community-Based Organization
Partnerships;
Agency: Labor;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $9,661,191;
Grantee/ subgrantee eligibility: Nonprofit, community, or faith-based
organizations with connections to faith-based and community grassroots
organizations;
Grant purpose: To increase the number of faith-based and community-
based organizations serving as committed and active partners in the One-
Stop delivery system.
Program: Helping Outreach Programs Expand (HOPE);
Agency: Justice;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $3,675,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Faith-based and community
organizations;
Grant purpose: To foster the development of grassroots crime victim
service providers to expand both public visibility and outreach to
victims, thereby increasing the number of available service providers.
Program: Faith and Community-Based Juvenile Delinquency Treatment
Initiative[A];
Agency: Justice;
Start date of program: 2003;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $3,500,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: One grant awarded to Florida Department
of Juvenile Justice;
Grant purpose: To establish a multifaceted faith-based initiative to
provide positive, caring adult relationships, and greater supervision
and moral leadership as youthful offenders transition back into their
communities.
Program: Small Grassroots Faith-Based and Community-Based Organizations
Connecting with the One-Stop Delivery System (Small Grassroots
Program)[ A];
Agency: Labor;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $3,408,981;
Grantee/ subgrantee eligibility: Local nonprofit social service
organizations with $350,000 or less in annual revenues or fewer than
six employees;
Grant purpose: To provide workforce services to specific populations or
provide particular services not currently provided through the One-Stop
delivery system; expand the access of faith-based and community-based
organizations' clients and customers to the services offered by the
local One-Stops; and establish methods and mechanisms to ensure
sustainability of these partnerships.
Program: Helping Outreach Programs to Expand II (HOPE II);
Agency: Justice;
Start date of program: 2005;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $3,000,000;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Faith- based and other community
organizations that will provide subgrants to grassroots, faith-based,
and community organizations to serve crime victims while also building
their capacity;
Grant purpose: To increase the development and capacity of faith-based
or community-based organizations to respond to underserved victims in
high-crime urban areas.
Program: Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement
Grant Program Special Initiative: Faith-based and Community
Organization Pilot Program[A];
Agency: Justice;
Start date of program: 2005;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $1,024,965;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: Community organizations (nonprofit,
private entities) of rural states and faith-based organizations of
rural states (nonprofit, private entities). Private entities of
nonrural states that are members of or central offices of national
organizations may consider applying through an affiliated organization
located within a rural state.[C];
Grant purpose: To increase the level of services available to rural
victims of domestic violence by increasing the number of first-time,
grassroots faith--and/or community-based organizations receiving Office
of Violence Against Women funding and technical assistance in rural
America.
Program: Enhancement of Public Housing HOPE VI Communities through
Mentoring Demonstration Program[A];
Agency: HUD;
Start date of program: 2005;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $524,578;
Grantee/ subgrantee eligibility: Public housing authorities with HOPE
VI Revitalization grants will partner with grassroots, faith-based and
other community-based organizations;
Grant purpose: To determine if providing mentoring services to
residents already participating in self-sufficiency programs increases
their likelihood of achieving self- sufficiency.
Program: Clergy Against Senior Exploitation (CASE)[A];
Agency: Justice;
Start date of program: 2002;
Total funds awarded through fiscal year 2005: $273,614;
Grantee/subgrantee eligibility: One grant awarded to Denver, Colorado,
district attorney's office;
Grant purpose: To partner with faith communities in addressing the
issue of elder fraud in Denver County.
Source: GAO analysis based on information on the White House Office of
Faith-based and Community Initiatives Website and agency documents.
Note: This table does not include programs that provide only technical
assistance and not grant funds to faith-based and community
organizations, such as Education's Supplemental Educational Services
and HUD's Grant Writing Training program.
[A] Denotes a pilot program identified as such by Centers for Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives staff.
[B] As of April 2006, Justice and HUD had not disbursed any funding
under the initiative.
[C] Grantees act as intermediaries and offer subgrants and technical
assistance to small, faith-based or community organizations with less
than 10 full-time employees, an annual domestic violence budget less
than $100,000, and an overall annual operating budget less than
$350,000.
[End of table]
The President proposes $323 million in funds in his 2007 budget
submission--a 36 percent increase from what was enacted in fiscal year
2006--for five programs in order to foster faith-based and community
organization participation.[Footnote 34] The President's budget
proposes an increase in funding for the Compassion Capital Fund from
$64 million to $100 million and the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative
funding from $26 million to $60 million. In an effort to encourage more
participation by faith-based and community organizations in combating
the spread of HIV and AIDS, the President proposed new funding for an
outreach program to the African-American community.
Government Agencies Generally Provide Grantees with Information on
Safeguards, but Most Do Not Have Procedures in Their Monitoring
Guidelines for Assessing Compliance:
Most of the 10 federal program offices that we reviewed included an
explicit statement in their grant documents explaining that FBOs cannot
use direct federal funds for inherently religious activities[Footnote
35] However, less than half of program offices provided a similar
statement explaining that organizations may not discriminate against
beneficiaries based on religion or explaining the permissible hiring
practices for FBOs. Most of the grant documents related to these two
safeguards provided only a reference to federal or program regulations,
and a few program offices provided no information on the
nondiscrimination and hiring safeguards. In general, state and county
offices in the four states we visited provided information on the
safeguards to their formula grant awardees, although in several cases
they provided incorrect information on whether FBOs may make hiring
decisions on the basis of religion. While officials in all 26 of the
FBOs that we visited told us that they understood that federal funds
could not be used for inherently religious activities, officials at
several organizations appeared to have misunderstood the safeguard that
religious activities may only be conducted at a separate time or in a
separate location from federally funded services. Few government
agencies administering the programs we reviewed monitor organizations
to ensure compliance with these safeguards, and the single audit, which
is used to monitor organizations receiving a certain level of federal
funding, generally does not include checks for these safeguards.
Most of the Federal Programs We Reviewed Provided Grantees with a
Statement on Nonallowable Activities, but Fewer Provided Information on
Other Safeguards:
Seven of the 10 programs that we reviewed provided grantees with an
explicit statement in one or more of their grant documents that federal
funds for that program could not be expended for "inherently religious
activities." Most statements noted that organizations receiving direct
federal funds cannot engage in inherently religious activities, such as
worship, religious instruction, or proselytization as part of program
services directly funded with federal funds. For example, Labor sent
state workforce agencies a guidance letter in July 2005 reiterating its
equal treatment rules and directing the agencies to develop policies
and procedures to implement the safeguards. HUD also issued a
memorandum to state agencies reiterating its equal treatment rules
pertaining to Emergency Shelter program grantees. Table 5 summarizes
the extent to which information on each of the safeguards was included
in programs' grant documents.
Table 5: Extent to Which Safeguards Are Included in Program Grant
Documents:
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Agency/program;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: [Empty];
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
[Empty];
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: [Empty].
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: Education/ Mentoring Programs;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: circle;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
circle;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: circle.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: HHS/Community- Based Abstinence Education
Program[B];
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
circle;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: circle.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: HHS/Mentoring Children Of Prisoners;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
circle;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: circle.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: HHS/ Microenterprise Development Program;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion: empty
square;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: empty square.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: HUD/Continuum of Care Program[C];
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
square;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: square.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: Justice/Community Corrections Contracting;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: [D];
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
circle;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: circle.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Federal Project
and Contract Grants: Labor/Small Grassroots Program;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
square;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: square.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Formula Grants:
HHS/Abstinence Education Program;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
square;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: empty square.
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Formula Grants:
HHS/Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: circle;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
circle;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: circle].
Safeguards stated In federal documents to grantee[A]: Formula Grants:
HUD/Emergency Shelter Grants;
Prohibition on inherently religious activities unless separate in time
or location from federally funded programs or services: square;
Prohibition on discrimination against clients based on religion:
square;
Provision explaining permissible hiring by FBOs: square.
Key: document
square = provides statement in one or more of the following documents:
grant application, announcement, or guidance documents
circle = cites regulations
empty square = makes no reference to these safeguards:
Source: GAO analysis based on review of agency documents.
[A] Documents include grant announcements, applications, award letters,
and any additional guidance sent to grantees.
[B] Safeguards were stated more clearly in HHS's Health Resources and
Services Administration's 2003 and 2004 applications, which included an
advisory memo and a questions and answers section. Advisory and
question section was not included in HHS's Administration for Children
and Families' 2006 application package. However, the program's
application and grant award letter include a reference to the
prohibition on inherently religious activities.
[C] HUD's notice to agency and field office directors providing
guidance to Continuum of Care grantees covered by HUD's 2003 equal
treatment regulations expired September 2005.
[D] Justice officials told us that this safeguard does not apply to
Community Correction Contracting programs and therefore the agency did
not include it in the program's contract documents. See discussion
below.
[End of table]
We found no reference to the prohibition on inherently religious
activities in Justice's Community Corrections Contracting
program.[Footnote 36] Justice officials advised us that, under their
equal treatment regulations, they believe that FBOs providing services
in Community Corrections Centers (also referred to as halfway houses
that allow inmates to leave the centers for religious services) are
exempt from the prohibition related to inherently religious activities
and therefore the agency does not include any reference to the
prohibition in the contract documents for this program. The regulations
provide that the restrictions on inherently religious activities do not
apply where funds are provided to chaplains or organizations assisting
chaplains in certain settings such as community correction
centers.[Footnote 37] According to these officials, given the duty to
accommodate inmates' rights to religious exercise, all FBOs providing
services are essentially viewed as "assisting chaplains" and fall
within the exception. Accordingly, Justice officials believe it is
appropriate not to include any reference to the restriction on
inherently religious activities in the contract documents for community
correction centers.
We believe that the failure by Justice to include any reference to this
restriction could create uncertainty for FBOs. For example, the
omission could be read as allowing all providers of social services in
these settings to engage in worship, religious instruction, or
proselytization, regardless of whether the services assist chaplains or
whether the religious activities are voluntary on the part of the
participant. In other words, the scope of the exception for assisting
chaplains is left uncertain and FBO program staff may not understand
whether, to what extent, or under what circumstances, they may engage
in religious activities using federal funds.
As table 5 shows, 4 of the 10 programs that we reviewed included an
explicit statement in grant documents that grantees must not
discriminate against beneficiaries on the basis of their religion. In
contrast, most of the other programs refer applicants and grantees to
either their agency's equal treatment regulations or program
regulations that contain this safeguard. For example, HHS's Community-
Based Abstinence Education program refers the applicant to the agency's
equal treatment regulations,and SAMHSA's Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block Grant Program refers states to its charitable choice
regulations. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program added a
reference to HHS's equal treatment regulation in its June 2006
announcement. However, we found that in some instances, the cited
regulations contained out-of-date information on this safeguard. For
example, HHS's Mentoring Children of Prisoners and Microenterprise
Development Programs' Standard Terms and Conditions (attached to the
grant award) cited a Web address for 2003 regulations that did not
contain the equal treatment safeguards.
Programs provided the least information on whether FBOs are permitted
to make hiring decisions based on religion. Of the 10 federal program
offices that we reviewed, only 3 provided information in grant
documents about religious organizations' hiring of employees that share
their religious beliefs. Five other programs referred applicants or
grantees to the equal treatment regulations, and 2 provided no
reference to FBO hiring in their grant documents. In addition,
Justice's contract for its Community Correction Centers contains a
reference to a clause that cites an executive order that does not apply
to FBO contractors and thus provides incorrect information on FBO
hiring.[Footnote 38] The one program in our review--Labor's Small
Grassroots Program--that is governed by statutory language prohibiting
FBOs from making employment decisions on religious grounds, includes
information in its program grant documents explaining the
prohibition.[Footnote 39]
The 7 competitive project and procurement grant programs differed with
respect to whether they provided any training for new grantees on the
safeguards. Five program offices provided training to grantees that
included a discussion of the safeguards, while two did not. Officials
from 2 of the formula grant programs in our review explained how some
state officials received training on the safeguards. An HHS official
with the Abstinence Education formula grant program told us that state
officials attended the February 2006 conference offered to new grantees
for the Community-Based Abstinence program and were given the
opportunity to attend breakout sessions that focus on compliance with
the equal treatment safeguards. SAMHSA officials told us that they hold
sessions during the semiannual conference that directly discuss
charitable choice regulations. Applicants and grantees interested in
learning about the safeguards could also obtain access information on
an agency's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Web sites.
State and County Agencies Provide Grantees Information on Allowable
Activities and Nondiscrimination of Clients, but Several Provided
Grantees with Incorrect Information on FBO Hiring:
For the three formula grant programs we reviewed, the grant program
documents that state and county agencies provide to applicants and
grantees contain information on allowable activities and
nondiscrimination of beneficiaries and, in general, provide more
explicit information on these two safeguards than the federal agencies.
In addition, like federal program offices, state and county program
offices in the four states we visited provided little information on
FBO hiring, or in several cases, provided incorrect information. For
example, we found that state and county offices in two states that
administer the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant and
Abstinence Education program provided documents to grantees that
included incorrect information on whether FBOs could hire based on
religion. In one case, county officials acknowledged that they provided
documents that contradicted one another on FBO hiring. They explained
that one provision of their state contract says that organizations
cannot discriminate in hiring, while another provision cites charitable
choice hiring rules.
Some FBOs We Visited Did Not Appear to Understand the Requirement for
Separation in Time or Location for Religious Activities and the
Safeguard Pertaining to Hiring by Religious Organizations:
Four of the 13 FBOs that we visited that provided voluntary religious
activities for beneficiaries did not appear to adhere to the
requirement to separate in time or location religious activities from
program services funded with direct federal funds. In addition, 13 of
the 26 did not understand the safeguard that pertained to permissible
hiring on the basis of religion. On the basis of our discussions with
FBO officials, we did not find any indications that FBOs did not serve
a beneficiary based on a beneficiary's religious beliefs.
While officials in all 26 FBOs that we visited told us that they
understood the prohibition on providing inherently religious activities
with direct federal funds, 4 described engaging in activities that
appear not to be permissible with federal funds under the equal
treatment rules. For example, officials from 2 of these FBOs told us
that that they would pray with beneficiaries at the beneficiary's
request. While voluntary prayer is permissible as long as it is offered
separately in time or location from program activities conducted with
direct federal funds, these officials indicated that they conducted
prayer at the same time and location as their federally funded
services.[Footnote 40] In addition, an official from another FBO said
that he began each program session, which provided services to
children, with a nonsectarian prayer that at times included a brief
reading from the Bible. Finally, one FBO program manager told us that
she discussed religious issues during the same time and at the same
location as federally funded services if requested by a participant and
no other participants objected.
One program office has taken action to better define the separate in
time or location requirement. Included as part of the settlement of a
lawsuit that arose from the agency's funding of a faith-based sexual
abstinence education program was a set of "Safeguards Required" drafted
by HHS's Community-Based Abstinence Education Program office for the
grantee. This document was intended to provide guidance to the grantee
for operation of the program in compliance with existing law and
regulations, and included a detailed explanation of ways in which the
grantee's activities might be separated in time or location. As of
March 2006, HHS was considering providing similar information to all
grantees to more clearly delineate how an organization could separate
its religious activities from those provided with federal funds,
according to the abstinence education program director.
Some FBOs are also confused about the safeguard related to hiring by
religious organizations. Only half of the 26 FBOs that we visited
correctly understood whether they could take religion into account when
hiring staff. In general, FBOs that were prohibited by program
legislation or state law from considering religion when making
employment decisions understood the hiring safeguard. For example, 8 of
the 9 FBOs that we visited in Ohio understood that the state had a
statute that prohibits discrimination in employment based on
religion.[Footnote 41] In addition, Labor's Small Grassroots Program is
governed by statutory language that prohibits organizations from hiring
based on religion. Program officials with 3 FBOs that had received
funding from this program told us that they do not hire based on
religion, and 2 of the 3 noted that the hiring safeguard was discussed
during Labor's grantee training. Most of the 13 FBOs that did not
correctly understand the hiring safeguard were unaware that they could
consider religion when making employment decisions.
Program Offices Are Not Required to Monitor FBO Grantees Differently
than Other Grantees, and Few Program Offices in our Review Include
References in their Monitoring Guidelines on Compliance With
Safeguards:
Federal and state program offices are not required under federal
requirements to monitor FBO grantees any differently than secular
organizations, and in our review, few program offices use monitoring
tools that include checks for compliance with these safeguards. Federal
agencies monitor grantees for compliance with program regulations
primarily through such monitoring activities as desk audits, site
visits, and single audit compliance reviews. However, many faith-based
and community organizations may not be covered by the single audit
because they do not expend $500,000 or more in federal funds in a given
year. Further, for those FBOs that do meet this financial threshold,
single audit guidelines do not generally instruct auditors to check for
compliance with the equal treatment safeguards.
Program Offices Monitor Grantees Primarily through Desk Audits and Site
Visits:
Federal program offices monitor grantees by reviewing financial reports
(standard reports that collect data on grantee disbursements) and
performance reports that grantees submit. Program officials told us
that they review these reports to identify any financial or
programmatic issues that may require them to do additional follow-up
with the grantees. Performance reports focus on programmatic issues and
collect information on the number of beneficiaries served and program
outputs. None of the reports that we reviewed contained any questions
related to compliance with the safeguards.
Program offices also monitor grantees for compliance with program rules
through site visits. Many federal officials told us that they use a
risk-based approach when determining which sites to visit. Several
program officials told us that they do not single out FBOs for site
visits and do not consider them at higher risk for noncompliance than
other organizations. Grantees often selected for visits include ones
that receive high dollar grants, novice grantees, grantees that have
had prior problems, and grantees with high staff turnover. Program
officials typically use written monitoring guidelines or site visit
protocols when conducting site visits.
We found that only 2 of the 7 federal direct programs had monitoring
guidelines that contained any reference to the equal treatment
safeguards, and one program--established in 2002--had not yet developed
a monitoring tool. HHS's Community-Based Abstinence Education Program
recently developed a monitoring tool that includes a question on
whether the project is being implemented "in a manner consistent with
all other Federal requirements (e.g., faith-based issues, civil rights,
etc.)" and whether the grantee is "aware of the regulations regarding
the use of federal funding for inherently religious activities."
Similarly, Labor's monitoring handbook contains a general reference to
avoiding client discrimination, but does not include a discussion of
compliance with the safeguards. An HHS Mentoring Children of Prisoners
program official told us that the program office had not yet developed
a monitoring tool for its mentoring program.
The number of site visits conducted by program offices varied widely.
Officials noted that the number of grantees in a given program affects
how frequently their staff can conduct site visits. A Labor official in
a field office told us that Labor officials try to visit all Small
Grassroots Program grantees at least once during the span of the grant.
HUD officials noted that visiting 10 percent of all grantees annually
amounted to about 600 visits in 2004, and an Education official noted
that visiting 5 percent of grantees had become increasingly difficult
as the number of grantees grew each year. Since its move to HHS's
Administration for Children and Families from the agency's Health
Resources and Services Administration in 2005, the Community-based
Abstinence Education program has conducted two site visits. The
program's director said he hopes his office will complete around 20 in
2006, but that he would like to visit all grantees at least once during
their 3-year grant period.[Footnote 42]
State and county agencies are responsible for monitoring grantees of
federal formula grants. Similar to federal agencies, state and county
officials in the four states we visited conduct desk audits of grantees
and conduct site visits to a limited number of organizations. Many use
risk assessment to determine which grantees to visit while others
attempt to visit all grantees within a certain time frame. Only 5 of
the 13 state or county program offices we visited included a reference
to the prohibition on using direct federal funds for inherently
religious activities or services. Georgia's monitoring tool for its
Emergency Shelter Grants program states that housing and services are
to be provided in a "manner that is free from religious influence," and
its abstinence education performance and outcome scorecard has a space
for organizations to indicate that their "curriculum does not teach or
promote religion." Similarly, Texas' abstinence education on-site
evaluation report includes as one of its review criteria a check to
ensure that direct federal funds are not used for sectarian worship,
instruction, or proselytization. In addition, the monitoring manual for
Sacramento County, California, includes a check to ensure that grantees
include in their program policies and procedures information on the
requirement that FBOs certify that they will comply with all the
requirements of SAMHSA's charitable choice provisions and implementing
regulations.
Single Audits Are Also Used to Monitor Grantees, but Guidelines Do Not
Consistently Reference Safeguards:
Program offices also use the single audit to monitor recipients that
expend $500,000 or more in federal funds in a fiscal year. OMB provides
specific audit guidelines for some programs. While three programs we
reviewed--the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant
Program, Emergency Shelter Grants, and the Continuum of Care Supportive
Housing Program--have program-specific guidance, they varied on whether
and how they included information on the equal treatment
regulations.[Footnote 43] For example, single audit guidance for the
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program provided
the auditor with audit steps related to the equal treatment provision
prohibiting organizations from expending direct federal funds on
inherently religious activities, while Emergency Shelter Grant guidance
refers the auditor to the program regulations that discuss what faith-
based organizations can and cannot do with direct federal funds. In
contrast, the single audit guidance on HUD's Supportive Housing Program
contains no reference to the prohibition on using direct federal funds
for inherently religious activities.
The other 7 programs we reviewed do not have OMB program-specific audit
guidelines. OMB's single audit guidelines used for programs that do not
have program-specific guidelines also contain no reference to the
prohibition on using direct federal funds for inherently religious
activities. Instead, OMB's general guidelines direct auditors to refer
to grant documents or laws and regulations to determine which
activities are allowed or unallowed with federal funds. We interviewed
three independent auditors, who told us that unless these safeguards
were referenced in the single audit guidelines or included in grant
documents--which typically outline the key provisions of the grant--an
auditor would not likely test for compliance with these provisions. Two
auditors we interviewed noted that they did not check for the
safeguards because the safeguards were not referenced in the single
audit guidelines for HUD's Continuum of Care and, at that time,
SAMHSA's Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program,
the two programs administered by the FBOs they audited. The other
auditor, who had recently audited an FBO that had received an
Abstinence Education grant, told us that he had developed his own audit
plan by reviewing the grant application package. He explained that
because he readily found a reference in the application to the
prohibition on providing inherently religious activities, he was able
to discuss with the program manager how this issue was conveyed to
program staff and reviewed written feedback from the students to
ascertain whether any religious discussions had occurred while staff
were providing federally funded services.[Footnote 44]
OMB and WHOFBCI Assess Agencies' Progress in Implementing Initiative,
but Data Limitations and a Lack of Information May Hinder Ability to
Measure Progress toward Achieving Initiative's Long-Term Goals:
OMB and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
(WHOFBCI) assess agencies' progress in implementing the initiative and
highlight this progress through a number of published
vehicles.[Footnote 45] However, the federal government's efforts to
assess the initiative's progress in achieving its long-term goal of
greater participation may be hindered by the accuracy of data collected
on the number of FBOs receiving federal grants because the government
has not established consistently applied criteria for what constitutes
a faith-based organization and has not required organizations to self-
identify as such. Moreover, little information is available to assess
agencies' progress toward the long-term goal of improving participant
outcomes because outcome-based evaluations for most pilot programs have
not yet been completed. In addition, OMB faces other challenges in
measuring and reporting on agencies' progress in meeting the two long-
term goals of the initiative.
OMB and WHOFBCI Grade Agencies' Progress in Implementing the Initiative
by Assessing Their Progress on Several Activities:
Through the President's Management Agenda (PMA) issued in 2001, OMB
identified expected short-term, intermediate, and long-term results or
goals for the initiative.[Footnote 46] OMB and WHOFBCI assess and track
agencies' implementation of the initiative by using the Executive
Branch Management Scorecard, a traffic-light system showing agencies'
grades on their efforts to carry out activities in accordance with the
initiative's Standards for Success. Developed in 2003, the initiative's
Standards for Success describe expectations on the progress agencies
are making in implementing certain responsibilities for the initiative,
such as collecting accurate data on the participation of faith-based
and community organizations and conducting outcome-based evaluations of
pilot programs. Center officials at the agencies that we reviewed told
us that they are focusing their efforts on implementing the standards
for success and achieving the short-term goals of the initiative.
Specifically, they are working on "leveling the playing field" for
faith-based and community organizations to compete for federal funds.
Table 6 specifies OMB's green and yellow standards for success for the
initiative, and appendix III lists the best practices that are
referenced in the Standards for Success.
Table 6: OMB's Green and Yellow Standards for Success for Executive
Agencies with Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative:
GREEN Standards for Success; Agency:
1. Has implemented a comprehensive outreach and technical assistance
strategy for enhancing opportunities of faith-based and community
organizations (FBCO) to compete for federal funding, including working
with state and local officials to expand access to Federal funding
awarded through them. This strategy employs 12 of 15 best practices;
2. Regularly monitors compliance with the equal treatment regulations
at the State and local levels, promptly addresses violations once they
are detected, and has a process in place to ensure that compliance
information is used to inform future funding. Compliance monitoring
activities include 10 of 13 best practices;[A];
3. Collects accurate and timely data on participation of FBCO and other
applicants, including government entities, in selected Federal non-
formula grant programs and has taken steps to expand data collection
efforts to formula grant programs and make them a routine part of
program administration. Programs are working to make this information
accessible to the public;
4. Implements pilot programs to strengthen the partnership between FBCO
and the Federal government to deliver services and inform
implementation of the Initiative, and expands the use of pilots to test
new strategies when appropriate; AND;
5. Undertakes outcome-based evaluations of its pilot programs where
FBCO participate, provides quarterly progress reports and interim
results to the WHOFBCI throughout the life of the program, and builds
an evaluation component into new pilots. Incorporated FBCO component
into broader program evaluations when appropriate.
YELLOW Standards for Success:
1. Has developed a comprehensive outreach and technical assistance
strategy for enhancing opportunities of faith- based and community
organizations (FBCO) to compete for federal funding, including working
with state and local officials to expand access to Federal funding
awarded through them, and has begun to implement the plan. This
strategy employs 8 of 15 best practices;
2. Has taken steps to ensure barrier free access for FBCO to the
Federal competitive grants process. These steps include 7 of 15 best
practices;
3. Has established procedures to collect data on participation of FBCO
in selected Federal programs;
4. Has implemented pilot programs to strengthen the partnership between
FBCO and the Federal government to deliver services; AND;
5. Has undertaken outcome- based evaluations of its first set of pilot
programs and has provided progress reports to WHOFBCI.
Source: OMB.
[A] For compliance monitoring activities, only 3 of the best practices
pertain to monitoring whereas the other 10 best practices involve
activities to inform faith-based and community organizations, state and
local officials, and others about the regulations.
[End of table]
OMB and WHOFBCI grade agencies both on current status and on progress
in implementation. OMB and WHOFBCI award an agency with a green status
if it meets all of the yellow and green standards for success, yellow
if it has achieved the yellow but not all of the green standards for
success, and red if the agency fails to meet any one of the yellow
standards. OMB and WHOFBCI assess each agency's progress on a quarterly
basis, and according to OMB officials, they use this performance
information to identify problems and to develop corrective actions.
Of the five agencies that we reviewed, three agencies have a green
status (Education, Justice, and HUD), and two have a yellow status
(Labor and HHS) for current status during the first 2006 rating
quarter. These agencies received a green status for progress in
implementation for the rating quarter except HUD, which was downgraded
to a yellow status from the previous rating quarter. OMB and agencies
publish these summary scores in a number of places, such as in OMB and
agency budget and performance documents as well as on their respective
Web sites. According to OMB and some center officials, OMB negotiates
with the agencies on a quarterly basis to set milestones that agencies
must meet to maintain their green status.
The OMB Web site contains the Standards for Success for achieving the
PMA's five governmentwide goals,[Footnote 47] as well as the standards
for the initiative. It lists the agencies that have performed best in
meeting the individual standards for success (i.e., getting to green)
for the goals.
Efforts to Measure Agencies' Progress toward Achieving Initiative's
Long-term Goals Is Hindered by Data Limitations and Lack of
Information:
Although OMB's scorecard highlights agency progress in implementing the
initiative, there are difficulties in assessing progress towards the
two long-term goals for the initiative specified in the PMA. Efforts to
assess the progress in achieving the initiative's long-term goal of
increasing participation of faith-based and community organizations is
hindered in part by difficulties agencies encounter in attempting to
determine whether or not an organization is faith-based. Further,
assessing achievement toward the other long-term goal of improving
participant outcomes is hindered because agencies have not completed
most of the OMB-required outcome-based evaluations of their pilot
programs. In addition to the issues already noted, OMB and the WHOFBCI
face other challenges in measuring and reporting on agencies' progress
in meeting the broad long-term goals of "greater participation of faith-
based and community organizations" and "improved participant outcomes."
Data Issues Affect Efforts to Measure Progress of Agencies in Meeting
Long-Term Goals:
As set forth in the PMA, one of the long-term goals of the initiative
is for federal agencies to facilitate greater participation of faith-
based and community organizations in providing federally funded social
services. Although the Administration has not defined a "faith-based
and community organization" or a "faith-based organization," it directs
the centers for faith-based and community initiatives to collect data
on federal grants awarded to FBOs and community-based organizations.
The WHOFBCI has published data on FBOs for all five agencies for fiscal
years 2003-2005. In March 2006, the WHOFBCI reported that in fiscal
year 2005 the federal government awarded, through seven federal
agencies, more than $2.1 billion in competitive social service grants
to FBOs--an increase of 7 percent over the previous year. The WHOFBCI
also reported that between fiscal years 2003 and 2005, grants to FBOs
increased by 38 percent and funding increased by 21 percent.
The WHOFBCI's report states that federal agencies make good-faith
efforts to collect accurate data on grants awarded to FBOs, and we also
found that agencies are making significant efforts to collect this
data. However, they face constraints in collecting accurate data.
Specifically, the government has not established criteria for what
constitutes a faith-based organization that all federal agencies must
use, and federal agencies do not require organizations to self-identify
as faith-based. Although no method can ensure that all data collected
are accurate, having consistently applied criteria or requiring self-
identification would provide greater assurance that agencies are
collecting accurate data than the current method.[Footnote 48] In
addition, the WHOFBCI has not reported on grants awarded to community-
based organizations. Consequently, it is unclear whether the reported
data provide policymakers with a sound basis to assess the progress of
agencies in meeting the initiative's long-term goal of increasing
participation of faith-based and community organizations.
As we've previously reported, a long-standing challenge for the federal
government has been producing credible data on outcomes achieved
through federal programs. Policymakers need credible data to make
resource allocation decisions on what programs to fund. Concerns about
the accuracy of the data collected on FBOs have previously been raised
by others. For example, during a June 2005 House hearing on the centers
for faith-based and community initiatives, two former officials from
the WHOFBCI and a former HHS center director questioned the accuracy of
the data.[Footnote 49] In short, they questioned the methods used to
collect data on which organizations are faith-based and the credibility
of the reported data.
In 2001, the Administration noted that a lack of a standard definition
for what constitutes a faith-based organization was an obstacle to
federal agencies in determining how much federal funding FBOs
receive.[Footnote 50] Without using consistently applied criteria
across federal agencies or requiring organizations to self-identify,
each center is responsible for determining which grantees in selected
programs are faith-based. One vehicle the centers use for identifying
FBOs is a voluntary survey that is sent to all grant applicants and
which asks, among other questions, whether the applicant is a "faith-
based/religious" organization. However, the extent to which applicants
return the survey varies across the centers, and several center
officials reported that the response rate for this survey has been low.
In cases in which applicants do not complete the voluntary survey,
agencies rely on other methods of identification, such as
administrative reports, Web sites, and phone inquiries by center and
program staff. Moreover, a variety of agency staff collects this data
without consistently applied criteria. Some agencies rely on center
officials to collect this data, while others rely on either program
staff or contractors. For example, one center official said that
because there is no established definition of an FBO, officials are
careful not to direct the program office staff on what characteristics
to look for when identifying these organizations. Such methods involve
considerable work on the part of program and center officials and, in
some cases, discretion in determining which organizations are faith-
based. Another document that collects information on organizations'
characteristics is OMB's mandatory application for federal financial
assistance that all applicants must complete. Although the application
instructs applicants to identify themselves from a list of
organizational categories, no category for faith-based organization is
included.[Footnote 51]
Some center officials told us that they believed that many FBOs may be
reluctant to identify themselves as such on the voluntary survey
because of concerns that being labeled faith-based might work against
them in the grant process. However, it is unclear the extent to which
FBOs are reluctant to self-identify. Some FBOs may not be concerned as
indicated by the fact that they have religious organizational names and
their mission statements include religious references. In addition,
according to HUD officials, since 1997 HUD has asked organizations
applying for Continuum of Care programs to self-identify whether or not
they are "a religious organization, or a religiously-affiliated or
motivated organization." HUD officials reported a high response rate
from its applicants on this question and noted that for this program,
they rely on these data rather than the voluntary survey to identify
grantees that are FBOs. Finally, most of the 26 FBOs we visited said
they filled out the voluntary survey, and almost all said they would
not be hesitant to self-identify as faith-based if asked.
Developing criteria for what constitutes an FBO is a challenging task.
Some organizations have a historical religious connection but only
provide secular social services, while other organizations are churches
where faith permeates the nonfederal services provided. The problem of
determining, without consistently applied criteria across federal
agencies whether an organization is faith-based or not is illustrated
by one center official telling us that his agency considers all of the
local Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) and the Young Women's
Christian Association (YWCA) entities to be FBOs on the basis of the
religious affiliation contained in their organizational names and
mission statements of the national organizations. Meanwhile, an
official at another agency said that his agency looked beyond the
national organization to see if the local entities consider themselves
to be faith-based.
An official at one local YWCA in Texas told us that the organization
does not consider itself to be an FBO. Similarly, several California
organizations listed by the WHOFBCI as FBOs told us that despite their
religious-sounding names, they did not consider themselves to be FBOs.
This issue will also be a concern as centers seek to collect additional
data on FBOs receiving state-administered formula grant programs.
Several state officials said that they believed that having a standard
definition for FBOs would help them if they are asked to collect data
on which of their grantees are FBOs.
Other attempts have been made to develop criteria for what constitutes
an FBO for collecting data on federal funding to FBOs. A February 2006
study by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy sought to
assess the extent of federal support of faith-based social service
providers by examining the direct recipients of discretionary grant
awards made by the federal agencies that have initiative-related
centers. Drawing on past research on key characteristics of the faith
character of organizations, the study developed five characteristics by
which to define an organization as an FBO. These characteristics
include whether the organization used overt religious words or symbols
in its name and whether religious or spiritual references were
contained in the organization's mission or value statement.[Footnote
52]
Outcome Evaluations of Many Pilot Programs Have Not Begun:
Progress in achieving the initiative's second long-term goal of
improved participant outcomes cannot yet be determined because agencies
have not completed most of the outcome-based evaluations for their
ongoing pilot programs. OMB's Standards for Success for the initiative
requires agencies to undertake outcome-based evaluations of their pilot
programs and build an evaluation component into new pilots. Outcome-
based evaluations may involve several years of data collection before
the analysis can take place, and several of these pilot programs were
initiated only a few years ago.
Generally, pilot programs help agencies demonstrate actual benefits
that may be achieved using a particular approach. While outcome
evaluations are an important component of program management in that
they assess whether a participant is achieving an intended outcome--
such as obtaining employment or completing high school--they cannot
measure whether the outcome is a direct result of program
participation. Other influences, such as the state of the local
economy, may affect an individual's ability to find a job as much as or
more than participation in an employment and training program. Many
researchers consider impact evaluations--a form of outcome evaluation-
-to be the best method for determining the effectiveness of a program;
that is, whether the program itself rather than other factors leads to
participant outcomes. However, impact evaluations can be time-consuming
and expensive and may not be appropriate in all circumstances.[Footnote
53]
As shown in table 7, an outcome evaluation was completed or evaluations
were under way for 7 of the 15 pilot programs for faith-based and
community organizations. Justice completed an outcome-based evaluation
for the Clergy Against Senior Exploitation pilot program in Denver. The
evaluation suggests that the participants who completed the survey
believe that they were more knowledgeable about types of fraud and
fraud prevention and were better prepared to report fraud after
completing the program than prior to the program. While such results
are promising, the evaluation design does not allow for complete
confidence that the pilot achieved its intended outcome of helping
participants avoid becoming victims of fraud. For one of the six
evaluations underway, we could not determine from the design plan
provided to us on the Faith and Community-Based Juvenile Delinquency
Treatment Initiative whether the evaluation would be outcome-based.
While officials at Justice provided us with a list of research
questions related to the process and outcome evaluation under way, no
specific information about the research design was provided.
Table 7: Most Required Outcome Evaluations Not Completed, and Some
Design Plans May Not Support an Evaluation of Program Outcomes:
Agency: Justice;
Pilot and date established: Life Connections-2002;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Justice;
Pilot and date established: Faith and Community-Based Juvenile
Delinquency Treatment Initiative-2003;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Justice;
Pilot and date established: CASE-2003;
Outcome evaluation completed: X;
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Justice;
Pilot and date established: Rural Domestic Violence and Child
Victimization Enforcement Grant Program: Special Initiative Faith-
Based and Community Organizations Pilot Program-2005;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: ; X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Labor;
Pilot and date established: Small Grassroots Program- 2002;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X;
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Labor;
Pilot and date established: Ready4Work-2003;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Labor;
Pilot and date established: Grants for Workforce Investment Boards-
2004;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: X.
Agency: Labor;
Pilot and date established: Prisoner Reentry Initiative-2005;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Education;
Pilot and date established: Supplemental Educational Services-2004;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: X;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: HHS;
Pilot and date established: Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration
Program-2002;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X;
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: HHS;
Pilot and date established: Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity-
Building Program-2003;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X;
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: HHS;
Pilot and date established: Mentoring Children of Prisoners-2003;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X[A];
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: HHS;
Pilot and date established: Access to Recovery-2004;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X;
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: HUD;
Pilot and date established: Unlocking Doors Initiative- 2005;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: [Empty];
No outcome evaluation planned: X.
Agency: HUD;
Pilot and date established: Mentoring Pilot Project-2005;
Outcome evaluation completed: [Empty];
Evaluation underway: [Empty];
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: X;
No outcome evaluation planned: [Empty].
Agency: Total;
Pilot and date established: [Empty];
Outcome evaluation completed: 1;
Evaluation underway: 6;
Intend to conduct outcome evaluation: 6;
No outcome evaluation planned: 2.
Source: Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, and Labor program documents and
interviews with agency officials.
[A] Center officials at HHS said they intend to conduct an impact
evaluation of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program that includes
outcome data and analysis.
[End of table]
Of the six pilot programs in which center officials said they intend to
conduct outcome-based evaluations, HHS and HUD provided to us a total
of five design plans. Three of the five design plans appear to support
outcome-based evaluations.[Footnote 54] However, for two of the five
design plans, we could not determine whether the evaluations would be
outcome-based because the plans lacked clarity and specificity about
how the agency would conduct these evaluations. Specifically, for HHS's
Access to Recovery and Mentoring Children of Prisoners pilot programs,
the written materials did not describe the methodology or research
plans for the evaluations. With regard to the sixth pilot program,
Labor did not provide us with any written materials with which to
assess whether the evaluation for the Small Grassroots Program would be
outcome-based or not. For the two pilot programs in which agencies do
not plan to conduct an outcome-based evaluation, HUD completed a non-
outcome-based evaluation, and Labor officials told us they have no
plans to conduct an evaluation for the Grants for Workforce Investment
Boards pilot program.
Our previous work has shown that it is important for agencies to
collaborate with OMB to increase the likelihood that evaluations will
meet OMB's needs. As agencies move forward with their design plans for
evaluating pilot programs, it will be important for agencies to discuss
the expectations for the scope and purpose of evaluation designs with
OMB so that these evaluations will meet the intended need. Evaluations
designed for internal audiences, such as agency officials, and others
designed for external audiences, often have a different focus.
Evaluations that agencies initiate typically aim to identify how to
improve the allocation of program resources. Studies requested by
program-authorizing or oversight bodies, such as OMB, are more likely
to address external accountability--to judge whether the program is
properly designed or is solving an important problem.
Although determining whether or not FBOs are more effective than
secular organizations in helping program participants is not an
explicit goal of the initiative, this issue has been part of the
discussion since the initiative's inception. In the five agencies we
reviewed, we identified only one program evaluation, by Education, that
will seek to compare the effectiveness of FBOs with that of secular
organizations.[Footnote 55] Judging from our literature review of
independent, nongovernmental studies, very few studies attempt to make
this comparison. We identified four studies comparing the effectiveness
of faith-based organizations with that of secular organizations and
determined that three of these studies lack methodological rigor. The
fourth study did not find a statistically significant difference in the
ratings made by people with low income of the effectiveness of faith-
based organizations compared with nonsectarian organizations. However,
the results of this study are not generalizable because the study's
sample of respondents is for only two counties in
Pennsylvania.[Footnote 56]
OMB Faces Challenges in Measuring and Reporting on Progress in Meeting
Long-Term Goals of Initiative:
Agencies are tasked by OMB to achieve the two long-term goals of the
initiative:
* greater participation by faith-based and community groups 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; and:
* 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.
Some center officials stated that achieving green status on OMB's
scorecard did not necessarily mean that an agency had accomplished
these long-term goals, but rather indicated the extent to which
agencies had implemented OMB's Standards for Success.
OMB has not fully assessed or reported on agencies' progress toward
achieving the two long-term goals of the initiative and is likely to
encounter challenges in doing so. For example, with regard to the first
goal of greater participation by faith-based and community groups, we
have already noted that although the WHOFBCI has reported annually on
the numbers and amounts of federal competitive grants awarded to FBOs,
there may be issues of accuracy with these data. Moreover, this data
reporting effort has focused on FBOs, not on community-based
organizations--the other group of organizations specified in the long-
term goal. In addition, OMB also faces the challenge of translating the
general goal of greater participation into measurement standards that
do not create perverse incentives or unreasonable expectations for
agencies. The general goal of greater participation could be measured
in various ways, such as through the number or percentage of these
groups among federal grant applicants, the number or percentage of
grants awarded to these groups, or the amount or percentage of grant
funds awarded to these groups.
With regard to the second long-term goal of improving participant
outcomes, OMB is also likely to face challenges in assessing agencies'
progress. For example, OMB has tasked agencies with performing outcome-
based evaluations of the pilot programs in their faith-based and
community initiative, but as we have noted, most of these evaluations
have not been completed. In addition, it is unclear whether the outcome-
based evaluations of pilot programs that eventually will be completed
will provide sufficient information for assessing progress towards the
second long-term goal--in part, because the goal of improved
participant outcomes could be measured in different ways. Finally, it
is unclear whether assessing agencies' progress toward this long-term
goal would also take account of participant outcomes in some of the
other nonpilot programs in which faith-based or community organizations
receive grants, and if so, whether sufficient data would be available
for these programs. These varied challenges do not undercut the
importance of moving from a focus on processes to long- term results in
assessing agencies' performance in implementing the faith-based and
community initiative. GAO has previously reported that results-oriented
agencies continuously strive to improve their strategic planning
efforts and do not view strategic planning as a static or occasional
event.[Footnote 57]
Conclusions:
The Administration's efforts to expand opportunities for faith-based
and community organizations to provide federally funded social services
have garnered support from many parties while at the same time
prompting concerns from others about whether federal funds should be
used to support the activities of FBOs and whether adequate measures
are in place to ensure that these organizations are not using federal
funds to support religious activities. Most of the programs that we
reviewed provided some guidance to applicants and grantees on the
requirement that federal funds for their programs not be used for
religious activities, although some federal and state offices did a
better job than others in clearly presenting information on this
requirement to their grantees. We found instances where FBOs did not
appear to understand the nuances associated with the equal treatment
rule that prohibits FBOs from engaging in inherently religious
activities while providing services supported with direct federal
funds. We also found that Justice's exemption to the restrictions on
inherently religious activities for certain programs, including the
correctional program we reviewed, lacks needed specificity and does not
provide FBOs with clear guidance on what religious activities they can
and cannot engage in with federal funds in correctional settings.
We also found that many program offices only provided citations to
federal or program regulations in their grant documents for the rules
related to nondiscrimination against beneficiaries and permissible
hiring by FBOs and that several provided outdated information. In many
of the programs we reviewed, government agencies are not systematically
monitoring for compliance with the equal treatment safeguards. While
government agencies are not required by federal regulation to
specifically monitor grantees for compliance with these safeguards,
without some written guidelines--including those used in single audits-
-that require a discussion and check of these safeguards during
monitoring, the government has little assurance that the safeguards are
protecting beneficiaries, government agencies, and FBOs as intended.
Furthermore, one of OMB's Standards for Success that agencies must meet
to receive a green grade is to monitor grantees for compliance with the
equal treatment safeguards.
In addition to monitoring, program accountability can be facilitated
through sound performance management and reporting, including reliable
performance data. Collecting credible data on FBOs receiving federal
funds is a difficult and time-consuming task, and the centers and
program offices have made good-faith efforts to develop estimates for
FBOs receiving federal grants. Nonetheless, without standard criteria
across all agencies of what constitutes a faith-based organization or a
requirement that FBOs self-identify, the data that the agencies collect
may limit the ability of policymakers to assess the extent to which the
initiative is progressing toward achieving its long-term goal of
greater faith-based and community participation. While some have voiced
concerns about requiring FBOs to self-identify, it is important to note
that the surveys with this information are included in grant
applications but are not considered when independent grant reviewers
evaluate grant applications. In addition, FBOs may not be concerned
about identifying themselves as faith-based as indicated by the fact
that they have religious organizational names and their mission
statements include religious references that are often seen by grant
reviewers.
Since 2001, agencies and OMB have emphasized progress toward the
initiative's short term goals. Now that many agencies have achieved
green status for their work on eliminating barriers and undertaking
outreach and technical assistance to local organizations, it will be
important for OMB to ensure that the initiative's strategic, long-term
goals clearly articulate what OMB intends to measure so that it can
assess whether agencies are achieving these goals and demonstrate
whether agencies are using taxpayer dollars effectively. As with other
strategic planning efforts, updating and revising long-term goals every
several years is considered an effective performance management
practice. Clarifying and fine-tuning strategic goals can help center
officials manage their efforts toward achieving appropriate and
realistic long-term goals.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve grantee understanding and federal agency oversight of the
equal treatment regulations for programs in which faith-based
organizations are eligible for federal funding, we recommend that the
Director of OMB:
1. ensure that all agencies with initiative-related centers include
information on the equal treatment safeguards in program grant
documents for which faith-based organizations are eligible, and:
2. direct federal agencies and, where appropriate, state agencies, to
include a reference to the equal treatment safeguards in their
monitoring tools the agencies use to oversee federally funded grantees,
and:
3. ensure that program-specific single audit supplements, where
appropriate, include a reference to these safeguards.
To ensure that contractors for Justice's correctional programs
understand the exception to the prohibition on using federal funds for
inherently religious activities, we recommend that the Attorney
General:
1. clarify the scope of the exception for chaplains and organizations
assisting chaplains to the general prohibition against using federal
funds for religious activities, and:
2. include a clear explanation of the exception and its scope in the
contracts for Justice's correctional programs.
To improve accountability of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,
we also recommend that the Director of OMB:
1. Work with the Secretaries of Education, HHS, HUD, and Labor, and
Justice's Attorney General, to develop a consistently applied method
that will provide more accurate data on which organizations receiving
federal funds are faith-based. This effort could consider options such
as developing consistently applied criteria of what constitutes a faith-
based organization, making the voluntary OMB survey of grant applicants
mandatory, or modifying OMB's mandatory grant application form to
include a category for faith-based organizations.
2. Develop a plan for measuring and reporting on progress in achieving
the long-term goals of the faith-based and community initiative. This
effort may involve reassessing the two current long-term goals to
determine whether they should be revised and clarifying their
connection to the Standards for Success.
Agency Comments:
We received comments from Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, Labor, and OMB
on a draft of this report. Comments from Education, HHS, HUD, Justice,
and Labor are contained in appendixes IV through VIII. Education, HHS,
HUD, Labor and OMB also provided technical comments, which we
incorporated where appropriate.
On May 31, 2006, we met with OMB officials to obtain their comments on
our draft report. OMB officials stated that they generally agreed with
the report's recommendations to OMB. They agreed that our
recommendations that OMB take action to help ensure that agencies
include information on the equal treatment safeguards in program grant
documents and in program monitoring tools were reasonable. OMB
officials noted that these efforts would build upon agencies' existing
efforts to ensure that grantees are aware of these important
safeguards.
In regard to our recommendation that OMB ensure that agencies include a
reference to the equal treatment safeguards in program grant documents,
Education and HHS stated that they already provide sufficient
information in their grant documents on these safeguards. Our report
documents in table 5 which programs in our review include references to
specific safeguards in their grant documents. While a few programs
provide information on all three safeguards we examined, most do not.
Education's Mentoring program that we reviewed provided only citations
to the equal treatment regulations and did not, for example, explicitly
state in its grant documents that grantees cannot provide inherently
religious activities with direct federal funds. One of HHS's programs
included in our review did not provide any information on 2 of the 3
safeguards we examined. We believe that including information on the
safeguards in one or more key grant documents will provide greater
assurance that grantees are aware of and understand the safeguards
designed to protect the interests of FBOs, beneficiaries, and the
government.
Education, HHS, HUD, and Labor took issue with our recommendation that
agencies be required to include a reference to the equal treatment
safeguards in their monitoring tools. They stated that such a
requirement would involve singling out faith-based organizations for
greater oversight and monitoring than other program participants on the
basis of presumed or confirmed religious affiliation. However, we are
not recommending that that they monitor FBOs more frequently or any
differently than they monitor other organizations. The equal treatment
regulations are potentially applicable to all grantees providing
federally funded services. While these regulations may have more
relevance to FBOs and their activities, we do not believe that having
agencies ensure compliance with all applicable regulations, including
the equal treatment regulations, results in any improper unequal
treatment of FBOs. In our view, creating a level playing field for FBOs
does not mean that agencies should be relieved of their oversight
responsibilities relating to the equal treatment regulations. In
addition, as noted in our report, several of the 10 program offices in
our review included such a reference to equal treatment regulations in
their monitoring guidelines, and officials from 2 other program offices
told us that they intend to include information on these regulations as
they revise their monitoring guidelines. For example, Labor officials
stated in their comments that they have drafted detailed revisions to
their monitoring tools that will enhance their efforts to ensure
compliance with all facets of the equal treatment regulations.
HHS officials provided an additional comment on their efforts to ensure
that their program staff understand the equal treatment regulations.
They stated that HHS provides training to HHS program staff and state
and local officials who administer federal program funds. We agree that
such training can provide an important means for ensuring appropriate
monitoring, but we believe that including information on these
safeguards in program monitoring tools, as several programs covered in
our review currently do, is a prudent approach to ensuring that program
staff will consider these safeguards when monitoring grantees.
OMB officials noted that grant-monitoring efforts could be strengthened
governmentwide and that our recommendation that OMB ensure that program-
specific single audit supplements include a reference to these
safeguards would need to be considered in the context of grant-
monitoring requirements overall. They stated that for some programs
that already have extensive audit requirements, expanding the program-
specific audit requirements could pose additional burdens to the
independent auditors conducting those reviews and might not be
implemented uniformly. OMB also questioned the potential usefulness of
this recommendation since smaller programs do not have a program-
specific supplement and many faith-based and community organizations
receiving federal grants do not expend $500,000 or more in federal
funds and therefore would not be subject to a single audit.
We agree that a governmentwide review of grant monitoring requirements
would be valuable and we acknowledge that adding a reference to program-
specific single audit supplements would add another audit step for
independent auditors and that agencies need to balance the additional
requirement with the added assurance it would give providers. While we
modified the recommendation to indicate that it might not be suitable
to include a reference to the equal treatment safeguards in some
program-specific supplements, we continue to believe that including
these references wherever appropriate based on facts, circumstances,
and risk, would help assure interested parties that grantees are using
federal funds appropriately. It is noteworthy that two of the three
programs in our review that had a 2006 program- specific audit required
auditors to check that funds were not expended for inherently religious
activities. We agree with OMB that many programs do not have program-
specific supplements and that many faith- based and community
organizations may not be subject to the single audit because of the
$500,000 threshold. However, including a reference to the safeguards in
these supplements would provide an additional check for compliance with
these safeguards when independent auditors conduct a single audit of
larger organizations. Moreover, our recommendation that agencies
include information on the safeguards in their program grant documents
takes on increased importance for those organizations not subject to a
single audit. As noted in our report, one of the independent auditors
we spoke with said that he developed his own audit plan by reviewing
the grant application package.
Regarding our recommendation that OMB work with agencies to develop
more accurate data on FBO grantees, officials at OMB said that they
agree that having better data on the types of organizations applying
for and receiving federal grants would help agency and Administration
efforts to gauge the success of the initiative. They said that federal
agencies have been improving the quality of the data they collect, and
which the White House reports annually, on FBOs receiving federal
grants. However, OMB officials said that there are obstacles to
obtaining better data and that they are uncertain about the extent to
which the data could be further improved. They noted that agencies are
concerned about the practical and legal difficulties inherent in
developing a uniform definition for what constitutes an FBO. OMB
officials stated that OMB and agencies have discussed making the
voluntary survey mandatory, but that this step has not been taken
because of agency concerns that some FBOs would not be comfortable self-
identifying and that mandatory self-identification might discourage
participation. HHS also questioned our recommendation to improve the
data that the centers collect on federal grants awarded to FBOs. HHS
stated that our recommendation suggests the need to establish a uniform
definition of an FBO, which HHS stated would be problematic and provide
questionable benefit.
We acknowledge in our report that developing criteria on what
constitutes an FBO is a challenging task, and our recommendation does
not dictate that agencies establish a uniform definition. However, in
cases where an organization chooses not to self-identify, the various
agency centers or program offices are currently applying criteria--
whether explicitly or implicitly--that determine whether they
categorize an organization as an FBO. We believe that greater
consistency in their use of such criteria could help improve the
accuracy of data on funds received by FBO grantees. In addition, the
extent to which FBOs are reluctant to self-identify is unclear. HUD
includes in its Continuum of Care grant application a request for
programs to self-identify, and HUD officials reported a high response
rate from its applicants on this question. In addition, some FBOs have
religious names and their mission statements include religious
references. Without evidence that FBOs are reluctant to self-identify,
we believe that agencies should explore the possibility of making the
voluntary survey mandatory or modifying the mandatory application form
to include a category for FBOs. We believe that if one of the stated
long-term goals of the initiative continues to be greater participation
of faith-based and community organizations in providing federally
funded social services, then it is critical to systematically explore
options for obtaining more accurate data on participation.
With regard to our recommendation to OMB to develop a plan for
measuring and reporting on progress in achieving the two long-term
goals of the faith-based and community initiative, OMB officials had a
different response for each long-term goal. For the long-term goal of
improving participant outcomes, OMB officials agreed that it is
reasonable for OMB to publish the results of the outcome-based
evaluations that agencies are required to conduct on their pilot
programs. However, OMB officials said they did not see a need for OMB
to develop a plan for measuring and reporting on progress with respect
to the other long-term goal of greater participation of faith-based and
community organizations. They noted that the White House is already
reporting on the numbers of FBOs receiving federal grants and the
amounts of these grants in selected programs and trends in these areas.
However, OMB officials acknowledged that there is a lack of clarity
about how the two long-term goals of the initiative are linked with
OMB's Standards for Success and that it thus may be appropriate to
clarify their connection as part of a reassessment of the long-term
goals. We agree with OMB that the long-term goals might need to be
better aligned with the interim goal of expanding opportunities for
faith-based and community organizations to compete on an equal basis
for federal funding and we modified our recommendation to reflect this
point. We also agree with HHS's comment that it would be inappropriate
to establish arbitrary participation goals.
Our draft report had included a recommendation that OMB make publicly
available the Standards for Success for the FBCI. OMB posted these
standards on its Web site in late May and we accordingly deleted this
recommendation in our final report.
Justice agreed with our recommendation that the Attorney General
clarify the scope of the exception contained in Justice's equal
treatment regulations for chaplains and organizations assisting
chaplains. With regard to our other recommendation to the Attorney
General, Justice stated that the Department's Federal Bureau of Prisons
is open to discussing possible changes to its contract language to
further clarify the scope of the exception to community corrections
centers. See appendix IV for our annotated responses to each of the
comments Justice made in its letter.
In several instances, agencies commented that our report omitted
important information. For example, HUD stated that we do not define
what safeguards are designed to protect FBOs, beneficiaries, and the
government. However, this information is outlined in table 2 and the
safeguards are discussed in detail on pages 29-36. HUD also took issue
with our characterization of the initiative's goals. HUD stated that we
do not acknowledge the Administration's stated goals for the initiative
of removing barriers, leveling the playing field, and providing
technical assistance. However, we discuss these goals in table 1 and on
page 40. Labor also stated in its comments that the object of the
initiative is to level the playing field. While our report notes that
this is a stated goal of the initiative, our report also cites the
stated long-term PMA goals of the initiative of greater participation
of faith-based and community organizations and improved participant
outcomes. Labor also commented that our report overlooks the data that
Labor collects from grantees on outcome measures, such as employment
and earnings. Our report discusses the long-term goal of improved
participant outcomes and provides information on the status of the
outcome evaluations for the 15 pilot programs for faith-based and
community organizations. The scope of our work did not include
reporting the data being collected for individual outcome measures in
the various programs. Finally, Education stated in its comments that we
did not find any indication of unallowable activity. This is true
except with regard to the prohibition pertaining to inherently
religious activities. We found that a few of the FBOs included in our
review described engaging in activities that appear not to be
permissible with respect to this prohibition, as noted on pages 34-35.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Secretaries of HHS, HUD, Education, and Labor; the Attorney General;
the Director of OMB; appropriate congressional committees; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
question about this report. Other major contributors to this report are
listed in Appendix IX.
Signed by:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Centers' Estimated Expenditures by Category, Fiscal Year
2005:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of Education, HHS, HUD, and Labor data.
Note: Justice was not able to provide a breakdown of its center's
expenditures.
[End of Figure]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Selected Characteristics of Faith-Based Organizations GAO
Visited:
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Community-Based Abstinence Education, HHS;
Abstinence Education Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,500;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 104;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 83.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Community-Based Abstinence Education, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 632;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 378;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Community-Based Abstinence Education, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,500;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 680;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100.
Religious affiliation: Jewish;
Federal funding program(s): Microenterprise Development Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 4,615;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 300;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100.
Religious affiliation: InterFaith; Federal funding program(s): Grants
for Small Faith-Based and Community Nonprofit Orgs., Labor;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 50;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 50;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 50.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Grants for Small Faith-Based and Community
Nonprofit Orgs., Labor;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 225;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 150;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 17.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Grants for Small Faith-Based and Community
Nonprofit Orgs., Labor;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 250;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 250;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 10.
Religious affiliation: Baptist;
Federal funding program(s): Mentoring Children of Prisoners, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 550;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 270;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 75.
Religious affiliation: Lutheran;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care, HUD; Emergency Shelter
Grants Program, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 41,000;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 5,550;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 20.
Religious affiliation: Pentecostal;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 3,200;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 525;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 40.
Religious affiliation: Interfaith;
Federal funding program(s): Microenterprise Development Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Uncertain;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 950;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 325;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 60.
Religious affiliation: Evangelical;
Federal funding program(s): Community Corrections Contractor with
Bureau of Prisons, Justice;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 3,000;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 825;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Abstinence Education Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 313;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 313;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Abstinence Education Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 100;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 100;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 92.5.
Religious affiliation: Catholic;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 36,000;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 1,300;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: Less than 50.
Religious affiliation: Protestant;
Federal funding program(s): Emergency Shelter Grants Program, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,500;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 244;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 26.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Emergency Shelter Grants Program, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 300;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 300;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 25.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,900;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 310;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 25.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Grants, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 22,000;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 4,000;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 55.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care, HUD; Emergency Shelter
Grants Program, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 9,000;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 1,000;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 50.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Grants, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,400;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 873;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 80.
Religious affiliation: Protestant;
Federal funding program(s): Community-Based Abstinence Education, HHS;
Abstinence Education Program, HHS;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,281;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 439;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 83.
Religious affiliation: Protestant;
Federal funding program(s): Department of Education Mentoring Programs;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 300;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 103;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 99.
Religious affiliation: Catholic;
Federal funding program(s): Community Corrections Contractor with
Bureau of Prisons, Justice;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: Yes;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: Yes;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,500;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 1,500;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 100%.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Continuum of Care, HUD; Emergency Shelter
Grants Program, HUD;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: Yes;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 1,354;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 260;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 38%.
Religious affiliation: Christian;
Federal funding program(s): Department of Education Mentoring Programs;
Provide voluntary religious services for clients: No;
Received federal funding prior to FBCI: No;
Believes FBCI changed opportunities for their organization: No;
Annual overall budget (dollars in thousands): 250;
Annual program budget (dollars in thousands): 106;
Percentage of federal funds in program budget: 80-85%.
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from interviews with
officials from the 26 FBOs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Best Practices for the Initiative's Standards for
Success:
Best Practices for Outreach and Technical Assistance:
Federally Administered Grant Programs:
1. reviews agency programs to identify those of particular interest to
faith-based and community organizations,
2. implements a strategic outreach and technical assistance plan
(through White House regional conferences and workshops),
3. creates a database of faith-based and community organizations and
maintains grant solicitation mailing lists,
4. produces informational materials in consultation with the White
House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI):
5. organizes technical assistance workshops,
6. provides Web-based outreach and technical assistance,
7. participates in interagency conferences on the Faith-Based and
community Initiative,
8. incorporates Faith-Based and Community Initiative outreach goals
into agencywide events.
State and locally Administered Grant Programs:
9. implements an action plan in consultation with WHOFBCI to enhance
opportunities of faith-based and community organizations to compete for
federal funds at the state and local levels (through White House
regional conferences and workshops),
10. Creates a database of faith-based and community organizations
interested in state and locally administered grant programs,
11. provides targeted Web-based outreach and technical assistance,
12. distributes written outreach materials approved by WHOFBCI,
13. coordinates with state and local agencies through regional offices
on outreach activities,
14. adopts successful outreach and technical assistance practices of
other agencies,
15. coordinates with regional offices to provide technical assistance
workshops.
Best Practices for Implementation of Equal Treatment Regulations:
Education:
1. posts a notice of the regulation on its center for faith-based and
community initiative Web site,
2. posts a notice of the regulation on Web sites of agency program
offices,
3. sends a program memo to state and local administrators of agency
funds, alerting them to the final rule and asking them to ensure that
their own processes and policies reflect the rule,
4. develops materials such as questions and answers, PowerPoint
presentations, and easily accessible explanations of the rule in
consultation with WHOFBCI to educate internal and external stakeholders
about the regulations,
5. educates agency grant staff, including field offices, that manage
formula grants on the requirements of the regulation,
6. arranges training for state and local officials who administer funds
under the regulation (through White House regional conferences and
workshops),
7. educates governors' offices and mayors' offices about the
requirements of the regulation (through materials to be provided at
White House regional conferences and workshops),
8. discusses the regulations at conferences,
9. encourages organizations that represent grantees to highlight the
regulations in constituent newsletters,
10. sends a more detailed policy notice or guidance document to state
and local officials on how to implement the rule.
Compliance:
11. enforces existing procedures when monitoring uncovers a violation,
12. conducts a representative survey in consultation with OMB and
WHOFBCI by program or by state to examine indicators of progress in
complying with the regulations,
13. reviews existing mechanisms to determine whether they include
sufficient monitoring to ensure compliance with the equal treatment
regulations.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
U.S. Department of Justice:
Office of the Deputy Attorney General:
May 22, 2006:
By Messenger:
Mr. Andrew Sherrill:
Assistant Director:
Governmental Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Room 5E-35:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GAO's Draft Report: Faith-Based and Community Initiative:
Improvements In Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could
Enhance Accountability (GAO-06-616/130451):
Dear Mr. Sherrill:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled "Faith-Based and
Community Initiative: Improvements In Monitoring Grantees and Measuring
Performance Could Enhance Accountability" (hereinafter "Report"). The
Report has been reviewed by various components of the Department of
Justice, including the Office of Justice Programs, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Civil Rights
Division, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. This letter
constitutes the Department's formal response to the Report, and we
request that it be included in the GAO's final document.
Based upon our review, we affirm the GAO's findings that:
* the Department is fulfilling the mission of the Faith-Based and
Community Initiative (hereinafter "Initiative") to expand opportunities
for community organizations, including faith-based ones, to compete
without discrimination or favoritism for federal social service grants
and contracts;
* every faith-based recipient of federal funds that GAO interviewed
said they were aware of the regulation requiring the separation of
inherently religious activity from the secular social service being
funded by the Department;
* pursuant to the law, faith-based organizations (hereinafter "FBOs")
that receive federal grants are monitored the same as secular
organizations - -no more or less intensely;
* all of the Department's pilot programs have evaluations completed or
underway; and:
* the Office of Management and Budget has assessed the Department's
performance under the Initiative to meet the highest standards for
success.
Also, we concur with the GAO's recommendation that the Attorney General
clarify the scope of the exception in 28 CFR 38.1(b)(2).
The Department respectfully offers these additional comments:
1. The GAO should review and reconsider the accuracy of the Report's
descriptions of the Initiative's mission. Federal grant programs for
which non-government organizations are eligible to apply are not (as
the Report states) "intended to encourage faith-based and community
organizations to deliver federally funded social services." See, the
unnumbered Highlights page, paragraph 2 ("What GAO Found", 11. 11-12).
Rather, the mission of the Initiative is to remove obstacles
confronting community organizations, including faith-based ones, when
they apply for federal social service grants or contracts. The
Initiative seeks to ensure equal opportunity and fair consideration for
faith-based and other community organizations (hereinafter "FBCOs"),
not special incentives, set-asides or preferential awarding.
2. The Report could more accurately describe the law relevant to the
Initiative. The report repeatedly and erroneously refers to a ban on
inherently religious activities during "program hours." That term does
not appear in the regulation. On the contrary, the Department's Equal
Treatment regulation (28 CFR 38.1, et seq.) expressly allows inherently
religious activities to take place at the same time as federally-funded
programming, provided the two are presented in separate venues and the
religious activities are not funded with program dollars.
Moreover, the Report's numerous references to this ban could be
rendered accurate in another regard. Use of federal funds for
inherently religious activities is prohibited only if the funds are
provided directly by the government to the service provider. Providers
may offer voluntary religious activities without separation of time or
location from the social service if beneficiaries are given a genuine
choice between faith-based and secular service providers as part of an
"indirect" funding program (like vouchers).
The GAO's observation about the applicable law is misleading. Moreover,
equally suspect are the Report's attendant observations that several
grantees misunderstood the applicable law. See, comment 3, infra.
3. The Report suggests that several unnamed FBOs in unnamed programs
may be violating the regulation requiring that inherently religious
activity (like prayer) be separated in time or space. See, page 7,11.
10-13. GAO officials elaborated on this at their exit conference with
the Department on April 19, 2006, stating that one of these FBOs was a
Department of Justice contractor operating a community correction
center or "halfway house" for returning offenders. When we asked how
the CCC contractor violated the regulation, GAO explained that the
contractor said that she would be willing to pray with an inmate upon
request. GAO contended that because the CCC's operation was totally
funded by the Department, and because inmates were allowed to leave the
CCC once a week to attend a worship service, that the entire week other
than those several hours of weekly worship were "program hours" in
which prayer by staff would be prohibited. The rationale that the GAO
offered for this conclusion reflects a misunderstanding of the
applicable law. Indeed, GAO officials conceded at our exit conference
that they were unfamiliar with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,
and with First Amendment precedent recognizing the authority (if not
the obligation) of the government to provide chaplains and other
spiritual accommodation for inmates in custody. In fact, the applicable
regulation expressly exempts community correction centers [8 CFR
38.1(b)(2)]. Consequently, we respectfully suggest that this CCC
contractor was not violating applicable law.
4. The Report frequently alleges that the data from the five FBCI
centers hinder policymakers in assessing the Initiative's progress
because the Administration does not require faith-based organizations
to identify themselves as such and because the departments do not use a
uniform, bright-line definition of "FBO" when collecting data on
grantees.
There are compelling reasons why the Department of Justice follows
neither of these suggestions. The Department distributes to applicants
a separate survey in which the Department invites applicants to self-
identify whether they are faith-based or secular. The Department makes
this survey optional and does not submit it with the grant application
to the independent review panels that score the applications. The
survey is withheld from the panel because the goal of the FBCI is not
to set aside funds in favor of FBCOs, but rather to eliminate obstacles
that prevent such applicants from competing. Requiring self-
identification could intimidate potential faith-based applicants and
germinate the incorrect suspicion that their religion will be
considered in the award process. Moreover, the lack of a definition of
"FBO" does not prevent assessment of progress, because the Initiative
seeks equal opportunity for both faith-based and secular groups.
Progress can be measured as long as the Department can distinguish
between public agencies and non-government organizations.
5. We recommend that the GAO elaborate on its statement that "most
agencies have not completed the OMB-required outcome-based evaluations
of their pilot programs." See, page 8, lines 17-19. Without some
explanation, a reader might conclude that these agencies were derelict
in their obligation to OMB. That is not the case. In fact, for some
agencies the necessary data is not yet available. For example, the
Department of Justice cannot conclude its evaluation of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons' "Life Connections" residential reentry pilot until a
statistically-significant number of inmates graduate from the 18-month
program, are released from prison, and then remain free from re-arrest
for three years after release.
6. The Report's weight and utility could have been enhanced if GAO had
engaged in a broader and more representative survey of the Initiative.
GAO reviewed only ten programs across five cabinet-level departments
(only one program in this Department). GAO's field review of the entire
Initiative in the Department was confined to one community correction
center and one comprehensive sanctions center. GAO officials conceded
that they did not inquire about any of DOJ's competitive grant
programs, any of its pilot programs, any of its formula or block grant
programs to 54 states and territories, or any of the thousands of sub-
grantees of the block grants.
7. If the Report --which is based on what GAO described as a
"nonprobability sample" of (26) FBOs from among thousands of grantees
in five departments (see, page 5, line 17) --is to be useful to
policymakers, we suggest that GAO identify as to each FBO: a) whether
it was a direct competitive grantee, earmarked grantee, or sub-grantee
of a formula or block grant; and b) from what Department and grant
program it received its award or contract.
8. Regarding the GAO's recommendation to the Attorney General (page 54
of the Report), the Department believes generally that it is not
prudent to add to every program document selected contract language
focusing on particular regulations and not others. However, the
Department's Federal Bureau of Prisons is open to discussing possible
changes to its contract language that might further clarify the
application of 28 CFR 38.1(b)(2) to community correction centers.
The Department is committed to continuing success in the advancement of
the Initiative. To that end, thank you for the opportunity to comment
on your Report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Steven T. McFarland:
Director, Task Force For Faith-Based And Community Initiatives:
[End of section]
The following are GAO's comments on the Department of Justice's letter
dated May 22, 2006.
GAO Comments:
1. The statement that Justice cites does not refer to the mission of
the Administration's Faith-Based and Community Initiative but to funds
awarded since 2001 through new grant programs. (The goals of the
initiative are discussed on pages 11 and 40.) On page 25, we state that
these new programs were created to provide training and technical
assistance to faith-based and community organizations and to increase
the participation of these organizations in providing federally funded
social services. As shown in table 4 (pages 26-28), eligibility for
several of these grants is specifically targeted to faith-based and
community organizations and the stated purpose of many of these grants
is to increase participation of faith-based and community organizations
in providing federally funded social services. For example, the stated
purpose of Justice's HOPE II program is to "increase the development
and capacity of faith-based and/or community based organizations" to
respond to victims in high-crime areas. In addition, as noted in HHS
news releases, HHS's Compassion Capital Fund awards are "designed to
help grass roots, faith-based and community organizations enhance their
ability to provide a wide range of social services." We revised our
statement on the highlights page and on page 22 to more fully reflect
the purpose of these new grant programs.
2. We fully explain the safeguard related to inherently religious
activities in Table 2, p. 13. In regard to the point that this
safeguard relates to direct and not indirect federal funding, table 2
notes that this safeguard refers to "direct" government funds. For
further clarification, we added a footnote to this table to explain
that this safeguard does not pertain to providers offering services
through indirect funding, such as vouchers, and clarified throughout
the report that inherently religious activities cannot be offered
unless separate in time or location from direct federally funded
program activities.
3. GAO understands the authority of the government to provide chaplains
and other spiritual accommodation for inmates in custody. However, as
we discussed with Justice officials during our exit meetings, we
believe that the scope of the exception for community corrections
centers stated in Justice's equal treatment regulations (28 CFR 38.1
(b) (2)) needs to be clarified and that an explanation of this
exception should be contained in community correction program
contracts. Justice currently does not include a discussion of this
exception in its contracts and we maintain that community corrections
staff may not understand whether or under what circumstances they may
engage in religious activities using federal funds. Our report also
recommends, and Justice agreed that the Attorney General should clarify
the scope of the exception in its equal treatment regulations. We did
not include any FBOs administering the Community Corrections program
when we stated that four of the FBOs we visited appeared to violate the
safeguard related to the prohibition on inherently religious activities
unless separated in time or location from federally funded services.
4. GAO does not recommend that departments use a "bright line"
definition of an FBO when collecting data on grantees. Our report
acknowledges the efforts federal agencies make to collect accurate data
on grants awarded to FBOs, including the voluntary survey used by all
the agencies in our review (see page 44). However, as we note in the
report, producing credible data on outcomes achieved through federal
programs has historically been a challenge for the federal government.
Various parties, including former officials from the White House Office
of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, have raised concerns about
the accuracy of, and the methods used to collect, data on FBOs. Our
report calls for efforts among federal agencies to develop an improved
method for identifying which organizations are faith-based. We note
that this can be achieved through several options, including ones that
do not require that agencies define what constitutes an FBO. Justice
also raises the possibility that the initiative's progress can be
measured as long as the department distinguishes between public
agencies and nongovernmental organizations. However, this is not how
the initiative is currently being measured. The PMA lays out the long-
term goals of the initiative, one of which specifically cites greater
participation by faith-based and community organizations. The White
House published data on the number of FBOs receiving direct federal
grants for selected agencies in 2003-2005 but has not published data on
the number of grants received by government versus non-governmental
organizations.
5. We revised the text on page 8 to reflect our findings in the report
on the number of pilot program evaluations under way or completed. We
believe that table 7 on page 48 accurately reflects the status of the
evaluations to the extent possible based on the limited information
provided by some of the departments on many of these evaluations. In
addition, we added a sentence on pages 8 and 46 that acknowledges the
time it may take to collect outcome-based data and the fact that many
of the pilot programs began recently.
6. We discussed with Justice officials various competitive programs
before deciding to review the Community Corrections Contracting
program. We requested and Justice officials provided to us detailed
information on several competitive grant programs, including
information on the Community Corrections Contracting program. We chose
this program because, in 2004, at least three times as many FBOs
received grants from this program than any other Justice program in
that same year.
7. Appendix V Appendix II of the draft report provided information on
the grant program and department from which each of the 26 FBOs
received its award or contract and table 3 (see page 24) shows whether
the grant was a project grant, formula grant, or contract.
8. GAO believes that including information on these safeguards in grant
documents will improve grantee understanding of the equal treatment
regulations. Given that Justice's equal treatment regulations contain
an exception to the safeguard related to the prohibition on
organizations providing inherently religious activities unless separate
in time or location from federally funded services, we believe that an
explanation of this exception should be included in the contracts for
Justice's correctional programs. We do not recommend that an
explanation of this exception be included in every program document, as
Justice asserts. Rather, our recommendation clearly states that an
explanation of the exception should be included in the contracts for
Justice's correctional programs. Justice states that the Bureau of
Prisons is open to discussing possible changes to its contract language
to further clarify the scope of the exception for community corrections
centers.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Education:
United States Department Of Education:
Office Of The Secretary:
May 25, 2006:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report, Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in
Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance
Accountability (GAO-06-616).
The Department of Education has worked to provide faith-based and
community organizations (FBCOs) the opportunity to compete for federal
funding on a "level playing field," with equal opportunities compared
to other eligible entities. As your report indicates, when FBCOs apply
for funding opportunities, our Department uses the same general
processes to evaluate grant applications from faith-based organizations
as we do applications from other entities and organizations and we do
not establish quotas or set aside specific funds for faith-based
organizations.
With respect to your recommendations, the Department does not agree
that it is necessary to provide additional information on the
Department's equal treatment regulations in the grant documents for
amenable programs. The Department already sets forth in the Education
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) the equal
treatment regulations, and this guidance is applicable to all grant
programs. As we indicated in discussions with the GAO staff, the
Department takes many steps to make its regulations and other key
documents well known to applicants and grantees. In addition, the
Department notes that it imposes no comparable safeguard in any other
context.
Furthermore, the Department finds no basis for requiring greater
oversight and monitoring of faith-based organizations than of other
program participants simply because they are faith-based organizations.
All program participants are monitored for compliance with program
requirements, and no program participant may use Department funds for
any ineligible activity, whether that activity is an inherently
religious activity or a nonreligious activity that is outside the scope
of the program at issue. There is no indication that any ineligible
activity or any activity outside the scope of the program at issue was
found by GAO.
All program participants receiving funding from various sources and
carrying out a wide range of activities must ensure through proper
accounting that each set of funds is applied only to the activities for
which the funding was provided. Applicable policies, guidelines, and
regulations prescribe the cost accounting procedures that are to be
followed in using Department funds.
This system of monitoring is more than sufficient to address your
concerns, and the amount of oversight of religious organizations
necessary to accomplish these purposes is no different from that
involved in other publicly funded programs that the Supreme Court has
upheld. Also, the Department has trained, and provided detailed
information (e.g., program memoranda) on the equal treatment
regulations to, the program staff and is providing training on
programmatic and financial management to the program staff which
applies to all of the Department's discretionary grant programs.
We have also enclosed technical comments to the report.
We appreciate GAO's analysis and work on this matter.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
David L. Dunn:
Chief of Staff:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of the Secretary:
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
June 6, 2006:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report, Faith-Based and Community
Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring
Performance Could Enhance Accountability, (GAO-06-616). A primary
objective of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative is to "level the
playing field" so that faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs)
can compete on an equal basis for federal funding. The Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) has made this Initiative a priority and
the results of our effort are captured in key findings of the GAO
report. First, program offices within HHS use the same criteria to
evaluate grant applications from faith-based organizations as they do
applications from other organizations. Furthermore, the report found
that HHS does not establish quotas or set aside specific funds for
faith-based organizations. They must compete on the same basis as any
other group for federal funding. Each of these findings confirms that
the "level playing field" has been established at HHS.
As the Center at HHS continues working to maintain the level playing
field, HHS believes it provides sufficient information on the
Department's Equal Treatment regulations within program documents. In
fact, some program announcements now include specific references to
components of the regulations. The Department believes there is no
basis in federal law or any other justifiable rationale to require a
higher standard of oversight as compared to other regulations and
rejects the notion that organizations that appear to have a religious
name, motivation, or mission statement should be targeted for special
scrutiny, as the report appears to imply. The regulations actually
require that faith-based organizations be treated no differently than
secular organizations. Of course, no grantee may use Department funds
for any ineligible activity, whether the ineligible activity is to
impermissibly engage in an inherently religious activity, or to engage
in any other impermissible activity.
To ensure that the Department and its grantees understand and implement
Equal Treatment regulations fairly and equally, HHS has developed Equal
Treatment regulation training and guidance materials and implemented
training programs throughout the Department for program officials and
grantees to ensure appropriate monitoring and compliance. Similarly,
HHS participates in the overall Initiative efforts to provide training
and technical assistance to State and local officials who administer
federal program funds. Together these efforts represent a concerted
attempt to maximize awareness of, and compliance with, the regulations.
Finally, HHS believes that GAO's recommendation suggesting the need to
establish a uniform definition of a faith-based organization in order
to better measure progress toward the two long term goals of expanding
FBCO participation and improving service outcomes would likely prove
problematic and provide questionable benefit. The objective of the
current data collection process is to generally assess trends toward
the interim goal of expanding opportunities for FBCOs to compete on an
equal basis for federal funding. Further, the Department believes it is
inappropriate to establish arbitrary participation goals and that
improved outcomes should be the objective of all programs and service
providers and will be the result of many variables other than just an
organization's classification.
Enclosed are HHS's technical comments on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
C. Gregory Morris:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:
U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development:
Washington, DC 20410- 0500:
Office Of General Counsel:
May 22, 2006:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U. S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington DC 20548:
Dear Ms Fagnoni:
Thank you for providing the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) with a draft copy of the report of the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) entitled Faith-based and Community
Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring
Performance Could Enhance Accountability, and the opportunity to review
this report. Several HUD offices were involved in the review of this
report, and submitted comments on the report. This letter and the
attachment to this letter present HUD's comments on the draft report.
As an initial comment, the title given to the report reflects an
overall recommendation that appears to be based on a misunderstanding
of the mission of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative (Initiative)
and a recommendation that is not supported by the scope of GAO's
review. The basic premise of the Initiative, established at its
inception, is that faith-based and community organizations should have
the opportunity to participate on an equal footing with all other
applicants and awardees in the federal grants process. Equal footing or
equal treatment means that faith-based and community organizations are
treated the same as their secular counterparts, not differently, and
equal treatment in the federal grant process encompasses how they are
monitored as grantees.
The report's recommendations with respect to monitoring, if followed,
would have the effect of establishing unequal treatment of faith-based
organizations, merely on the basis of presumed or confirmed religious
affiliation. This recommendation runs completely counter to the purpose
of the Initiative and what the Initiative has strived to achieve and
has achieved to date.
The GAO report also appears to be vague at several critical junctures.
For example, on the report's summary page and throughout much of the
report, GAO states that the Initiative "provides grantees with some
information on the safeguards designed to protect FBOs, beneficiaries,
and the government," without readily defining or enumerating what those
safeguards are. The report also states that the Initiative's long-term
goal is "increasing participation of faith-based and community
organizations," but fails to reference the wider context of the
Administration's well-stated and repeatedly stated goal of the
Initiative, which is to remove barriers, level the playing field, and
provide technical assistance to faith-based and other community
organizations interested in partnering with the federal government to
deliver social services.
The Department was pleased to read the report's findings that HUD's
activities under the Initiative were carried out under guidelines that
GAO found to be appropriate safeguards. Nevertheless, HUD remains
concerned with the overall recommendation of the report, which is that
faith-based organizations be monitored more rigorously, without
sufficient presentment of support for this recommendation. The report
does not establish the necessity of exceptional treatment and the
methodological certainty or probability that such treatment would
deliver results that the GAO finds desirable. In this respect, the
Department is concerned that the report will not serve the public well,
because it will perpetuate a misunderstanding about the mission of the
Initiative and casts unmerited suspicion as to whether faith-based
organizations and the federal government itself are in compliance with
federal law.
Specific comments on various sections of the report are attached as
HUD's technical comments on the report. Your consideration of the
comments in this letter and in the attachment in the development of the
final report is appreciated.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review and comment upon the
draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
George L. Weidenfeller:
Deputy General Counsel for Operations:
Attachment:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department Of Labor:
May 2 6 2006:
Office Of The Deputy Secretary Washington, D.C. 20210:
Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni:
Managing Director Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, NW Washington, DC
20548:
Dear Ms. Fagnoni:
Thank you for providing the draft report GAO-06-616, titled "Faith-
Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees And
Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability." Overall, the GAO
study highlights important issues for further refinement of the
initiative's ongoing, expansive efforts.
Most notably, the draft report offers a confirmation of the Faith-Based
and Community Initiative's (FBCI) foundational goal: a fair and "level
playing field" for all organizations seeking to partner with government
to provide social services. Although receiving limited attention in the
draft report, the most significant aspect of the study is what GAO's
investigation did not find. In all of its research, interviews,
document reviews, site visits, and other inquiries, the GAO found no
evidence of discrimination in favor of, or against, any organization on
the basis of religion, and no hint of political or other inappropriate
motivations within the grant-making processes. A "level playing field"
proved to be the rule.
Also important to note, the GAO study did not find any evidence of
religious discrimination in employment decisions made by recipients of
DOL support, as required by Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA). While recommending greater clarity and consistency across
agencies in explaining the hiring rights of faith-based organizations
(FBOs), the GAO discovered full compliance with the laws governing the
hiring rights of FBOs.
The department has already drafted detailed revisions for monitoring
tools and guidance provided to regional and state staff to enhance
existing efforts to ensure full compliance with all facets of the equal
treatment regulations. Having already trained more than 1,200 grant
recipients, workforce officials, and non-profit staff, DOL will be
advancing a more extensive training program for Federal, state, and
local administrators of DOL support over the next year to further
strengthen the workforce system's understanding of the equal treatment
regulations.
However, DOL strongly believes that organizations that appear to have a
religious name, background, or motivation should not be singled out for
special scrutiny, as the GAO report implies. Rather, expectations and
guidelines regarding appropriate and inappropriate use of federal aid
must be made clear and applied with a diligent equality to all
organizations. The complexity of distinguishing "faith-based" from
"secular" organizations is an issue the GAO itself notes.
For this reason, DOL appropriately relies on self-identification for
data collection purposes whenever possible, just as the government does
for classification of individuals based on demographic characteristics,
such as race, gender, and national origin. As the GAO notes, this does
not produce a wholly objective, scientific basis for categorizing
grantees as faith-based or not. The simple truth is that no such basis
exists. Even so, self-identification can provide a sound basis for
observation of trends. This is particularly true because the object of
the FBCI is not to funnel funds to faith-based organizations, but to
create a "level playing field" and new opportunities for participation
for all organizations. While the taxonomy of a particular grantee may
be questioned, there can be no doubt that both faith-based and secular
community organizations have significantly increased their
participation in DOL programs in recent years.
With regard to evaluation efforts, the DOL strongly affirms the GAO's
encouragement to continue advancing the outcome-based evaluations of
pilot programs, as well as evaluations of other programs that have been
impacted by the presence of new FBCO partners. Outcome-based
evaluations of two of DOL's four current pilot projects are in
progress, and a third will begin soon. In addition, DOL has undertaken
process evaluations of a number of programs for which full outcome
evaluations would be cost prohibitive.
The significant time required to mature pilot programs and complete
scientific outcome evaluations should not obscure the fact that
hundreds of thousands of Americans' lives have been positively impacted
by the social services of faith-based and secular community
organizations working in partnership with the federal government. While
overlooked in the GAO report, DOL collects quarterly data from all
grantees, including OMB "common measure" outcomes: employment entered,
earnings increased, jobs retained and other results achieved through
the federally-funded services of FBCOs. DOL is confident that the
positive outcomes shown by this data will be affirmed and highlighted
as more formal studies are completed.
In conclusion, DOL acknowledges the draft report's confirmation that
the first overarching outcome sought by the initiative-a fair and
"level playing field" for all organizations that are willing and able
to partner with the government-has taken root in all of the programs it
studied.
This "level playing field" has enabled a vast expansion of partnerships
between DOL and FBCOs nationwide, cultivated by aggressive outreach and
technical assistance, application of the equal treatment regulations,
analysis of data collected on DOL grants, creation of innovative pilot
programs, and ongoing program refinement through research and
evaluation. Each step within this expansive endeavor is guided and
measured by OMB's "standards for success."
Most important of all, however, is the difference these partnerships
make in the lives of Americans in need. DOL research shows that FBCOs
are uniquely able to provide close cultural connections to underserved
communities, personalized care and services, and other assistance that
complement the One-Stop Career Center system. The more expansive
reviews now underway, such as the GAO report, will deepen and refine
our understanding of the full benefits and strengths of these
partnerships, as well as areas that merit further attention.
Enclosed are DOL's technical comments on the draft report. If you would
like additional information, please do not hesitate to call the
director of the DOL Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at
202-693-6450.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Law:
Deputy Secretary of Labor:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215, FagnoniC@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Sherrill, Assistant
Director, and Elizabeth Morrison, managed this assignment. James
Whitcomb, Lauren Jones, and Robert Sampson made significant
contributions to this review. Richard Burkard and Jim Rebbe assisted in
the legal analysis, Jean McSween provided methodological support, and
Jonathan McMurray assisted in report development.
[End of section]
(130451):
FOOTNOTES
[1] This was based on a number of Supreme Court opinions, which
interpreted the First Amendment and addressed the eligibility of
religious organizations to receive federal funds. See Committee for
Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973).
[2] The federal legislation applies to charitable, religious, or
private organizations but does not specifically define the term
"religious organization."
[3] For a discussion on implementation of charitable choice regulations
see GAO, Charitable Choice: Federal Guidance on Statutory Provisions
Could Improve Consistency of Implementation, GAO-02-887 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 10, 2002).
[4] These agencies are the Departments of Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, Education, Labor, and Justice.
[5] The six additional centers are the Department of Agriculture, the
Agency for International Development, the Department of Commerce, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business Administration,
and most recently, the Department of Homeland Security.
[6] For more information on reexamining federal programs and
performance budgeting, see GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Performance
Budgeting Could Help Promote Necessary Reexamination, GAO-05-709T
(Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005).
[7] The six competitive project grant programs are Mentoring Programs
(Education); Community-Based Abstinence Education Program; Mentoring
Children of Prisoners; Microenterprise Development Program (HHS);
Continuum of Care (HUD); and Small Grassroots Faith-Based and Community
Organizations Connecting with the One-Stop Delivery System (Labor). The
competitive procurement program is Justice's Community Corrections
Contracting.
[8] The formula grants included in our review are HHS's Abstinence
Education Program and its Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Block Grant, and HUD's Emergency Shelter Grant Program.
[9] Texas and Ohio have established state faith-based offices, while
California and Georgia have not.
[10] Charitable choice provisions were enacted for TANF as part of the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996, in the 1998 reauthorization of the Community Services Block Grant
program, and in the amendments to the Public Health Service Act in 2000
affecting the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant
Program.
[11] The equal treatment rules also cover agency contracts and
cooperative agreements.
[12] See,Participating in Justice Department Programs by Religious
Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment for All Justice Department
Program Participants, (Department of Justice Final Rule) 69 Fed. Reg.
2832 (2004).
[13] 530 U.S. 793 (2000) (plurality opinion).
[14] See, for example, the Department of Justice regulation at 28
C.F.R. §38.2(b)(1).
[15] In her concurring opinion in Mitchell v. Helms, Justice O'Connor
found private schools' receipt of funding from the federal program at
issue in that case (providing funds to state educational agencies to be
used for instructional and educational materials) to be
constitutionally acceptable in part because of the adequacy of the
safeguards employed by the federal, state, and local governments to
prevent diversion of federal program funds to religious purposes. These
safeguards included signed assurances by the schools receiving the
program funds, monitoring visits by the state and local educational
agencies, and appropriate labeling of materials and equipment purchased
with program funds.
[16] OMB Circular A-110 requires that the performance reports shall
generally contain brief information, such as (1) a comparison of actual
accomplishments with the goals and objectives established; (2) if
appropriate, reasons why goals were not met; and (3) other pertinent
information, such as an explanation of cost overruns. It also provides
guidance on the type of information that should be included in the
grantee's financial report.
[17] OMB Circular A-133 provides single audit requirements. It sets
forth standards for obtaining consistency and uniformity among federal
agencies for the audit of states, local governments, and non-profit
organizations expending federal awards.
[18] See OMB Circular A-133 for other federal agency requirements that
pertain to single audits.
[19] The White House. Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation
by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service
Programs (Washington, D.C., 2001).
[20] HUD issued equal treatment rules for eight programs administered
by the HUD Office of Community Planning and Development in 2003; in
2004 HUD issued equal treatment rules applicable to all HUD programs.
[21] Center officials told us that they are now collecting data on
community-based organizations. HUD and Justice officials stated that in
2005 they submitted data on community-based organizations to the
WHOFBCI, and Labor officials told us that they reported this data to
WHOFBCI several years ago.
[22] OMB No.1890-0014, "Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for
Applicants."
[23] Labor's center had 7 staff members for the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2005; it currently has 6 staff members, according to a
Labor center official.
[24] Justice could not provide a detailed breakdown of its center's
expenditures.
[25] See appendix I for a breakdown of estimated expenditures by the
centers for fiscal year 2005.
[26] Labor's estimates did include funds expended for center activities
done on behalf of internal agencies.
[27] Officials in the five centers we reviewed could not explain how
initial staff and resource allocations were made, as many of them did
not work in the centers when they were established in 2001.
[28] HHS spent $310,000 on rent, communications, and utilities in
fiscal year 2005; HUD spent $10,400 in fiscal year 2005 for the same
services.
[29] For a discussion of Education's Office of Innovation and
Improvement's grant award process, see GAO, Discretionary Grants:
Further Tightening of Education's Procedures for Making Awards Could
Improve Transparency and Accountability, GAO-06-268 (Washington, D.C.,
Feb. 21, 2006). This review sampled all the grants in Education's
Office of Innovation and Improvement and found that Education generally
adhered to its policies regarding competitions.
[30] One of the programs we reviewed was a contracting program in which
federal officials review applications/bids--for the purposes of our
discussion we treat it the same as the other programs. The competitive
process used by Justice's Bureau of Prisons to award community
corrections contracts involves a selection board whose members rate
proposals submitted by bidders on specific factors; bidders whose
proposals receive the highest scores are awarded contracts. The equal
treatment safeguards apply to contracts as well as direct competitive
and formula grant programs.
[31] In Education's 2004 Mentoring Program grant notice, the department
announced that five points would be awarded to a consortium of eligible
applicants that included local educational agencies, community-based
organizations, or one private school that qualified as a nonprofit
community-based organization.
[32] The applications for the Continuum of Care programs ask a yes/no
question on whether the applicant is a religious or a religiously
affiliated organization.
[33] Funds awarded in fiscal year 2006 were not included because
several agencies had not made grant awards for fiscal year 2006 at the
time of our review.
[34] Compassion Capital Fund, Access to Recovery, Mentoring Children of
Prisoners, Prisoner Reentry Initiative, and the President's HIV/AIDs
Initiative.
[35] We reviewed a program's latest grant announcement and grant
application for references to the safeguards on inherently religious
activities, nondiscrimination of program beneficiaries, and FBOs'
permissible hiring practices. We also requested from agency officials
any additional guidance that they provided to applicants or grantees
related to the use of grant dollars.
[36] Community Corrections Contracting includes both Community
Corrections Centers and Comprehensive Sanctions Centers. Bureau of
Prison officials told us that while the Comprehensive Sanctions Centers
have a more structured system for granting inmates access to the
community, the process of contracting for and monitoring of these two
programs is the same. Our interviews with FBOs included one that
operated a Community Corrections Center and another that operated a
Comprehensive Sanctions Center.
[37] See 28 C.F.R. 38.1(b)(2).
[38] Executive Order 13279 amends section 202 of Executive Order 11246
so that the prohibition on religious hiring does not pertain to a
government contractor or subcontractor that is, among other entities, a
religious corporation.
[39] Labor's Small Grassroots Program is governed by statutory language
prohibiting FBOs from making employment decisions on religious grounds
for positions that administer or are connected with the program or
activities that receive Workforce Investment Act assistance.
[40] The preambles to most agencies' published equal treatment
regulations note that while the Supreme Court has not comprehensively
defined inherently religious activities, the Court considers prayer and
worship to be inherently religious. See, for example, the Department of
Justice's final rule at 69 Fed. Reg. 2832, 2834.
[41] See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 4112.02 (2006). The Ohio statute does
not specifically include an exemption for religious organizations.
[42] According to Health Resources and Services Administration
officials, their office did not conduct any site visits during the 4
years they administered the program.
[43] We also reviewed all the programs cited in the White House Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives Report Grants to Faith-Based
Organizations FY 2004 to ascertain how many of these programs had
program-specific single-audit compliance guidelines. Out of the 81
programs that are administered by the five agencies in our review, we
found that 12 had program-specific guidelines.
[44] The auditor did not find any indication that the FBO had violated
the prohibition on inherently religious activities.
[45] In May 2006, OMB published on its Web site the Standards for
Success used to gauge the progress agencies are making in implementing
the initiative.
[46] Through the PMA, OMB has emphasized improving government
performance through five governmentwide goals and a number of agency-
specific initiatives, one of which is the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative.
[47] The five governmentwide goals under the PMA are (1) strategic
management of human capital, (2) competitive sourcing, (3) improved
financial performance, (4) expanded electronic government, and (5)
budget and performance integration.
[48] Accuracy includes both validity and reliability. Validity means
that we are measuring what we think we are measuring. Reliability is
the likelihood that a measurement procedure will obtain the same
results if repeated. Thus, reliable data would largely be free from
random error components. Without a single clear definition, there is
the risk that individuals are using different definitions
inconsistently to identify different organizations. Therefore, the FBO
data may not be valid or reliable.
[49] For a discussion of congressional oversight of the Faith-Based and
Community Initiative and data issues, see H.R. 1054 Authorizing
Presidential Vision: Making Permanent the Efforts of the Faith-Based
and Community Initiative, hearing before the House Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources, 109th Cong. (June 21, 2005).
[50] White House (2001). Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to
Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal
Social Service Programs. Washington, D.C.
[51] One of the types of applicant categories available for applicants
to check is "not for profit organization." However the application does
not contain any further breakdown of this category.
[52] See Montiel, Lisa M., and David J. Wright Getting a Piece of the
Pie: Federal Grants to Faith-Based Social Service Organizations, The
Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy, February 2006,
Washington, D.C.
[53] For further information about the different types of program
evaluations, including process, outcome, and impact evaluations, see
GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and
Relationships, GAO-05-739SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2005).
[54] The three pilot programs in which design plans appear to support
outcome evaluations are HHS' Compassion Capital Fund Demonstration
Program, the Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity-Building
Program, and HUD's Mentoring Pilot Project.
[55] Education stated that it plans to compare the performance of faith-
based and community organizations to non-faith-based and community
organizations in certain department-funded programs by asking questions
such as if the quality of programs funded by the department increased
from 2001 to 2004 as a result of the participation of faith- based and
community organizations in the grant application process.
[56] See, Wuthnow, Robert, "The Effectiveness and Trustworthiness of
Faith-based and Other Service Organizations: A Study of Recipients'
Perceptions," Journal of Scientific Study of Religion. 43:1, (2004).
[57] See GAO, Agencies Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: