Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring
Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability
(19-JUN-06, GAO-06-616).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-616
ACCNO: A55726
TITLE: Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in
Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance
Accountability
DATE: 06/19/2006
SUBJECT: Federal aid programs
Federal grants
Grant administration
Grant award procedures
Grant monitoring
Intergovernmental relations
Internal controls
Locally administered programs
Noncompliance
Risk management
Safeguards
State-administered programs
Faith-Based and Community Initiative
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-616
* Executive Orders Establish Centers and Responsibilities
* Equal Treatment Regulations Set Forth Safeguards Applicable
* Agencies Monitor Grantees Through Various Means, Including D
* Centers Have Acted to Remove Barriers to Faith-Based and Com
* Five Federal Centers Cumulatively Spent $24 Million since Fi
* Faith-Based Organizations Compete for Funds on the Same Basi
* New Programs Established since Initiative to Provide Trainin
* Most of the Federal Programs We Reviewed Provided Grantees w
* State and County Agencies Provide Grantees Information on Al
* Some FBOs We Visited Did Not Appear to Understand the Requir
* Program Offices Are Not Required to Monitor FBO Grantees Dif
* OMB and WHOFBCI Grade Agencies' Progress in Implementing the
* Efforts to Measure Agencies' Progress toward Achieving Initi
* Federally Administered Grant Programs
* State and locally Administered Grant Programs
* Education
* Compliance
* Order by Mail or Phone
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
GAO-06-616
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 10
Centers Employ Different Activities and Resources to Implement the
Initiative 16
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 22
Government Agencies Generally Provide Grantees with Information on
Safeguards, but Most Do Not Have Procedures in Their Monitoring Guidelines
for Assessing Compliance 29
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 40
Conclusions 51
Recommendations for Executive Action 53
Agency Comments 54
Appendix I Centers' Estimated Expenditures by Category, Fiscal Year 2005
61
Appendix II Selected Characteristics of Faith-Based Organizations GAO
Visited 62
Appendix III Best Practices for the Initiative's Standards for Success 65
Best Practices for Outreach and Technical Assistance 65
Best Practices for Implementation of Equal Treatment Regulations 66
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice 68
GAO Comments 72
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Education 75
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 77
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
79
Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Labor 81
Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 83
Tables
Table 1: Executive Orders Related to the Faith-Based and Community
Initiative 11
Table 2: Equal Treatment Safeguards and the Key Parties They Are Designed
to Protect 13
Table 3: Selected Federal Programs Providing Funding to Various
Organizations, Including Faith-Based Organizations 24
Table 4: New Grant Programs Intended to Encourage Faith-Based and
Community Organization Participation in Federally Funded Social Efforts 26
Table 5: Extent to Which Safeguards Are Included in Program Grant
Documents 31
Table 6: OMB's Green and Yellow Standards for Success for Executive
Agencies with Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative 41
Table 7: Most Required Outcome Evaluations Not Completed, and Some Design
Plans May Not Support an Evaluation of Program Outcomes 48
Figure
Figure 1: Estimated Expenditures of Centers for Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives, Fiscal Years 2002 through 2005 20
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
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. However, 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.
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.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
organizations2 to compete on the same basis as other organizations for
federal funding under certain programs without having to alter their
religious character.3
1This 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).
2The federal legislation applies to charitable, religious, or private
organizations but does not specifically define the term "religious
organization."
3For 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).
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.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,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.
4These agencies are the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing
and Urban Development, Education, Labor, and Justice.
5The 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.
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.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?
6For 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).
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.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.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.
7The 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.
8The 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.
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.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.
9Texas and Ohio have established state faith-based offices, while
California and Georgia have not.
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 Purpose Description
Executive Order Created the White House The White House Office of
13199 January Office of Faith-Based and Faith-Based and Community
29, 2001 Community Initiatives 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 Created Centers for To coordinate agency efforts
13198 January Faith-Based and Community to eliminate obstacles to the
29, 2001 Initiatives in five participation of faith-based
agencies: Education, HHS, and community organizations in
HUD, Justice, and Labor providing federally funded
social services
Executive Order Created centers for To coordinate agency efforts
13280 December Faith-Based and Community to eliminate obstacles to the
12, 2002 Initiatives in two participation of faith-based
additional agencies: and community organizations in
Department of Agriculture providing federally funded
and Agency for social and community services
International Development
Executive Order To provide, among other Set out criteria on
13279 December things, guidance to federal fundamental principles and
12, 2002 agencies in formulating policymaking that designated
policies regarding federal agencies can use in
faith-based and community establishing safeguards
organizations and to ensure applicable to FBOs providing
equal protection under the services under federal
laws for these programs
organizations
Executive Order Created centers for To coordinate agency efforts
13342 June 1, Faith-Based and Community to eliminate obstacles to the
2004 Initiatives in three participation of faith-based
additional agencies: and community organizations in
Departments of Commerce and providing federally funded
Veterans Affairs and the social and community services
Small Business
Administration
Executive Order Created Center for To coordinate agency efforts
13397 March 7, Faith-Based and Community to eliminate obstacles to the
2006 Initiatives in the participation of faith-based
Department of Homeland and community organizations in
Security providing federally funded
social and community services
Source: GAO analysis of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives Information.
These executive orders identify the key responsibilities for each center:
o an agencywide audit of barriers to participation of faith-based
and community organizations in delivery of social services;
o removal of barriers to these organizations' participation in
providing federally funded social and community services;
o a comprehensive effort to incorporate faith-based and community
organizations in department programs and initiatives;
o development of pilot and demonstration programs to increase
these organizations' participation in federal, state, and local
initiatives; and
o 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.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.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.
10Charitable 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.
11The equal treatment rules also cover agency contracts and cooperative
agreements.
Table 2: Equal Treatment Safeguards and the Key Parties They Are Designed
to Protect
Government
Safeguards entities FBOs Beneficiaries
FBOs are eligible to compete for funding on
the same basis as other nonprofit X
organizations.
FBOs may not use direct government fundsa to
support inherently religious activities such
as prayer, worship, religious instruction,
or proselytization. Any inherently religious X X
activities must be offered separately in
time or location from services directly
funded with government assistance and must
be voluntary for participants.
FBOs retain control over their internal
governance and do not have to remove X
religious art, icons, and symbols.
FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of
religion or religious belief in providing X
services to clients.
FBOs generally retain the ability to make
employment decisions on religious grounds, X
even after receiving federal funds.b
Source: GAO analysis.
aThis 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.
bThere 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.
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.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.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.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.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.
12See,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).
13530 U.S. 793 (2000) (plurality opinion).
14See, for example, the Department of Justice regulation at 28 C.F.R.
S:38.2(b)(1).
15In 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.
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.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.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.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.
16OMB 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.
17OMB 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.
18See OMB Circular A-133 for other federal agency requirements that
pertain to single audits.
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.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
2004.20 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.
19The White House. Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by
Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs
(Washington, D.C., 2001).
20HUD 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.
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.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.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.
21Center 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.
22OMB No.1890-0014, "Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants."
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.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
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,24 ranging from 35 percent to 87 percent of their total
expenditures.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.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.
23Labor'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.
24Justice could not provide a detailed breakdown of its center's
expenditures.
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.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.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.
25See appendix I for a breakdown of estimated expenditures by the centers
for fiscal year 2005.
26Labor's estimates did include funds expended for center activities done
on behalf of internal agencies.
27Officials 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.
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.
28HHS spent $310,000 on rent, communications, and utilities in fiscal year
2005; HUD spent $10,400 in fiscal year 2005 for the same services.
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.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.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.31 (See table 3 for a listing of the programs covered in our
review.)
29For 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.
30One 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.
31In 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.
Table 3: Selected Federal Programs Providing Funding to Various
Organizations, Including Faith-Based Organizations
Program Agency Type of funding Purpose of program
Mentoring Programs Education Project grants To promote mentoring
(Safe and Drug-Free programs for children of
Schools and Communities greatest need
National Programs)
Community-Based HHS Project grants To provide funding to
Abstinence Education public and private
Program a institutions for
community-based
abstinence education
project grants
Mentoring Children of HHS Project grants To award grants to
Prisoners Program organizations, including
community and
faith-based entities, to
provide children of
incarcerated parents
with mentors
Microenterprise HHS Project grants To assist refugees in
Development Program starting or expanding
(Refugee and Entrant very small businesses
Assistance
Discretionary Grants)
Abstinence Education HHS Formula grant To enable states to
Program program provide abstinence
education and mentoring,
counseling, and adult
supervision to promote
abstinence from sexual
activity
Substance Abuse HHS Formula grant To provide financial
Prevention and program assistance to states and
Treatment Block Grant territories to support
projects for the
development and
implementation of
programs directed at the
prevention and treatment
of alcohol and drug
abuse
Continuum of Care (set HUD Project grants To address the problems
of three programs: of homelessness in a
Supportive Housing comprehensive manner
Program, Shelter Plus
Care, and Single Room
Occupancy)
Emergency Shelter HUD Formula grant To improve the quality
Grants Program program of emergency shelters
and transitional housing
for the homeless, to
make additional shelters
available, and to
provide services to the
homeless
Community Corrections Justice Competitive To provide assistance to
Contracting procurement inmates who are near
program release and provide a
structured, supervised
environment and
counseling, job
placement, and other
services
Small Grassroots Labor Project grants To expand the access of
Faith-Based and faith-based and
Community-Based community-based
Organizations organizations' clients
Connecting with the and customers to the
One-Stop Delivery services offered by
System (Small local one-stop centers
Grassroots Program)
Source: GAO analysis based on agency information.
aIn 2005, the Community-Based Education Program was moved from HHS's
Health Resources and Services Administration to HHS's Administration for
Children and Families.
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.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.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.)
32The applications for the Continuum of Care programs ask a yes/no
question on whether the applicant is a religious or a religiously
affiliated organization.
33Funds 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.
Table 4: New Grant Programs Intended to Encourage Faith-Based and
Community Organization Participation in Federally Funded Social Efforts
Total funds
awarded
Start through
date of fiscal year Grantee/subgrantee
Program Agency program 2005 eligibility Grant purpose
Access to Recoverya Health and 2004 $198,000,000 States, District To provide client
Human Services of Columbia, choice among
territories, and substance abuse
tribal treatment and
organizations support service
providers, expand
access to an
array of
treatment and
recovery support
options, and
increase
substance abuse
treatment
capacity.
Compassion Capital Health and 2002 $125,594,965 Nongovernmental To help smaller
Fund (CCF) Human Services organizations; organizations
Demonstration Indian tribal manage their
Grantsa governmental programs
organizations; effectively,
nonprofit access funding,
agencies, train staff,
including expand programs
faith-based in their
organizations, communities, and
public agencies, replicate
state and local promising
governments, programs.
colleges and Intermediary
universities, and organizations
for-profit receiving CCF
entities grants also
provide subawards
to a diverse
range of
faith-based and
community
organizations.
Mentoring Children Health and 2003 $100,047,432 States, To support the
of Prisonersa Human Services localities, establishment or
private, expansion and
nonprofit, operation of
community and programs to
faith-based provide mentoring
entities, and services for
coordinated children of
networks of such incarcerated
entities parents.
Compassion Capital Health and 2003 $22,587,556 Nonprofit, To increase the
Fund Targeted Human Services faith-based, and capacity of
Capacity-Building community faith-based and
Programa organizations community
organizations
with a proven
track record of
serving the needs
of at-risk or
low-income
individuals and
families.
Ready4Worka Labor/Justice 2003 $21,700,000 Public/Private To assist
Ventures faith-based and
(non-profit community
organization) programs that
provides subgrants provide mentoring
to lead agencies and other
at 18 sites transition
services for men
and women
returning from
prison.
Prisoner Reentry Labor/Justice/ 2005 $19,840,000 Faith-based and To reduce
Initiativea HUDb community recidivism and
organizations re-incarceration
by helping
inmates find work
when they return
to their
communities.
Grants for States Labor 2002 $11,874,147 States To increase the
for FBO/ number of
Community-Based faith-based and
Organization community-based
Partnerships organizations
serving as
committed and
active partners
in the One-Stop
delivery system.
Grants for Labor 2004 $10,706,389 Workforce To encourage the
Workforce Investment Boards formation of
Investment Boards long-term
for FBO/ partnerships with
Community-Based faith-based and
Organization community
Partnershipsa organizations
that meet
community needs
related to
hard-to-serve
populations.
Grants for Labor 2002 $9,661,191 Nonprofit, To increase the
Intermediaries for community, or number of
FBO/Community-Based faith-based faith-based and
Organization organizations with community-based
Partnerships connections to organizations
faith-based and serving as
community committed and
grassroots active partners
organizations in the One-Stop
delivery system.
Helping Outreach Justice 2002 $3,675,000 Faith-based and To foster the
Programs Expand community development of
(HOPE) organizations grassroots crime
victim service
providers to
expand both
public visibility
and outreach to
victims, thereby
increasing the
number of
available service
providers.
Faith and Justice 2003 $3,500,000 One grant awarded To establish a
Community-Based to Florida multifaceted
Juvenile Department of faith-based
Delinquency Juvenile Justice initiative to
Treatment provide positive,
Initiativea caring adult
relationships,
and greater
supervision and
moral leadership
as youthful
offenders
transition back
into their
communities.
Small Grassroots Labor 2002 $3,408,981 Local nonprofit To provide
Faith-Based and social service workforce
Community-Based organizations with services to
Organizations $350,000 or less specific
Connecting with the in annual revenues populations or
One-Stop Delivery or fewer than six provide
System (Small employees particular
Grassroots Program) services not
a 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.
Helping Outreach Justice 2005 $3,000,000 Faith-based and To increase the
Programs to Expand other community development and
II (HOPE II) organizations that capacity of
will provide faith-based or
subgrants to community-based
grassroots, organizations to
faith-based, and respond to
community underserved
organizations to victims in
serve crime high-crime urban
victims while also areas.
building their
capacity.
Rural Domestic Justice 2005 $1,024,965 Community To increase the
Violence and Child organizations level of services
Victimization (nonprofit, available to
Enforcement Grant private entities) rural victims of
Program Special of rural states domestic violence
Initiative: and faith-based by increasing the
Faith-based and organizations of number of
Community rural states first-time,
Organization Pilot (nonprofit, grassroots
Programa private entities). faith-and/or
Private entities community-based
of nonrural states organizations
that are members receiving Office
of or central of Violence
offices of Against Women
national funding and
organizations may technical
consider applying assistance in
through an rural America.
affiliated
organization
located within a
rural state.c
Enhancement of HUD 2005 $524,578 Public housing To determine if
Public Housing HOPE authorities with providing
VI Communities HOPE VI mentoring
through Mentoring Revitalization services to
Demonstration grants will residents already
Programa partner with participating in
grassroots, self-sufficiency
faith-based and programs
other increases their
community-based likelihood of
organizations. achieving
self-sufficiency.
Clergy Against Justice 2002 $273,614 One grant awarded To partner with
Senior Exploitation to Denver, faith communities
(CASE)a Colorado, district in addressing the
attorney's office 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.
aDenotes a pilot program identified as such by Centers for Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives staff.
bAs of April 2006, Justice and HUD had not disbursed any funding under the
initiative.
cGrantees 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.
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.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.
34Compassion Capital Fund, Access to Recovery, Mentoring Children of
Prisoners, Prisoner Reentry Initiative, and the President's HIV/AIDs
Initative.
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 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.
35We 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.
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
Prohibition on
inherently religious
activities unless Provision
separate in time or Prohibition on explaining
Safeguards stated In location from discrimination permissible
federal documents to federally funded against clients hiring by
granteea programs or services based on religion FBOs
Agency/program
Federal Project and Contract Grants
Education/Mentoring 0M 0M 0M
Programs
HHS/Community- Based
Abstinence Education fS 0M 0M
Programb
HHS/Mentoring Children fS 0M 0M
Of Prisoners
HHS/Microenterprise fS OS OS
Development Program
HUD/Continuum of Care fS fS fS
Programc
Justice/Community d 0M 0M
Corrections Contracting
Labor/Small Grassroots fS fS fS
Program
Formula Grants
HHS/Abstinence fS fS OS
Education Program
HHS/Substance Abuse
Prevention and 0M 0M 0M
Treatment Block Grant
Program
HUD/Emergency Shelter fS fS fS
Grants
Key: document fS = provides statement in one or more of the following
documents: grant application, announcement, or guidance documents 0M =
cites regulations OS = makes no reference to these safeguards
Source: GAO analysis based on review of agency documents.
aDocuments include grant announcements, applications, award letters, and
any additional guidance sent to grantees.
bSafeguards 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.
cHUD'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.
dJustice 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.
We found no reference to the prohibition on inherently religious
activities in Justice's Community Corrections Contracting program.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.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.
36Community 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.
37See 28 C.F.R. 38.1(b)(2).
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.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.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.
38Executive 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.
39Labor'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.
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.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.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.
40The 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.
41See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 4112.02 (2006). The Ohio statute does not
specifically include an exemption for religious organizations.
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.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.
42According to Health Resources and Services Administration officials,
their office did not conduct any site visits during the 4 years they
administered the program.
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.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.44
43We 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.
44The auditor did not find any indication that the FBO had violated the
prohibition on inherently religious activities.
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.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.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.
45In May 2006, OMB published on its Web site the Standards for Success
used to gauge the progress agencies are making in implementing the
initiative.
46Through 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.
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.
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,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."
47The 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.
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.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.49 In
short, they questioned the methods used to collect data on which
organizations are faith-based and the credibility of the reported data.
48Accuracy 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.
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.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.51
49For 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).
50White House (2001). Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by
Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service
Programs. Washington, D.C.
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.
51One 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.
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.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.53
52See 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.
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.
53For 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).
Table 7: Most Required Outcome Evaluations Not Completed, and Some Design
Plans May Not Support an Evaluation of Program Outcomes
Intend to
Outcome conduct No outcome
Pilot and date evaluation Evaluation outcome evaluation
Agency established completed underway evaluation planned
Justice Life X
Connections-2002
Faith and
Community-Based
Juvenile X
Delinquency
Treatment
Initiative-2003
CASE-2003 X
Rural Domestic
Violence and Child
Victimization
Enforcement Grant
Program: Special X
Initiative
Faith-Based and
Community
Organizations Pilot
Program-2005
Labor Small Grassroots X
Program-2002
Ready4Work-2003 X
Grants for
Workforce X
Investment
Boards-2004
Prisoner Reentry X
Initiative-2005
Education Supplemental
Educational X
Services-2004
HHS Compassion Capital
Fund Demonstration X
Program-2002
Compassion Capital
Fund Targeted X
Capacity-Building
Program-2003
Mentoring Children Xa
of Prisoners-2003
Access to X
Recovery-2004
HUD Unlocking Doors X
Initiative-2005
Mentoring Pilot X
Project-2005
Total 1 6 6 2
Source: Education, HHS, HUD, Justice, and Labor program documents and
interviews with agency officials.
aCenter officials at HHS said they intend to conduct an impact evaluation
of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program that includes outcome data
and analysis.
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.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.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.56
54The 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.
55Education 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.
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:
o 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
o 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.
56See, 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).
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.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.
57See GAO, Agencies Strategic Plans under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: May
1997).
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 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.
Cynthia M. Fagnoni Managing Director, Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues
Aby Categor Appendix I: Centers' Estimated Expenditures by Category,
Fiscal Year 2005
Note: Justice was not able to provide a breakdown of its center's
expenditures.
Appendix II: Selected Characteristics of Faith-Based Organizations GAO
Visited
Provide Annual Annual
voluntary Received Believes FBCI overall program Percentage
religious federal changed budget budget of federal
services funding opportunities (dollars (dollars funds in
Religious Federal funding for prior to for their in in program
affiliation program(s) clients FBCI organization thousands) thousands) budget
Christian Community-Based No No No 1,500 104 83
Abstinence
Education, HHS;
Abstinence
Education
Program, HHS
Christian Community-Based No Yes No 632 378 100
Abstinence
Education, HHS
Christian Community-Based No Yes Yes 1,500 680 100
Abstinence
Education, HHS
Jewish Microenterprise No Yes Yes 4,615 300 100
Development
Program, HHS
InterFaith Grants for Yes No Yes 50 50 50
Small
Faith-Based and
Community
Nonprofit
Orgs., Labor
Christian Grants for Yes No No 225 150 17
Small
Faith-Based and
Community
Nonprofit
Orgs., Labor
Christian Grants for Yes No Yes 250 250 10
Small
Faith-Based and
Community
Nonprofit
Orgs., Labor
Baptist Mentoring No No Yes 550 270 75
Children of
Prisoners, HHS
Lutheran Continuum of No Yes No 41,000 5,550 20
Care, HUD;
Emergency
Shelter Grants
Program, HUD
Pentecostal Continuum of Yes Yes No 3,200 525 40
Care, HUD
Interfaith Microenterprise No Yes Uncertain 950 325 60
Development
Program, HHS
Evangelical Community Yes Yes No 3,000 825 100
Corrections
Contractor with
Bureau of
Prisons,
Justice
Christian Abstinence No No Yes 313 313 100
Education
Program, HHS
Christian Abstinence No Yes No 100 100 92.5
Education
Program, HHS
Catholic Continuum of No Yes No 36,000 1,300 Less than
Care 50
Protestant Emergency Yes Yes No 1,500 244 26
Shelter Grants
Program, HUD
Christian Emergency No Yes No 300 300 25
Shelter Grants
Program, HUD
Christian Continuum of Yes Yes No 1,900 310 25
Care, HUD
Christian Substance Abuse Yes Yes No 22,000 4,000 55
Prevention and
Treatment
Grants, HHS
Christian Continuum of Yes Yes No 9,000 1,000 50
Care, HUD;
Emergency
Shelter Grants
Program, HUD
Christian Substance Abuse Yes Yes No 1,400 873 80
Prevention and
Treatment
Grants, HUD
Protestant Community-Based Yes Yes Yes 1,281 439 83
Abstinence
Education, HHS;
Abstinence
Education
Program, HHS
Protestant Department of Yes No Yes 300 103 99
Education
Mentoring
Programs
Catholic Community Yes Yes Yes 1,500 1,500 100%
Corrections
Contractor with
Bureau of
Prisons,
Justice
Christian Continuum of No Yes No 1,354 260 38%
Care, HUD;
Emergency
Shelter Grants
Program, HUD
Christian Department of No No No 250 106 80-85%
Education
Mentoring
Programs
Source: GAO analysis of information obtained from interviews with
officials from the 26 FBOs.
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.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 3.
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
See comment 6.
See comment 5.
See comment 4.
See comment 8.
See comment 7.
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 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.
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
GAO Contact
Cynthia M. Fagnoni (202) 512-7215, [email protected]
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.
(130451)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
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
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-06-616 a report to congressional requesters
June 2006
FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVE
Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could
Enhance Accountability
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 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.
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.
*** End of document. ***