![](media/image1.png) ![](media/image2.wmf)

####### *A taskforce of the National Rural Development Partnership*

### 

January 25, 2001

2:30pm EST

### 

### Minutes

#### 

#### I. Welcome & Introductions

-   **Present on the call**: April Bender (NY), Rob Clark (IN), Karen
    DeRosier (FL), Cornelius Grant (ND), Mary Harding (MN), Jim Ivery
    (DC), Claire Parins(IL), Jane Poertner (IL), Linda Snedigar (MT),
    Bob Swanson (WA), Shanna Whitley (DC), Cheryl Zalenski (IL), Julie
    Zimmerman (KY)

-   **Presenters**: John Horejsi (DC), B.J. Bischoff (IN), John
    Bartkowski (MS)

#### II. Business Items

-   **March Conference:** The NRDP Spring Conference will be held April
    1-4 in Washington, D.C. Go to:
    http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/nrdp/M2001Registration.html to register
    for the conference!

-   **July Conference:** The NRDP Summer Conference will be held in
    July, 2001 in Duluth, MN. Workshop proposals are due on February
    1^st^. Check out the website for Minnesota Rural Partners for more
    information: www.minnesotaruralpartners.org

[**III. Special Presentation**: **Faith Based Organizations &
Welfare**]{.smallcaps}

[Presentations by:]{.smallcaps} John Horejsi, B.J. Bischoff, and John
Bartkowski

**Introduction, Protections & Freedoms, Obstacles & Training**

#### John Horejsi, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children & Families, Department of Health & Human Services (Phone: 202-401-5031, jhorejsi@acf.dhhs.gov)

#### 

#### Introduction

-   **Charitable Choice** is a federal rule in welfare reform, as a part
    of the PRWORA (welfare reform). It encourages public officials to
    attain services from Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs). It's a
    controversial provision, but it's the law.

-   Charitable Choice signals a new way for government and religion to
    interact. FBOs have the potential to be **allies** in providing
    service to the needy.

-   With welfare reform's time limited assistance and reduction of
    roles, partnerships are key. Charitable Choice is an opportunity to
    build **new collaborations** to assist the poor.

#### Protections & Freedoms

-   **For FBOs**: Charitable Choice requires the government not to
    discriminate against FBOs in awarding grants and to respect their
    religious basis. FBOs retain their right to have religious symbols,
    for example, as well as their right to use religious criteria in
    hiring. FBOs completely retain their religious status.

-   **For Individuals**: Similarly, Charitable Choice has protections
    for individuals as well -- protections against being religiously
    coerced. People cannot be forced to participate in religious
    ceremonies. Another individual protection is that the government
    *must* provide alternatives to FBOs for recipients who do not wish
    to receive services in that way. In these collaborations states have
    to be careful to be inclusive -- some states have already had to
    revise their laws to make their language inclusive. The language
    must protect both the FBOs and the individuals.

#### Obstacles & Training

-   **FBO Reluctance:** Some FBOs are reluctant to take government funds
    -- they don't want to deal with the bureaucracy or there is a
    perception that they will have to change their religious character.
    A study by the Center for Public Justice has shown that potential
    FBO partners are less formal than government, they are protective of
    their freedoms, and they are often skeptical of getting involved. It
    can be an intimidating process for them.

-   **Training needs:** Public agencies need to do outreach to FBOs.
    FBOs will need training in professionalism, in procurement,
    technical assistance to understand the grant process. There are
    different options for FBOs, to gradually bring them into the
    process: vouchers and contracts. FBOs can come together and form
    coalitions, FBOs can also be sub-contractors under a secular
    contractor that is more familiar with the process of working with
    the government. In either case, there's a need for much oversight by
    the government agencies.

#### FAITHWORKS INDIANA REACHES OUT TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

> **B.J. Bischoff,** FaithWorks, Indiana; Director of Public Sector
> Services, Crowe, Chizek & Company, LLP (Phone: 317-706-2656 or
> 1-800-599-6043 for FaithWorks. Also, email: bbischoff@crowechizek.com)

Definition**:** Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs) are religious
organizations. This includes churches, synagogues, other types of
religious places, as well as non-profit service providers that are
affiliated with religious organizations.

> **FaithWorks Indiana**

-   The Governor of Indiana encouraged outreach to FBOs, and established
    FaithWorks Indiana as the statewide effort. Crowe, Chizek and
    Company is a secular accounting firm that won the contract. They've
    provided over 40 contracts -- \$3.5 million in TANF funds.

-   Indiana has an above average number of FBOs participating in
    providing social services, and a high percentage of FBOs interested
    in applying for government funds. Many FBOs are already providing
    services such as: mentoring, basic skills training, parenting
    classes, etc. It's a matter of opening up some seats to TANF
    recipients and building upon what they are already doing.

-   The program in Indiana began in the 2 counties that have the highest
    concentration of TANF recipients (Indianapolis area, Gary area). The
    program began by building capacity and expanding framework in these
    areas. The next phase of the project is identifying the next
    counties to reach out to -- many will be rural. They've been working
    to prepare FBOs (many rural) for the next round of funding by
    building capacity.

###### Outreach

-   In February 2000, 6 informal meetings were hosted for FBOs around
    the state. The purpose was to tell FBOs about the different services
    they could provide, explain the "Charitable Choice" provision,
    determine interest, answer questions, and work with FBOs to define
    barriers to participation.

-   Other outreach is done through their toll-free phone number
    (1-800-599-6043), a website (http://www.state.in.us/faithworks), and
    they also communicate regularly by postcard with a mailing list of
    10,000.

#### Barriers

-   Some barriers identified in the February meetings with FBOs include
    procurement, bureaucracy, and record keeping, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Contracts are performance-based. Organizations provide a service
    (demonstrate performance) and then they are paid. It is difficult
    for FBOs to provide services without money up-front because many of
    the FBOs are new and small. This could be a barrier for rural areas.
    They're looking to find ways to expand their responsiveness to this
    barrier.

###### Technical Assistance

-   Crowe, Chizek, and Co. provides technical assistance workshops to
    help FBOs understand charitable choice and what the boundaries are.
    They have created a pool of people who have the technical services
    (lay leaders, social service providers) to help FBOs who are
    interested. They give one-on-one technical assistance to FBOs; they
    send out someone from the technical assistance team who is from the
    area, who knows the denomination, or who understands their
    particular planning needs.

-   FBOs are also encouraged to partner with secular organizations that
    are traditional providers. FBOs can start in a subcontractor role to
    get to know the process before plunging in.

> **\*Choice\***

-   Recipients need to know that they have a choice between FBOs and
    secular organizations. One way FaithWorks educates recipients
    through posters and postcards that say "It's your choice" so that
    recipients will be aware of their choices.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   One thing they'll look to do in more **rural areas** is building
    collaborations between FBOs and secular organizations. This would
    involve a secular contractor with subcontractors (both religious and
    secular) so that recipients can have that choice. This is a way to
    ensure choice in areas where the programs and funding base won't be
    as big.

###### Rural FBOs

-   **Wrap Around Services:** The most important services that an FBO
    can provide are the "wrap around" services. The two biggest barriers
    in rural areas are lack of transportation and lack of childcare.
    FBOs in rural areas can play a vital role by working on these
    services. In one rural county in Indiana, an FBO sets up a TANF
    recipient with mentors to help out with each of these different
    services (housing, parenting skills, childcare, etc.).

-   **Co-location:** Indiana is moving towards the co-location of
    service providers. In rural areas, they are creating express
    versions. A larger co-location center ("work 1 center") will be
    located in the county seat, for example, and in rural areas, they
    are creating express versions ("work 1 express").

#### RESEARCH FINDINGS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

> **John Bartkowski,** Assistant Professor of Sociology, Mississippi
> State University (Email: bartkowski@soc.msstate.edu)
>
> *Read his research online at:*
> http://www.endowment.pwcglobal.com/pdfs/bartkowski.pdf
>
> *and*
> http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_congregations_research_misspartners.html

**Research background:** 30 pastors in the "golden triangle" (the
northeastern part of Mississippi) were interviewed for the research.
They were interested in giving the transition that welfare reform
brought to FBOs. They wanted to find out what congregations were doing
for poverty relief. They were also interested in the social processes
(social science perspective). How do congregations do the work that they
do regarding relief to the poor? They also conducted some observational
research.

#### Four Types of Congregational Poverty Work

> **1- Intensive Sustained Engagement:** This is some type of long-term,
> enduring contact between an FBO and recipients. A lot of congregations
> located squarely in poverty-stricken areas engage in this type of
> work. This may mean relief to members within the congregation, for
> example, in times of need: medical bills, cash (if there are strong
> networks of trust), or childcare. Congregations that pair hot meal
> programs with a food pantry tend to build more trust. The
> congregations that provide this type of relief also get to know the
> poor. There are actual social relationships, friendships, that are
> formed.

-   One downside is that this is very time consuming and very costly.
    Only certain kinds of congregations can do this. Less affluent
    congregations with fewer resources have trouble sustaining these
    programs.

> **2- Direct Relief:** The FBO has some connection with the client in
> this type of work. It's not necessarily an extended form of relief --
> it could be so intermittent to be a one-time occurrence.

-   There's not necessarily as much of a familiarity between the
    congregation and the individually.

> **3- "Pair-a-church" Relief Agency-** These are collaborative efforts
> on a local level. These ministries bring together different
> denominations (often of different racial and religious backgrounds).
> This means that often if someone comes to their door and asks for
> help, a congregation can bring them to the "pair-a-church" agency they
> support.

-   One downside is that if a congregation is solicited for food or some
    other type of aid, they do not build trust. The mentality can be "we
    give down the street, not here." Although these types of poverty
    programs are efficient, they can create distance.

> **4- Short Term Distant Missions:** This type of poverty work is the
> type when churches send congregants to different parts of the state,
> country, or world to get an idea of what kinds of hardships people
> face.

-   One downside is that these sorts of actions can give congregants the
    image that poverty exists far off, but not here. Although they can
    sometimes be transformative experiences they don't necessarily
    promote local action.

#### Food Strategies

Food insecurity has become a serious problem in Mississippi and in other
states. This has become a point of interest for politicians and others
involved in poverty relief. The talk is moving focusing on involving
faith-based organizations in food assistance. Perhaps churches can help
individuals with food needs.

#### Practical implications

-   **Matching Skills & Needs:** It is important to have careful study
    and careful implementation in order to match congregational skills
    with the needs of impoverished people. It doesn't make a lot of
    sense to have an FBO providing services that aren't needed in that
    particular area. Funds should be used to carefully match the
    strengths of the FBO with the needs of the local population.

-   **Education:** A lot of education needs to happen in the states.
    Mississippi initially led the nation by beginning its Faith &
    Families program before welfare reform, but since then MS is no
    longer doing a whole lot of activity with charitable choice.

-   **Choice:** Charitable choice means that FBOs have choice and the
    clients have choice -- not necessarily the states!

#### DISCUSSION / QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

**Comment:** (Karen DeRosier) Churches are the institutional vehicles of
service delivery in small communities. Churches aren't interested in
bureaucracy; they are interested in maintaining a culture of caring.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) Congregations figure strongly into social
service delivery. Basically charitable choice "bureaucratizes" church
work. And one thing churches fight is the bureaucratic mindset of social
services. One example is a church that does not let people stand in
line. They want to send the message that they are not a bureaucracy or
an institution, they care about you. The sophistication of simplicity in
congregations helps to take the bureaucracy out of social services and
turn it back into a humanizing experience.

**Comment:** Many rural churches are not served by full-time ministers.
Ministers have other jobs and do not have time or are not equipped to
write grant applications.

**Response:** (Bischoff) Most of our providers from FBOs are from those
small churches. They do everything from childcare, job skills, summer
youth dollars, parenting classes, social behavioral, after school
tutoring, etc.

#### Perspectives on the poor

**Comment:** (Bartkowski) One concern I have with charitable choice and
other welfare reform initiatives is the professionalizing of the poor.
We have images in our minds when we think of the poor, and that varies
quite a bit (depending on your regional perspective). We've started to
look at how pastors view the poor, what kinds of images they have of the
poor. A number of churches in poor areas don't talk about the poor as
*them.* Instead they are talking about people in their community or in
their congregation. Social capital is so important between congregant
providers and solicitors of aid, aid recipients, clients (economic
term). We've certainly found that building those connections and those
networks of trust is very important.

Encourage policy makers to think through their actions and the effects.
Talk to a lot of pastors, listen to them locally, and ask them what they
think. There can be an unintentional racism with charitable choice.
Listen to how the affluent talk about the poor (as needing skills and
responsibility) versus less affluent churches and how they will talk
about the poor.

#### Issues of Race

**Response:** (Bischoff) Mark Chavez's study indicates that
African-American congregations are five times more likely to want to
participate in charitable choice provisions, especially large, southern
congregations.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) White, evangelical churches are strong
supporters on the national level, but on the grassroots level, white
churches are less likely to want to participate.

**Comment:** (Horejsi) The faith community can add value to our services
to the poor. The faith community can provide the response when things
fall apart -- when someone on their way to self-sufficiency hits a
roadblock. The faith community can be more responsive than the
government can. That's the kind of supportive and responsive role that
FBOs can take -- they can effective in this role. Some FBOs are
currently serving in this role for their own congregation. With some
government funds they might be able to serve the broader community's
similar needs. Charitable choice was not intended to fund already
existing programs; the intention is to fund the expansion of effective
programs.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) That is the intent, but everyday life has its
messes. Utility bills have gone through the roof lately, and mutual aid
within congregations is being maxed out. Local charities' funds are
being exhausted. I would hope this would be a way for charitable choice
to be helpful -- having the skills and resources of filling out a
proposal to fund these initiatives.

**Comment:** (taskforce member) Social Service providers don't want to
have to train others to do the job they've been doing well for many
years. They don't see the point to do it. In some cases they are already
partnering with the churches.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) Pastors have very different views on local
empowerment. White Baptist pastors say that this makes sense to them.
Baptist theology is oriented in that direction. African-American
pastors, on the other hand, are wary of local empowerment. It reckons
back to earlier decades when it took the Federal government to equalize
conditions and eliminate Jim Crowe laws, for example. Their perspective
is that it takes the Federal government to keep things fair. People
champion local empowerment as THE solution for these problems. That is a
simplistic way to view all local communities as being the same -- as
being equitable. We need to put these pastors' voices into the
conversation so that they are heard.

**Comment:** (Karen DeRosier) Are there funds available for funds for
technical assistance to intermediary who might go out to these churches
to help build up their resources? Churches are not going to be able to
use charitable choice without assistance.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) Not on the state level here (in Mississippi),
but lots of networking happens on the local level. The Center for Public
Justice is trying to work on that issue of technical assistance through
.

**Response:** (Bischoff) Indiana got calls from 3 different states for
help. The Center for Public Justice would be happy to review contracts,
but not 1-on-1 consultations. We're in the process of exploring that
issue of consultations/technical assistance.

**Response:** (Horejsi) At the national level had 300 people from around
the country here to deal with issues of charitable choice and to promote
peer technical assistance -- to learn from each other, rather than the
Federal government. Let's not reinvent the wheel if another state has
done it.

**Comment:** (Bob Swanson, WA) Many of us in our state say that we've
already been doing this kind of work for many, many years. Many of us at
the national level are concerned about any move to just wholesale take
money away from an effective system to give it to FBOs simply on the
premise that they need support. We work in rural areas all the time and
are satisfying the needs. How can we make sure that the collaboration
that we have in our area is not ignored? We're concerned that people are
going to get hurt in the process.

**Response:** (Bartkowski) in the past FBOs could not compete for
contracts simply because of the religious character of their
organizations. The difference now is that FBOs can compete for
contracts. It sounds like Washington state had charitable choice before
it existed in law.

**Response:** (Horejsi) Another real value of charitable choice is that
we can potentially get more advocates for impoverished families. We have
a lot of untapped resources. And in some churches that are very involved
in a number of different services, the mentors of the families have
become real advocates for TANF recipients.

**Comment:** (James Ivery) One of the responsibilities of the Office of
Intergovernmental Affairs is to make sure that providers and other
organizations have a chance to help shape policies including things like
charitable choice. We will have a new secretary, Tommy Thompson in the
next couple of week, and then we will have more of a concrete vision of
what charitable choice will be like. This would be a good instance for
consultation. Another concern, of course, is the separation of church
and state.

**Response:** (Bischoff) A lot of different groups are looking for
lawsuits, in Indiana as well. They are very vocal and very vigilant.
Indiana has had to be very careful. We have created an advisory council,
which is now in place (it took a while to put in place). We have a wide
variety of representatives including scholars, people of different
religious backgrounds, experts in constitutional law. We want a good,
inclusive dialogue to make sure that we're doing the right thing. We
want to make sure that people aren't being coerced into doing things
that they don't want to do. There's also a lawsuit in Kentucky about the
right of FBOs to discriminate in their hiring. We're being very careful,
and we need to formulate some policy on how we counsel our FBOs.

**[IV. Future Meetings]{.smallcaps}**

-   **Next meeting:** Thursday, February 15, 2:30pm EST

-   **March meeting:** Thursday, March 15, 2:30pm EST

Do you have any questions, comments or concerns? Please feel free to
contact:

######### Sarah Vokes, NRDP Truman Fellow

######### Department of Health & Human Services

> Phone: 202-690-6093 Fax: 202-690-5672

######### Email: svokes@os.dhhs.gov