President’s Advisory Council

on Faith-Based and Neighborhood

Partnerships

A New Era of Partnerships:

Report of Recommendations to the President
ii President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Publication of this document was coordinated by the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships with support from the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Special thanks to Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based 

and Neighborhood Partnerships and Mara Vanderslice, Deputy Director and Coordinator of 

the President’s Advisory Council.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 iii

Introduction from the Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

List of Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Economic Recovery and Domestic Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Fatherhood and Healthy Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Environment and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Inter-Religious Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Global Poverty and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Reform of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Bios of the Council Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Photography Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

Table of Contents
iv President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 v

It is difficult to overstate the generosity of the American spirit. From the rubble of Haitian 

neighborhoods to underserved communities across our own country, Americans are 

working to address the needs of the most vulnerable among us. The Government is often a 

partner in this critical work, collaborating with local groups to serve those in need. 

Although partnerships between the Government and community-serving organizations 

have existed for centuries, until recently the United States Government had never formed 

a body comprised of grassroots leaders and other experts to assess and strengthen those 

partnerships. On February 5, 2009, President Barack Obama created the Advisory Council 

on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to do this work. In an executive order, the 

President noted:

The Council shall bring together leaders and experts in fields related to the work of 

faith-based and neighborhood organizations in order to: identify best practices and 

successful modes of delivering social services; evaluate the need for improvements 

in the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based and 

other neighborhood organizations; and make recommendations to the President, 

through the Executive Director [of the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships], for changes in policies, programs, and practices that 

affect the delivery of services by such organizations and the needs of low-income 

and other underserved persons in communities at home and around the world.

Within this report, the Advisory Council proposes a number of such recommendations, 

and it urges President Obama and his Administration to adopt them. As members of this 

Council, we are encouraged by the fact that the President and his Administration have made 

sustained dialogue with a diverse set of leaders a key part of this process, and we thank 

them for inviting the recommendations we present here. 

President Obama asked the Council to focus its attention on making recommendations in 

the following priority areas:

• Economic Recovery and Domestic Poverty

• Environment and Climate Change

• Fatherhood and Healthy Families

• Global Poverty and Development

• Interreligious Cooperation

• Reform of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Each chapter of this report includes a number of recommendations in a specific issue area. 

No introduction could do justice to all of the recommendations, and this one certainly does 

not. We urge individuals to read the full report. 

INTRODUCTION
vi President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The recommendations often strike similar themes. We call for new “principles of 

partnerships” between the Government and community-serving organizations, ones 

recognizing that these organizations not only provide essential services but also deserve 

a seat at the table when reforms in policies affecting those partnerships are considered, 

designed, and implemented. To cite just a few examples, we urge the Federal Government to 

engage the nonprofit sector in its reviews of strategies for addressing global and domestic 

poverty and international adaptation to climate change. 

The term “partnership” should be expanded in other ways. Too often, this term is 

understood as being limited to government grants for private voluntary organizations. 

It should be understood much more broadly. The Federal Government often forms 

nonfinancial partnerships with faith-based and neighborhood organizations. These 

partnerships are as valuable to government as financial partnerships, and they are preferred 

by many kinds of civil society organizations. The Government should highlight and develop 

these partnerships as much as partnerships involving financial collaboration. 

And while partnerships in this area are now commonly understood to encompass joint 

efforts with secular and single-faith bodies, they should also be understood as involving 

relationships with multireligious or interfaith entities, both domestically and abroad. 

Multireligious or interfaith entities include religiously affiliated individuals or groups 

from more than one distinct denomination, tradition, religion, or spiritual movement, and 

they also may include individuals and groups identifying as secular. By partnering with 

organizations like these and others working across faith lines, the Government can build 

respect for religious pluralism and freedom of religion or belief. As President Obama has 

noted in several speeches, including his historic Cairo address, interfaith service initiatives 

are a particularly good way to build understanding between different communities and 

contribute to the common good. This report calls for the scaling and strengthening of such 

initiatives. 

In recognition of America’s growing pluralism and diversity, the Federal Government also 

should take specific steps to reach out to religious and cultural groups that traditionally 

have not been involved in partnerships with government. Government officials should invite 

representatives from these groups to be among the participants in, for example, workshops, 

training sessions, and networking opportunities. Steps like these will help to make good on 

our commitment to a government that truly represents all citizens. 

Reverberating through this report is a call for the concerns of people who are poor and 

vulnerable to be prioritized. “In our partnerships with government,” the report notes, “we 

will always seek to make sure that the question of the impact on the poor is being asked.” 

Successful and innovative programs run by community-serving organizations that provide 

integrated job training and support services to disadvantaged job seekers should be 

expanded. Likewise, Federal agencies should ensure that low-income communities and 

workers with barriers to employment are targeted when creating green job training 

programs. They can often do so most effectively in collaboration with nonprofit groups. 

In order to better serve those who are struggling, the Government should support the 

creation of more single-site multiple-benefit access programs, including those administered 

by religious and secular grassroots organizations. Far too many eligible families and 

individuals do not receive the benefits to which they are entitled. This discrepancy deepens 

the negative impacts of poverty on families and reduces the potential economic benefits 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 vii

for low-income communities. The limited government funding that is available to support 

benefits outreach and access is typically focused on single benefits and single agencies. The 

Council recommends that the Government pool these funds and revise relevant program 

rules to allow single sites to offer multiple benefits. In that way, families can access benefits 

such as the Earned Income Tax Credit; SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Progam 

(food stamps); medical benefits (including children’s health insurance); and veterans’ 

benefits in one place. 

Similarly, Federal programs should eliminate restrictive rules prohibiting the integration 

of funds or erecting significant barriers to effective coordination in programs affecting our 

economic recovery. The Administration’s development of comprehensive and cross-cutting 

programs for communities like Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods is a step 

in the right direction.

Cooperating across departments and levels of government is another essential step to 

bringing about better service. The Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 

and the Federal agency centers should continue to improve their communications with 

State, county, and city officials, who award up to 90 percent of Federal social service funds. 

Government agencies should create interdepartmental working groups to assess and 

address policies affecting fathers’ involvement in the lives of children, for example, taking 

the “father factor” into account in the work they do. Interagency and intra-agency working 

groups that will equip agencies engaged in international affairs for engagement with 

interfaith as well as secular and single-faith groups are needed. 

The Federal Government also should make strides toward ensuring that it provides clearer 

and more accessible information about programs and partnerships. To collect the resources 

that are available to faith-based and neighborhood groups on environmental issues and 

climate change, the recommendations urge the Administration to create a centralized 

Website with a name like Environment.gov. 

The recommendations also call for Federal agencies and offices that carry out foreign 

aid programs, for example, to publish information on their Websites about what they 

are funding and where they are funding it. And the Council recommends that all bodies 

disbursing Federal social service funds be required to post online a list of entities receiving 

such aid and to do so in a timely manner. 

Strengthened partnerships will require more emphasis on program evaluation. Evaluations 

help the Federal Government to identify and partner with the most effective organizations, 

whether they are secular or religious, large or small. Especially in new fields, the 

Government should invest in the development and assessment of new programs such 

as ones promoting responsible fatherhood. Also, the report notes that federally funded 

capacity-building programs, those operating both at home and abroad, need to be reviewed 

and strengthened. 

A reassessment of current agency strategies is sometimes necessary to improve these 

partnerships. The Council would like to see, for example, a modification in Requests 

for Applications (RFAs) at the United States Agency for International Development that 

would emphasize and recognize the value of preexisting community relationships, longterm presence in-country, support for sustainable development, and commitment to local 

participation. RFAs should include more impact and outcome criteria that support and 

recognize organizations that are in development for the long haul and should be scored in a 
viii President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

way that values long-term engagement with a community and local investment. Change also 

is needed with regard to some services provided by health and human service professionals. 

Curricular materials used by these professionals should give more attention to the critical 

role fathers play in child, family, and community well-being. 

The report urges the Obama administration to implement a number of the reforms across 

these partnerships that are aimed at honoring our country’s commitment to religious 

freedom. The recommendations call, for example, for greater clarity in the church-state 

guidance given to social service providers so that tax funds are used appropriately and 

providers are not confused or sued. The recommendations also insist that beneficiaries be 

notified of their religious liberty rights, including their rights to alternative providers. And 

the recommendations urge the Administration to take steps to increase confidence that 

the rules applicable to federally funded partnerships are actually being observed and that 

decisions about government grants are made on the merits of proposals, not on political or 

religious considerations. 

The Council began its work by assembling taskforces to develop recommendations in each 

priority area. Council members served on the various taskforces along with non-Council 

members who are experts in the issue areas. The taskforces provided settings in which small 

but diverse groups of experts could draft recommendations for subsequent consideration 

by the larger Council. Once the taskforces completed the draft recommendations, Council 

members reviewed the drafts, asking questions and offering suggestions. Based on these 

comments, the drafts were revised by the taskforces, and then the Council offered additional 

feedback. Through this process, the taskforce drafts were converted into one Council report. 

In all of its work, the Council sought to identify recommendations that could bring about 

meaningful change and that all members could endorse. In the few instances in which we 

could not accomplish the second aim, we have described our differences over the relevant 

matters. The fact that Council members have principled disagreements on some issues 

discussed in the report highlights the importance of our agreement on others. 

Governmental partnerships with nonprofits attest to the fact that government cannot do 

everything—it needs partners from the private sector to promote the public good. But 

we also recognize that the Government cannot even do everything in partnership with 

nongovernmental groups. Partnerships between nongovernmental organizations, including 

charities and businesses, are vital to our Nation’s health. Further, some tasks are the sole 

responsibility of the private sector. These areas, however, are not the focus of our report. 

President Obama asked the Council to make recommendations to the Federal Government 

about partnerships between the Government and nonprofit nongovernmental organizations, 

secular and religious, to serve people in need. Even though other partnerships were 

not within the scope of our work, we recognize the importance of challenging our own 

communities to do more in those and other priority areas, and we gladly accept that 

responsibility as we call on government to do more. 

If implemented, some of these recommendations will require substantial investments of 

government funds. At the same time, it is important to note that implementation of many 

of these recommendations will result in significant savings. Adequately addressing global 

climate change—through better and more extensive partnerships with nonprofits and 

other efforts—will result, for example, in less migration, fewer refugee crises, and greater 

food security. Implementing other recommendations would reduce inefficiencies in the 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 ix

distribution of aid and would save money by bringing about greater coordination of federally 

funded programs. For example, the report calls for the extension of Fathering Courts, 

programs identifying barriers that prevent fathers from making child support payments 

and linking those men with services, including education, counseling, and employment 

opportunities, that help them to overcome those barriers. In one Kansas City Missouri 

Fathering Court, 281 graduates and current participants have become significantly more 

involved in the lives of their children. They have contributed more than $2.6 million in child 

support, and as a result, the State has avoided more than $2.8 million in incarceration costs. 

The Council also acknowledges that President Obama has proposed a freeze on total 

nonsecurity discretionary spending for the next 3 years. We urge the President and 

Congress to recognize that effective programs aimed at helping people who are poor and 

vulnerable should be among our Nation’s highest discretionary spending priorities. Our 

country faces difficult choices. But those burdened by poverty face even more difficult 

choices, and we dare not turn away from their needs. 

In 2009, President Obama called us to work together, saying, “Instead of driving us apart, 

our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to 

make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have 

fallen on hard times.” It is rare, if not unprecedented, for a governmental body to ask such a 

diverse group to seek common ground on a wide range of issues through sustained dialogue 

and deliberation. This process has been an education for Council members and, if we may 

say so, a blessing. Our report is the fruit of that labor. The understanding and relationships 

that have been built across lines of faith, belief, and political affiliation are equally important 

products of this work.

We urge other governmental bodies to establish similar forums in which diverse groups 

of nonprofit experts can engage in long-term conversation. At a time when our political 

discourse is often dysfunctional because of bitter division and distrust, endeavors like these 

are absolutely essential. Governmental leaders and citizens alike should take action now to 

improve the conversation about our shared future, to protect the most vulnerable among us, 

and to form a more perfect union.
x President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 xi

Council Members

Diane Baillargeon, President and CEO, Seedco

Anju Bhargava, President, Asian Indian Women in America Founder, 

Hindu American Seva Charities

Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ

Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association

Dr. Arturo Chávez, President and CEO; Mexican American Catholic College

The Reverend Canon Peg Chemberlin, President, National Council of Churches; 

Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches

Fred Davie, Senior Director, The Arcus Foundation

Nathan J. Diament, Director of Public Policy,

Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed

Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith 

Program Human Rights Campaign Foundation

Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, Bishop, Thirteenth Episcopal District, 

African Methodist Episcopal Church

Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst and Executive Director, 

The Center for Muslim Studies, Gallup

The Reverend Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor Emeritus, Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church

Dr. Frank Page, Vice-President of Evangelization, North American Mission Board; 

and Past President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Dr. Eboo Patel, Founder and Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., General Counsel, 

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of Jewish Women

Melissa Rogers, Council Chair, Director, Center for Religion and Public Affairs 

of the Wake Forest University Divinity School

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

The Reverend William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

The Reverend Larry J. Snyder, President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA

Richard E. Stearns, President, World Vision United States

Judith Vredenburgh, Immediate Past President and CEO, 

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners

The Reverend Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, General Minister and President, 

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada
xii President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
1

 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010

Economic Recovery 

and Domestic Poverty 

Members of the Taskforce

Diane Baillargeon, President and CEO, Seedco

Judith Bell, President, PolicyLink

The Reverend Canon Peg Chemberlin, President, National Council 

of Churches; Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches

The Reverend Luis Cortes, President; and 

Jodi Reynhout, Project Assistant, Esperanza

Vicki B. Escarra, President and CEO; and 

Jean Yavis Jones, Senior Policy and Research Counsel, Feeding America

Commissioner Israel L. Gaither, Commander; and 

Deborah Sjogren, National Liaison for Public Affairs, Salvation Army

Brian Gallagher, President and CEO; and 

Josephine Robinson, Vice President, United Way Worldwide

Rabbi Steve Gutow, President, Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jill Schumann, President and CEO, Lutheran Services in America

Sr. Mary Scullion, Executive Director and President, Project H.O.M.E. 

(Housing Opportunities for Employment, Medical Care, Education)

The Reverend William J. Shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

The Reverend Larry J. Snyder, President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA

Jim Wallis, President and CEO, Sojourners
2 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 3

INTRODUCTION

Every day—in every part of America—faith-based and neighborhood organizations are 

serving the most vulnerable members of our Nation in both profound and ordinary ways. 

Faith- and community-based social service providers are an integral part of our Nation’s 

fabric. They provide warmth, food, housing, job training, mentoring, and hope to millions in 

every State, city, and town across America.

The impact of these organizations is enormous, whether funded by private or public dollars. 

For example, one of eight people living in poverty received services and support from 

Catholic Charities. The United Way has 1,279 offices located in every State and virtually 

every congressional district and works with 37,300 partner agencies across the country. 

The Jewish Federations of North America represent 157 Jewish Federations, which raise 

and distribute nearly $3 billion annually for social welfare, social services, and educational 

needs, through a network of agencies that also receive over $10 billion in governmental 

funds annually. Lutheran Services in America reports that its member agencies across the 

country worked with a budget of more than $16 billion last year. Nonprofit networks, like 

Feeding America, serve more than 37 million people each year through some 61,000 local 

faith- and community-based charitable agencies.

Additionally, there are thousands of smaller nonprofits that are working at the community 

and neighborhood levels every day, whose combined impact cannot even be measured. But 

we know that without the compassion, innovation, and daring of these groups, this country 

would be a different place.

Faith- and community-based social service providers are serious, innovative, and—in fact, 

indispensible—partners for the U.S. Government in the economic recovery and in the fight 

against domestic poverty. 

The principle behind our report underlines the assertion that the U.S. Government should 

see these capable institutions as key partners in not only providing social services, but also in 

setting policy and helping model innovation to strengthen communities.

Partnerships, especially during the economic recovery, that will protect those most in need 

are essential; these partnerships need to be mutual and supportive. 

Nonprofits are being asked to deliver a higher level of services with fewer resources. For 

instance, Catholic Charities saw a 10-percent increase in demand for services in 2008; 

Feeding America saw an increase of more than 30 percent in just one year from the numbers 

Economic Recovery 

and Domestic Poverty

SECTION A:
4 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

of those coming to their agencies for food assistance in 2008. 2-1-1, the health and human 

services information and referral line, operated in many states by United Way, saw more 

than a 40% increase in call volume during 2008 – the bulk of calls relating to basic human 

needs such as food assistance, utility assistance, and housing. At the same time, these and 

other charitable organizations are seeing income to provide their services decline from all 

avenues, private and public. 

As nonprofit leaders, we realize that State and local governments also are facing tight 

budgets and funding shortfalls, and we are trying to do all that we can to help, however 

an assumption that nonprofits can meet the growing needs without greater government 

support is not feasible. 

We were very heartened to learn that recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities shows that provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(hereinafter, the “Recovery Act”) are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of poverty 

and are reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more.1

But much more needs to be done. 

We believe that this economic crisis gives those who serve the public—both government 

and nonprofit—an opportunity to work together and reinforce both the community fabric 

woven by our Nation’s nonprofit and faith‐based groups and the social safety net held by 

health care, human services, and social service providers.

We also are committed to supporting the Administration in seeking an inclusive Economic 

Recovery that helps everyone, especially the most vulnerable and those most in need. 

In this report, we suggest that the commitment to prioritize the concerns of the poorest 

among us should become a principle of partnership between government and faith-based and 

neighborhood organizations. 

We would even go so far as to say that social policy must be made more accountable by 

practices and guidelines that would serve to focus our shared attention on those on the 

margins of society—those whom the 25th chapter of Matthew calls “the least of these,” and 

shared Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Scriptures often refer to as “the widow, the stranger, 

and orphan.” Rg Veda of the Hindu scriptures emphasizes the need “to strive at all times for 

the well-being of all the people” and many other sacred texts, and the moral traditions of our 

country share similar teachings about caring for the most vulnerable. In our partnerships 

with government, we will always seek to make sure that the question of the impact on the 

poor is being asked. 

We stand ready to work with President Obama and his Administration toward a stable and 

inclusive Economic Recovery, toward the stated goal of cutting poverty in half by 2015, and 

toward ultimately building effective partnerships to end poverty in America.

1

 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, State-Level Data Show Recovery Act Protecting Millions From Poverty Act; Also Saving and Creating Jobs, 

Boosting Economy, December 17, 2009.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 5

Three Areas of Recommendation 

Acknowledging that there are many areas and topics we could have explored, the Council 

offers recommendations in three areas. 

First, we recommend a set of principles of partnership for an inclusive economic 

recovery. These include building an accountable partnership with our Nation’s faith-based 

communities and neighborhood organizations focused on the goal of reducing poverty in 

half by 2015 and continuing to seek an end to poverty in America; reexamining how the 

poverty level is measured; and common sense proposals to help strengthen the effectiveness 

of social service nonprofits during the economic recovery.

Second, we recommend a series of changes that would increase access to incomeenhancing benefits for those most in need. Faith- and community-based organizations 

are on the frontlines, striving to not only fill emergency gaps in income, food, and shelter, 

but also support families in their efforts to adapt to the realities and opportunities of a 

post-recession economy. Our organizations work in partnership with government to help 

low-income people access income-enhancing government benefits, such as the Earned 

Income Tax Credit; SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps); 

and various child nutrition programs. Yet, far too many eligible families and individuals do 

not receive the benefits to which they are entitled,2

 reducing the potential economic benefits 

for low-income communities, deepening the negative impacts of poverty on families, and 

making the work of faith and community-based organizations all the more difficult.

Finally, we turn to jobs and education, two of the most important ingredients for pulling 

families and communities out of poverty and giving people the tools for success. The 

Economic Recovery will depend on the ability of people, especially our Nation’s youth, to 

have access to post-secondary education and job training opportunities in order to prepare 

for a new economy. Faith- and community-based organizations have unique positions 

as trusted partners to the community, to local businesses, but most important, to the 

individuals they assist and support every day. Therefore, we can play a key role in providing 

a bridge, especially for disconnected and disadvantaged job seekers, to education, training, 

and ultimately jobs with dignity.

2

 Jennifer Miller, Frieda Molina, Lisa Matus-Grossman, and Susan Golonka, Building Bridges to Self-Sufficiency: Improving Services for Low-Income 

Working Families (MDRC and the National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices: March 2004), at 14-15. See also Sheila Zedlewski, 

Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Genevieve Kennedy, Is There a System Supporting Low-Income Working Families? Low-Income Working Families, Paper 4 

(The Urban Institute: February 2006); Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2007, November 2008; Food Research and Action Center, Food Stamp Access in Urban America: A City-by-City 

Snapshot, October 2008; Sandra Jamet with Laura Seidell, Ben Seigel, and Rebecca Ross, Benefits and Low Wage Work (Seedco: September 2003).
6 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Overview of Recommendations

Principles of Partnership for an Inclusive Economic Recovery:

Recommendation 1: Build accountable partnerships between the Obama administration 

and faith- and community-based organizations directed toward the explicit and shared goal 

of significantly reducing and finally putting an end to poverty in America.

Recommendation 2: Utilize the knowledge, expertise, and on-the-ground experience of 

local faith- and community-based organizations to redefine the Federal poverty guideline so 

that it more accurately measures and responds to the needs of low-income people.

Recommendation 3: Provide greater flexibility for the coordination and integration of 

government funds designated for specific program activities. 

Recommendation 4: Support faith- and community-based partnerships as a means to fill 

the gaps in providing essential services like transportation, housing, food assistance, job 

training, education, and health care for low-income families and individuals.

Recommendation 5: Ease the burden on nonprofit social service agencies by removing 

barriers to service provision such as matching fund requirements, burdensome reporting 

and regulations, and slow payments and reimbursements.

Strengthen Access to Benefits:

Recommendation 6: Create an interdepartmental taskforce to explore and oversee 

streamlining and consolidating the public benefits, eligibility, and application processes.

Recommendation 7: Expand single-site, multiple-benefit access programs, including those 

run through faith- and community-based organizations.

Recommendation 8: Invest in the development and distribution of software applications 

to facilitate access to multiple benefits through online applications.

Recommendation 9: Create incentives for State and local governments to maximize 

participation by eligible low-income families and individuals in income-enhancing benefits 

and to promote multiple-benefit access through faith- and community-based organizations.

Focus on Jobs and Education:

Recommendation 10: Incorporate supportive services with education and training 

opportunities, and ensure nonprofit accessibility and eligibility for Federal grant funding.

Recommendation 11: Focus partnerships between education and training institutions and 

faith- and community-based organizations to better serve disadvantaged, displaced, and 

disconnected job seekers and to align worker skills with employer needs.

Recommendation 12: Utilize faith- and community-based organizations to bridge the gap 

from secondary education to post-secondary institutions and job training programs with a 

particular focus on disconnected youth.

Recommendation 13: Encourage collaboration between faith- and community-based 

organizations, community colleges, and the private sector.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 7

 Principles of Partnership for 

an Inclusive Economic Recovery

Sustained economic recovery depends on the participation and prosperity of all citizens 

and the development of communities of opportunity. Low-income people and communities 

of color continue to be at the frontlines of the economic crisis. The Recovery Act presents 

a tremendous opportunity to maximize gains for those hit first and worst by the economic 

downturn and to put equity at the forefront of policy and resource decisions. This moment 

of unparalleled investment is also an opportunity to build stronger partnerships between 

the Federal Government and faith- and community-based organizations, to help speed 

economic recovery and set a new standard for the future. 

Recommendation 1: Build accountable partnerships between the Obama 

administration and faith- and community-based organizations directed toward the 

explicit and shared goal of significantly reducing and finally putting an end to poverty 

in America. 

Faith- and community-based organizations have for more than a century worked in successful 

partnerships with the Government to deliver social services and care to millions in need 

throughout our Nation.

We have partnered with government by providing high-quality care, services, and support to 

the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society with a proven track record 

of success. However, our partnership with the Federal Government has not always been 

accountable to a long-term goal of permanent poverty reduction. 

Our community is ready for a new accountable partnership with the Federal Government with 

the goal of not only providing high-quality services and care, but also toward the measurable 

outcome of significantly reducing poverty rates and finally putting an end to poverty in 

America.

Many in our community are committed to the goal, affirmed by President Obama, of cutting the 

poverty rate in half in 10 years. At the Compassion Forum on April 13, 2008, then candidate 

Barack Obama was asked whether, as President, he would commit to the goal of cutting 

poverty in half in 10 years. The President answered: “I absolutely will make that commitment. 

Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very 

ambitious goal. And we’re going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to 

prevent more people from slipping into poverty.”

We understand that government cannot—and should not—take up this task alone. 

Our communities are committed to bringing our moral authority, financial resources, and 

networks of hundreds of thousands of experienced social service providers across America 

to this task. We seek to build a long-term and accountable partnership with the Obama 

administration to work together—and hold each other accountable—in taking steps to make 

poverty reduction a reality.

We invite the President and his Administration to work with our communities in establishing 

a new era of partnerships with faith- and community-based organizations dedicated to the 

measurable goal of reducing poverty by half in 10 years and ending childhood hunger by 2015.
8 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 2: Utilize the knowledge, expertise, and on-the-ground experience of 

local faith- and community-based organizations to redefine the Federal poverty guideline 

so that it more accurately measures and responds to the needs of low-income people.

Federal poverty measures shape our basic understanding of who lives in poverty in America. 

They compare an individual’s or family’s income with the amount believed necessary to 

meet a minimum standard of living. The official poverty measures, virtually unchanged since 

the 1960s, are deeply flawed. The standard is based on the cost of food and the assumption 

that individuals or families will spend one-third of all available income on food.

However, living costs and expenditures have changed dramatically since 1965. The modern 

American family spends just one-seventh of household income on food, whereas many 

other expenses, such as transportation, medical expenses, housing and childcare costs, have 

increased dramatically.

The inaccuracies of the Federal poverty levels have two major areas of impact on the work 

of faith- and community-based social service providers:

1. First, the Federal poverty guidelines impact the eligibility of those who can receive 

the social services our organizations provide. Poverty statistics directly affect the 

distribution of at least $22 billion a year in Federal money, and over 50 federally 

assisted programs, for education, community development, basic nutrition and 

other purposes.3

 

We see the impact of the inaccuracies of these measures at our doorsteps, as our 

organizations are required to fill the gap to make up for the discrepancies of who 

is deemed eligible for benefits and who is in need of help. This is especially true in 

parts of the country where the cost of food, rent, and other basics are especially high, 

because the Federal poverty measures do not take these factors into consideration. 

For example, rents in Manhattan and in California are more than twice as high as 

rents in Southern and Plains States. But neither poverty index makes the distinction.

2. Second, the current poverty measures do not take into account the impacts of 

noncash benefits, like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known as 

SNAP (food stamps), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and childcare supports. 

Such noncash benefits encompass many of the services and benefits to which we 

help provide access. The current measures do not show a reduction in poverty when 

successful policies are expanded or an increase in poverty when they are contracted. 

Therefore, it is very difficult to measure the impact our programs and services are 

having on alleviating poverty in our communities. Without accurate understanding 

of the impact of policy and programmatic interventions, the social service sector is 

left without an accurate landscape to evaluate the effectiveness of our work and our 

partnership with the U.S. Government. 

This second point takes on a new importance in the context of the Economic Recovery. New 

initiatives in the Recovery Act designed to help those most hurt by the recession, such as 

expansion of the EITC, child tax credits, or SNAP benefits, cannot be measured for their 

impact on poverty rates.

3

 According to the Congressional Research Service’s 2007 analysis, at least 57 federally assisted programs used poverty levels, typically determined under 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines, in some way to determine program eligibility.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 9

Changing the current poverty measures could be done through a new directive from the 

White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Considering the direct impact the Federal poverty measures have on the work of nonprofit 

social service providers, the Council recommends that the President direct OMB to 

meet with leading faith- and community-based social service leaders to discuss how to 

implement a more realistic measure of poverty utilizing the knowledge and expertise those 

organizations bring to the table. 

Background and Explanation: 

There are two main Federal poverty measures, both of which are seriously outdated and 

do not allow for an effective measurement of people’s basic needs. The poverty guidelines 

issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are used to determine 

eligibility for most Federal income-tested programs. The Census Bureau also issues 

poverty “thresholds,” which are primarily used for statistical purposes. Both are based 

on the “Orshansky Poverty Thresholds,” which were first utilized in 1964 and adopted by 

the Bureau of the Budget (now OMB) for use in all Executive Departments in 1965. The 

Orshansky model is based on data on the cost of the “economy food plan” and the finding 

that families and individuals spend one-third of their after-tax income on food. 

Living costs and expenditures have changed dramatically since 1965. Expenses such as 

transportation, medical expenses, housing, and childcare costs have increased dramatically. 

There are several ways to reevaluate the measurement of poverty. One would be to update 

the Orshansky model to account for more recent living costs. Another would be to look at 

“relative” poverty, as is the case in some European countries that measure poverty by setting 

it as a percentage of median income that reflects income inequality. Other approaches that 

adjust for geographical, in-kind benefits and other variations are part of the debate. 

There have been a number of attempts to revise the definition (1969, 1972, 1976, and early 

1990s) but without sufficient impact. Poverty measurement continues to be inaccurate. 

Reluctance to make the needed changes may, too often, have been based on political rather 

than policy considerations. There may be concern that the adoption of a new and more 

accurate measurement would show many more people in poverty than are found by the 

use of current measurements. These are not legitimate reasons for leaving this problem 

unaddressed. The current definition of poverty leaves true needs unanswered and leaves 

our Nation without the best policies to end poverty. 

We hope the Administration will utilize the on-the-ground knowledge of faith- and 

community-based organizations to revise the inadequate current set of poverty guidelines.
10 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 3: Provide greater flexibility 

for the coordination and integration of 

government funds designated for specific 

program activities. 

Federal agencies should develop rules and 

regulations to encourage and facilitate coordination 

and integration of programs and services. Agencies 

also should be mandated to be receptive to waiver 

requests or petitions for rulemaking changes that are 

aimed at facilitating coordination and integration.

A prime example of this integration of government 

funds designated for specific program activities is 

the resources available to community nonprofits 

and faith organizations to address the foreclosure 

crisis. The Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) has encouraged partnership 

with faith- and community-based organizations 

through homeownership strategies, because they are 

often the best “early warning” system when families 

are facing financial difficulty. A number of Federal 

and State agencies and nonprofit organizations 

have developed foreclosure prevention programs 

to help homeowners who are having trouble with 

their home loans. Through this Federal funding, 

many families facing foreclosure get free housing 

counseling services by HUD-approved counselors, 

who have helped homeowners understand the 

law and their options, organize their finances, and 

represent borrowers in negotiations with their 

lenders. State Housing Finance Agencies have 

partnered with nonprofit counseling agencies, 

local governments, State housing departments, 

and lenders to provide comprehensive foreclosure 

prevention and mitigation strategies, such as 

MassHousing partnering with NeighborWorks.

Part of the Community Development Block Grant 

Program, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program 

(NSP), was established to stabilize communities that 

have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment. 

The NSP2 program includes $1.93 billion authorized 

under the Recovery Act, to expand eligibility 

and provide grants to States, local governments, 

nonprofits, and a consortium of nonprofit entities 

on a competitive basis. This has been an important 

investment in positive steps to stanch the enormity 

of the impacts and challenges of the foreclosure 

crisis in communities across the country.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 11

Background and Explanation: 

In their efforts to improve the lives of low-income people and people of color, many faithbased organizations and community-based nonprofits take a comprehensive approach, 

offering an array of services and programs. This approach can include leveraging diverse 

resources from HUD, HHS, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Education, 

the Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others. 

It can improve access, and frequently also improve outcomes as people are better able 

to access the services and programs they and their families need. However, rather than 

facilitating efficient coordination, Federal programs tend to include restrictive rules, either 

prohibiting integration of funds or erecting significant barriers to effective coordination.

The Administration’s development of comprehensive and crosscutting programs in the 

community, such as Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods, is a step in the 

right direction. They offer a comprehensive solution to the issue of concentrated poverty 

in America—with revitalized housing, high-performing schools, robust social services, and 

employment opportunities. These programs are based on the realities of individual and 

community life and all their complexities. People do not live their lives in individual silos of 

housing, transportation, or health care. 

Faith- and community-based partnerships’ place-based efforts seek to reflect this 

reality. Instilling openness to needed adjustments for comprehensive efforts, to granting 

waiver requests, and to seeking to foster the engagement of faith- and community-based 

partnerships in comprehensive initiatives, holds the promise of decreasing poverty and 

advancing equity.

Recommendation 4: Support faith- and community-based organizations as a means to 

fill the gaps in providing essential services like transportation, housing, food assistance, 

job training, education, and health care for low-income families and individuals. 

Faith- and community-based organizations provide critical supports and services for 

low-income families and individuals. Drawing on their knowledge of local community 

needs and cultures, faith- and community-based organizations provide a range of services 

including transportation, housing, health care, job assistance and job training. In order 

to provide these services, public (local, State, and Federal) resources are leveraged with 

additional funds from private, individual, and philanthropic sources. Despite their best 

efforts, particularly in the current economic climate, many faith- and community-based 

organizations cannot meet all the needs of low-income families and individuals, nor provide 

enough assistance to help change life circumstances.

Federal funding allows these organizations to provide essential services to those in need. 

For instance, faith- and community-based organizations rely on government support 

to run several important transportation programs, including Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program4

 and Ways to Work that connect people to jobs outside transit 

services. These programs seek to fill the gap when public transit is not available. Without 

4

 JARC is a $750 million program that was established to address the unique transportation challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-income 

persons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals have difficulty 

accessing these jobs from their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. In addition, many entry level-jobs require working late at night or on weekends 

when conventional transit services are either reduced or do not exist. Many employment-related trips are complex and involve multiple destinations 

including reaching childcare facilities or other services. While States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients, subrecipients include nonprofit 

organizations. JARC provides capital planning and operating expenses for projects that transport low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities 

related to employment, and for reverse commute projects. See http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_3550.html and http://www.fta.

dot.gov/documents/FTA_JARC_Fact_Sheet_Sept05.pdf for more information. 
12 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

public transit or the services provided by faith- and community-based organizations 

(with government support) low-income individuals and families will lose a critical link to 

connect them to jobs, job training, educational opportunities, and needed medical services. 

Additional Federal resources are needed to fill the gap for these and other essential services 

to ensure that the basic needs of low-income families and individuals can be met.

Background and Explanation: 

Low-income families and individuals face a range of challenges in this economy. There is far 

greater need for essential services to meet basic needs and provide the tools to make longerterm improvements to life’s outcomes. Although faith- and community-based organizations 

work diligently to combine and leverage resources from public, private, and philanthropic 

sources, more is needed. Resources are needed to provide essential services, create new 

jobs, and better connect low-income families and individuals to opportunity. 

For instance, faith- and community-based organizations that offer specialized transportation 

services (e.g., vanpools and reverse commute programs) that help low-income people and 

people of color get to work, find new jobs, and receive services are being cut or severely 

scaled back. Resources are needed to mitigate these service cuts. By increasing operating 

funds for programs provided by many faith- and community-based nonprofits, such as JARC 

and the Ways to Work programs,5

 we can create and save thousands of jobs and connect lowincome families, welfare recipients, and residents to jobs, services, and economic opportunity.

Recommendation 5: Ease the burden on nonprofit social service agencies by 

removing barriers to service provision such as matching fund requirements, 

burdensome reporting and regulations, and slow payments and reimbursements. 

Nonprofit social service agencies that are serving those most in need during the recession 

are also themselves under tremendous pressures as demand for their services rise and their 

income and fundraising decline.

5

 The Ways to Work program began in the mid-1980s as a program to help single mothers in Minnesota move off and stay off welfare. It has evolved 

into the Nation’s largest and most successful alternative to predatory auto loans for working poor families. Since the mid-1980s, Ways to Work has 

helped more than 26,000 families stabilize or improve their financial situation through over $45 million in loan funds used for a variety of work-related 

purposes. About 95 percent of all Ways to Work loans are made for the purchase of used vehicles. For many low-income and poor families, a car is an 

earning asset, a critical piece of their family’s operating equipment. The program and loan office is hosted by community-based human service nonprofits 

that are members of the Alliance for Children and Families. The local nonprofit plays an important role in informing and connecting with local residents, 

providing the staff, office space, and supervision, as well as operational and loss reserve funding. See http://www.waystowork.org/pages/Print%20Pages/

pr_p_home.html for more information.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 13

The economic recession has had a dramatic impact on our Nation’s nonprofit service 

providers, forcing them to lay off thousands of staff and shutter entire programs— the very 

programs that the most vulnerable members of our society need more than ever.

Therefore, we recommend a series of measures to ease the burdens on nonprofit social 

service agencies:

A.) Where allowable, temporarily suspend matching funds for certain government grants.

The nonprofit sector employs over 9.4 million workers and 4.7 million full-time volunteers 

nationally, which constitutes roughly 11 percent of the American workforce. With this 

many employees, it is critical that the Federal Government provide an adequate response 

to keep these entities financially secure and functioning. In recent years, nonprofit agencies 

have had to raise more and more unrestricted private dollars to meet match requirements, 

administrative fees, and licensing and permit fees. Another way to characterize this situation 

is that while nonprofits are tax exempt, they are paying a “tax” to accept and administer 

government funds.

Nonprofit agencies that operate programs in partnership with Federal and State 

governments continue to experience dramatic cost increases to run these partnerships. 

In the wake of the current economic downturn, these escalating costs make it difficult 

to continue current services and extremely challenging to take advantage of funding 

opportunities. Many government contracts are structured with the assumption that small 

nonprofits will be able to identify local resources to cover and support the administration of 

these partnerships in an increasingly unstable economic climate.

Background and Explanation:

The non-profit sector employs over 9.4 million workers and 4.7 million full-time volunteers 

nationally. This constitutes roughly 11 percent of the American workforce. With this many 

employees, it is critical that the federal government provide an adequate response to keep 

these entities financially secure and functioning. In recent years, non-profit agencies have 

had to raise more and more unrestricted private dollars to meet match requirements, 

administrative fees, and licensing and permit fees. Another way to characterize this is 

that while non-profits are tax exempt, they are paying a “tax” to accept and administer 

government funds.

Non-profit agencies that operate programs in partnership with federal and state 

governments continue to experience dramatic cost increases to run these partnerships. 

In the wake of the current economic downturn, these escalating costs make it difficult 

to continue current services and extremely challenging to take advantage of funding 

opportunities. Many government contracts are structured with the assumption that small 

non-profits will be able to identify local resources to cover and support the administration 

of these partnerships in an increasingly unstable economic climate. 

B.) Eliminate burdensome reporting requirements.

The Federal Government should work to consolidate and simplify reporting requirements 

for funding under the Recovery Act. Recovery Act funds are urgently needed in local 

communities. However, nonprofits already managing multiple funding streams with 

competing requirements and multiple audits on different schedules are being required 

to produce additional documentation for the expenditure of these funds without any 

recognition of the increase in the administrative costs that are largely unfunded. 
14 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Background and Explanation: 

With shrinking resources, too many nonprofits are being forced to cut staff and reduce 

programs all while attempting to satisfy burdensome reporting requirements. Nonprofits 

that do business with the Government have an exemplary track record of ensuring that 

funds go to people in need. However, government funding streams that do not recognize 

the cost to administer and deliver the services while simultaneously imposing significant 

requirements have placed agencies in a situation in which they are laying off staff in order to 

sustain the delivery of certain services.

The Government at all levels relies more and more on the “good will” of nonprofits in a 

continuing cost shift at a time when nonprofits are unable to raise sufficient funds to meet 

the demand. 

C.) Ensure prompt payment to non-profits.

Federal funds, particularly Recovery Act funds, should include a “prompt pay” requirement 

from the States to their subcontractors. The Federal Government recognizes this requirement 

in its Federal contracting, and it is unreasonable that any organization should have to wait 

up to 9 months without payment. When payments are made, no interest is included. Many of 

these agencies use lines of credit that carry interest while waiting for payment. This interest 

then becomes an additional cost of doing business with the Government.

Background and Explanation: 

As states continue to experience a budget crisis, more and more non-profits are bearing the 

brunt of the crisis. The effect on the non-profit community continues to be two-fold: 

1. States and local municipalities are not paying current or recently ended contracts 

because of their own funding challenges, resulting in many nonprofits being owed 

substantial funds for services provided

2. Many nonprofits are experiencing significant reductions in State contracts for 

services that often result in the complete elimination of programs, especially 

prevention programs.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 15

Strengthening Access 

to Benefits

Faith- and community-based organizations are on 

the frontline striving to not only fill emergency 

gaps in income, food, and shelter, but also support 

families in their efforts to adapt to the realities and 

opportunities of a post-recession economy. Much 

of this work is undertaken in partnership with 

government including helping low-income people 

access income-enhancing government benefits, such 

as the EITC, SNAP (food stamps), veterans benefits, 

and various child nutrition programs. 

Yet, far too many eligible families and individuals do 

not receive the benefits to which they are entitled,6

reducing the potential economic benefits for lowincome communities, deepening the negative 

impacts of poverty on families, and making the 

work of faith- and community based organizations 

even more difficult. There are numerous barriers to 

access,7 including:

• Lack of information about who is eligible, the 

financial stakes, and how to apply;

• Complex and often inefficient application 

and enrollment procedures that are different 

for each benefit and require multiple visits 

to different government offices, long waits, 

and confusing eligibility documentation 

requirements;

• Stigma against public benefits as vestiges of 

welfare dependency; and

• Language and cultural barriers.

There is inadequate funding and capacity to meet 

the need for benefits, such as housing and child care 

subsidies outside of the three major entitlement 

programs (SNAP benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, and 

the State Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(SCHIP); and the EITC).

6

 Jennifer Miller, Frieda Molina, Lisa Grossman, and Susan Golonka, Building Bridges to Self-Sufficiency: Improving Services for Low-Income Families

(MDRC and the NGA Center for Best Practices: March 2004), at 14-15. See also Sheila Zedlewski, Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Genevieve Kennedy, 

Is There a System Supporting Low-Income Working Families? Low-Income Working Families, Paper 4 (The Urban Institute: February 2006); Food and 

Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2007, November 2008; Food Research and Action Center, Food Stamp Access in Urban America: A City-by-City Snapshot, October 2008; Sandra Jamet with Laura 

Seidell, Ben Seigel, and Rebecca Ross, Benefits and Low Wage Work (Seedco: September 2003). 7

 Jamet, et al., 2003.
16 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

We urge the Administration to look to promising 

practices involving faith- and community-based 

organizations that are providing multiple-benefit 

access, and access to income support programs, 

through single-platform data collection, application, 

and benefit management technology, such as The 

Benefit Bank, EarnBenefits, eApp, and Single Stop 

USA programs. 

The following recommendations are designed 

to enhance and facilitate the work of faith- and 

community-based organizations by increasing levels 

of access to existing income-enhancing government 

benefits for low-income families and individuals and 

capturing administrative efficiencies through the 

creation of a streamlined, people-centered multiplebenefit access system based in the community. 

Recommendation 6: Create an 

interdepartmental taskforce to explore and 

oversee streamlining and consolidating the 

public benefits, eligibility, and application 

processes.

The overall structure of the benefits access system 

contributes to inadequate access and duplicative 

administrative costs. It is diffuse and generally 

designed to meet the short-term administrative 

needs of government bureaucracies – agency-centric 

rather than people-centric. The result is an overly 

complex system that is difficult to navigate for those 

most in need and on-the-ground faith and community 

organizations who serve them. In addition, many 

benefit eligibility rules exclude or severely limit the 

eligibility of non-custodial parents and single adults 

including legal immigrants, ex-offenders, returning 

veterans, and disconnected young adults.

We recommend the President establish an InterDepartmental Task Force, including all the key 

agencies administering low income benefit programs 

such as Health and Human Services, Agriculture, 

Veterans Affairs, Treasury, and others, to explore 

opportunities for consolidating and simplifying 

benefits access. This could involve, for example, 

universal applications, multi-benefit access, and 

access to income support programs, through single 

platform data collection, application and benefits 

management technology, or administration through 

the income tax system.

EarnBenefits

http://www.earnbenefits.org

EarnBenefits uses a state-of-the-art technology tool, 

EarnBenefits Online, and facilitated enrollment services 

to connect low-income families and individuals to a 

range of income-enhancing public and private benefits, 

such as tax credits, food stamps, health insurance, and 

no-fee bank accounts. The program was initially launched 

in New York City in 2003 in partnership with the United 

Way of New York City and a network of over 20 faith- and 

community-based organizations. 

EarnBenefits is now offered not only through local 

networks of community partners but through private 

employers, community colleges, local government 

agencies, and national intermediaries such as Catholic 

Charities USA. 

In addition to New York, EarnBenefits is available in 

Connecticut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma, 

and Tennessee, with additional States scheduled for 

launch in 2010 and 2011. Since its inception, EarnBenefits 

has screened and connected low-income families to over 

63,000 documented benefits totaling over $69 million in 

value. EarnBenefits was developed and implemented by 

Seedco, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to 

promoting economic opportunity for low-income people 

and communities.

The primary objective of EarnBenefits is to:

• Provide an online guide to both government 

and nongovernment programs that can help 

low-wage workers make ends meet and stay 

employed by connecting individuals and 

families to income-enhancing benefits.

EarnBenefits is specifically designed to work with clients 

in three stages:

• Marketing and education through userfriendly materials and a public Website, 

http://www.earnbenefits.org

• Eligibility screening and facilitated access 

• Benefits management and coaching once 

clients access work supports. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 17

We further recommend the Inter-Departmental Task 

Force examine benefit eligibility and documentation 

requirements to achieve maximum alignment and 

consistency and ensure that certain key populations 

such as legal immigrants, non-custodial parents and 

disconnected young adults are not systematically 

excluded.

Recommendation 7: Expand single-site, 

multiple-benefit access programs, including 

those run through faith- and community-based 

organizations.

The limited government funding available to support 

benefits outreach and access initiatives is typically 

focused on specific single-benefit programs and does 

not promote multiple-benefit access.

We recommend the creation of a multiagency pooled 

fund to expand single-site, multiple-benefit access 

programs, including those run through faith- and 

community-based organizations. The pooled fund 

could represent agencies such as the Internal 

Revenue Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

and USDA, as well as HHS and others. Funds would 

be used to: 

1. Implement community programs providing 

application assistance for multiple-benefit 

and income supports through single-platform 

data collection technology; and

2. Build the necessary community-based 

volunteer and administrative infrastructure 

for single-site, multiple-benefit outreach and 

access programs.

The Strengthening Communities Fund administered 

by HHS represents one model targeted to small faithand community-based groups. However, additional 

resources, such as a multiagency fund, will be 

needed for larger social service providers to expand 

single-site, multiple-benefit access. 

The Benefit Bank 

http://www.thebenefitbank.com

In Ohio, there is a statewide effort that empowers 

faith- and community-based organizations to connect 

low- and moderate-income families with tax credits, 

student financial aid, and other work supports. The 

Ohio Benefit Bank is a public-private partnership 

of the Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and 

Community Initiatives, the Ohio Association of Second 

Harvest Foodbanks, foundations, and multiple faithbased, nonprofit, governmental, and private-sector 

organizations. It provides low- to moderate-income 

Ohioans with free tax preparation, screens them for 

eligibility for supports, and helps them complete and 

submit applications electronically to public agencies. 

The tool being used there is called The Benefit Bank 

(TBB). The tool has simplified the many complex tax and 

benefit forms, reducing them to simple questions written 

at a 4th-grade level. Once the information is entered, 

the TBB tool uses the information to assess the person’s 

eligibility for about 20 work supports across 4 categories: 

medical assistance, tax assistance, food assistance, and 

community supports. The counselor then helps the 

client complete and submit the appropriate benefit 

applications and tax returns using TBB.

The primary objective of TBB is to:

• Simplify and centralize the process of 

applying for State and Federal income 

benefits for low- and moderate-income 

individuals and families in order to bring 

people closer to financial stability and selfsufficiency.

TBB ensures individuals and families are aware of State 

and Federal benefits at no cost to the client through its:

• Eligibility screening tool;

• “One-stop shop” reducing the amount of 

time needed to apply for benefits;

• Secure information storage; and 

• Provision of counselor candidates, a 

computer, a printer, Internet access, and 

a telephone to any host organization that 

wishes to host TBB.
18 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 8: Invest in the development and distribution of software 

applications to facilitate access to multiple benefits through online applications.

We recommend that the President encourage investment in the further development, 

evaluation, enhancement, and distribution of multiple-benefit and service access software 

technology appropriate for use by faith- and community-based counselors and the people 

they serve. Investment could be through the proposed Social Innovation Fund and other 

vehicles and should involve providing easier access to Federal, State, local, and private 

benefits.8

 Innovation and improvements in technology are crucial for expanding benefit 

access. The current benefit access system is characterized by:

• Limited capacity for electronic submission of applications;

• Often duplicative collection of eligibility information;

• Single-benefit focus. (While impressive efforts have been made by Federal agencies 

to support outreach and enrollment efforts and to create incentives for State and 

local governments—such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

contingency fund—many of these are designed for single benefits and do not 

encourage multiple-benefit access initiatives);

• Limited auto-enrollment for individuals and families clearly eligible for benefits and 

services; and

• Limited funding for technology support for faith and community-based 

organizations prepared to help low income families and individuals navigate these 

complex systems.

Examples of existing software technology include The Benefit Bank, EarnBenefits, 

RealBenefits, and eAPP. 

We also recommend that Federal agencies build and strengthen the capacity of and create 

incentives for State agencies administering Federal entitlement benefits to accept electronic 

and online applications, both directly from individuals and families as well as through faithand community-based organizations and other entities on behalf of families and individuals. 

Examples of existing Web-based portals are found in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In 

order to maximize the receipt of applications, we further recommend that these Web-based 

portals allow for transfer of data from other benefit access software systems that meet 

certain technical specifications, similar to the Internal Revenue Service specifications for 

receipt of online tax returns.

8

 Examples of private benefits are utility and pharmaceutical discounts.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 19

Recommendation 9: Create incentives for State and local governments to maximize 

participation by eligible low-income families and individuals in income-enhancing 

benefits and to promote multiple-benefit access through faith- and community-based 

organizations.

Although it is appropriate for all levels of government to take necessary steps to avoid 

fraudulent receipt of benefits, it is equally appropriate, but far less prevalent, for government 

to proactively pursue enrollment in multiple benefits among those who are eligible.

We recommend that Federal agencies reexamine existing regulations and eligibility rules 

and, where appropriate, enact regulatory changes that create flexibility for States to simplify 

the application and eligibility process for Federal entitlement benefits. For example, Arkansas 

now uses information it captures in SNAP applications to process applications for Medicaid. 

Wisconsin automatically transfers information from online applications into a State database 

that allows agencies to expedite additional benefits. We further recommend creation of 

incentives, similar to TANF Contingency Fund, and provision of technical support to States 

for engaging faith- and community-based organizations in the work of achieving increased 

levels of benefit participation as well as multiple-benefit access.
20 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Focus on Jobs and education

In the area of Education and Job Preparedness, employment training and secondary 

education are key and largely carried out by community colleges, training institutions, and 

unions. However, nonprofit partners like faith- and community-based organizations also 

serve significant roles in providing education and training of “hard” skills like those vital in 

providing case management and “soft” skills (also called “people” skills). Soft skills training 

is often the element that ensures the individual successfully completes a related program 

and sustains employment after placement. 

Recommendation 10: Incorporate supportive services with education and training 

opportunities, and ensure nonprofit accessibility and eligibility for Federal grant 

funding.

The United States is currently experiencing the most severe and pervasive economic 

downturn since the Great Depression. Today’s students will have 10 to 14 different jobs by 

age 38. One in four workers have been at their place of employment less than a year and one 

in two have been at their job less than 5 years. Through 2014, more than half of all new jobs 

will require more than a high school diploma and 22 of the 30 fastest growing career fields 

will require some post-secondary education. The top ten “in-demand” jobs of 2010 did not 

exist in 2004.

These figures, coupled with national high school graduation rates that see only one in 

four entering freshmen graduating with a diploma, are of high concern for the future U.S. 

workforce. Now, more than ever, the key to attaining jobs, moving people out of poverty, and 

competing in a rapidly changing global market is post-secondary education and specialized 

job training. In 2005, before the recession, the National Association of Manufacturers 

reported that 90 percent of manufacturers were experiencing a shortage of qualified skilled 

production employees, but only 53 percent of Americans earn some degree or credential 

after high school and for low-income people that number drops to 25.

Supportive services are not only critical to an individual learning a new skill, but also 

to sustaining employment. Nonprofits offer a continuum of services, including case 

management, which increases the stability of the individual to sustain employment. Faithand community-based organizations have existing relationships with low-income working 

individuals and families.

Therefore, the Council makes the following recommendations:

1. Federal grants should include funding for education and training opportunities that 

mandate the provision of supportive services and explicitly specify the eligibility of 

faith- and community-based organizations in grant guidelines, particularly those 

related to DOL One-Stop Career Centers.

2. Support for faith- and community-based organizations should be increased to serve 

specific populations, such as the disabled and disconnected youth and young adults, 

that are not typically engaged in technical or vocational training, post-secondary 

education, or the job market. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 21

Recommendation 11: Focus partnerships 

between education and training institutions 

and faith- and community-based organizations 

to better serve disadvantaged, displaced, and 

disconnected job seekers and to align worker 

skills with employer needs.

The Federal Government should mandate the 

alignment of resources and partnerships between: 

1. Faith and community nonprofits (who are 

closest to those who need job training and 

access to work opportunities); 

2. Education and training institutions; and 

3. Public and private employers. 

These local collaborations can help to create jobs 

and connect and prepare workers, especially 

disadvantaged workers, with training and available job 

opportunities in both the public and private sectors.

At the same time that the Federal Government is 

testing a more comprehensive approach to reaching 

the disadvantaged with education and training for 

job readiness, it should strengthen partnerships 

between employers, community colleges, unions, and 

faith- and community-based organizations to create 

an accessible, integrated continuum of services and 

available opportunities. A comprehensive approach 

is far more likely to be successful because it can 

provide the myriad of services and supports that 

will best serve the disadvantaged throughout their 

education and training. To ensure an inclusive 

Economic Recovery, Federal programs that create 

jobs and support training must ensure that the most 

disadvantaged and disconnected are prepared for 

and placed in available workforce opportunities, 

particularly any new green jobs created and/or 

incentivized by economic stimulus funding.

We also recommend that the Administration 

direct DOL to increase the number of faith- and 

community-based organizations that are considered 

eligible training providers under Title I of the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998. We further 

recommend that the Administration direct DOL to 

ensure that eligibility extends to the provision of 

training and support services for green jobs.

Pathways Out Of Poverty: 

A Department of Labor Grant Program

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/

eta20100039.htm 

The Pathways Out of Poverty program administered 

by the Department of Labor integrates training and 

supportive services into cohesive programs that help 

target populations find pathways out of poverty and into 

economic self‐sufficiency through employment in the 

energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. 

The program was appropriated a 2-year Recovery Act 

allocation of approximately $150 million. Through the 38 

grants awards, targeted populations receive recruitment 

and referral services; basic skills, work-readiness, and 

occupational skills training; supportive services to help 

overcome barriers to employment; and other services at 

times and locations that are easily accessible. Through 

these programs, unemployed individuals, high school 

dropouts, and other disadvantaged individuals receive 

certifications and on-the-job training that lead to 

employment.

In order to serve the specific populations targeted 

by these grants effectively, the Department of Labor 

encouraged applicants to focus project efforts in 

communities located within one or more contiguous 

Public Micro Data Areas (PUMAs) where poverty rates 

were 15 percent or higher. PUMAs are geographic 

areas designated by the Census Bureau. All applicants 

were required to have experience serving economically 

disadvantaged populations. 

The purpose of the Pathways Out of Poverty grants is to:

• Support programs that help disadvantaged 

populations find ways out of poverty and 

into economic self-sufficiency through 

employment in energy efficiency and 

renewable energy industries. 

There are two types of award recipients for these grants: 

• National nonprofit entities with networks of 

local affiliates, coalition members, or other 

established partners; and 

• Local entities including nonprofit 

organizations, such as faith- and communitybased organizations, the public workforce 

investment system, the education and 

training community, labor organizations, and 

employer- and industry-related organizations. 
22 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 12: Utilize faith- and community-based organizations to bridge 

the gap from secondary education to post-secondary institutions and job training 

programs with a particular focus on disconnected youth.

The Federal Government should encourage and utilize faith- and community-based 

organizations to build bridges between secondary education and youth employment 

programs, post-secondary institutions, and vocational training programs, with a particular 

focus on disconnected youth who need targeted support, services, and opportunities. 

Interventions should be designed to increase their options and access to post-secondary 

education, to ensure their completion in tailored programs, and to equip them to both 

connect to the job market and successfully pursue long-term career pathways.

Therefore, the Council makes the following recommendations: 

1. Support the development or expansion of educational “bridge” programs for 

disconnected youth and low-literacy high school graduates, to be operated by 

qualifying faith- and community-based organizations, and designed to directly deliver 

the remedial education necessary for success in post-secondary institutions, including 

traditional degree-bearing institutions and specialized vocational training programs. 

Identify the faith- and community- based organizations that operate existing, 

successful educational programs such as primary, secondary, or post-secondary 

institutions, and/or remedial education programs, and determine measures of support 

that would allow expansion of these services. 

2. Pilot a mentoring program for disconnected youth and young adults modeled after 

the successful Mentoring Children of Prisoners program. In this program, young 

people who often “age-out” of a majority of federally funded supportive programs 

and services can obtain vouchers to participate in mentoring relationships that 

encourage post-secondary education through community colleges or 4-year colleges 

and universities or selected apprenticeships with skilled tradesmen. 

These local collaborations can help to create jobs and connect and prepare workers, 

especially disadvantaged workers, with training and available job opportunities in both the 

public and private sector.

At the same time that the federal government is testing a more comprehensive approach 

to reaching the disadvantaged with education and training for job readiness, it should 

strengthen partnerships between employers, community colleges, unions, and faith 

and community based organizations to create an accessible, integrated continuum of 

services and available opportunities. A comprehensive approach is far more likely to be 

successful since it can provide the myriad of services and supports that will best serve the 

disadvantaged throughout their education and training. To ensure an inclusive economic 

recovery, federal programs that create jobs and support training must ensure that the 

most disadvantaged and disconnected are prepared for and placed in available workforce 

opportunities, particularly any new green jobs created and/or incentivized by economic 

stimulus funding.

We also recommend that the Administration direct the Department of Labor to increase the 

number of faith and community-based organizations that are considered eligible training 

providers under Title 1 of the Workforce Investment Act and ensure that eligibility extends 

to the provision of training and support services for green jobs.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 23

Esperanza Academy Charter High School: Mentoring At-Risk Youth

http://www.esperanza.us

Esperanza Academy Charter High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was established in 2000, and serves 700 students per 

year through high-quality education that empowers them for success in post-secondary education and long-term careers. 

Esperanza Academy serves 100% minority students, 18% of whom have limited English proficiency and 81% of whom are low 

income. Despite these factors, Esperanza Academy boasts an attendance rate of 90%, a graduation rate of 95%, and a college 

acceptance rate of 93%. 

Esperanza Academy’s success is due in large part to its unique, individualized approach to each student’s education. Curricula are 

designed with career-oriented “tracks” in entrepreneurship, technology, teacher education, journalism, and the arts. Additionally, 

to promote early connection to post-secondary education, Esperanza Academy students can be dually enrolled at Eastern 

University or Esperanza College. Also, intensive tutoring services and mentoring are targeted to youth at risk of dropping out. 

Esperanza Academy began its Student Mentoring Program in 2006 to pair at-risk students with an adult mentor who provides 

support, resources, and guidance. At the beginning of each school year, students are identified for participation in the 

program based on low grades and demonstrated social and behavior issues. Adult mentors serve onsite within the school 

building to provide continuous one-on-one support and to help these students get back on track academically and socially. 

Based on the last exit survey conducted by the guidance department at the end of the 2007 to 2008 year, the mentoring 

program was deemed a success. Nearly all students believed the mentoring program added to their success as a student and 

helped them improve their grades. Students were also unanimous in responding that the mentoring program helped them 

make improvements behaviorally or socially and that they enjoyed the time spent with their mentors. 

The primary objectives of Esperanza Academy’s Student Mentoring Program are to:

• Ensure at-risk students successfully complete secondary school;

• Improve students’ achievement in social, behavioral, and academic areas; and

• Help at-risk students explore career opportunities and successfully transition to post-secondary education. 

The Student Mentoring Program achieves these goals through: 

• Early identification of at-risk students for program participation;

• Individualized, one-on-one mentor support; and

• Continuous onsite mentor presence.

Esperanza College 

Esperanza College is a 2-year, associate of arts degree-awarding institution, credited by the Middle States Association of 

Colleges and Schools, and the only federally recognized Hispanic-serving institution in Pennsylvania. Since its founding, 

Esperanza College has awarded over 200 graduates with an associate of arts degree in Business Administration, Early 

Childhood Education, or Community and Human Services.

The student body at Esperanza College is 100% first-generation college students, 96% low income, over 90% Hispanic, and 

over half are working single parents. Additionally, a significant portion of Esperanza College students have limited English 

proficiency. Despite these challenges, Esperanza College has a 92.7% retention rate and a 64.1% graduation rate, which is 

almost double the national graduation rate for 2-year college programs and far exceeds estimates for other Hispanic-serving 

institutions in the United States. Of its graduates, 60% transition to 4-year institutions.

The success of Esperanza College can be credited in part to intensive remedial education services provided concurrently with 

credit-bearing courses. A majority of Esperanza College students enroll at a 9th-grade reading level. To ensure their success, 

all students are required to take intensive academic English courses throughout their tenure, in addition to their regular 

coursework. All students must take math and computer literacy courses appropriate to their level of functioning. Tutors are 

onsite to provide additional individualized attention. 
24 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 13: Encourage collaboration 

between faith- and community-based 

organizations, community colleges, and the 

private sector.

Collaboration between the Federal Government, 

faith- and community-based organizations, and 

local community colleges is necessary for increased 

enrollment rates, successful completion rates, and job 

placement. Faith- and community-based organizations 

bring the community and cultural knowledge, the 

credibility, and the relationships that can support the 

disadvantaged throughout the education and training 

process. Additionally, many organizations in the 

private sector, such as banks and corporations, have 

foundations and other programs that can be effectively 

leveraged for relevant job training and mentoring. The 

Federal Government can play a key role by convening 

relevant stakeholders and prioritizing collaborative 

projects in their funding sources.

Therefore, the Council makes the following 

recommendations:

1. Consider faith- and community-based 

organizations as truly equitable partners 

in all aspects of the Federal Government’s 

strategy to increase the number of graduates 

from 2-year associate’s degree programs, 

beyond the role of serving as community 

liaisons. Considering faith- and communitybased organizations as partners is especially 

true as it relates to the President’s American 

Graduation Initiative and Community College 

Challenge funding. Private nonprofits that 

have established successful 2-year associate’s 

degree colleges should be included as 

equitable education providers and full 

partners, particularly when institutions 

established by private faith-based nonprofits 

and other private nonprofits are meeting 

all of the Administration’s goals for 

strengthening post-secondary education. 

These organizations should be allowed to 

both participate in the arenas generally 

limited to community colleges and compete 

for funding opportunities made available 

to community colleges, despite the fact that 

they are not State entities.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 25

9 The National Business Incubation Association at http://www.nbia.org for more information.

2. Provide funding for mentoring programs that link leaders from faith- and community-based 

organizations with disadvantaged students seeking education and training. Funding should include 

resources for mentors to be able to provide some support for education and training costs. Make 

grants available to faith- and community-based organizations or community colleges to develop local 

taskforces that convene relevant stakeholders to develop and expand collaborative work focused on 

the recruitment and retention of disadvantaged students in post-secondary education. 

3. Explore ways to encourage the private sector to volunteer and participate in community development, 

and connect the job seekers with employers, such as through Community Reinvestment Act 

recognition for banks and through matching fund programs in the private sector. Private sector 

employers could work with faith- and community-based organizations to provide knowledge of, 

and job training in, the growth-oriented sectors of the economy. They also could share knowledge 

and resources for education needed to encourage self-employment and self-reliance (such as 

microenterprise, wealth creation, debt reduction, and entrepreneurships9

).
26 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 27

 

Fatherhood and 

Healthy Families 

Members of the Taskforce

Sarah S. Brown, CEO, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, Senior Pastor, Windsor Village United Methodist Church

Carey Casey, Chief Executive Officer; and Peter Spokes, Chief Operating Officer, 

National Center for Fathering

Dr. Arturo Chávez, President and CEO, Mexican American Catholic College

Joseph T. Jones, President and CEO, Center for Urban Families

Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie, Bishop, 

Thirteenth Episcopal District, African Methodist Episcopal Church

Donald Miller, The Mentoring Project

The Reverend Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor Emeritus, Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church

Dr. Frank Page, Vice-President of Evangelization, North American Mission Board; and 

Past President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of Jewish Women

The Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, President, National Hispanic Christian 

Leadership Conference, Hispanic National Association of Evangelicals

Judith Vredenburgh, Immediate Past President and CEO, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

Roland C. Warren, President, National Fatherhood Initiative
28 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 29

SECTION B:

Fatherhood and 

Healthy Families

Introduction

The President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is proud 

to submit the following recommendations for advancing fatherhood in America. We do so 

in full recognition of the fact that when fathers are present in the lives of their children, the 

foundations of our families are stronger and our communities are more robust. 

President Obama powerfully stated the mission in a memorable speech delivered from the 

White House on Father’s Day 2009:

In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its 

absence—both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the 

hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that 

no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and 

good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make 

up the difference. That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job 

does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a 

child but the courage to raise one.

The President has strongly advocated for both responsible behavior and responsible 

policies—a perspective the Council fully shares. 

We believe this Nation must support the capacity of fathers to raise their children; to stay 

actively engaged with them; and to be steady, positive, and loving models of commitment 

and support throughout their children’s lives. Through innovative, strategic partnerships—

partnerships that work with fatherhood organizations, programs, and experts—the 

Administration can advance its commitment to helping fathers be beacons of hope, stability, 

and leadership in their own families and communities.

This report identifies a wide variety of opportunities in the public and private sectors 

for collaboration and action that can be promoted by the Federal Government to support 

responsible fatherhood. We highlight ideas for reducing violence in general and domestic 

violence, in particular. We advocate for better education, job training, and overall 

employment policies. We are in favor of programs that help fathers with parenting skills, 

financial skills, navigating the child support system, family planning,1

 and maintaining 

1

 “Family planning” is a broad term, and to the extent it includes programs that would involve the Government in funding or otherwise promoting 

contraception, some Council members would be opposed. 
30 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

healthy marriages and other strong, positive relationships. We encourage expanded 

opportunities for volunteering and community service and suggest that community 

partners that support fatherhood initiatives should include women’s organizations and 

children and family-center organizations as well. And we urge that influential sports figures 

and celebrities, among others, be enlisted to help. 

The charge of the Council was to develop recommendations for partnership and program 

opportunities that will strengthen the Administration’s commitment to promote fatherhood 

and the role of fathers in supporting healthy families. As such, this report does not address 

or compare the unique needs of mothers in strengthening healthy families, and the 

recommendations presented here are not intended to disadvantage or diminish the funding 

and promotion of programs that serve women and mothers.

Core Concepts

A single overarching conviction shaped our deliberations: Responsible, engaged fathers 

are critical to the financial, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual well-being of 

children, and therefore to the strength and health of American families and communities. 

Fathers are not just nice to have around; they are profoundly valuable and often 

irreplaceable in the lives of their children. 

Additionally, these recommendations are grounded in the clear understanding that 

children’s well-being is materially advanced by strong, high-quality relationships between 

their parents. Supporting such relationships—healthy marriages and other stable, 

supportive relationships—advances the well-being of children and families.2

These recommendations are also informed by the recognition that responsible fatherhood 

not only requires deep dedication to one’s children and family, but also the determination 

to postpone becoming a father until one is adequately prepared to accept the full 

responsibilities of fatherhood. This perspective can also include fathers choosing to 

postpone having additional children if they are struggling to meet their responsibilities to 

their current children and families.3

Key data on Father-Absence Crisis in America

Many statistics underscore the importance of addressing fatherhood in America in new 

and powerful ways, especially the importance of men taking responsibility for the children 

they father.

For example:

• In 2007, 40 percent of all births in America were to single women. For women 20 to 

24, the figure is 60 percent.4

• Over 24 million children live in father-absent homes. That is 1 out of every 3 

(32.7%) children in America. Nearly 2 in 3 (64%) African American children live in 

2 “Other stable, supportive relationships” is a broad term, and to the extent it includes extramarital sexual relationships, some Council Members would be opposed.

3 Some Council members would be opposed, to the extent that this would involve the government in funding or otherwise promoting contraception. 4

 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital 

Statistics System (Washington, DC: 2009).
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 31

father-absent homes. Nearly 4 in 10 (36%) 

Hispanic children, and nearly 1 in 4 (25%) 

white children live in father-absent homes.

• Children in father-absent homes are five 

times more likely to be poor. In 2002, 7.8 

percent of children in married-couple 

families were living in poverty, compared 

with 38.4 percent of children in femalehouseholder families.5

 

• Children who live in father-absent homes, on 

average, are at least two to three times more 

likely to use drugs; to experience educational, 

health, emotional, and behavioral problems; 

to be victims of child abuse; to become teen 

parents; and to engage in criminal behavior.6

 

• In America, 91 percent of fathers and 93 

percent of mothers agree that there is a 

father-absence crisis here.7

Context

The Council recommendations are shaped by several 

key realities shaping fatherhood in America today. In 

particular, the current economic downturn directly 

compromises the essential role that fathers play in 

achieving economic stability for their children and 

families. It is especially hard for fathers who are 

trying to do the right thing to maintain their dignity 

and motivation in the face of both unemployment 

and underemployment. 

Similarly, the pervasive and growing presence 

of poverty in America directly bears on the 

fatherhood area as both a cause and a consequence 

of disconnected or absent fathers. Efforts to 

support fathers and to engage them fully in their 

families’ lives will make a major contribution to 

reducing poverty in America. Put another way, any 

comprehensive effort to combat poverty should 

include supporting responsible fatherhood.

In addition, it is essential to recognize that men’s 

health challenges also have a direct impact on their 

5

 U.S. Census Bureau, Children’s Living Arrangements and Characteristics: March 2002, P20-547, Table C8. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2003). 6

 Father Facts, Fifth Edition. National Fatherhood Initiative. Gaithersburg, MD: 2007

7

 Norval Glenn, Pop’s Culture: A National Survey of Dads’ Attitudes on Fathering. National Fatherhood Initiative. Gaithersburg, MD: 2006, and Norval 

Glenn and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. Mama Says: A National Survey of Mothers’ Attitudes on Fathering. National Fatherhood Initiative (Gaithersburg, 

MD: 2009). 

National Responsible

Fatherhood Clearinghouse

 http://www.fatherhood.gov

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse 

(NRFC) is a service of the Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA), 

Department of Health and Human Services. The NRFC 

captures information about policies, priorities, trends, 

research findings, promising practices, and emerging 

lessons from the field of Responsible Fatherhood and 

helps key audiences translate that knowledge into 

policies and practices that make a difference for fathers, 

children, families, and communities. The NRFC collects 

and shares information that promotes and supports the 

Responsible Fatherhood field, and this clearinghouse 

specifically supports Promoting Responsible Fatherhood 

grantees funded by ACF.

 The NRFC promotes and supports responsible 

fatherhood in an effort to advance the fatherhood 

movement and to support fathers and families. The 

long-term goals of the NRFC are to have its efforts 

help support the emergence of more well-functioning, 

economically independent families and stronger 

communities in line with the long-term goals of OFA—

family self-sufficiency and economic independence.

The primary objectives of the NRFC are to:

• Promote responsible, caring, and effective 

parenting; 

• Enhance the abilities and commitment 

of unemployed or low-income fathers to 

provide material support for their families 

and to avoid or leave welfare programs; 

• Improve fathers’ ability to effectively manage 

family business affairs; and

• Encourage and support healthy marriages 

and married fatherhood.
32 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

ability to be good, present fathers and members of their families. This simple observation 

underscores the important connection between health care reform and fatherhood. 

There are also a number of particular life circumstances that complicate the task of being a 

responsible father. For example, for men who have grown up fatherless or who did not have 

a positive male role model to teach them, responsible fatherhood doesn’t just “happen.” 

Some men need to be taught essential qualities and skills such as nurturing, patience, 

compassion, self-control, and respect for women. They need to reject domestic violence. In 

some cases, fathers can only fulfill their potential by receiving special support, education, 

and mentoring on these and other issues. 

Military fathers are another group that merits special, focused help in order to stay well 

connected to their children and families while they are deployed. They also benefit from 

support when they rejoin their families upon their return.

In addition, noncustodial and incarcerated fathers benefit a great deal from special 

assistance—often provided by faith-based organizations—in staying constructively engaged 

in the lives of their children and families. 
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 33

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Convene quarterly White House Partnership Roundtables to 

encourage a broad variety of sectors, including private foundations and corporations, to 

form partnerships with existing fatherhood groups and experts to address specific areas in 

which increased father involvement can strengthen the well-being of children in America.

Recommendation 2: Host an annual Father’s Day Celebration at the White House to 

honor exemplary fathers and to highlight advances in father involvement resulting from the 

Government’s interdepartmental working groups and the strategic partnerships formed at 

the quarterly roundtables.

Recommendation 3: Continue to personally affirm the important role of fathers, and 

continue to model the life of a committed husband and father.

Recommendation 4: Challenge government departments and agencies to cross 

departmental lines and create working groups to assess and address their policies that 

affect fathers’ involvement in the lives of children.

Recommendation 5: Increase participation of Federal agencies in the funding of 

fatherhood programming, especially in areas of critical importance.

Recommendation 6: Invest in high-quality program evaluation in order to help the 

fatherhood field define and increase its impact on specific measures and in so doing, 

increase public understanding of and support for this critical work.

Recommendation 7: Develop fatherhood tools and products that are culturally and 

linguistically relevant.

Recommendation 8: Engage the academic community in developing curricula to train 

aspiring health and human service professionals to better meet the needs of fathers.

Recommendation 9: Ensure that programming for couples’ employment training, job 

placement, and financial literacy are allowable activities under federally funded fatherhood, 

healthy relationship, and healthy marriage grants.
34 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Increasing Father Involvement

through Partnerships

These recommendations share a framing vision that encourages Federal Government 

agencies to be infused with responsible fatherhood as a means to more effectively achieve 

their respective missions. We believe that emphasizing responsible fathering as a core 

message of this Administration offers an opportunity to dramatically improve the impact of 

many of its policies and to create a legacy that will be felt for generations to come.

Recommendation 1: Convene quarterly White House Partnership Roundtables to 

encourage a broad variety of sectors, including private foundations and corporations, 

to form partnerships with existing fatherhood groups and experts to address specific 

areas in which increased father involvement can strengthen the well-being of children 

in America.

Background and Explanation: 

For several decades, the field of responsible fathering has been developing, helped in part 

by the infusion of modest government investment beginning in the 1990s. However, much 

of this work has been done either in isolation or without the consistent and significant 

partnerships and revenue streams that lead to optimal long-term results. If the current 

Administration can help infuse “fathering” into other key sectors of American culture by 

encouraging the formation of strategic partnerships, it will brighten the futures of children, 

families, and our Nation.

As one example, the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) has been actively involving 

parents in their children’s education for more than 100 years; yet, the vast majority of their 

membership is women. Having seen the research and observed first-hand that dads have a 

significant impact on the educational outcomes of their children, PTA leadership recently 

reached out to existing fathering organizations and created the MORE (Men Organized to 

Raise Engagement) alliance. Working together, this partnership is engaging fathers—a 

committed, yet untapped resource—to help attain their ultimate goal of improving 

educational achievement. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 35

A quarterly White House Partnership Roundtable would target sectors where addressing 

and involving fathers offers significant promise. The President and the White House Office 

of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships should invite the key leaders of a given 

sector to meet at the White House, including representatives from private and corporate 

foundations. Participants would be briefed on the important role of fathers, have an 

opportunity to engage with their peers and fathering experts, and then be challenged to take 

action and report on their progress over time. Foundations, corporations, and others should 

be challenged to provide financial support for fathering initiatives. Some suggested sectors 

that could be convened along this model include: 

• Education • Medicine & the Health Professions

• The Military • Community, Family and Domestic Violence Organizations

• Early Childhood • The Workplace and Workforce Development

• Faith Communities • Women’s Organizations

• Prisons and Re-entry • Private and Corporate Foundations

• Academia • The Sports and Entertainment World

The President can extend the reach and impact of these Partnership Roundtables 

throughout a given sector and more broadly by writing letters to other leaders that would 

challenge them to take action in order to encourage and support father involvement 

within their respective spheres of influence. Recipients may include, for example, leaders 

of religious denominations; the Fortune 500; the 100 Best Companies to Work for; 

top colleges and universities; members of the Council on Foundations; the 100 largest 

nonprofit organizations; women’s and fraternal organizations; community, family, and 

domestic violence organizations; and elected officials and civic leaders including Governors, 

Mayors, and State Legislators. Established fathering organizations would provide technical 

assistance to the partnerships. 

Recommendation 2: Host an annual Father’s Day Celebration at the White House to 

honor exemplary fathers and to highlight advances in father involvement resulting 

from the Government’s interdepartmental working groups and the strategic 

partnerships formed at the quarterly roundtables.

Background and Explanation: 

The President has established a personal tradition of using Father’s Day to build awareness 

of the important role of fathers and to call men to fulfill their responsibilities as fathers 

and father figures. By devoting a full day to the topic of fathering and by convening a White 

House gathering on the weekend of his first Father’s Day in office, the President signaled 

the importance of this topic to him personally and to his Administration. Continuing and 

expanding this tradition offers great potential to ensure that engaged fathering remains a 

high priority for fathers, sector leaders, the U.S. Government and the American public. 

The annual Celebration of Fathers could include the following:

• Recognition of exemplary fathers, grandfathers, stepfathers, adoptive fathers, 

military fathers, and other father figures;
36 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

• Recognition of important progress made toward goals that are influenced by the 

involvement of fathers (e.g., educational testing results and graduation rates, teen 

pregnancy rates, and children living with two parents); 

• White House recognition of the leaders of intradepartmental and interdepartmental 

working groups and the strategic partnerships formed at Sector Roundtables;

• Letters, commendations, and proclamations that honor the leaders and teams of 

other exemplary efforts to improve the well-being of children by involving fathers;

• A Presidential address to fathers about the joys of fatherhood and the importance of 

fulfilling their personal responsibilities; and

• An invitation by the President to every father (through sectors identified above) 

to join him in making a formal commitment or pledge to be the father his children 

need; this step must include a method for counting the commitments made.

Recommendation 3: Continue to personally affirm the important role of fathers, and 

continue to model the life of a committed husband and father.

Background and Explanation: 

The President’s personal experience contributes significantly to his ability to speak deeply, 

credibly, and powerfully on the importance of fathering. Because he shares the wounds of 

father absence with many fathers who are currently disconnected from their children, the 

President can challenge them to “step up,” even in the face of many barriers, to fulfill their 

responsibilities as fathers. With these credentials and his personal commitment, increasing 

the proportion of children growing up with engaged fathers may offer the President the 

single biggest opportunity for a legacy that will extend for generations. 

The impact of the President’s actions and words about his personal commitment to being 

a good husband and father has already demonstrated the value of his personal example. 

He should continue to capitalize on both informal and formal opportunities (e.g., the State 

of the Union Address and Prayer Breakfasts) to reinforce and model his commitment. 

Opportunities include the following: 

• Modeling involved fatherhood by taking time to be with his daughters at home, 

school, and work and by participating in their activities;

• Highlighting the importance of fathers maintaining appropriate work-family balance 

and modeling it for White House staff, government employees, and the American 

people; and

• Using Public Service Announcements to challenge men to be involved fathers and 

grandfathers to their children, and to reach out and be father figures to children in 

their spheres of influence whose fathers are absent.

Given the important role of mothers in encouraging fathers, the First Lady should also be 

invited to speak out about how important good fathering is to her personally as well as 

to the success of her efforts to support military families, to help working women balance 

career and family, and to encourage national service.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 37

Recommendation 4: Challenge government 

departments and agencies to cross departmental 

lines and create working groups to assess 

and address their policies that affect fathers’ 

involvement in the lives of children.

Background and Explanation: 

The vast majority of fathers want to be involved in 

the lives of their children, but many of them face 

obstacles to greater involvement.8

 Some of the most 

common barriers include a lack of fathering skills, 

employment, stable housing, or access and visitation. 

Other critical obstacles facing some fathers who 

would like to be more involved dads include military 

service, child support, incarceration, and reentry. 

In addition, violence, particularly preventing and 

addressing family violence and abusive relationships, 

as well as exposure to community violence, presents 

a unique set of challenges. As such, fatherhood 

programming must be prepared to address these 

challenges in partnership with community, family, 

and domestic violence prevention and intervention 

programs and services. Helping families address 

these challenges requires strategies that bridge the 

responsibilities of multiple government agencies. 

At the Federal level, the Office of Child Support 

Enforcement and the Departments of Justice and 

Labor might work together to connect fathers and 

children while increasing employment and child 

support collections. One innovative model of this 

kind of partnering across agency lines is Fathering 

Courts. Fathering Courts are programs that offer 

fathers who have not been making child support 

payments a chance to make a fresh start. 

The program helps to increase child support 

payments through partnerships involving Child 

Support, the Courts, employment services, 

community colleges, health services, and other 

governmental and community-based support 

services. In Fathering Courts, the prosecutor agrees 

to defer prosecution while dads access services that 

result in gainful employment and a newfound ability 

to pay child support. Fathering classes inspire and 

equip the fathers to be effectively engaged in the 

lives of their children. This is one example of where 

a cross-sector approach, which requires engagement 

8

 Norval Glenn, Pop’s Culture: A National Survey of Dads’ Attitudes on Fathering. National Fatherhood Initiative (Gaithersburg, MD: 2006). 

Fathering Courts: A Program

of the National Center for Fathering 

http://www.fathers.com

Fathering Courts present a powerful family-strengthening 

alternative to the prosecution and incarceration of men 

with significant child support arrearages. Especially 

important in challenging economic times, it saves 

communities millions of dollars in actual expenditures. 

And especially important for our Nation’s fabric and 

future, its programs strengthen fathers’ capacity to 

play positive and steadfast roles in their children’s lives. 

Fathering Courts promise better outcomes for two 

generations simultaneously. Fathers learn to develop 

lifelong skills such as better relationships with their 

children and children’s mothers, how to maintain 

meaningful employment, and how to provide consistent 

financial support to their families through a 13-week 

fathering class. In the long term, Fathering Courts benefit 

the community by reducing financial costs typically 

associated with delinquent child-support payments.

The primary objectives of Fathering Courts are to:

• Increase the number of fathers who 

contribute financially and emotionally 

to their children; and

• Help men successfully overcome the 

challenges that have led to their nonpayment 

of child support through:

• Needs assessment and skills development;

• Case management;

• Counseling and treatment;

• Peer support and curriculum for fathers;

• Health and education services for children;

• Employment assistance; and

• Connecting dads and moms to necessary 

resources.
38 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

from different branches of government, is having a 

tremendous impact on the lives of fathers and their 

children.

Additional intradepartmental and interdepartmental 

working groups we suggest are listed below with 

proposed objectives: 

• The Departments of Defense and Veterans 

Affairs g Assist long-distance dads and 

reentering dads.

• The Departments of Justice, Labor, Housing 

and Urban Development and Child Support 

Enforcement g Ensure that reentering dads 

can find jobs in order to fulfill their child 

support orders and housing to provide 

stability.

• The Departments of Education and 

Commerce g Increase father involvement 

in education, and improve educational 

outcomes of the future working population.

• The Departments of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and Education g Reduce the 

number of unintended pregnancies,9

 and 

increase the number of children growing up 

with the support and involvement of both 

parents.

• The Department of Health and Human 

Services, the White House Council on Women 

and Girls, the White Office advisor on 

Violence against Women and the Department 

of Justice g Reduce family violence.

Each of these working groups would be challenged 

by the President to identify common goals and 

solutions to increase responsible father involvement 

in the lives of children. Progress toward these goals 

would be reported to the President regularly for 

accountability and recognition. 

9 To the extent that this proposal would involve the government in funding or otherwise promoting contraception, some Council Members would be opposed. 

InsideOut DadTM: A Program

of the National Fatherhood Initiative

http://www.fatherhood.org/insideoutdad

InsideOut DadTM is a reentry program for inmates who 

are fathers and has shown much success. The curriculum 

strives to connect inmates to their families and restore 

broken relationships by reaching out to men on the 

Inside while preparing them for life after incarceration on 

the Outside. Connecting inmates to their families is an 

essential part of the reentry process, and this program 

changes lives as it restores broken relationships. The 

curriculum includes a facilitator’s guide, activities manual, 

CD-ROM with evaluation tools, and handbooks the dads 

are permitted to keep.

Two independent, third-party evaluations of National 

Fatherhood Initiative’s InsideOut DadTM program 

for incarcerated fathers (which is used in over 200 

correctional facilities in all 50 States and has been 

standardized by 19 State departments of corrections) 

found that fathers significantly increased their knowledge 

of and improved attitudes about fathering. For example, 

fathers were more likely to report knowing how their 

children were doing in school and knowing with whom 

their children spend time than men who were not in the 

program. And many fathers increased the frequency of 

contact with their children. Moreover, preliminary data 

from the Indiana Department of Corrections indicate 

that the use of InsideOut DadTM and 24/7 DadTM (another 

National Fatherhood Initiative program) as part of a 

comprehensive reentry program has led to recidivism 

rates of 20% or lower. 

The chief objective of InsideOut DadTM is to:

• Connect inmates to their families to prepare 

them for release from incarceration and 

improve the attitudes of participants about 

fathering. 

The InsideOut DadTM curriculum carries out its mission by 

helping inmates:

• Explore and heal from their past;

• Develop healthy emotions;

• Reconnect with their families; and

• Plan for the future.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 39

10 This information is based on preliminary data from an evaluation of the National Fatherhood Initiative’s InsideOut DadTM program being conducted by 

the Indiana Department of Corrections. See also Nancy La Vigne, Elizabeth Davies, Tobi Palmer, and Robin Halberstadt. Release Planning for Successful 

Reentry: A Guide for Corrections, Service Providers, and Community Groups (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; The Annie E. Casey Foundation), 2008; 

also Jeremy Travis, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul, From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry (Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute, 2001).

Recommendation 5: Increase participation of federal agencies in the funding of 

fatherhood programming, especially in areas of critical importance.

First, the Council believes that it is critical that the fatherhood programming through the 

Administration for Children and Families continues. A report from the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, “Emerging Findings from the Office of Family Assistance 

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Programs: A Review of Select Grantee 

Profiles and Promising Results” (September 2009), shows early signs that the fatherhood 

programming grantees are effectively serving fathers and families. 

Also, other sources of funding for fatherhood programming, such as the Second Chance Act, 

Edward Byrne Memorial Competitive Grant Program, the 1115 waivers program through 

the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the Administration for Children and Families 

Compassion Capital Fund, should also continue.

However, there is a lot of room for the other Federal agencies to use existing grant programs 

or to create new ones to expand the Federal Government’s role in funding fatherhood work. 

The Council believes that there is an especially critical need for programming in the 

following areas:

• Promoting the involvement of dads in their children’s education; 

• Employment services for men and fathers; 

• Programming for military fathers and families; and 

• Programming for incarcerated fathers 

and reentry; 

• Programming for fathers involved in the Child Support System;

• Mentoring programs for boys, men, and fathers; and 

• Programming and resources to reduce unintended pregnancies and promote 

responsible decision making by both men and women about when and whether to 

become a parent. 

Please see APPENDIX for a further explanation of the importance of these areas of focus.

In each of these areas, the appropriate Federal agency or partnering agencies could do more 

to fund and promote programs that target the well-being of children and the role of their 

fathers.

For example, given the connection between involved fatherhood and reduced recidivism 

rates,10 the Department of Justice should do more to fund programs that serve incarcerated 
40 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

and reentering fathers. In light of the unique 

challenges facing military fathers and families, the 

Department of Defense can become more involved 

in funding programs to get resources and training 

to military fathers. In the Department of Labor, the 

proposed FY 2010 budget includes a measure that 

would create a dedicated funding stream to provide 

transitional job opportunities to noncustodial 

parents, among other target populations, who owe 

child support. 

Groups such as the Interagency Working Group 

and the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention can convene meetings 

to discuss and recommend specifically how the 

agencies can use existing grant programs or create 

new ones to fund fatherhood. 

The Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships at the agencies can gather to discuss 

and recommend how both financial and nonfinancial 

mechanisms can be used or created to increase 

agency involvement in fatherhood. 

The Office of Management and Budget also can 

be encouraged by the White House to identify 

opportunities for relevant grant programs to be 

administered in a way that allows fatherhood 

programs to compete for funding. 

Finally, the White House can use directives to 

encourage the agencies to address the “father factor” 

in the work they do. 

Recommendation 6: Invest in high-quality 

program evaluation in order to help the 

fatherhood field define and increase its impact 

on specific measures and in so doing, increase 

public understanding of and support for this 

critical work.

The White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships should encourage the 

investment of Federal funds in evaluating a range of 

fatherhood interventions so that the field can grow 

in its overall quality and impact. Evaluation should 

be structured in a manner that fosters collaboration 

among fatherhood practitioners and program 

evaluators, helping move the field toward even 

greater evidence-based programming. 

WATCH D.O.G.S.: A Program of 

the National Center for Fathering 

http://www.fathers.com

WATCH D.O.G.S. (Dads of Great Students) involves fathers 

and father figures in schools as an unobtrusive security 

presence and as adult male role models. In 2008 to 2009, 

more than 75,000 dads served at least 1 day as a Watch 

D.O.G., positively influencing the lives of over 400,000 

children. WATCH D.O.G.S., a program of the National 

Center for Fathering and a partner in the National PTA’s 

M.O.R.E. (Men Organized to Raise Engagement) alliance, 

currently has programs in more than 1,350 schools in 

36 States. WATCH D.O.G.S. volunteers are given the 

opportunity to become more engaged in the lives of their 

children and/or students through unique involvement 

within the school system and, in turn, to become positive 

male examples to students.

The primary objective of WATCH D.O.G.S. is to:

• Help every school in America be positively 

influenced by the committed involvement 

of fathers and father figures in lives of their 

children and students. 

WATCH D.O.G.S. carries out its mission specifically 

through:

• Inviting fathers, grandfathers, uncles, or other 

father figures to volunteer at least one full 

day at their child’s school during the school 

year. WATCH D.O.G.S. volunteers are involved 

in a myriad of tasks while volunteering, 

including monitoring the school entrance, 

assisting with unloading and loading of buses 

and cars, monitoring the cafeteria, or helping 

in the classroom with a teacher’s guidance 

by working with small groups of students on 

homework, flashcards, or spelling;

• Having father figures sign up at a kickoff 

event, such as a “Dads and Kids Pizza Night” 

or “Donuts with Dad,” or in the office at any 

time throughout the school year; and 

• Partnering a “Top Dog” volunteer with the 

school administrator to coordinate scheduling 

and identify opportunities for Watch D.O.G.S. 

to provide assistance at the school.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 41

Background and Explanation: 

The fatherhood field is at a stage in its development 

in which it is critical for evidence to be provided 

about the effectiveness of its work. There is little 

doubt about the need to connect fathers with their 

children, but questions remain about the most 

effective approaches to fostering those connections. 

Some preliminary data are encouraging. According 

to a report from the Department of Health and 

Human Services, “Emerging Findings from the 

Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage 

and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Programs: A 

Review of Select Grantee Profiles and Promising 

Results” (September 2009), several Office of Family 

Assistance Responsible Fatherhood Grantees 

are showing positive results 3 years into their 

projects. For example, an evaluation of The South 

Carolina Center for Fathers and Families Promoting 

Responsible Fatherhood Project found, among other 

things, that 63 percent of participants unemployed at 

program intake obtained employment; 27 percent of 

those who were employed at intake increased their 

earnings; and 79 percent of participants who had 

child support arrearages decreased their arrearages. 

An evaluation of the Jefferson County Fatherhood 

Initiative found that participants reported and 

maintained statistically significant gains in effective 

communication skills, interpersonal skills, and 

relationship satisfaction.

Two independent, third-party evaluations of the 

National Fatherhood Initiative’s InsideOut DadTM 

program for incarcerated fathers found that fathers 

significantly increased their knowledge of and 

improved attitudes about fathering. For example, 

fathers were more likely to report knowing how their 

children were doing in school and knowing with 

whom their children spend time than men who were 

not in the program. And many fathers increased the 

frequency of contact with their children. Moreover, 

preliminary data from the Indiana Department of 

Corrections indicates that the use of InsideOut DadTM 

and 24/7 DadTM as part of a comprehensive reentry 

program has led to recidivism rates of 20 percent or 

lower. 

Men Engaged in Nonviolence, Inc.

http://www.nonviolentmen.org

Men Engaged in Nonviolence, Inc. (MEN), began in 

Taos, New Mexico, in 2004, as a grassroots movement 

in response to domestic, youth, and criminal violence in 

the Taos community—violence that was overwhelmingly 

perpetrated by males. A great need was identified to 

uplift the principle of males being able to value and 

practice nonviolence. MEN has discovered that it is much 

more effective to promote and model nonviolence rather 

than to “fight” violence. The program focuses on giving 

at-risk and high-risk boys what they greatly need in their 

lives, but do not have: a healthy male role model. This 

opportunity to fulfill a need gives grown men the chance 

to connect with the youth of today, to become trained 

in the critical issues, and to be of service. MEN strives to 

work with the boys over the long term so that they grow 

up to become healthy, productive, and nonviolent men, 

which in turn means that they can be responsible fathers.

Teaching stress management, conflict resolution, and 

nonviolent communication, as well as helping fathers 

overcome alienation and anger, MEN empowers men 

and mobilizes fathers to leave behind physical and sexual 

violence by respecting themselves and connecting with 

their families, developing integrity, and pulling other men 

along with them in valuing the well-being of others in 

healthy communities.

The primary objective of MEN is to:

• Inspire, train, and empower men and boys to 

lead lives of nonviolence with the belief that 

boys who grow to be nonviolent men lay the 

essential foundation to become good fathers. 

MEN carries out its mission through these programs:

• Teaching parenting skills (through National 

Fatherhood Initiative’s 24/7 DadTM, Siempre 

PapaTM, and Doctor DadTM programs)

• One-on-one mentoring to young fathers 

• Therapeutic groups for fathers of all ages 

• Mental health counseling 

• Legal guidance

• Career development
42 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Additionally, fathers involved in the National Center 

for Fathering’s WATCH D.O.G.S.® (Dads of Great 

Students) program showed significant gains in their 

involvement in their children’s lives, according to 

an independent, third-party evaluation. Surveys 

taken at the beginning and end of the school year 

showed that WATCH D.O.G.S. dads increased their 

involvement in both educational activities as well 

as unrelated activities at home. A Department of 

Education study in 1997 suggests that increased 

paternal involvement in education will result in 

improved educational outcomes, but future studies 

will need to confirm this.

Given these promising early indications that a 

diverse set of approaches to reaching and serving 

fathers is working, additional evaluations should 

be aggressively funded in order to provide deeper, 

broader data on the most effective approaches that 

will positively connect fathers to their children and 

families.

The Federal Government can help to produce 

valuable evaluations of the fatherhood field by 

investing in high-quality program evaluations that 

examine the effectiveness of fatherhood programs 

and services across agencies and throughout the 

field. Program evaluations of current and future 

responsible fatherhood grants should be structured 

by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation and other Department 

evaluators in a manner that fosters collaboration 

among practitioners and program evaluators. 

These evaluations should not only identify effective 

programs but also best practices that can shape the 

future of the field. To facilitate this process, HHS, in 

conjunction with the White House Office of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships, can convene 

a series of discussions with leading fatherhood 

practitioners and researchers to identify research 

needs and barriers, address concerns of each party, 

and build trust and consensus among these distinct 

communities. 

Additionally, program evaluations should be 

administered throughout the Federal Government 

for those agencies whose systems and programs 

serve or interact with a high quantity of men who 

may need fatherhood services. These programs may 

P.E.A.C.E. Initiative 

http://www.peaceinitiativesatx.org

The P.E.A.C.E. Initiative (Putting an End to Abuse through 

Community Efforts) is a San Antonio, Texas, coalition of 

public and private institutions, grassroots organizations, 

and individuals working collaboratively to end family 

violence. In 2004, they forged a partnership with the San 

Antonio Fatherhood Campaign that is a collaboration 

designed to teach males how to become better and 

more involved fathers through a combination of direct 

service programs and activities that support developing 

responsible nonviolent parenting skills, teaching about 

the dynamics of family violence, and connecting fathers 

and families to community-based support and resources. 

In 2009, the P.E.A.C.E. Initiative began the White Ribbon 

Campaign San Antonio, which invites all men who are 

serious about taking a stand against violence toward 

women and girls to wear white ribbons. Men who wear 

a white ribbon make a personal pledge to never commit, 

condone, or remain silent about violence against women 

and girls. Wearing a white ribbon is a way of saying, “Our 

future has no violence against women.”

The main objective of the P.E.A.C.E. Initiative is to:

• Educate the public about the extent and 

often deadly consequences of domestic 

violence and to respond effectively through 

collaborative efforts. 

This organization works to end family violence through:

• Education trainings on domestic violence issues;

• Coalition building;

• Community organizing;

• Advocacy;

• Outreach; and

• Systems change work with the media, artists, 

policymakers, survivors, community leaders, 

and so on.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 43

be directly or indirectly focused on fatherhood and include Department of Labor workforce 

development programs, Department of Justice reentry and fathering court programs, and 

child support enforcement initiatives. The goal of these evaluations should not only be to 

assess the effectiveness of individual programs but should also be to identify the full range 

of service needs of fathers and to coordinate service delivery for fathers and their families. 

Recommendation 7: Develop fatherhood tools and products that are culturally and 

linguistically relevant.

Cultural and linguistic challenges occur for many new Americans and people of color. 

According to an issue brief prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, African American, 

Latino, and Native American children are more likely to live in single-parent families. 

The 2007 data show that 65 percent of non-Hispanic Black children, 49 percent of Native 

American children, and 37 percent of Hispanic children reside in single-parent homes. The 

same issue brief cites research indicating the tougher challenges that fathers of color face in 

being involved, responsible, and committed fathers. 

Similarly, as President Obama pointed out, “new Americans and refugees still face language 

barriers and have significant challenges.”11

As Fatherhood programming and resources are developed, the needs of all client 

populations need to be taken into consideration. Fathering resources, such as those 

promoted through www.fatherhood.gov should include culturally and linguistically relevant 

information, including resources that are translated into Spanish and other languages.

Recommendation 8: Engage the academic community in developing curricula to train 

aspiring health and human service professionals to better meet the needs of fathers. 

We recommend that the White House, with involvement from HHS and the Department 

of Education, convene a series of meetings to engage the academic community to develop 

curricula to train aspiring health and human service professionals to better meet the 

needs of fathers. Invitees should include the American Medical Association, the National 

Association of Social Workers, the American Public Human Services Association, and 

educators from the top colleges and universities. The objective of these meetings should be 

to educate and encourage participants to cultivate the development of health and human 

service professionals who are fully cognizant of the importance of and the strategies 

required for meeting the needs of fathers.

Background and Explanation:

Historically, the services provided by health and human service professionals have been 

geared toward providing supports for mothers and their children. Although such work 

must continue, a growing body of research is showing the importance of providing 

complementary or comparable services to fathers in order to more fully engage them in 

the lives of their children and families. Therefore, “culture change” is necessary within the 

health and human services professions so that there is a broader recognition of the critical 

role that fathers play in child, family, and community well-being. This kind of change must 

start in the earliest stages of an aspiring professional’s education in the field. 

In 2003, researchers from the Yeshiva University School of Social Work conducted an 

assessment of the degree to which academic social work literature addressed the social 

11 See Remarks by the President at AAPI Initiative Executive Order Signing and Diwali Event (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/

remarks-president-aapi-initiative-executive-order-signing-and-diwali-event).
44 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

service needs of fathers and prepared social work students to respond to the needs of 

fathers through social service programs. The results of the review indicated that there is a 

significant research and information gap concerning the support service needs of fathers. 

Lack of awareness among medical and social service practitioners about the needs of 

fathers may lead to service program designs that do not consider the impact of fathers in 

their psychosocial assessment of children or that are viewed by fathers as disparaging or 

apathetic. This perception might cause some fathers to be reluctant to seek support services. 

To the potential detriment of fathers and families, social service programs have not been 

designed to address the emotional strain of divorced fathers separated from their children, 

emotional or resource support needs of single-parent fathers, engaging noncustodial and 

adolescent fathers in the lives of their children, or a range of other support needs particular 

to fathers. 

Expanding health and social work education and training to include fathers is an important 

step in ensuring that service delivery programs are designed with the needs of fathers 

as well as mothers and children in mind. Schools of social work must develop and infuse 

father-focused curricula throughout all levels and areas of their programming as new 

generations of social service practitioners are trained.

Additionally, current physicians, social workers, and social service practitioners can be 

directed to learn about the role of fatherhood and needs of fathers through professional 

conferences and agency staff training sessions. An example of this is the Father Friendly CheckupTM workshop, developed by National Fatherhood Initiative. The workshop helps agencies 

and organizations improve their performance in leadership and organizational philosophy; 

policies and procedures; program, service, and product content; physical environment; staff 

orientation and training; social marketing strategies; and community service.

Recommendation 9: Ensure that programming for couples’ employment training, 

job placement, and financial literacy are allowable activities under federally funded 

fatherhood, healthy relationship, and healthy marriage grants.

We recommend that the White House ensure that allowable activities of Federal responsible 

fatherhood and healthy relationships and healthy marriage funds include “couples 

employment programs.” These programs provide both partners in committed relationships 

with employment training, job placement, financial literacy, and other financial supports 

in conjunction with core responsible fatherhood and healthy relationships and marriage 

training.12

Background and Explanation:

Economic factors such as limited financial resources and unemployment can serve as 

barriers to both responsible fatherhood and healthy relationships/marriage for low-income 

12 Couples employment programs are designed to serve couples that are jointly raising a child and are dedicated to being in a committed relationship 

with each other, irrespective of whether they are married. Some Council Members would be opposed to such programs to the extent that people 

qualify to participate in such a program precisely because they are involved in “committed” sexual relationships other than marriage. Those Council 

Members further submit that, if, by contrast, the program defines its beneficiaries by their relationship to the children they share, rather than by their 

nonmarital relationship to each other, then there would be no objection. Similarly, if the program confers benefits based on the existence of nonmarital 

sexual relationship, but also has as its purpose to steer those participants toward marriage, then the concern raised by those Council Members would be 

alleviated. Other Council Members support the inclusion of non-married couples dedicated to (i) jointly raising their child and (ii) being in a committed 

relationship with each other, because that eligibility criteria allows the program to reach fragile families who have a great potential of being strengthened 

precisely because the couple is committed to each other and to raising their child together. These Council Members believe the inclusion of non-married 

couples in these programs is a commendable strategy for breaking the cycle of father-absence in America.
45

Couples Employment Program Model: 

A Program of the Center for Urban Families 

http://www.cfuf.org 

With funds provided by the Administration for Children 

and Families, the Center for Urban Families (CFUF), 

a nonprofit organization in Baltimore, Maryland, 

operates a 6-month couples employment program that 

includes 3 months of active program participation and 3 

months of follow-up services. CFUF designed its couples 

employment program to incorporate the expressed desire 

of clients to receive financial education and information 

while simultaneously developing their skills as couples to 

sustain healthy relationships and families. 

With the help of employment specialist and facilitators 

trained in CFUF’s Exploring Relationships & Marriage 

Curriculum, participants develop a written family-focused 

employment plan, learn what is needed to compete 

in the job market, and attend couples-focused group 

sessions focusing on employment, financial literacy, 

gaining economic stability, and building healthier 

relationships. Specific workshops and trainings provided 

by the CFUF couples employment program include 

family-focused employment and financial supports such 

as budget development, credit management, financial 

literacy, home ownership, and entrepreneurship, as 

well as healthy relationship/marriage supports like 

conflict resolution, issues within blended families, family 

planning, and building trust within relationships.

The primary objective of the Couples Employment 

Program Model is to:

• Help couples move toward stable 

relationships and family-friendly employment 

—for one or both partners—that improves 

their economic circumstances and provides 

support for lasting family units 

* See footnote 12 on page 44

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010

fathers and couples.13 An innovative method of 

addressing the intersection between economic 

instability and responsible fatherhood and healthy 

relationships/marriage is a “couples employment 

approach” that provides employment assistance and 

other means of financial support to each partner in a 

committed relationship.

From 1997 to 2000, the Department of Labor funded 

the Full Family Partnership (FFP) at Jobs for Youth/

Chicago. In this unique program model, low-income 

partners in committed relationships simultaneously 

participated in a 2- to 3-week job readiness and job 

placement program. The participation and outcomes 

results of these couples were compared with those 

of participants in two other employment assistance 

programs that did not use the “couples employment 

approach.” Key findings reveal the following:14

• Both mothers and fathers participating in 

FFP were more likely than parents in the 

comparison groups to finish the program and 

be placed in a job.

• FFP mothers showed higher initial earning 

gains upon program completion than 

mothers in comparison groups.

• FFP mothers were 60 percent less likely to 

receive Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families upon program completion than they 

were before participating in the program. 

• Earning outcomes for FFP fathers were 

comparable to those of fathers in one 

comparison group and surpassed those of 

fathers in the other comparison group. 

13 William J. Doherty, Ph.D., Edward F. Kouneski, M.A., and Martha 

Farrell Erickson, Ph.D. of the University of Minnesota. September, 1996 

Responsible Fathering: An Overview available at http://fatherhood.

hhs.gov/concept.htmand Conceptual Framework and Center for 

Research on Child Well being (2003) The Retreat from Marriage Among 

Low Income Families. Fragile Families Research Brief No. 17. and Paula 

Roberts (2004) I Can’t Give You Anything But Love: Would Poor Couples 

With Children Be Better Off Economically If They Married?. 

14 Rachel Gordon and Carolyn Heinrich , “The Potential of a Couples 

Approach to Employment Assistance: Results of a Nonexperimental 

Evaluation,” Review of Economics of the Household, March 2009, and 

Kristin Abner, Rachel Gordon, and Carolyn Heinrich , Utilizing a Couples 

Approach to Promote Employment Stability (Institute of Government 

and Policy Affairs: 2009). 
46 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Christian Heritage: 

Fatherhood Initiative 

 http://www.chchildrenshomes.org 

Christian Heritage is a nonprofit, faith-based organization 

founded in 1980 to serve Nebraska’s abused and 

neglected children placed out of home by the Department 

of Health and Human Services. Christian Heritage’s 

two specific goals are first, to reunify families in those 

situations in which children have been placed away from 

home and second, to prevent out-of-home placement 

of children considered at risk. Residential homes, foster 

homes, and transitional living apartments are being used 

to serve over 110 children daily. 

After nearly 30 years of caring for at-risk children, 

Christian Heritage has concluded that fatherlessness 

is the number 1 contributing factor to children being 

placed in the foster care system. Consequently, in 2007, 

Christian Heritage launched a fatherhood initiative. 

This faith-based organization is committed to conveying 

the importance of the role of fathers and to providing 

dads with the encouragement and tools necessary to be 

successful in raising their children. 

Christian Heritage’s primary objective in implementing a 

fatherhood initiative is to:

• Convey the important role of fathers and 

provide dads with the encouragement and 

tools necessary to be successful in raising 

their children. 

To carry out its mission to create a better future for dads 

and their children, Christian Heritage specifically:

• Facilitates Destination Dad, a program using a 

parenting curriculum, letters and prison visits, 

and coaching and support to create a better 

future for children of incarcerated fathers;

• Hosts a Celebration of Fatherhood luncheon 

and acknowledges a Nebraska Father of the 

Year, the week before Father’s Day;

• Has created an in-house radio production studio 

and is producing programs for Furthering the 

Family, a statewide radio outreach to encourage 

dads to be involved in the lives of their children 

and to help strengthen and support marriages; 

and 

• Is launching a new Family Coaching Program 

to engage dads with their families. Christian 

Heritage utilizes the InsideOut DadTM and Doctor 

DadTM programs to educate and equip fathers.

• When both partners completed the program, 

couples experienced significantly higher 

earnings gains than couples in which only the 

mother completed the program (over $4,000 

per quarter gain vs. a $1,300 per quarter 

gain).

• Program completion and earnings gains were 

associated with relationship stability.

These findings from the FFP program evaluation 

illustrate the potential of coupling employment 

assistance and other financial supports with the 

core services provided by responsible fatherhood 

and healthy relationships/marriage programs to 

enhance the Government’s ability to help low-income 

couples and fathers overcome economic barriers to 

healthy relationships and responsible fatherhood 

involvement. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 47

APPENDIX

Further explanation for programming areas 

of focus highlighted in Recommendation 5.

Develop and encourage programming that promotes 

the involvement of dads in their children’s education:

A landmark study by the Department of Education in 1997 indicated that children in twoparent families with highly involved fathers were 42 percent more likely to get mostly A’s, 55 

percent more likely to enjoy school, and 28 percent less likely to repeat a grade than were 

children in two-parent families with fathers who had low involvement. This study found 

that these positive effects extend to the children of highly involved, nonresident fathers. 

Children of these fathers were 54 percent more likely to get mostly A’s, 70 percent more 

likely to enjoy school, and 50 percent less likely to repeat a grade than were children whose 

nonresident fathers had no or low involvement.

Clearly, one important strategy for increasing our children’s academic performance is to get 

their fathers more involved in their education. The National PTA has recognized this need 

by creating the MORE (Men Organized to Raise Engagement) alliance. Through this alliance, 

several father-serving organizations have come together to work with schools to increase 

the quantity and quality of services those schools offer to engage fathers. 

One of the MORE partners, WATCH D.O.G.S. (Dads of Great Students), provided more than 

75,000 dads with a volunteer experience in their child’s school during the 2008 to 2009 

school year. WATCH D.O.G.S. dads are enlisted to serve 1 day as an unobtrusive security 

presence and as adult male role models. Pre-testing and post-testing of dads who had served 

at least 1 day as a WatchDOG showed that they were significantly more involved on multiple 

measures of involvement at school and in the home. Principals indicate that WatchDOGS are 

contributing to a safer and more secure learning environment and to an increase in student 

achievement. 

Discretionary grant programs from the Department of Education, such as the Fund for the 

Improvement of Education and the Parent Information and Resource Centers program, can 

be tweaked so that “fathers in schools” programs can more effectively compete for funds. 

The Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships can play a role in encouraging the 

Department of Education to make the necessary adjustments to allow fatherhood programs 

to compete more effectively. 

The need for employment services:

Research supports the notion that unemployment can serve as a barrier to responsible 

fatherhood. A 2005 article in the Journal of Family and Economic Issues reported evidence 

suggesting that “men under financial strain or who have unstable employment have more 

problems being responsible fathers and establishing a household than do other fathers.” 

Unemployment is also a major factor in non-custodial fathers’ abilities to meet child support 

obligations. Additionally, there are a number of personal factors that can contribute to the 

“marriageability” of unmarried parents. Unemployment has been identified as a leading 

factor affecting one’s ability to marry. In 2002, the Journal of Applied Economics published 

an article that found that being unemployed significantly reduced the chance of men being 

married. Employment is a key factor in maintaining the resources needed to sustain families 

and meet the socio-emotional needs of fathers. Therefore, it is constructive for programs 
48 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

focusing on responsible fatherhood to incorporate programming that addresses the 

employment needs of fathers. 

The Departments of Labor and Justice can create links between existing employment 

service programs and responsible fatherhood programs. They can create such links by using 

existing money to fund formal partnerships, creating new grant programs to fund formal 

partnerships, or rewording Requests for Proposals to help facilitate these connections. 

The need for military fathers programming:

Research shows that military families face some of the toughest challenges to marital/

relational stability and involved fatherhood. For example, rates of divorce and domestic 

violence among military families are high, and there is evidence from a 2009 report by 

the Defense Manpower Data Center that divorce rates in the military are increasing. 

Also, according to an issue brief prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, deployment 

of military fathers is associated with increased behavioral problems by their children, 

especially boys. The brief also cites research that has found that children experience 

academic and adjustment problems, as well as depression and anxiety, as a result of the 

deployment of fathers. 

Therefore, there is a need to serve military fathers before, during, and after deployment. 

Pre-deployment services should focus on helping families attend to the emotional, 

logistical, and legal issues that can cause stress during the fathers’ absences. Services 

during deployment should be focused on providing fathers with practical strategies and 

tactics to help them stay connected to their children and families. Post-deployment services 

should be focused on family reunification; fathers should be educated about how to handle 

the changes that their families will have gone through during their absences so that they 

can make a smooth transition back into family life. All of these services should focus on 

fathering, relationship, and communications skills so that fathers can strengthen their 

relationships with their children and the mothers of their children. 

The Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Center for Faith-Based 

and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Veterans Affairs can work together 

to ensure that existing programs designed to improve quality of life for veterans, including 

veterans recently returned from deployment, include supports for fathers. 

The First Lady’s office, given its vocal support for military families, can encourage family 

policy leaders at the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to 

provide specific supports for military fathers in their existing services to military families. 

Finally, the Department of Defense, through the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, the Department of Defense Family 

Advocacy Program, and other offices within the Department can take steps to ensure that its 

family programs are inclusive of specific support for fathers. The five branches also can be 

directed by the Department of Defense and the White House to include specific fatherhood 

supports through the family service centers on bases. 

The need for incarcerated fathers programming:

According to an issue brief prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, “Fathering while in 

prison is not impossible, but it faces considerable obstacles. About six in ten incarcerated 

fathers have some kind of monthly contact with their children, but a majority does not 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 49

receive visits from their children throughout the time they are locked up. Yet, such contact 

is a key predictor of the father’s ability to reenter the community once his time is served 

and not return to prison again.” Additional research shows that the strongest predictor of 

whether a child will end up in prison is if they have a relative who has gone to prison. It is 

most common for this relative to be their father. 

These two key factors—reducing recidivism and ending the intergenerational cycle of 

crime—speak to the need to provide services for fathers while they are in prison and while 

they are transitioning out of prison back into their communities.

While in prison, fathers should receive education to enhance their fathering, relationship, 

and communications skills and be given practical strategies to connect with their children 

while incarcerated. These supports can be combined with opportunities for enhanced child 

visitation, educational and job readiness programs, and substance abuse treatment. 

Similar education can continue while a former inmate is transitioning back into his 

community so that he can successfully reintegrate into the lives of his children and families. 

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, in its meetings, 

can specifically address how to better serve incarcerated fathers through existing 

Department of Justice (and other Federal agency) programs. 

The Department of Justice (through the Bureau of Justice Assistance) can ensure that grant 

programs, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grant Program, are “father 

friendly,” allowing fatherhood programs to effectively compete for funding.

The Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Labor can 

ensure that its Prisoner Reentry Initiative includes adding specific supports for fathers into 

programs serving reentering prisoners. The Faith-Based Center at the Department of Justice 

can do the same thing.

The need for programming for fathers involved in the Child Support System

Low-income fathers represent a significant portion of fathers involved with the Office of 

Child Support Enforcement. As a result of their lack of employment or underemployment, 

history of incarceration, and other challenges, these fathers are often unable to meet their 

established child support orders or to reduce accumulated arrearages. Efforts to enforce 

these orders often result in distancing these fathers from their children. Fathering Courts 

and other programming for fathers involved in the child support system have shown 

promising results in reconnecting these fathers to their children, increasing child support 

payments, and helping these fathers become responsible citizens and taxpayers. In one 

Kansas City Missouri Fathering Court, 281 graduates and current participants have become 

significantly more involved in the lives of their children, contributed more than $2.6 million 

in child support and avoided more than $2.8 million in incarceration costs..

The need for mentoring:

The National Mentoring Project estimates that there are 17 million children in the United 

States in need of a mentor. This estimate correlates closely with the number of children 

living without a father in the home. Who better to mentor our Nation’s fatherless children 

than our Nation’s good fathers? Good fathers are uniquely positioned and skilled to do 

“double duty” by becoming mentors to children in need. There are an estimated 64 million 

fathers in the United States. Given the extent of the father-absence crisis, it is likely that 
50 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

many of these fathers can simply look into their own communities or families to find a 

child in need of a father’s guidance. Additionally, there are many fathers who, having grown 

up in father-absent homes, are in need of help in their own fathering journeys. Again, our 

Nation’s experienced fathers can do “double duty” by stepping into the gap to become 

mentors to these dads.

The Corporation for National and Community Service can start an initiative or program that 

specifically calls out fathers to become mentors to children in father-absent homes. Such a 

call has never been made. 

The President, through his fatherhood messaging and his Call for National Service, can include 

a specific call to fathers to become mentors. The President can encourage private mentoring 

organizations and existing government programs focused on mentoring to begin including 

specific initiatives to engage fathers as mentors. 
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 51
52 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 53

 

Environment 

and Climate Change 

Members of the Taskforce

The Reverend Jim Ball, Senior Director, Climate Change Campaign,

Evangelical Environment Network

The Reverend Canon Sally G. Bingham, President, 

Regeneration Project, Interfaith Power and Light

Cassandra Carmichael, Director, Washington Office and 

Eco-Justice Programs, National Council of Churches USA

Nathan J. Diament, Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America 

The Reverend Dr. Gerald L. Durley, Senior Pastor, Providence Missionary Baptist Church

Juliet Ellis, Executive Director, Urban Habitat

Most Reverend Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop and Primate; and 

Michael Schut, Economic and Environmental Affairs Officer, Episcopal Church

Jonathan Merritt, Founder, Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative

Dan Misleh, Executive Director, Catholic Coalition on Climate Change

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Hadar Susskind, Washington Director (Former), Jewish Council for Public Affairs

The Reverend Dr. Sharon Watkins, General Minister and President, 

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada
54 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 55

Introduction

The charge from President Barack Obama to the President’s Advisory Council on FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships is, in part, to focus on how those partnerships can 

benefit persons and families who often experience barriers to full participation in the 

Nation’s abundance. Keeping the President’s charge in view, the Council presents nine 

recommendations building on the great potential for engaging faith- and community-based 

groups in environmental stewardship, with a special focus on how to include those most 

disadvantaged in our communities.

The recommendations call for enhanced communication between government and small 

nonprofits on subjects related to environment and climate change. Some call for clearer 

information about what is available already through government agencies for faith-based 

and neighborhood organizations, as well as information on how such organizations can 

access what is available. Other recommendations propose the creation of channels for 

faith-based and nonprofit communities to communicate their on-the-ground knowledge 

back to government (especially on matters related to climate change adaptation). The 

recommendations address both domestic and global environmental concerns, appropriately 

acknowledging that such issues know no national borders. 

Over the last 10 to 15 years, leaders in the political, environmental, scientific, and economic 

fields have recognized that environment and climate change will require cooperation 

across disciplines, and that the solutions are not only technical but also connect to our 

morality and values of America. The importance of engaging with religious organizations in 

addressing climate change and environmental concerns has become even clearer—as has the 

importance of faith-based organizations taking a prominent leadership role in influencing 

policy, education, and action in those areas. The more than 370,0001

 houses of worship alone 

provide locations for information to be shared, training to take place, and modeling of best 

environmental practices to occur.

This is a moment of great opportunity to engage the nonprofit sector in building a green 

economy that benefits all. The Council offers the following recommendations with a sense 

that enhanced communication and partnership among the Federal Government and the faithbased and neighborhood communities will go a long way to address a shared concern for the 

poor while claiming a shared responsibility for the wholeness of creation. 

Environment 

and Climate Change

SECTION C:

1

 This data is based on the most recent Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) of the Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration (2003). 
56 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Energy Efficiency and Green Jobs:

Recommendation 1: Form an Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and assign Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons to 

EPA regional offices.

Recommendation 2: The Administration should provide guidance to State and local 

governments on how to partner with faith-based and nonprofit organizations to retrofit and 

green buildings.

Recommendation 3: Encourage the Department of Labor, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, and other Federal agencies to work cooperatively with faith-based 

and neighborhood organizations to ensure that low-income communities and workers with 

barriers to employment are targeted when creating green job training programs. 

Environmental Education and Communications:

Recommendation 4: The Administration should sponsor a public educational campaign on 

the environment, utilizing a centralized Website, such as Environment.gov.

Recommendation 5: The White House should sponsor regional conferences to mobilize 

faith- and community-based organizations to promote environment sustainability and 

energy efficiency. 

Sustainable, Community Gardening and Small-Scale Agriculture:

Recommendation 6: Support partnerships and collaboration for sustainable, community 

gardening and small-scale agriculture. 

Climate Change Adaptation:

Recommendation 7: Provide the opportunity for Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 

and Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) to apply for funds to implement international 

adaptation objectives.

Recommendation 8: Set up a taskforce to study how emission offsets can maximize 

climate-resilient development and the participation of PVOs in such efforts.

Recommendation 9: Active engagement of the NGO sector in the review and design of 

domestic and international adaptation strategies.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 57

Energy Efficiency

and Green Jobs

Recommendation 1: Form an Office of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships 

at the EPA, and assign Faith- and CommunityBased Liaisons to EPA regional offices.

In order to actualize the potential of faith-based and 

community groups and their networks across the 

country toward greening and retrofitting buildings, 

and other key environmental outcomes, the Council 

recommends that an Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships be formed at the EPA. 

We further recommend that the EPA assign or hire 

Faith- and Community-Based Liaisons at all of their 

regional offices. 

There is a new and unprecedented wave of interest in 

the environmental sustainability and climate change 

among America’s diverse religious communities and 

in neighborhoods across the country. 

Faith- and other community-based nonprofit 

institutions are in the unique position of serving 

as visible examples to the community. Houses of 

worship can exert a powerful influence when they 

practice good energy stewardship and preaches 

and teaches about conservation as a moral value, it 

has a powerful influence. Similarly, actions taken by 

nonprofit organizations can serve as an important 

role model for their employees, volunteers, 

and beneficiaries. There is a multiplier effect as 

congregants and nonprofit participants adopt 

the energy-saving practices in their homes and 

businesses. 

A coordinated effort staffed through an Office of 

Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the 

EPA could help to unleash this potential and activate 

faith- and community-based networks to promote 

energy efficiency, environmental responsibility, and 

green jobs. With minimal personnel costs to the 

Government, massive partnerships could be scaled 

up through engaging religious and community 

leaders and organizations. 

Regional staff in local EPA offices, working in close 

collaboration with the new Office of Faith-Based and 

ENERGY STAR Congregations: A Program 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

http://ww.energystar.gov/partners 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR 

Congregations is a program that helps congregations 

operate and build green, environmentally friendly 

facilities. The availability of the ENERGY STAR rating for 

worship facilities was announced by EPA on September 1, 

2009. The ENERGY STAR label means that a rating of 75 or 

higher on a 1 to 100 scale has been achieved, indicating 

that the worship facility is within the upper 25% of 

energy efficiency. As a taxpayer-supported program to 

prevent pollution without regulation, there is no cost to 

participate or to be awarded the attractive bronze plaque 

for the achievement.

In addition, EPA ENERGY STAR Congregations hosts the 

ENERGY STAR National Building Competition, the first 

coast-to-coast contest to save energy and fight global 

warming in commercial buildings. ENERGY STAR partners 

are invited to nominate one or more of the facilities 

they own or manage from across the United States. 

Approximately a dozen contest participants are selected 

by EPA and “work off the waste” through improvements 

in energy efficiency with help from EPA’s ENERGY STAR 

program. The building that reduces its energy use the 

most on a percentage basis is recognized by EPA as 

the winner. Contest participants take part in outreach 

activities, periodic “weigh-ins” to measure progress, and 

a final celebration to announce the winner. 

Joining ENERGY STAR Congregations provides 

organizations with:

• Free, accurate, unbiased information; 

• Technical support through an Ask a Technical 

Question service and technical resources; 

• A “how-to” guide for analyzing and upgrading 

a facility; 

• Availability of an even more detailed guide, 

the Building Upgrade Manual; 

• Energy equipment and service contractors 

and utilities; 

• Information about ENERGY STAR labeled 

products; 

• National and local recognition; 

• Public relations materials to promote energy 

efficiency efforts; and

• Marketing resources.
58 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Neighborhood Partnerships, would work to help promote existing EPA resources for faithand community-based groups around the country, such as ENERGY STAR Congregations. 

Regional staff would work to engage local faith- and community-based groups to help meet 

Obama administration targets for greening buildings and promoting environmental quality. 

One of the biggest barriers for faith- and community-based groups in greening buildings 

is obtaining access to financing. These regional staff liaisons, working in partnership with 

programs like ENERGY STAR, could assist faith- and community-based groups in either 

establishing revolving loan programs or working with utility companies to help finance 

greening building projects. These kinds of financing options, whether through utilities or 

with local revolving loan programs, need to be fostered at the local and regional levels and 

would greatly benefit from the ongoing support of regional staff to help facilitate these 

partnerships. 

Recommendation 2: The Administration should provide guidance to State and local 

governments on how to partner with faith-based and nonprofit organizations to 

retrofit and green buildings.

State and local governments, as well as other Federal grantees, have a unique opportunity 

to include faith-based and neighborhood organizations in their energy efficiency programs. 

However, these entities often lack the knowledge or expertise needed to identify and work 

with faith-based and neighborhood organizations. By providing basic information and 

instruction as well as encouragement, the Administration could enhance the overall energy 

efficiency work at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Guidance should therefore be provided that:

1. Makes explicit where Federal funds provided, through State or local government, to 

retrofit buildings for energy efficiency and environmental benefit, can be awarded 

to retrofit buildings owned and operated by nonprofit entities, including faith-based 

organizations; and

2. Describes how such programs should be structured to conform to relevant 

constitutional and legal parameters.2

The Department of Energy currently offers grants, provided through block grants to States, 

local governments, and tribal territories, for small businesses, commercial buildings, research, 

industrial efficiency, and residential efficiency. Only one opportunity, a loan guarantee 

program, is currently understood to be applicable to nonprofit, including faith-based, 

organizations. The Department should determine whether the legislation governing other 

2

 Council members agree that the administration should provide guidance to federal, state and local government to promote partnerships with faithbased and non-profit organizations to retrofit and green buildings. They differ, however, over the kinds of aid that the government could or should 

make available to houses of worship (and, for some, parochial schools) for this purpose. Some Council members believe that under current law, it is 

constitutionally permissible for the government to provide houses of worship the kind of direct government retrofit grants described in this section, see 

American Atheists v. City of Detroit, 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009) at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0188p-06.pdf)(upholding development 

program whereby city reimbursed up to 50% of the costs of refurbishing the exteriors of all buildings in downtown area, including church buildings) 

affirming 503 F. Supp. 2d 845 (E. D. Mich. 2007), and they also support the extension of such aid on policy grounds. Others would oppose direct cash aid 

for improvements to buildings used for religious purposes, including houses of worship, as a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, see 

Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) )(upholding construction grants for buildings and facilities used exclusively for secular educational purposes), 

Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973)(prohibiting extension to parochial schools of unrestricted maintenance and repair grants 

for nonpublic schools). Even if direct cash aid to houses of worship were found to be constitutional, these Council members would oppose it on policy 

grounds. Some Council members in this latter category would support the flow of certain other forms of government aid -- such as loan guarantees 

-- to houses of worship (as well as to other religious and secular entities) to retrofit and green buildings. For further discussion of these issues, see the 

introductory section and Recommendation 12 of the Council’s Reform of the Office report.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 59

programs it currently operates can include nonprofit organizations. If so, the Department 

should issue appropriate regulations and guidance to implement such inclusion.

Congress is considering as part of new energy efficiency and climate change legislation the 

creation of a new program under which the Department of Energy will provide new funds to 

subsidize the retrofitting of residential and nonresidential buildings. As currently pending, 

the legislation would explicitly state that such subsidies are available to non-profit-owned 

buildings, including faith-based. But even while final action on this legislation is awaited, the 

Administration can undertake appropriate steps to accelerate the retrofitting of faith-based 

and neighborhood nonprofit buildings by making it clear to local and state governments 

how to legally partner with these groups.

There are over 370,000 houses of worship alone in the United States, not to mention 

thousands more nonprofit facilities. Many would participate in energy-saving programs if 

given the opportunity. Currently, only nonprofits with the means to raise capital and with 

adequate expertise have so far installed “greener” systems. Accelerating these efforts is good 

public policy.

Adat Shalom’s Green Building Process, 1997 to 2001 

http://www.adatshalom.net 

Adat Shalom Reconstructionist Congregation in Bethesda, Maryland, is the second synagogue in the United States to receive 

the EPA ENERGY STAR Congregations award. As with every facet of the congregation’s communal life, the building was a 

collaborative communal process. Virtually every aspect of its design, not to mention the campaign to raise the money for 

the building, was driven by members and involved a large cross-section of its membership. The congregation’s Rabbi and 

numerous lay-leaders helped the community in its attempt “to walk lightly on the Earth” while building a permanent home. 

Energy conservation was a consistent concern.

A few of its major environmental accomplishments were:

• Passive solar heating through clerestory windows and a dark floor in the social hall; 

• A ner tamid (eternal light) hooked up to a photovoltaic (solar energy) cell on the roof; 

• A designated percentage of wood from certified sustainable forestry operations; 

• A good zone-by-zone heating and lighting system implemented, with many settings 

and options; 

• Compact fluorescent lamps, LED exit signs, and other low-energy fixtures installed throughout the building; 

• Much material from the existing building saved or kept in place for new construction; 

• Mostly local materials used; limited Jerusalem stone shipped from Israel for symbolism; 

• The maximum number of trees onsite before construction saved by careful planning; 

• Low-water use (xeriscaping), low-maintenance, low-chemical, native landscaping; 

• Low-impact cork flooring used in lobby areas; recycled carpet used in the sanctuary and offices; 

• Mostly-recycled or limestone composite “vinyl alternative” tile flooring in the social hall and classrooms; 

• A permeable driveway and parking lot for groundwater recharge (gravel, then alternative paving); and

• Wide buy-in sought from the congregation on the environment as a key priority during the building process.
60 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 3: Encourage the Department 

of Labor, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development and other Federal agencies 

to work cooperatively with faith-based and 

neighborhood organizations to ensure that lowincome communities and workers with barriers 

to employment are targeted when creating green 

job training programs.

One of the few areas where jobs are being created is 

the clean-energy sector. Most of these green-collar 

jobs are blue-collar jobs transformed to meet the 

needs of the economy. 

A sound green jobs program should help ensure 

that green jobs put marginalized and low-income 

communities on a pathway to prosperity. Faithbased and neighborhood organizations are often in 

the best position to reach low-income, under-served, 

and marginalized communities. 

A recent report released by the Political Economy 

Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, 

commissioned by Green for All and The National 

Resources Defense Council documents the scale of 

jobs that will be created through the clean energy 

sector. Investments in clean energy of $150 billion 

are projected to create 1.7 million net American jobs, 

lower the unemployment rate by 1 percentage point, 

and raise living standards for the working poor. Many 

of these green jobs will build pathways to prosperity 

for the poor. Almost 50 percent will be accessible 

to people with low levels of formal education, and 

include high potential for advancement.

For faith-based organizations and the nonprofit 

sector, there is a commitment to ensuring that this 

new economy provides quality jobs for those who 

have not traditionally benefited from employment 

opportunities. There are numerous barriers to 

employment facing low-income communities of color 

that include individuals with limited educational 

attainment or language proficiency, higher percentages 

of prison reentry, and minimal access to job centers. 

Creative partnerships, financial and otherwise, 

should be developed to help promote job training 

and placement for these disadvantaged job seekers. 

Faith- and community-based groups can play a 

critical role in connecting government green job 

programs with those that need them most.

Solar Richmond 

http://www.solarrichmond.org

Solar Richmond is a nonprofit organization that provides 

solar installation training and job placement services, 

and supports consumers who want to go solar in a way 

that creates jobs for underemployed local residents. The 

organization ushers low-income local residents into the 

green economy by providing them with hands-on solar 

installation training and job placement services. The 

solar training is a component of a 14-week program in 

partnership with RichmondBuild, which includes 7 weeks 

of pre-apprenticeship construction and 3 weeks of energy 

efficiency training. Solar Richmond also works with solar 

companies to meet their staffing needs and works with 

customers who want to go solar in a way that is socially 

sustainable.

The mission of Solar Richmond is to:

• Develop green-collar jobs, clean energy, 

and economic opportunity through solar 

installation training and innovative job 

creation to empower emerging leaders of the 

green economy. 

Solar Richmond’s major goals by 2010 were to:

• Create 100 new green-collar jobs for 

local residents;

• Install 50 solar installations on low-income 

homes in Richmond completed by Solar 

Richmond trainees; and

• Install 5 megawatts of solar power 

in Richmond.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 61

Environmental Education and Communication

Recommendation 4: The Administration should sponsor public educational campaign 

on the environment, utilizing a centralized Website, such as Environment.gov.

There is a rising interest across the country in personal and collective environmental 

responsibility. However, government information and resources can be hard to locate across 

diverse Federal agencies. Traversing the information on grants and other support programs 

from the Department of Energy or other Federal agencies is difficult, particularly for faithbased and neighborhood organizations without the professional expertise in this area.

We believe that faith- and community-based groups, as well as the general American 

public, could be better mobilized toward environmental goals with a well-publicized and 

centralized educational campaign, housed and promoted through a central Website, such as 

Environment.gov. 

We recommend the Administration coordinate a nationwide education and communication 

campaign on the environment that:

• Emphasizes addressing environmental issues and climate change as a moral issue. 

Highlights ways (such as educational resources and funding sources) the Federal 

Government can assist such organizations in addressing those issues; 

• Develops a user-friendly Website, such as Environment.gov, that pulls together all 

the resources available for faith-based and community groups across government, 

including education and grant resources;

• Asks faith-based and neighborhood organizations to collaborate in developing these 

resources which should emphasize that environmental and climate change concerns 

are often closely connected to issues of justice and equity;

• Gears messaging around climate change toward specific regions, based on climate 

change’s impacts within that region. Emphasizes the benefits of reducing carbon 

emissions in terms of decreasing pollution, improving health, creating green jobs, 

strengthening national security through reducing dependency on foreign oil, and so 

on; and

• Emphasizes areas in which individuals and communities can take action, such as: 

• Transportation choices;

• Food choices; and

• Home care and maintenance choices

It is clear that many faith-based and neighborhood organizations do not know what Federal 

Government resources are available to them. A centralized education campaign would meet 

a real need among diverse religious and community-based organizations to engage their 

members in environmental action. 
62 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 5: White House should sponsor regional conferences to mobilize 

faith- and community-based organizations to preserve the environment and reduce 

the impact of climate change.

We recommend the White House, working with the EPA, the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), and the Department of Energy, convene regional conferences to 

bring together a diverse representation of leaders from a variety of fields to promote local 

and regional action on environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.

Among other things, these regional conferences would:

• Highlight innovative programs in areas like green jobs, access to and training for 

those jobs for low-income and minority groups, initiatives around location and 

building efficiency, and faith- and community-based gardening and local sustainable 

agricultural projects;

• Serve as an avenue through which faith-based and neighborhood organizations can 

find out about Federal resources available to them;

• Serve as an avenue through which government officials can discover effective 

programs and seek to replicate those around the country;

• Network leaders, government officials, and organizations within regions; and

• Serve as working meetings, not only conferences.

Along with White House officials, diverse community leaders should be invited to 

participate, such as:

• Recognized leaders and speakers from multiple faith traditions and local/regional 

neighborhood organizations;

• Scientific experts;

• Sustainable business owners and economists;

• Green building and urban design experts;

• International representatives, particularly from those countries already 

experiencing significant impacts from climate change; and

• Sustainable agriculture and gardening advocates and practitioners.

Regional HUD and EPA faith- and community-based liaison staff could help to facilitate 

these gatherings and provide the staff support to turn one-time conferences into ongoing 

sustained action toward environmental goals.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 63

Sustainable, Community

Gardening and Small-Scale

Agriculture

Recommendation 6: Support partnerships 

and collaboration for sustainable, community 

gardening and small-scale agriculture.

We recommend the Administration direct the 

EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and any 

other relevant agencies to find ways to facilitate 

collaboration and connections between faith-based 

organizations, community gardening advocates and 

educators, and small-scale, sustainable agricultural 

projects and practitioners, such as Community 

Supported Agriculture farms. Particular attention 

should be paid to incorporating the needs of lowincome and minority neighborhoods in relation to 

their access to healthy food.

Community gardening groups seek opportunities 

to expand the amount of land in urban/suburban 

areas under cultivation. Many faith-based 

institutions have land available to them. And, 

more and more faith-based organizations see the 

connections between their values and sustainable 

food systems. Community and congregational 

gardens are sprouting up on religious institutions’ 

property around the country. Furthermore, religious 

institutions provide a ready-made market for smallscale, sustainable farmers’ produce.

The benefits of this type of gardening and farming 

are numerous: water and soil are protected, 

community connections are built and strengthened, 

healthy food can be provided to food pantries and 

neighborhoods with little access to such food, and 

local foods decrease carbon emissions associated 

with transporting food thousands of miles. Supported 

on a large enough scale, the Administration could 

provide opportunities for agricultural job creation 

and rural community revitalization, one more 

approach to creating green jobs.

Clean Greens Farm and Market 

http://www.cleangreensfarm.com

On 22 acres of leased land in Duvall, Washington, 

this innovative project was begun by the Black 

Dollar Days Task Force, an organization dedicated 

to creating economic opportunity and equity in 

Seattle’s low-income communities. The Black Dollar 

Days Task Force recognized that African Americans 

are underrepresented in farming in Washington. 

Currently, there is no local market in King County that 

supplies the types of vegetables that are relevant to 

the African American and African immigrant food 

culture. Low-income communities frequently do not 

have access to fresh, wholesome produce and have 

higher rates of poor diet-related illnesses such as 

diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and elevated 

cholesterol. The Task Force program, Clean Greens 

Farm and Market, operates as an agricultural producer 

engaged in the production of chemical-free collard, 

kale, mustard, turnip greens, relish, and spinach.

Fundamentally the Clean Greens Farm and Market in 

Seattle, Washington, strives to grow and deliver clean, 

healthy, and fair produce to everyone at reasonable 

prices. 

Goals for the Clean Greens Farm and Market are the 

following:

• Promote a healthier cultural diet. 

• Grow chemical-free, organic vegetables.

• Supply locally grown produce to the inner 

city market.

• Educate inner city community residents about 

the benefits of buying locally grown produce. 

• Expose inner city youth to the growing and 

marketing of produce that is vital to their 

health.

• Collaborate with Ethiopian, Hmong, Latino, 

Sumatran, and other independent farmers to 

ensure the viability of small farms. 

• Be good stewards of the environment.

• Participate in U.S. Department of Agriculture 

programs
64 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Madison Christian Community: Ecumenical Garden 

http://www.madisonchristiancommunity.org

Madison Christian Community Ecumenical Garden is a ministry that scatters seeds of hope for incarcerated people. 

Madison Christian Community, an ecumenical partnership between Advent Lutheran Church (a congregation of the 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and Community of Hope (a congregation of the United Church of Christ) in 

Madison, Wisconsin, works with a nearby correctional facility to offer a restorative justice-based horticulture program 

in its 6,000-square foot garden. The two congregations share a building, staff, and a piece of land that includes a 

restored prairie, a rain garden, a memorial garden, and the 6,000-square foot vegetable garden that fosters so many 

connections. “The garden ministry is one way to bridge the racial, economic, and social barriers that exist between 

people today,” according to Rev. Jeff Wild, Pastor of Advent Lutheran Church.

The church facility and garden ministry are connected by water. Rainwater from the roof of the sanctuary fills four 

300-gallon tanks. Water flows through underground tubing to the garden, where slow-drip irrigation hoses are placed 

among the vegetation. 

The purpose of the Madison Christian Community Ecumenical Garden is to:

• Cultivate restorative justice through gardening. 

The program is carried out in the following way:

• Inmates are part of a horticulture class in which they sow the seeds for the garden and tend them as they grow 

into seedlings. 

• When the seedlings are ready for planting, the inmates in the class take a field trip to Madison Christian 

Community, where they spend a day tending the garden where their seedlings will be planted. Members from 

the church welcome them with homemade baked goods as well as shade-grown, fair-trade coffee. 

• Money for the cost of seeds and other garden supplies is raised through the sale of Father Dom’s Duck Doo, a 

locally produced compost consisting of “duck doo, cranberries, and other good stuff,” according to Wild.

Climate Change Adaptation

Religious communities and other nonprofits have a special concern for the well-being of 

the poor, including programs to help the poor here and abroad cope with the consequences 

that climate change will bring. It is in the common interest for the Federal Government to 

work with religious communities and other nonprofits in the areas of both domestic and 

international adaptation. 

Several of these recommendations echo those from the Global Poverty Taskforce report 

because the need for international adaptation is consistent with and essential to achieving 

sustainable development. In fact, the Council believes that all U.S. foreign assistance should 

take climate adaptation and mitigation into consideration. At a minimum, programs should 

not lead to mal-adaptation. Instead, foreign assistance should seek to amplify and enhance 

the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation efforts.

 The new Federal funding and programs for adaptation represent an opportunity for Federal 

officials to work with religious community and other nonprofit representatives so that the 

programs are designed from the beginning to foster inclusion, cooperation, and ease of 

participation. This mutually beneficial partnership will enhance the successful delivery of 

adaptation services.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 65

3

 The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, HR 2454, in Title IV, Subtitle E, Part 2, Sections 491-495 (pp. 1365f) sets up an 

International Climate Change Adaptation Program, with USAID as the lead agency. Section 495 (p. 1375f) describes how USAID could provide funds to 

NGOs/PVOs to help poor communities in developing countries adapt. We concur with the selection of USAID to be the administrative agency. If this 

program were to become law, we request that USAID work with NGOs/PVOs as it establishes the procedures for receiving funding to help ensure ease of 

participation and successful implementation 

Recommendation 7: Provide the opportunity for 

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and 

Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) to apply 

for funds to implement international adaptation 

objectives.

Current climate change legislation proposes to set 

up an International Climate Change Adaptation 

Program, with USAID as the lead agency. This 

new program would potentially target funds to 

international adaptation objectives. As funds are 

allocated for international adaptation efforts, and 

agencies are tasked with administration of these 

funds, the U.S. Government should ensure that there 

are opportunities for non-profits and PVOs to apply 

to partner with government in implementation of 

adaptation programs.3

U.S. funding for international adaptation should 

strike a balance between multilateral and bilateral 

assistance, with opportunity provided for NGOs and 

PVOs to receive grants to implement international 

adaptation programs and objectives consistent with 

local community participation. 

Funding for international adaptation will be new and 

additional to current levels of overseas development 

assistance, as stipulated by the Bali Action Plan. 

Therefore such funding represents an opportunity 

to create, from the beginning, programs and 

procedures for full engagement and participation of 

international development NGOs and PVOs.

Recommendation 8: Encourage the 

Administration to set up a taskforce to study how 

emission offsets can maximize climate-resilient 

development and the participation of PVOs in 

such efforts.

Proposed climate change legislation includes the 

opportunity for U.S. emitters to offset some of their 

emissions through the implementation of emissions 

reduction projects in developing countries. Such 

projects will enhance climate-resilient development 

and could be designed to enhance targeted 

adaptation efforts. However, additional study is 
66 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 67

required to understand how this plan can be most effectively and efficiently accomplished, 

as well as how PVOs could participate in offset opportunities. 

Recommendation 9: Active engagement of the NGO sector in the review and design of 

domestic and international adaptation strategies.

As the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Department of State, and other 

Federal agencies begin to coordinate interagency action on domestic and international 

adaptation, we recommend that faith- and community-based organizations be engaged and 

consulted in decisions about funding, program design, and implementation of domestic and 

international adaptation strategies. In addition, faith- and community-based organizations 

can play an important role in helping to facilitate inclusive, collaborative planning 

processes—at all levels of government—that will address climate change impacts, especially 

on low-income and vulnerable populations. 

Faith- and community-based groups, both at home and around the world, have firsthand 

experience and knowledge of the most vulnerable populations and the struggles they are 

facing because of climate change. They have capacity, knowledge, and networks that can be 

activated as valuable partners in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. The U.S. 

Government should utilize this vast knowledge to help shape public policy, program design, 

funding decisions, and delivery mechanisms.
68 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 69

 

Inter-Religious 

Cooperation 

Members of the Taskforce

Archbishop Vicken Aykazian, Immediate Past President, National Council of Churches; and 

Legate, Diocese of the Armenian Church of America

Anju Bhargava, President, Asian Indian Women in America; 

Founder, Hindu American Seva Charities

Nathan J. Diament, Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

The Reverend Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, General Secretary, Reformed Church in America

Bishop Mark Hanson, Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Dr. Joel C. Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President, Islamic Society of North America

Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst and Executive Director, The Center for Muslim Studies, Gallup

The Reverend Otis Moss, Jr., Pastor Emeritus, Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church

Dr. Eboo Patel, Founder and Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

James D. Standish, JD, MBA, Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, 

Seventh-day Adventist Church World Headquarters

Dr. William Vendley, Secretary General; and

The Reverend Donald "Bud" Heckman, Director for External Relations, Religions for Peace

Miroslav Volf, Director, Yale Center for Faith and Culture
70 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 71

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Government seeks to treat all of its citizens equally and to honor the human rights 

of all persons around the world, religious and nonreligious. The U.S. Government currently 

partners with a wide range of secular entities to achieve its domestic and international 

objectives. The Federal Government also recognizes that religiously affiliated persons, 

communities, specialized agencies, and multireligious bodies can be vital partners in both 

domestic and international affairs. 

In many areas of the world, religious communities have the best developed, largest, and 

most enduring social infrastructures. Further, they can be among the most credible and 

reliable partners.

A key to advancing productive partnerships between the U.S. Government and religious 

communities lies in respecting their different identities and clearly discerning their 

overlapping interests for advancing concrete action for the common good. Respecting 

both points can help greatly in the development of fruitful partnerships between the U.S. 

Government, religious groups, and other civil society partners. 

The U.S. Government often employs a multistakeholder approach to partnerships, which can 

include partnerships among governmental, civil society, and business groups for common 

objectives. Multistakeholder partnerships can also include numerous distinct religious 

communities, their related specialized agencies, and interreligious organizations, willing to 

work together to address specific concrete challenges.

Major advantages of a multistakeholder approach to partnerships that involve religious 

communities, their specialized agencies, and multireligious organizations include: having 

a clear focus on the common good; conforming to constitutional, statutory, and regulatory 

frameworks; and drawing on the impulses for the common good anchored deeply in a 

variety of religious and or other civic philanthropic motivations.

When religiously affiliated persons, communities, their specialized agencies, and 

multireligious organizations work together in multistakeholder partnerships, they 

understand themselves as engaging in “interfaith service,” working for the common good, 

even while maintaining the unique religious identity of each participating partner.

Inter-Religious 

Cooperation

SECTION D:
72 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

This disciplined approach to multistakeholder partnerships that include these religiously 

affiliated actors—in addition to advancing concrete projects—can also greatly foster social 

cohesion and help transform sectarian tensions into habits of collaboration based on mutual 

respect.

All participants in multistakeholder approaches to the common good are important. As 

noted above, the Federal Government partners with a variety of secular entities in many 

effective multi-sector arrangements, and those partnerships certainly should continue. The 

focus of this report, however, is to explore some of the unique benefits and opportunities 

presented by partnerships between the U.S. Government and religiously affiliated actors. 

For the purpose of this report, interreligious cooperation refers to activities and projects 

that draw participants from more than one faith tradition, denomination, spiritual 

movement, or religion and often include secular participants and organizations, as well. 

These efforts are aimed at increasing understanding and cooperation among such groups. 

This document uses the terms “interreligious,” “multifaith,” “interfaith,” and “multireligious” 

interchangeably.

It is important to note the emphasis President Barack Obama gave in his Cairo speech to 

improving U.S. relations with “the Muslim world.” This report has a section emphasizing 

this important goal, even while upholding and encouraging the overall objective of religious 

inclusivity and the broader goal of working across religious lines with all people—religious 

and nonreligious—to foster understanding and encourage cooperation. The ever-greater 

religious diversity within the United States is a national asset that can be coordinated by 

principled multireligious and multistakeholder partnerships with the U.S. Government to build 

a healthy culture of pluralism, marked by respect for distinct religious communities, active and 

positive relationships among them and nonreligious communities, and a commitment among 

all groups to build a healthy, diverse, and shared society. In addition, all proposals made in 

this report must be implemented in accordance with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory 

frameworks, including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Finally, it is recognized that all U.S. Government funding must be predicated on achieving 

secular results. Such funding must be awarded based on neutral performance-based 

criteria and must be open to faith-based and non-faith-based entities on equal terms. The 

recommendations below should be read in accord with these principles. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 73

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Role of Religion and Global Affairs:

Recommendation 1: Include multireligious partnerships among the partnerships in which 

the U.S. government engages, and equip U.S. agencies related to international affairs for 

those partnerships. 

Recommendation 2: Partner with faith communities and other organizations that work 

across faith lines to expand respect for religious pluralism and freedom of religion or belief.

Advancing Multireligious Cooperation:

Recommendation 3: Increase partnerships with interreligious councils and women of 

faith networks to advance peace building and development. 

Recommendation 4: Initiate a public campaign to scale and strengthen global and 

domestic program partnerships with Federal agencies that increase dialogue and service 

between people from diverse faith-based and secular groups to build understanding and 

serve the common good.

Recommendation 5: Host a White House roundtable to foster multireligious partnerships 

to advance interfaith service, peace building, and development.

Engaging Muslim Communities: 

Recommendation 6: Establish ongoing communication between the White House and the 

Office of the Special Representative to Muslim Communities at the Department of State and 

Muslim American community groups on global Muslim engagement efforts.

Recommendation 7: Hold townhall meetings around the country including representatives 

from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and faith-based and 

community groups to discuss citizen concerns about civil liberties.

Recommendation 8: Utilize the expertise of faith- and community-based organizations to 

train education and media professionals on Islam and Muslim communities. 

Integrating and Valuing America’s Religious Diversity

Recommendation 9: Through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships and relevant Agency Centers, direct U.S. Government agencies to work to 

engage the rich diversity of American religious communities in partnerships to strengthen 

the common good in America. 

Recommendation 10: Through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships and relevant Agency Centers, direct U.S. Government agencies to work to 

engage the rich diversity of American religious and cultural communities in partnerships to 

provide aid, development, and other services overseas to advance peace and justice abroad.

Recommendation 11: Help build social cohesion by supporting efforts to ensure that 

Americans have opportunities to understand America’s increasingly diverse religious society. 
74 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The Role of Religion and Global Affairs 

Religion is abused by extremists using religion to incite violence and hatred, by 

unscrupulous leaders manipulating sectarian differences for their own ends, by those 

seeking to exploit victims of poverty and to violate human rights, and by instances in which 

media scapegoats religion in situations of conflict. 

Religious communities should be engaged to help achieve solutions for peace, security, 

human development, and respect for fundamental human rights that undergird these 

solutions. Multireligious cooperation is a useful method of engagement, because it builds 

public cooperation and focuses on the common good. In order for religious communities 

to work together, they must be able to operate freely in society. This report includes 

recommendations for both broadening multireligious cooperation and enlarging the region 

in which religious pluralism is permitted to exist freely.

No government, non-profit organization, or foundation can coordinate the assets of 

religious communities by itself. Religious communities must convene their own forums of 

multireligious cooperation to help unleash the potential of their respective and combined 

assets, which are spiritual, moral, and social. Although religious communities are the 

principal convenors of themselves, government may also serve as a convenor for certain 

purposes. In these engagements, the partners must guard against the manipulation of 

religion, the marginalization of those who decline to participate, and the undue expansion 

of the role of government in interfaith dialogue. To advance potential partnerships 

between the U.S. Government and religious communities, this document outlines a series of 

recommendations for U.S. Government agencies.

Two existing U.S. governmental entities with expertise and capacity that may be relevant to 

implementing these recommendations are the Department of State’s Office of International 

Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.1

 The 

professional staff of these entities, the Commission's members and, when appointed, the 

Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom have substantial knowledge of 

the role religion plays in societies around the world, the means of fostering interreligious 

cooperation in diverse cultures, and the U.S. Government’s existing initiatives and 

infrastructure in the field. The required annual International Religious Freedom report has 

also nurtured a corps of foreign service officers who have developed strong connections 

with religious communities in countries across the globe.

Key Principles, Orientations, and Assumptions

The following working assumptions inform the recommendations below: 

1. It is important to honor the distinction between the identities of religious 

communities and governmental agencies.2

2. Religious communities have significant experience, expertise, and capacity in peace 

building and development, including the delivery of health care, education, social 

service, and emergency assistance.3

1

 Both the Department of State’s Office of International Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom were created by 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. 

2

 It is important to note that multireligious organizations are not technically religious in identity; they are public organizations with religious constituencies. 

3 See footnote number 3 on page 75.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 75

3. Multireligious cooperation should focus on harnessing this experience, expertise, 

and capacity and, at the same time, respect the distinct roles of religious 

communities and governmental agencies.4

4. All efforts should operate within established principles for multireligious 

cooperation that have garnered wide acceptance among the world’s religious 

communities: 

a. Respect religious differences, and act on deeply held and widely shared values. 

b. Preserve the identity of each religious community. 

c. Honor the different ways religious communities are organized.

d. Support locally led multireligious structures.

As the President seeks to scale up multireligious cooperation as a mode of action for the 

common good, we offer the following principles and orientations as a guide: 

• Place a premium on multireligious engagements based on shared principles that 

can enable each participating religious community to work on common goals. 

• Identify and evaluate existing multireligious organizations led by representatives 

of the religious communities as potential partners for action programs, and 

encourage new organizations to become involved in the field.5

 

• Consider building the capacity of established multireligious organizations, and 

similar organizations with relevant expertise and capacity, to implement needed 

projects. 

• Seek partnerships with existing international multireligious organizations, and 

similar organizations with relevant expertise and capacity, if national multireligious organizations do not exist.

• Acknowledge the transnational character of many religious communities, and 

advance coherence in partnership objectives on the global, regional, national, 

and local levels. 

• Advance multistate and multisectoral partnerships in support of multireligious 

cooperation for peace and sustainable development as a way to both advance the 

scale and maintain the independent identity of multireligious action.

• Focus on building multireligious partnerships as a priority in countries where 

religion is a major feature of social contract, is subject to misunderstanding, and 

has a significant potential to advance the common good. 

• Ensure that all steps taken to promote multireligious cooperation are within 

the parameters of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and other 

relevant constitutional and legal provisions. 

3

 Religious communities often have (1) a clear mission and message and a traditional orientation toward peace and the promotion of respectful human 

relations; (2) a permanent historic and widely spread presence in society at large and in local communities in particular; (3) legitimacy that enables them 

to make clear and courageous statements during crises and speak with authority to issues of common concern; (4) the largest social networks, reaching 

from the smallest village to capital cities and beyond; (5) trusted and integrated communication networks to help reach larger numbers of individual 

followers; and (6) moral and spiritual traditions that have great authority among their adherents and relevance for peace and human well-being. 

4

 Multireligious cooperation aligns diverse communities around common goals based on shared values, highlights complementarities for action among 

diverse communities, provides for efficiencies in training, and equips religious communities for public partnerships. . 5

 Religious communities should be engaged through their own representatives – leaders, outstanding persons, grassroots congregations, and other 

organizational manifestations – in the work of building interreligious structures on every level, local to global. In this approach, religious communities 

are acknowledged as the main agents of multi-religious cooperation, with each religious community maintaining its own voice and unique identity while 

working to achieve common goals.
76 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 1: Include multireligious partnerships among the partnerships in 

which the U.S. Government engages, and equip U.S. agencies related to international 

affairs for those partnerships.

The Administration should include multireligious partnerships among the partnerships in 

which the U.S. Government engages and should equip U.S. agencies related to international 

affairs for those partnerships.6

 Toward this end, the Advisory Council recommends that 

the Administration request appointment of senior staff for multireligious engagement in 

each of the major agencies handling international affairs. It also urges President Obama 

to direct each agency to establish portfolios related to multireligious engagements and to 

call for the creation of both intra-agency and interagency working groups on multireligious 

engagement. Policy reviews should be open to an analysis of religious factors, including the 

potential impact of multireligious cooperation for key objectives and initiatives. And the 

Council urges the Administration to direct the Foreign Service Institute, military service 

academies, and chaplaincy training programs to adopt new curricula that systematically 

include course material about religions, relevant international laws that protect the rights 

of religious and nonreligious people, and methods of engaging multireligious partnerships 

in building the common good. Such government engagement with religious communities 

should be aimed at promoting secular goals such as achieving peace and security, not 

promoting either religion generally or particular religions. 

A.) Appoint senior-level staff for multireligious engagement.

The President should request the appointment of senior staff for multireligious engagement 

in each of the major agencies tasked with international affairs, including the Department of 

State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Security Council 

(NSC), and the Department of Defense. Internationally, Senior Officers for Multireligious 

Engagement and Community Partnerships should be assigned in key embassies (in accord 

with criteria above) in order to support field cooperation with religious partners. 

To successfully engage multireligious partnerships in achieving peace, security, human 

development, and respect for fundamental human rights, dedicated staff needs to be in 

place in U.S. Government agencies. The potential for multireligious cooperation will not be 

systematically addressed unless appropriate agency staff is appointed to intentionally focus 

on the power of multireligious cooperation. 

B.) Establish multireligious portfolios. 

The President should direct each agency to establish portfolios related to multireligious 

engagements that span the work of policy development, through the implementation of 

diplomacy and development programs. 

The intentional effort to further encourage multireligious engagement can be strategically 

successful only with staff being assigned, portfolioed, and interconnected in U.S. 

Government agencies.

6

 References throughout this section of the report to “multireligious” partnerships presume that they will be one form of partnership among many 

partnerships, including those with secular entities, through which the Federal Government pursues its foreign policy interests. Also, the recommendation 

calling for the addition of staff and policy emphases on multireligious perspectives assumes that similar secular emphases are already present in these 

agencies and will be ongoing. For example, senior staff in Federal agencies focused on international affairs already is tasked with engaging with a wide 

variety of secular communities (see part A of Recommendation 1). 
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 77

C.) Constitute intra-agency and interagency working groups for multireligious 

partnerships.

The President should call for the constitution of both intra-agency and interagency working 

groups on multireligious engagement. These working groups will recommend policy related 

to multireligious partnerships. They will facilitate the sharing of information, advance 

policy coherence across agencies, and foster synergy of action. A high-level interagency task 

force should be directly linked to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships. 

Cooperation within and between the staff of different agencies charged with multireligious 

engagement can facilitate a coordinated strategic advancement of multireligious 

partnerships. Linking the agencies with the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships through a high-level task force can advance coordinated policy 

and implementation of multireligious partnerships. 

D.) Coordinate policy efforts with regards to multireligious perspectives.

The President should direct that policy reviews be open to an analysis of religious factors, 

including the potential impact of multireligious cooperation for implementing key objectives 

and initiatives. Public diplomacy strategies and protocols should be developed that promote 

engagement with religious communities and their leaders through multireligious coalitions.

Religious communities are integral to human societies. They are among the oldest and 

largest social networks, and their contributions in education, health, and social services 

represent a sizeable portion of all such efforts. Policy analyses that do not take into account 

multireligious capacities can risk missing the positive potentials for action of multireligious 

cooperation and—in the absence of positive engagement—enhance the risk that others will 

attempt to misuse religious communities for narrowly sectarian or political interests. 

E.) Improve training on world religions and multireligious cooperation.

The President should direct the Foreign Service Institute, military service academies, and 

chaplaincy training programs to adopt new curricula that systematically include course 

material about religions, relevant international laws that protect the rights of religious and 

nonreligious people, and methods of engaging multireligious partnerships in building the 

common good. 

Religion informs the values and actions of many people around the globe, and faith-based 

institutions make a significant contribution to the delivery of health care, education, and 

social services. Therefore, it is necessary that U.S. Government personnel understand 

the religious traditions of the people with whom they are interacting. Further, religious 

communities are potential partners for the delivery of basic services, brokering peace and 

creating stable societies. U.S. personnel must have a working knowledge of the best means 

to engage religious communities.
78 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 2: Partner with faith communities and other organizations that 

work across faith lines to expand respect for religious pluralism and freedom of 

religion or belief.

The President should direct U.S. Government agencies to identify and fund entities with 

expertise in both building respect for religious pluralism and expanding freedom of religion 

or belief as defined in international law.7

Further, the U.S. Government should partner with entities with relevant expertise, to analyze 

the effectiveness and possible means of improving current U.S. efforts to expand freedom of 

religion or belief. 

Background and Explanation: 

President Obama raised religious freedom as one of his priorities in the Cairo speech, stating 

“[f]reedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.” Similarly, Secretary 

Clinton stated on October 26, 2009, that “[r]eligious freedom provides a cornerstone for 

every healthy society. It empowers faith-based service. It fosters tolerance and respect 

among different communities. And it allows nations that uphold it to become more stable, 

secure and prosperous.” 

One reason to promote multireligious cooperation is to lessen tensions among religious 

communities and thereby reduce religiously motivated violence. But a number of societies 

that present serious security threats to American interests are also societies in which 

religious repression functionally prevents significant multifaith cooperation.8

The first step in executing significant multireligious projects in repressive nations is, 

therefore, working with partners to ensure respect for the existing religious diversity within 

those societies and to advance religious pluralism. Religious pluralism is defined as respect 

for distinct religious and nonreligious identities, active and positive relationships between 

different religious and nonreligious communities, and a commitment across religious lines 

to building a healthy, diverse, and shared society.

While freedom of religion or belief is a necessary precursor to robust religious pluralism, 

and while robust pluralism is necessary before substantial multireligious cooperation 

is possible, there is significant interplay among the three. Multireligious cooperation is 

a substantial means through which societies achieve religious pluralism and religious 

freedom. A high level of religious pluralism and religious freedom is a central component of 

a stable civil society. It minimizes tensions among religious communities, reduces religiously 

motivated violence, and increases the stability of diverse societies. 

Research shows that creating networks of engagement among different religious 

communities in civil society is a factor in preventing violence among those communities 

during times of tension.9

 It also prevents religious prejudices from turning into violence 

that can impact geopolitical relations. Therefore, multireligious approaches are essential to 

expanding religious freedom and to building respect for religious pluralism, which are both 

necessary in order to achieve substantial multifaith cooperation.

7 See Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political 

Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 8 See U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Countries of Particular Concern, http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task

=view&id=1456&Itemid=59, and the Department of State, 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom (available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/

irf/2009/index.htm).

9

 For example, see Ashutosh Varshney. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India (Yale University Press, 2003). 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 79

10 For this report, “interfaith” refers to activities and projects that draw participants from more than one faith tradition, denomination, spiritual 

movement, or religion and that often include secular participants and organizations. These efforts are aimed at increasing understanding and cooperation 

among such groups. This document uses the terms “interreligious,” “multifaith,” “interfaith,” and “multireligious” interchangeably.

Advancing Multireligious Cooperation

Interfaith10 coalitions and organizations provide unique capacity to achieve critical U.S. 

objectives in three principal ways:

• First, by bringing together people of faith and of goodwill, individuals and entities 

can build knowledge and respect for one another. This multireligious cooperation 

builds social cohesion and helps replace sectarian tensions with mutual respect. 

• Second, there is a moral and social imperative in religious and civic traditions to help 

others. Building on this impetus to help achieve U.S. Government objectives in the 

fields of aid, development, health care, and other social infrastructure goals makes 

functional sense. 

• Third, as in many areas of the world, where religious communities have welldeveloped social infrastructures already in place and the credibility and reliability 

to partner effectively with government, they should be invited to work with 

government, just as similarly situated secular communities would be. 

Recommendation 3: Increase partnerships with interreligious councils and women of 

faith networks to advance peace building and development.

The Department of State, USAID, and the NSC should engage in consultations with 

representatives of religious communities, multireligious organizations, and other 

community organizations to discern relevant religious factors and contributions in 

relationship to conflict resolution and peace building. Particular attention should be given 

to those areas shaped by religious legacies and having special importance for regional and 

global security, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, 

Israel and Palestine. Consistent with the President’s aspiration, expressed in his Cairo 

speech, to move beyond stalemate, the Middle East conflict is one in which cooperation 

between diverse religious leaders, particularly Muslim, Jewish, and Christian religious 

leaders, can play a vital role in constructively moving that conflict toward resolution. 

The Department of State and USAID should develop partnerships with national, regional, 

and global interreligious councils and new multireligious organizations to engage in peace 

building, ranging from conflict prevention, to conflict transformation, to social reconstruction. 

They also should engage regional, national, and global interreligious women’s networks on 

these issues, as well as on the issues of trauma healing and gender equality. The capacity 

building and resourcing relevant to these partnerships should be a priority.

U.S. Government agencies, such as USAID, the Department of State, and others that 

undertake critical global development issues—including specifically eradicating malaria and 

addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic—should scale up partnerships with national, regional, 

and global interreligious councils and women of faith networks.

The Federal efforts that focus on women—such as the White House Council on Women 

and Girls, the Department of State’s Office of Global Women’s Issues, the USAID Global 

Partnership Initiative, and others—should engage regional, national, and global 

interreligious women’s networks to advance development on all fronts, particularly poverty 
80 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Hindu American Seva Charities 

http://www.hinduamericanseva.org

Hindu American Seva Charities (HASC) was formed in May 2009 to mobilize Hindu Americans, temples, ashrams, and 

spiritual centers to expand their ongoing community service, promote development of sustainable service centers, and 

mobilize the first national services participation in President Obama’s United We Serve Summer of Service Campaign. 

Over 120 Seva Centers in temples and ashrams responded to the President’s clarion call to serve. Thousands of 

volunteers undertook over 1,300 humanitarian seva projects, and almost all were interfaith.

The primary objectives of HASC are to: 

• Support and encourage millions of Hindu Americans to volunteer to build and strengthen all American 

Communities through seva/community service programs nationally and at grassroots levels; and

• Provide broader exposure and promote development of coalitions and partnerships of Seva Centers 

(Community Service Centers that are standalone or part of temples) to accomplish common goals and address 

community needs.

The primary focus of the seva projects conducted coast to coast during the summer of 2009 was:

• Poverty reduction (622 events) through soup kitchens in local churches, fundraising walk-a-thons, holiday 

meals, building homes, shoes and clothing drives, care packages and free hotel/motel rooms for U.S. soldiers, 

prison correspondence outreach, educational forums on home foreclosures and stimulus package strategies 

for survival, and other activities;

• Coordination of 407 health events for uninsured Americans held primarily on August 1 and 2, 2009. This 

comprehensive health fair offered medical screening provided by physicians, nurses, and individuals. It also 

included health awareness presentations developed for the service campaign by medical students;

• Environment and greening projects by youth who cleaned and cleared roadsides, beaches, and parks and 

planted trees in the community;

• Education development efforts including filling backpacks with school supplies for low-income children; and

• Interfaith dialogues to improve understanding. For example, the Siva Vishnu Temple in Washington, D.C., 

hosted a discussion in which each faith (Christian—Presbyterian, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, and Quaker; 

Jewish, Sikh, Jain, Muslim, Buddhist, Baha’i, and Hindu) addressed its role on fasting and feasting. 

alleviation, including microfinance; education of female children; maternal and child health; 

and addressing forms of violence against women.

Background and explanation:

Religious communities and multireligious organizations are too often sidelined or 

altogether dismissed as potential partners in development and peace-building initiatives. 

As long as relevant constitutional and legal rules are respected, the separate roles and 

identities of religious communities and governments are upheld, and clear expectations 

are outlined about the functional role of religious communities in the delivery of services, 

religious communities can then offer tremendous social, moral, and physical assets to efforts 

in development and peace building. 

Women are disproportionately affected by issues related to the development and peace 

building. They also possess unrealized and unrecognized potential to affect change for 

the common good in these arenas. One of the most common ways that women already 

substantively contribute is through religious communities and multireligious alliances.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 81

Recommendation 4: Initiate a public campaign 

to scale and strengthen global and domestic 

program partnerships with federal agencies that 

increase dialogue and service between people 

from a diversity of faith-based and secular 

groups to build understanding and serve the 

common good.

11

The Council proposes that the administration seek to 

achieve the following goals by the end of 2012: 

On 500 U.S. college campuses:

• The President should allocate already 

appropriated funds within the Department of 

Education or Department of Health & Human 

Services, to provide the necessary financial 

incentive to stimulate campus/community 

partnerships through service projects that 

bring people together across different 

religious and secular lines. 

• The White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships should convene 

a gathering of senior university officials and 

members of the private/philanthropic sector 

to make concrete commitments to advance 

university/community interfaith service 

partnerships.12

• The Department of Education with 

the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development should create a joint fund to 

implement innovative student programming 

focused on cultivating service partnerships 

between people from a diversity of faithbased and secular groups with organizations 

that have a strong track record of service 

initiatives (e.g., Habitat for Humanity) to 

increase dialogue and service. 

The Secretary of Education should undertake a major 

initiative, including financial incentives, to promote 

policies on university campuses that specifically 

encourage respect for religious diversity and multireligious cooperation. Such policies should address 

all aspects of institutional life including mission, 

housing, student life, and staffing.

11 From here on, these programs will be referred to as “interfaith service projects.” 

12 As their name suggests, these public-private partnerships are focused on community service, such as spending time with senior citizens in a nursing 

home, painting the walls of a YMCA, and making blankets for refugee children. These partnerships are not aimed at promoting either religion generally or 

particular religions, but rather at building understanding and cooperation between diverse groups.

Muslim Americans Answer the Call 

http://www.muslimserve.org

Muslim Americans Answer the Call (MAAC) was 

launched June 2009 in response to President Obama’s 

call for interfaith service projects as a part of the 

United We Serve Initiative. Muslim Americans are 

“Answering the Call” by responding to the President's 

challenge to all Americans to help our Nation 

recover from the economic crisis. MAAC also means 

responding to the millions of Americans in need, who 

have been hit hard by layoffs and foreclosures or who 

do not have affordable health care and education. 

Finally, “Answering the Call” refers to responding to 

what Muslims believe is their faith’s call to serve God 

by serving others. After a summer of hard work, the 

campaign achieved more than 3,600 individual days of 

service, 93% of which were completed in cooperation 

with another faith-based community. The result of 

this national effort, MAAC, was more than 3,600 

individual daylong service projects, touching the lives 

of thousands of Americans in need.

The primary objective of MAAC is to:

• Encourage and empower every Muslim 

American to serve humanity, especially the 

millions of Americans in need.

To facilitate Muslim Americans’ full participation in 

this important effort, MAAC responded by:

• Creating www.MuslimServe.org to call all 

Muslim Americans to serve their country 

by setting a goal of 1,000 service projects 

nationally; and 

• Participating in volunteer projects centered 

on health care, for example, community 

health care screenings; education (e.g., Life 

In Books); the environment, such as Green 

Ramadan; and community renewal, such as 

Day of Dignity.
82 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

 In 40 U.S. cities:

• The White House and the Corporation for 

National and Community Service should 

coordinate a gathering of city-based religious 

leaders, community foundations, and Federal 

and State Faith-Based Directors to launch 

scaled interfaith service programs in 40 cities 

that will be operational by the end of 2012.

• Program directors at the relevant service 

initiatives should incorporate program 

components that increase involvement 

of faith-based groups in existing national 

service initiatives such as AmeriCorps, 

AmeriCorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to 

America), Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve 

America programs to leverage the social 

capital that exists within these communities. 

 At 25 U.S. Embassies: 

• The Department of State should conduct 

international speaking tours through the 

Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy with 

cohorts of diverse American college students 

focusing on America’s example of religious 

pluralism and cross-cultural understanding. 

These programs should be used to create 

forums for interreligious dialogue, while 

inspiring grassroots support of interfaith 

service.

• The Department of State’s Bureau of 

Education and Cultural Affairs (ECA) should 

develop a robust international exchange 

and training program focused on young 

people. This program will provide emerging 

leaders with the understanding and skills 

needed to implement and/or create projects 

that increase dialogue and service between 

people from a diversity of faith-based and 

secular groups for building understanding 

and serving the common good. ECA should 

further network young interfaith leaders 

globally through social networking tools and 

conferences to reinforce successes and share 

best practices.

Project Downtown 

http://www.projectdowntown.org/

chapters/orlando/ 

Organized in partnership with the Corporation for 

National Community Service, Project Downtown 

in Orlando, Florida, was launched in response to 

President Obama’s call for interfaith service projects 

as a part of the United We Serve Initiative. 

Project Downtown is an effort in which the Muslim 

Students Association joined with evangelical college 

students from Northland Church, a local Hillel, and 

the Hindu Students Association to serve the homeless. 

Students distributed weekly food and clothes and 

provided housing assistance and job facilitation 

while spending time with and learning about one 

another. Students worked together to sort clothes, 

assemble hygiene kits, and pack brown bag lunches 

for the homeless in Orlando on September 6, 2009. 

Approximately 150 homeless people were provided 

clothing, hygiene kits, and food.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 83

• The President should ask Congress to increase levels of government funding for 

Embassies and Consulates to sponsor international interfaith service programs and 

coordinate programs that strategically align with foreign policy goals.

• USAID should instigate and coordinate meaningful service initiatives that bring 

together diverse constituencies in areas where religious conflict is a concern, such as 

interfaith Habitat for Humanity builds.

• The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and 

other high-level representatives should visit and host high-profile interfaith service 

projects, which would provide both symbolic meaning and a demonstration of 

concrete action.

Background and Explanation: 

In Cairo, President Obama laid out a vision for a new beginning with Muslim communities 

around the world, one based on mutual respect and common action on shared goals. 

Currently, interfaith service initiatives that exist in Federal agencies are ad hoc and 

scattered. It is imperative to have a coherent and scaled strategy in which the U.S. 

Government makes a concrete commitment to catalyzing and strengthening interfaith 

service programs through Federal agencies. 

 The President and other senior Administration officials should emphasize the importance 

of both interfaith engagement and service, two important priorities of his Administration. 

An emphasis on these two important priorities also would also provide a model of action 

and engagement for others to follow.
84 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 5: Host a White House roundtable to foster multireligious 

partnerships to advance interfaith service, peace building, and development.

The President should direct the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships to host a conference to draw attention to the emerging field of multireligious 

cooperation and the unique potential for new partnerships—between government, 

multireligious organizations, and the secular and religious private and philanthropic 

sectors—in order to advance the common good.

Background and Explanation: 

The President has the unique ability to raise awareness of the importance of interfaith 

cooperation, both in society in general and in efforts to achieve specific U.S. goals at home 

and abroad. Bringing together faith leaders, secular civil society leaders, and government 

leaders and underscoring the important role that interfaith cooperation plays in achieving 

these goals will encourage those leaders to form bonds and begin talking about how 

they can work together. Further, a high-profile roundtable could underline that interfaith 

proposals, including joint proposals between secular NGOs and faith-based NGOs, are 

welcome. The net result of the event will likely be a significant rise in proposals by interfaith 

groups, which, in turn, will likely result in more funding of qualified interfaith projects. 

Interfaith Youth Core 

http://www.ifyc.org

Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) seeks to make interfaith cooperation a social norm—a world where individuals have 

positive relationships across the lines of faith and an appreciative understanding of the diverse traditions in our 

society; mosques, churches, and synagogues have regular interfaith exchanges and engagements; college campuses 

support interfaith student councils; and cities have annual days of interfaith service. Too often, religion is a barrier of 

division or a bomb of destruction. IFYC believes faith can be a bridge to cooperation, strengthening our civil society 

and promoting the common good for all. 

Civil rights leaders and environmentalists built transformative movements in the 20th century. IFYC believes that 

interfaith leaders will build the movement for interfaith cooperation in the 21st century. 

Since 2002, IFYC has worked on 5 continents and over 150 college and university campuses, reached over 75,000 

people with the message of interfaith cooperation, trained 10,000 interfaith leaders, and worked with partners 

including the White House and Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan. 

The primary objectives of IFYC are to:

• Change the public discourse about religion from one of inevitable conflict to 

one of cooperation and religious pluralism;

• Nurture and network a critical mass of emerging interfaith leaders; and

• Partner with cities and college campuses to become models of interfaith cooperation. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 85

Engaging Muslim Communities

President Obama identified improving U.S. relations with “the Muslim world” as a key 

foreign policy imperative during his Presidential campaign. He reaffirmed this commitment 

during his inauguration address when he said, “To the Muslim world, we seek a new way 

forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.” 

Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Obama gave a historic address to Muslims around 

the world in June 2009 when he launched a new phase in U.S.-Muslim relations from Cairo, 

Egypt. President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009 for these and 

other diplomatic efforts, demonstrating the impact of his outreach efforts on America’s 

international image. 

Several important initiatives, led by the White House, are underway across government 

to move this key Presidential agenda item forward. These include programs to promote 

entrepreneurship, student and scholarly exchange, partnerships to eradicate disease, as well 

as programs to increase women’s education in Muslim majority societies. We fully support 

these vital efforts. 

What follows are areas in which faith- and community-based organizations can make 

the biggest contribution to the efforts already underway. The outcomes within these 

recommendations will signal, both domestically and internationally, the highest ambitions 

of a society, where Muslims are welcomed as equal actors in the shared national life. It 

is critical to note that these goals are part of an overall objective of protecting the equal 

rights of people of all faiths and no faiths and working across religious lines to foster 

understanding and encourage cooperation. 

As recognized above, those who work in the U.S. Foreign Service must be informed about 

religious communities and ideas as well as nonreligious communities and ideas. We simply 

cannot understand our Nation or our world without understanding religion. Because 

religion has sometimes been overlooked in this sphere, we call for it to be given greater 

consideration. More specifically, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it has become clear that 

Muslim communities and ideas have not been given adequate attention in foreign service 

work. Thus, we call for providing Foreign Service Officers with more information on Islamic 

traditions and for fostering increased engagement with Muslim communities as well as 

implementing other efforts to ensure that the increasing religious and cultural diversity 

present in America is appropriately recognized and valued. 

Finally, it is also important to note that the Council recognizes the debate within U.S. foreign 

policy regarding whether to strengthen some religious groups (and their expressions) 

that reject the efforts of other religious groups to offer a religious justification for violence 

and terrorism. Such policy agendas and related actions raise controversial and complex 

constitutional issues, ones that courts have only rarely addressed and the Supreme Court 

of the United States has never considered.13 This set of recommendations does not join 

those issues. Where these recommendations propose that the Government undertake 

educational efforts about religion, for example, they are limited to proposals that call for 

objective teaching about religious groups and their ideas, not efforts to promote acceptance 

of theological precepts or to press for adherence to any faith. 

13 See Lamont v. Woods, 948 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1991).
86 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 6: Establish ongoing 

communication between the White House and 

the Office of the Special Representative to Muslim 

Communities at the Department of State and 

Muslim American community groups on global 

Muslim engagement efforts.

As one of the country’s most diverse and educated 

faith communities,14 Muslim Americans offer 

policymakers an invaluable cultural and religious 

brain trust on which to draw when engaging 

Muslims globally. Muslim Americans model a concept 

President Obama has repeatedly emphasized: 

Islam and America are mutually enriching, not 

mutually exclusive.15 Like many other Americans, the 

majority of U.S. followers of Islam say religion is an 

important part of their daily life. At the same time, 

Muslim Americans are actively engaged in public 

life with others who largely do not share their faith. 

Their active participation in the United We Serve 

summer of service, with more than 3,500 Muslim-led 

multifaith service projects,16 is but one example. 

President Obama has also committed to working 

for women’s literacy and education, another area 

in which Muslim Americans can be especially 

helpful. Muslim American women are among the 

most educated women in America, and Muslim 

Americans are unique in boasting no gender gap 

in the number of people with a college education.17

This achievement offers an example to other global 

communities that may struggle with women’s 

education and stands as an example of faith 

reconciled with modern life. 

Policymakers are urged to make full use of this 

valuable national resource. The Federal Government 

has a long and rich tradition of reaching out to a 

variety of religious and nonreligious communities to 

tap their best ideas, engage them in public service, 

and listen to their concerns. As part of this process, 

it should ensure that it reaches out to American 

Muslim communities. 

14 President Barack Obama, Cairo, June 4th 2009 15 www.MuslimServe.org

16 Muslim Americans: A National Portrait, Gallup March 2009 17 Pew Research Center
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 87

Recommendation 7: Hold townhall meetings around the country including 

representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland 

Security, and faith-based and community groups to discuss citizen concerns about 

civil liberties.

Engaging Muslim communities around the world will necessarily include engaging the 

millions of Muslims who are also Americans. 

According to surveys,18 the majority of Muslim Americans (53%) say that being a Muslim 

in the United States since 9/11 has been more difficult.19 When asked to identify the most 

important problems facing the group, respondents identified discrimination and “being 

viewed as a terrorist” near the top. One in four say they have been victims of discrimination 

as a Muslim in the United States.20 In addition, research shows that Muslim American 

young people (ages 18 to 29) in particular are significantly less likely than their peers to 

be classified as “thriving” despite a relative economic advantage,21 though the data are not 

conclusive on the cause of this disparity.

Prejudice is like a cancer, it spreads, negatively impacting other groups and endangering 

America’s civic fabric. For example, a recent Gallup survey shows important links between 

anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. 

This research also shows that 43 percent of the American public admits to feeling at least 

some “prejudice” toward Muslims—9 percent say they have a “great deal of prejudice,” 

significantly more than was expressed toward any other faith group studied.22 Moreover, 

though self-reported anti-Muslim prejudice is more common, self-reports of prejudice 

toward Jews is the variable most strongly associated with expression of “a great deal” of 

prejudice toward Muslims.23 Though some see Muslims and Jews as representing competing 

loyalties in the Middle East conflict, prejudice toward Jews predicts not solidarity with, but 

disdain for Muslims, again underscoring the importance of multifaith partnership. 

While self-reported prejudice does not equal discrimination, these data suggest that to 

engage Muslim Americans, government agencies and Muslim Americans, in partnership 

with other faith communities, must engage in greater dialogue. 

By aggressively seeking to reduce bias against Muslim Americans, Federal agencies are not 

simply protecting the freedom and dignity of one group of Americans but ensuring freedom 

and dignity for all Americans. 

Some non-Muslim Americans, including Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist Americans, also 

have experienced civil rights violations in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.24 After September 

2001, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice noted that Arab, Muslim, Sikh, 

and South-Asian Americans, as well as people who were perceived to be members of 

those groups, had been the victims of “increased numbers of bias-related assaults, threats, 

vandalism and arson.” Accordingly, the Civil Rights Division launched an initiative “to work 

proactively to combat violations of civil rights laws” against these Americans. Its initiative 

is aimed at reducing the incidence of these bias-related assaults, threats, vandalism, and 

arson as well as prioritizing cases involving discrimination against these Americans in 

18 Pew Research Center

19 Id.

20 Id. 21 Gallup and the Muslim West Facts Project, Muslim Americans: A 

National Portrait, March 2009.

22 Gallup and the Muslim West Facts Project, Religious Perceptions 

in America: With an In-Depth Analysis of American Attitudes Toward 

Muslims and Islam, January 2010. 23 Id.

24 Khyati Joshi, The Racialization of Hinduism, Islam and Sikhism in the 

Unites States
88 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

employment, housing, education, access to public accommodations and facilities, and other 

areas. After September 2001, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice noted 

that Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South-Asian Americans, as well as people who were perceived 

to be members of those groups, had been the victims of “increased numbers of bias-related 

assaults, threats, vandalism and arson.”25 Accordingly, the Civil Rights Division launched 

an initiative “to work proactively to combat violations of civil rights laws” against these 

Americans.26 Its initiative is aimed at reducing the incidence of these bias-related assaults, 

threats, vandalism, and arson as well as prioritizing cases involving discrimination against 

these Americans in employment, housing, education, access to public accommodations and 

facilities, and other areas. 

The Council recommends that the Department of Justice continue this emphasis and work 

with the Department of Homeland Security as well as faith-based and community groups to 

hold townhall meetings to discuss citizen concerns on civil liberties.

Recommendation 8: Utilize the expertise of 

faith- and community-based organizations to train education and media professionals 

on Islam and Muslim communities.

In a historic speech in Cairo last summer, President Obama stated, “The interests we share 

as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.” The Cairo 

speech, intended to begin a new phase in U.S.-Muslim relations, emphasized the need for 

mutual respect and understanding. The President’s statement reflects that studies have 

shown what Muslims around the world most want from the West in order to improve 

relations—to be respected as equals. Likewise, similar studies have shown that Americans 

also say that to improve relations with Muslim communities, the latter must better 

understand and accept Americans.27 

Bridge building across communities will therefore require a range of efforts not only from 

heads of state, but also from citizens. We believe that citizen education—initiated and 

implemented by citizens—is the first step to engagement. Muslims around the world have 

a great deal to learn about America. The Department of State’s Public Diplomacy efforts 

and exchange programs are vital to addressing this need. Where American faith-based and 

community groups can best contribute is by educating their own constituents. The majority 

of Americans say they know little or nothing about Islam.28

To move forward on the President’s goal to forge a new relationship with Muslim 

communities around the world based on mutual respect and mutual interests, the National 

Endowment for the Humanities,29 as well as other government agencies, should invest in 

and support programs that utilize the reach and expertise of faith and community-based 

organizations in educating our own citizens about Muslim societies. 

25 U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Initiative to Combat Post-9/11 Discriminatory Backlash (available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/

legalinfo/nordwg_mission.php).

26 Id. 

27 John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (Gallup Press, 2008). 28 Gallup and the Muslim West Facts Project, Religious Perceptions in America: With an In-Depth Analysis of American Attitudes Toward Muslims and 

Islam (forthcoming November 3, 2009).

29 One such example is the “Bridging Cultures” program being introduced by the National Endowment for the Humanities, referenced by Chairman Jim 

Leach in a speech at the Press Club in November 2009: “I have proposed that the NEH in concert with the state humanities councils initiate a ‘Bridging 

Cultures’ program aimed at enlarging our understanding of America’s diverse cultural heritage and the history, language, and art of other societies.”
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 89

30 President Barack Obama’s Inaugural Address, January 21, 2009.

31 Id.

32 Anju Bhargava, “U.S. Community-Building in a Dharmic Environment,” Wall Street Journal, July 28, 2009, World section (available at http://online.wsj.

com/article/SB124875466922186053.html).

33 Harvard University, The Pluralism Project (available at http://www.pluralism.org).

Integrating and Valuing America’s 

Religious and Cultural Diversity

In his inauguration speech, President Obama acknowledged the growing religious diversity 

of the American people,30 and recognized their contributions to our society. President 

Obama said: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. 

We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth. ...”31

The patterns of immigration in the past several decades have brought many new peoples 

of faith into the United States. This immigration has broadened and deepened America’s 

already rich religious and cultural diversity. New communities of the world’s religions 

have established themselves with greater numbers, and many of them are developing 

social structures that could be valuably engaged in the service of the common good. As an 

example, the Dharmic traditions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism) have been 

an appreciable part of the American religious landscape since the 1965 Immigration and 

Naturalization Act.32 As another example, religious communities rooted in Africa, South and 

Central America, the Middle East, and the Pacific have also grown substantially in the United 

States in the last four decades.33

All American religious communities are in principle welcome to engage in partnerships 

with the American government to advance the common good, if they meet the related 

requirements of doing so. Some faith communities have a long history of partnerships with 

governmental agencies and have acquired a broad knowledge of the opportunities and 

requirements for these partnerships. Other religious communities that desire partnerships 

do not yet have such experience and knowledge. Many of these communities have deep 

reservoirs of personal commitment, significant expertise, and economic and social capital 

for advancing the common good. 

It is in the U.S. national interest to ensure that the diversity of American religious 

communities is fully participating in civic life and engaged in partnerships that deliver 

social services in America and abroad. Efforts to help the growing diversity of religious 

communities to engage in partnerships can help to advance the common good. 
90 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 9: Through the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships and relevant Agency Centers, direct U.S. Government 

agencies to work to engage the rich diversity of American religious communities in 

partnerships to strengthen the common good in America. 

Therefore, the Advisory Council makes the following recommendations: 

1. Provide education and training on America’s evolving religious and cultural diversity 

and its relevance to advancing the common good in America to U.S Government 

Offices of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, for example in the 

Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, the Department of Education, and the Corporation for National and 

Community Service.34

This effort would include arranging for major conferences and follow-on activities 

focused on helping relevant U.S. Government agencies and officials to understand 

the diversity of American religious and cultural communities and to map out their 

potentials for partnerships in serving the common good. 

2. Take concrete steps to advance partnerships that can utilize the expertise and 

resources in America’s diverse religious communities in partnerships designed to 

enhance civic participation in America. These efforts should include appropriate 

outreach and technical assistance and capacity-building support to new groups who 

do not yet have established partnerships with the U.S. Government. 

3. Encourage community-building through interfaith collaboration with intermediaries 

to leverage the talent of the religious communities currently not participating in 

service opportunities.

4. Work to ensure that governmental chaplaincy services employ personnel who 

reflect the religious diversity of the men and women they are charged with serving. 

5. Encourage institutions of higher learning to document and communicate the 

growing American religious and cultural diversity and related social service 

capacities. 

Background and Explanation:

Immigration, particularly in the last four decades, has significantly broadened and 

deepened America’s already rich religious and cultural diversity. When properly engaged 

in partnerships through increased civic outreach, these diverse communities can provide 

valuable services and add considerable value to the U.S. society. 

34 Federal agencies can reference the following report, a case study on teaching about religious diversity in an American public school (available at 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=16863>http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=16863).
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 91

35 USAID, Women in Development (available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/wid/).

36 USAID, Diaspora Engagement: Remittances & Beyond (available at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/remittances.html).

Recommendation 10: Through the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships and relevant Agency Centers, direct U.S. Government 

agencies to work to engage the rich diversity of American religious and cultural 

communities in partnerships to provide aid, development, and other services 

overseas to advance peace and justice abroad.

Therefore, the Advisory Council makes the following recommendations: 

1. Provide education and training on America’s evolving religious and cultural 

diversity and its relevance to advancing the common good abroad to Offices of FaithBased and Neighborhood Partnerships, for example, in the Department of State, 

USAID, and consulates/embassies across the world. 

This effort would include arranging for major conferences and follow-on activities 

focused on helping relevant U.S. Government agencies and officials to understand 

the diversity of American religious groups and to map out their potentials for 

partnerships in serving the common good beyond America’s shores.

2. Take concrete steps to advance partnerships that can utilize the expertise, 

resources, and transnational connections in America’s diverse religious and cultural 

communities in partnerships designed to advance peace and development. These 

efforts should include appropriate outreach and technical assistance and capacitybuilding support to new groups who do not yet have established partnerships with 

the U.S. Government.

Background and Explanation:

In order to further U.S. foreign policy objectives, specifically in the areas of global diplomacy 

and development, particular attention should be given to advance partnerships utilizing the 

cultural and faith-based expertise of Americans with global ties. This effort should include 

forming partnerships with interreligious, intercultural, women’s,35 and youth networks, 

particularly where they have a transnational character. 

The existing expertise, resources, and talents in communities with cultural, language, and 

religious ties to other nations can be engaged in peace building and development. USAID’s 

Global Partnership Initiative states, “Although Diaspora community engagement with home 

countries is sizeable, the developmental potential for this group remains largely untapped. 

USAID recognizes that by not engaging with this community, we are missing out [on] an 

opportunity to increase our development impact significantly.”36
92 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 11: Help build social cohesion by supporting efforts to ensure 

that Americans have opportunities to understand America’s increasingly religiously 

diverse society. 

Therefore, the Advisory Council makes the following recommendations: 

1. As part of this effort, the National Endowment for the Humanities37 should increase 

funding opportunities through its “Bridging Cultures” program for faith and 

community-based groups to train American educators and media professionals 

about world religions in a respectful way. The “Bridge Builders” program is aimed 

at enlarging understanding of America’s diverse cultural heritage and the history, 

language, and art of other societies.

2. In addition, the Administration should find other avenues to encourage community 

building and interfaith collaboration at the grassroots level with faith- and 

community-based organizations to foster social cohesion. 38

Background and Explanation:

A major virtue of American society is its respect for religious differences. Thus, it is 

important for the American public to increase its basic literacy about the religious 

communities. Interfaith and cross-cultural awareness and collaboration at the grassroots 

level build healthy communities and reduce incidence of prejudice, bias, and conflict. Bridge 

building across communities will require a range of efforts and must be based on mutual 

respect and interests. The “Bridging Cultures” program is aimed at enlarging understanding 

of America’s diverse cultural heritage and the history, language, and art of other societies.

37 Chairman Jim Leach’s speech on “Bridging Cultures” (available at http://www.neh.gov/whoweare/speeches/11202009.html).

38 Julie Teresa Quiroz, Together in Our Differences: How Newcomers and Established Residents are Rebuilding American Communities. 

Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, 1995 (available at http://www.gcir.org/node/400).
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 93
94 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 95

 

Global Poverty 

and Development 

Members of the Taskforce

The Reverend David Beckmann, President; and 

The Reverend James L. McDonald, Vice President for Policy and Program, Bread for the World

Bishop Charles Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ

Marie Dennis, Director, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns

Dr. Helene Gayle, President, CARE

Ken Hackett, President; and 

Bill O'Keefe, Senior Director for Advocacy, Catholic Relief Services

Sammy Mah, President and CEO, World Relief

The Reverend John L. McCullough, Executive Director and CEO; and 

Mr. Martin Shupack, Director of Advocacy, Church World Service

Ruth Messinger, CEO, American Jewish World Service

Richard E. Stearns, President, World Vision United States

Sam Worthington, President and CEO; and

Lindsay Coates, Vice President, Policy and Communications, InterAction
96 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 97

Introduction

A deep commitment to reduce global poverty and promote sustainable development 

characterizes the work around the world of many U.S. faith-based and civil society 

organizations. Many members of the Council, as well as the organizations and institutions 

to which we are connected, are a vibrant part of this sector. Supported by generous donors 

from across the political spectrum and connected to well-informed policy advocates at 

home, these efforts and perspectives are based on long-term relationships with povertyaffected communities, their organizations, and leaders abroad. U.S. Non-Governmental 

Organizations (NGO), also known as PVOs (Private Voluntary Organizations), represent 

many millions of Americans who want to make a positive difference in the world and who 

give significant time, energy, and financial resources to do so.1

 

The U.S. NGO community has a largely privately funded infrastructure of staff and programs. 

The well-established, multifaceted architecture effectively weds financial aid to community 

development programs that are driven by poor people themselves with a goal of creating 

enduring social change. Working with these groups, we show the world the direct public 

face of American aid, which is respectful, culturally sensitive, and trusted by local partners.

The NGO community includes development, humanitarian, and other organizations that 

span the diversity of America.2

 We may be focused on specific development themes or on 

a particular geographic region or on issues of gender; we may be religious or secular. In 

all cases, the collective weight of this sector’s response to global poverty is significant. For 

example, in 2006, members of InterAction, the largest coalition of U.S.-based international 

NGOs managed $2.8 billion in U.S. overseas development assistance and $6 billion in private 

funds. That year, 13.4 million donor groups—including schools, religious institutions, 

civic groups, foundations, and American citizens from all walks of life—contributed funds 

through InterAction members that went to fund development and humanitarian work 

around the world

SECTION E:

Global Poverty 

and Development

1

 The Council recommendations were jointly reviewed and endorsed by InterAction, which was also a member of the Taskforce. InterAction has 193 

members working in every country around the world, InterAction is the largest coalition of U.S.-based international NGOs focused on the world’s poor 

and most vulnerable people. www.interaction.org

2

 Since 9/11 the overall aid landscape has changed dramatically: a raft of new players has emerged who bypass traditional (government and multilateral) 

channels. In addition to middle-income countries (Brazil, China, India, and Russia) as donors, the American public, and celebrities, there is the private aid 

sector led by foundations, U.S. NGOs, social entrepreneurs, and other nonprofits. Source: Karas, Homi, “The New Reality of Aid” in Global Development 

2.0 (Brookings Institution: 2008)
98 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

There are additional scores of religious bodies, 

thousands of local religious congregations, 

and millions of Americans who are engaged in 

developing countries—not just by supporting their 

religiously affiliated development organizations, but 

also through prayer, learning, advocacy, missionary 

work, and personal visits. Every year, 1.6 million 

Americans travel to developing countries on 

short-term mission trips, often to paint a school 

or help out at a clinic. Civil society institutions 

involved in global development also include many 

schools and universities; foundations; and unions, 

farmer organizations, women’s groups, and other 

associations that connect to similar groups around 

the world. 

Networks of new Americans who are establishing 

themselves in the United States typically maintain 

ties and often help people in their home countries 

as individuals and through their own community 

organizations. The existing expertise, resources, 

and talents in communities with cultural, language, 

and religious ties to other nations are an invaluable 

asset to increasing America’s development impact.3

The U.S. Government has an opportunity to increase 

our development impact significantly by proactively 

engaging these “Diaspora” communities.4

The NGO community works every day in countries 

and communities around the world to reduce poverty 

and promote sustainable development. Because this 

has been our work for decades, we have successful 

and proven methods of designing programs, building 

relationships, and leveraging resources that are 

separate from and could be instructive for current 

and future U.S. Government efforts. 

With our privately raised funds, U.S. NGOs are 

exploring best practices, advancing crucial 

partnerships with local and international NGOs and 

with donor governments and local communities that 

are often not reached by official U.S. development 

assistance. We often engage with smaller 

organizations in-country that directly represent 

people in need and that help to carry out the work. 

NGOs are key implementers in the fight 

against global poverty, and key results 

(as measured against the Millennium 

Development Goals) have been achieved:

• Primary school enrollment has reached 90% 

globally, and the world is on target to achieve 

the 2015 goal of 100% in all but 2 out of 10 

regions.

• Since 1990, 1.6 billion people have gained 

access to safer water.

• Girls’ primary school enrollment increased 

more than that for boys in all developing 

regions from 2000 to 2006.

• The number of people using improved 

sanitation facilities has increased by 1.1 

billion since 1990.

• Of the nearly 650 million people at risk of 

malaria in Africa, the portion covered by 

insecticide-treated bed nets rose from 3% in 

2001 to 39% in 2007.

• The Measles Initiative has vaccinated over 

600 million children, helping to reduce global 

measles mortality by 74% globally from 2000 

to 2007. During the same period, measles 

deaths plunged by 89% in Africa alone.

• Since 1990, the global child mortality rate 

has declined from 90 deaths per 1,000 live 

births to 65 per 1,000 live births, which 

means approximately 10,000 fewer children 

are dying each day.

Source: MDG Info Kit www.millenniumpromise.org

3

 One such example is the American India Foundation. 

See: http://www.aif.org 4

 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), (available 

at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_partnerships/gda/

remittances.html).
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 99

We have unique abilities to recognize and support effective local solutions to development 

challenges and can bring to the U.S. Government relationships, skills, tools, and knowledge 

that are often not fully accessed or used. 

The most enduring and strongest relationship of our NGO community is with the individual 

Americans who support and sustain thousands of programs across the globe through their 

private donations. We are entrusted by millions of private donors to educate children, 

help families improve their livelihoods, and provide clean water to villages. These effective, 

successful private-sector nonprofit programs, built and sustained over time by millions 

of Americans, deserve greater recognition from the U.S. Government and more robust 

collaboration with that government.5

 

The President’s Advisory Council lays out recommendations that seek to help the 

U.S. Government build a constituency for development aid and seek a more balanced 

relationship with the U.S. Government. Our organizations should be recognized as 

significant actors with decades of experience in both aid and sustainable development work; 

pertinent knowledge and skill in the design and implementation of programs; thoughtful 

perspectives on how programs should be structured to maximize their effectiveness and 

make the wisest possible use of U.S. tax dollars; and well-informed opinions on critical 

development-related policy issues. 

We envision a future foreign policy that includes a greater engagement with and support of 

these civilian-led efforts. The American people, our foreign policy, and our relationship with 

the world’s poor would benefit from a new strategic partnership of the U.S. Government 

with U.S. civil society groups that are engaged in sustainable development efforts and easily 

able to involve the in-country groups that work with those in greatest need. 

The Council recommendations articulated in this report seek a new era of collaborative 

partnership between the U.S. Government and community-based U.S. NGOs toward our 

shared goal of global development.

5

 InterAction, The Other Partner: NGOs and Private Sector funding for International Relief and Development, February 2009 (available at http://www.

interaction.org). 
100 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

OVERVIEW OF 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: Launch a public campaign 

to promote a new era of engagement with the 

American public to end global poverty and promote 

sustainable development. 

Recommendation 2: Engage the U.S. NGO sector 

actively in review and design of development 

strategy to strengthen global poverty reduction 

efforts.

Recommendation 3: Emphasize long-term 

development goals and local engagement in USAID 

grants and cooperative agreements.

Recommendation 4: Take concrete steps to 

increase share of U.S. development assistance 

awarded through partnerships with civil society 

organizations that have demonstrated commitment 

and competence to work with poor communities.

Recommendation 5: Place Faith-Based and Civil 

Society Engagement Officers in USAID missions.

Recommendation 6: Strengthen the capacity for 

local civil society engagement in development, and 

encourage gender-sensitive development models.

Recommendation 7: Revive capacity-building 

support for U.S. development NGOs. 

Recommendation 8: Review and set limits on role 

of the Department of Defense in development work.

Recommendation 9: Ensure that the Partner 

Vetting System (PVS), as currently designed, is 

not implemented, and enter into more detailed 

discussions with U.S. PVOs to create an effective 

system that addresses their concerns that 

PVS as currently designed would significantly 

harm partnerships with local communities and 

compromises the safety of U.S. PVO personnel. 

Ensure that the Department of Defense’s 

Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational 

Tracker (SPOT) database authority is not expanded 

and that it is not applied to grants and cooperative 

agreements.

Recommendation 10: Use the Obama 

administration’s Global Hunger and Food Security 

Initiative as a model for new partnerships between 

the Administration and civil society.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 101

Recommendation 1: Launch a public campaign to promote a new era of engagement 

with the American public to end global poverty and promote sustainable 

development.

Millions of Americans have already demonstrated a commitment to end global poverty 

through financial and political support of U.S.-based civil society organizations that work 

with the world’s poor. This is a powerful base on which the Administration can build a 

meaningful, effective, and comprehensive public information and education campaign to 

build on and encourage public engagement in development and share information about 

the U.S. Government’s development assistance programs and policies. President Obama and 

other senior officials have called for a reengagement of the United States with the world 

community and the creation of a “21st century development agency” that is transparent and 

accountable. A sustained public campaign would make that promise real.

The White House Office of Public Liaison, working with USAID, could lead a new effort 

to engage the public in this campaign, using new technology as appropriate to maximize 

effectiveness. Simple and quick steps might be to link the Websites of the White House and 

the Department of State to a USAID Website that would invite Americans (and people around 

the world) to contribute to international development and poverty reduction. The USAID 

Website, in turn, could direct people to the Web sites of organizations, private development 

organizations, universities, and faith groups that work for development and offer individuals 

and local groups ways to get involved. 

We also encourage the U.S. Government to revive the Biden-Pell grant program in support 

of civil society development education programs. The countries with publicly funded 

development education programs have achieved a better level of public knowledge and 

support for international development and poverty reduction.

Finally, all the many U.S. Government agencies and offices that carry out foreign aid 

programs should publish on their Websites information about what they are funding and 

where. They should each have a monitoring and evaluation system that is transparent for 

public viewing. The campaign would be a compelling opportunity for the U.S. Government to 

model the kinds of partnerships it advocates, making clear in each instance how the work is 

conceived, planned, executed, and evaluated.
102 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 2: Engage the U.S. NGO sector actively in review and design of 

development strategy to strengthen global poverty reduction efforts.

U.S. civil society organizations involved in international development and our partners in 

poor countries are generally convinced that U.S. Government efforts to reduce poverty and 

promote development around the world are overdue for reform. U.S. programs and policies 

do good, but they are hobbled by mixed motives, weak and fragmented institutions, and 

excessive control from Washington. 

We applaud the Administration’s decisions to review U.S. development policy and reform 

U.S. foreign assistance through the Presidential Study Directive6

 on National Development 

Strategy and the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).7 We appreciate 

what the Administration has done to engage U.S. civil society in these processes and urge 

that there be a section in the final reports of each that focuses on the role of the U.S. NGO 

community. U.S. civil society is also very much involved in parallel work in Congress, 

notably in the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs Committees. We request 

that there be mechanisms put in place for continuing dialogue between the U.S. NGO/PVO 

community and the U.S. Government and that there continue to be opportunities for public 

comment and transparency within both strategic efforts. 

There is broad agreement among the civil society groups involved that the United States 

should give higher priority in its foreign assistance programs and other policies to reducing 

poverty and saving lives in poor parts of the world and that the United States needs a 

stronger international development agency, distinct from the Department of State. More U.S. 

assistance should support programs that reach and involve poor communities in developing 

countries. Many civil society groups have supported earmarks for various programs focused 

on poverty, but are open to working together with policymakers to reduce detailed, topdown restrictions so that U.S. development assistance can be more responsive to the people 

and leaders of the countries we are assisting. 

Tens of millions of Americans and U.S. institutions of all kinds—charities, religious bodies, 

foundations, businesses, and universities—are actively involved in international poverty 

reduction and development. Broad reforms in foreign assistance could set the stage 

for much more extensive partnerships with the rest of U.S. society and with people in 

developing countries. 

Going forward, for the U.S. Government to conduct thorough and effective reviews and 

assessments of its approach to development, the U.S. NGO community ought to be respected 

as a key actor in the development of U.S. foreign assistance strategy. We would hope that 

future U.S. Federal agency guidance documents might also recognize and outline this same 

understanding. Despite having decades of experience at the grassroots level in countries 

throughout the world, our expertise and knowledge—and that of our partners in poor 

countries—are not consistently consulted as the U.S. Government assesses and evaluates its 

strategic interventions in response to global poverty.

6

 The September 1, 2009, Presidential Study Directive (PSD) (an order to initiate policy review procedures) authorized National Security Advisor Jim Jones 

and Chairman of the National Economic Council Larry Summers to lead a whole-of-government review of U.S. global development policy. White House 

leadership of the exercise is important given the convening power necessary to secure high-level participation by the more than two dozen government 

entities currently responsible for portions of U.S. development policy.

7

 In July 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the first-ever QDDR. Patterned on the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, 

according to Defense’s press release, the QDDR will: “Provide the short-, medium-, and long-term blueprint for our diplomatic and development efforts. 

Our goal is to use this process to guide us to agile, responsive, and effective institutions of diplomacy and development, including how to transition from 

approaches no longer commensurate with current challenges. It will offer guidance on how we develop policies; how we allocate our resources; how we 

deploy our staff; and how we exercise our authorities.”
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 103

Recommendation 3: Emphasize long-term 

development goals and local engagement in 

USAID grants and cooperative agreements.

We would like to see a modification in Requests 

for Applications (RFAs) at USAID that would 

emphasize and recognize the value of preexisting 

community relationships, long-term presence incountry, support for sustainable development, and 

commitment to local participation. RFAs should 

include more impact and outcome criteria that 

support and recognize organizations that are in 

development for the long haul and should be scored 

in a way that values long-term engagement with a 

community and local investment. Additionally, we 

believe there is a need for much greater transparency 

in the contracting process for all parties affected: 

contractors, NGOs and faith-based groups, recipient 

countries, communities, and local groups. 

There are substantial regulatory and practical 

barriers to NGO and faith-based organization 

participation in development funded by the U.S. 

Government. There seems to be a strong preference 

across all government agencies to fund development 

for-profit contractors rather than not-for-profit NGOs 

despite evidence that not-for-profit NGOs are both 

effective and efficient at delivering programs. It is 

estimated that in 2006, one-third of USAID funds were 

channeled to for-profit contractors.8

 Measured as a 

percentage of US government assistance dollars that 

are spent though PVOs, the role of US PVOs is small. A 

review of various sources indicates that the spending 

of US foreign assistance through PVOs is around 

10% of the total. This role has declined significantly 

while at the same time the American public continues 

to invest billions in the work of U.S. non-profits 

overseas.9

 Moreover, we have perceived an apparent 

inflexibility in the funding and contracting structures 

of the Government to build on programs NGOs are 

implementing with privately raised funds. 

Learning From Past Successes

 Highlights of positive engagement between USAID and 

NGOs in the past can provide a useful guide for ways to 

establish a multifaceted and robust partnership with the 

U.S. Government in the future. 

For example, in the past, particularly in the 1970s and 

1980s, several USAID missions in Asia supported large 

NGO programs, which included numerous points of 

contact with frequent consultations between NGOs and 

USAID missions, regional and technical bureaus, and 

offices. At that time, the Office of Private and Voluntary 

Cooperation (PVC) was a strong voice for NGOs within 

the agency. Its Matching Grants program provided 

resources that enabled many NGOs to develop new 

and innovative approaches—some of the pioneering 

work on microenterprise development was supported 

out of this office. From 1984 to 1988, the PVC Office 

invested significant resources in matching grants to 

NGOs for building the capacity of local NGOs. A seminal 

evaluation of the program in the late 1980s was the 

focus of Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid 

deliberations on capacity building, learning from success 

of the past in an attempt to build on them. 

Another success to examine and build on comes from 

the 1990s, when the USAID administrator initiated an 

extensive consultation process aimed at maximizing 

USAID-civil society engagement, bringing in the NGO 

community. A number of USAID-NGO taskforces 

were formed, each focusing on a different region or 

technical area; these taskforces met every Friday for 6 

months with participation of USAID staff required by 

the administrator. During this period, USAID supported 

efforts for service delivery organizations to broaden 

into democracy and governance work. Consultations 

also were convened around procurement issues; one 

concrete outcome was a simplification of the process for 

Cooperative Agreements. These efforts culminated in the 

adoption of the “USAID-PVO Partnership” in 1995, which 

was subsequently revised in 2002. See: http://www.

usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/200mau.pdf.

8 According to Rachel McCleary’s book Global Compassion: Private Voluntary Organizations and U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1939 (Oxford University Press: 2009).

9

 USAID 2009 VOLAG, Report of Voluntary Agencies states the USG collectively spent $4.231 billion through 569 U.S. non-profit organizations ($4.021 

through PVOs and $210 million through Cooperatives). The total from USAID through PVOs was $2.654 billion. According to the OECD DAC total US ODA 

in 2008 was $26.842 billion and the total international affairs budget was $42.714 billion. The percentage shares can be broken down in a number of ways:

• 15.7% - of all USG funds to VOLAG report groups as a percentage of US ODA 

• 10% - of all USG funds to VOLAG report groups as a percentage of the total international affairs budget

• 11.6% - of all USG funds to 'private PVOs' as a percentage of US ODA 

• 7.3% - of all USG funds to 'private PVOs' as a percentage of the total international affairs budget

• 9.9% - of all USAID funds to PVO as a percentage of US ODA 

• 6.5% - of all USAID funds to 'private PVOs' as a percentage of US ODA 

• 4.1% - of all USAID funds to 'private PVOs' as a percentage of the total international affairs budget
104 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The U.S. Government funding and contracting 

structures should promote a greater recognition 

that NGOs and Diaspora community organizations 

are already working in-country. Many NGOs have 

multiple successful long-term programs being 

carried out in the field. Additionally, a renewed U.S. 

Government funding structure ought to allow and 

even encourage the U.S. Government to build on 

work already being done in-country by NGOs. Finally, 

umbrella grants should be PVO-based and focus 

on organizations already working on the ground 

in partnership with local NGOs, rather than turn to 

contractors who receive umbrella grants and then 

distribute funds to non-profit locals. 

We see an opportunity here for USAID to provide 

additional training and guidance to its staff on 

selecting the appropriate instrument based on the 

nature of the relationship being created and the 

intended purpose of the award in an effort to deter 

decisions being made based on personal preferences 

or misconceptions.

Examples of regulations that hinder partnership 

abound. The Department of the Treasury’s Office 

of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)registration and 

licensing guidelines/procedures are complex and 

cause delays in programming by subjecting common 

technology items (e.g. laptop computers loaded with 

Microsoft Windows software) to a requirement of 

prior licensing. This prior licensing requirement 

involves time-consuming multi-agency review before 

the technology can be deployed to certain countries 

where foreign assistance is being rendered. For 

example, in a recent emergency food aid program 

funded by USAID in North Korea, grantees had to 

wait nearly a month for an OFAC license covering 

ubiquitous technology items including simple flash 

drives and Microsoft Office, Microsoft SQL Server, 

and Adobe Acrobat software. Providers needed these 

items to enable the Commodity Tracking System that 

was essential to the administration of the emergency 

food aid program.

In addition, these procedures hinder disaster 

response efforts, which typically last for one to five 

years. Often OFAC licenses have to be renewed every 

three months and typically are not approved until 

the last minute. Therefore NGO organizations have 

Humanitarian Assistance

Currently, there is a strong and comprehensive 

relationship between USAID and NGOs in the 

humanitarian area. USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster 

Assistance (OFDA) works closely with humanitarian 

NGOs both in the field and in Washington. Using 

its “notwithstanding authority” and Disaster 

Assistance Response Teams, OFDA often is able to 

make grants to NGOs within several days of a sudden 

onset emergency. In Washington, OFDA meets with 

NGOs responding to disasters abroad to exchange 

information about conditions on the ground as well 

as OFDA’s funding priorities. NGOs use their influence 

with Congress to advocate adequate funding of the 

U.S. Government’s emergency accounts, including 

that which finances USAID’s humanitarian programs. 

OFDA also supports the humanitarian NGO sector in 

several ways. It funds convening (through InterAction) 

of its implementing partners and other disasterresponse NGOs. Responses to particular crises and 

evolution of the sector are discussed and debated. 

OFDA funds programs that foster better practices, 

such as the Sphere Project’s Humanitarian Charter 

and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, 

and also the course entitled “Health in Complex 

Emergencies,” currently offered by a consortium 

that includes the International Rescue Committee 

and Columbia University. The USAID office also has 

encouraged development and dissemination of 

good/best practices through workshops on shelter, 

livelihoods, and public health threats. 

OFDA has been attentive to the growing threat to 

NGOs’ security as their personnel have lost their 

immunity and become targets of criminals and 

political actors prone to pay more attention to 

opportunities for theft and intimidation than to 

respect for humanitarian law and principles. 

The positive relationship developed between 

the humanitarian community and USAID and the 

Department of State should serve as a case study 

to build on and apply to other areas—including the 

development community.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 105

to prepare both to close down the program and to keep it going at the same time. 

Similarly, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security licensing 

requirements are geared toward commercial transactions and not to organizations 

conducting humanitarian programs. They fail, therefore, to take into account the unique 

characteristics of NGOs. 

Recommendation 4: Take concrete steps to increase share of U.S. development 

assistance awarded through partnerships with civil society organizations that have 

demonstrated commitment and competence to work with poor communities.

We strongly believe that the U.S. Government should spend more of its development 

assistance budget supporting programs that work directly with poor communities in 

developing countries. We think this is best done by increasing the share of U.S. Government 

development assistance that goes through grants and cooperative agreements with PVOs. As 

noted in Recommendation 3, in recent years, there has been a trend in favor of development 

dollars traveling toward for-profit vendors.10

For better development outcomes, we also urge that the U.S. Government be more creative 

in all of its funding decisions. We further urge that the U.S. Government carefully examine 

which development actors in any given setting (local governments, local NGOs, international 

NGOs that do local capacity building, and diverse religious bodies) are best suited to 

achieve development outcomes that truly serve the needs and concerns of the poorest 

people while recognizing and respecting the diverse cultural and religious landscape of the 

country.11 This effort might also include engaging new and smaller development groups that 

are not currently in partnership with the U.S. Government, including faith-based groups 

representing America’s pluralism, Diaspora community organizations and others. 

Our recommendation here is not to favor a particular set of political constituents, nor to 

favor organizations that are already contracting with the U.S. Government, but to build up a 

broad and diverse spectrum of civil society organizations as partners in development. 

Too often, for profit-contractors are hired and then measured on their capacity to achieve shortterm objectives; NGOs and community-based organizations know that effective and sustainable 

development is founded on multiyear efforts that demand collaboration with affected 

communities. A greater share of U.S. Government support going through grants and cooperative 

agreements would ensure more effective partnerships to achieve development outcomes.12

We would like to see the U.S. Government move toward the goal of one-third of development 

assistance across government being spent in partnership with PVOs. By increasing the share 

of development assistance flowing through PVOs, the U.S. Government would be affirming 

and supporting the choices of the millions of American citizens who are donating their 

dollars to these same trusted charities and non-profits. Short of that, we would request an 

alternative quantifiable measure of the extent to which development assistance delivered 

through private for-profit contractors is building up partner organizations and working with 

poor communities in developing countries. 

10 USAID, Analysis and Recommendations of Trends in USAID Implementation Mechanisms, July 2007 (available at http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/

acvfa/im_recommendations.pdf).

11 The Council notes existing USAID regulations that state: “Organizations that receive direct financial assistance from USAID under any USAID program 

may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services directly 

funded with direct financial assistance from USAID.” See 22 C.F.R. Section 205.1(b) (2010). 12 For the realization of this goal, USAID staff capacity and training are key, and we support efforts to improve USAID capacity in this regard. Ideally, USAID 

should be able to collaborate with a full range and mix of partner institutions that are selected based on a fair and open process with the needs of the 

communities served being the paramount consideration. 
106 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

We support an assessment and review of the contract-type mechanisms, which would lead 

to a revision of regulations and accounting structures at the Office of Management and 

Budget to take into account the benefits of building up civil society institutions as longterm partners in development. We would similarly support an assessment and review of 

the Treasury guidelines, and the Commerce licensing requirements, which would lead to a 

revision of regulations and accounting structures. 

Recommendation 5: Place Faith-Based and Civil Society Engagement 

Officers in USAID missions.

As USAID makes plans to scale up staff, the Council recommends that USAID appoint a FaithBased and Civil Society Engagement Officer at every USAID mission to reach out to and 

partner with organizations on the ground. Ideally, these staff positions will reflect not only 

the diversity of the countries they serve, but also the diversity and pluralism of America. 

These staff positions would report directly to the Chief of Mission for that country, would 

work across U.S. Government agencies working in-country, would create opportunities 

for ongoing dialogue between in-country civil society and NGOs, and would facilitate 

the creation of joint programs between the U.S. Government and NGOs based on locally 

identified needs. This effort should also include engagement of a broad spectrum of actors, 

including diverse local religious leaders and faith-based and secular non-profits, as well 

as engaging members of the Diaspora from each country living in the United States in 

development work impacting their country of origin.

Engaging NGO staffs (both in Washington and in the field) and their in-country partners on 

a range of issues regarding specific countries and sectors would strengthen and deepen the 

effectiveness of U.S. Government in-country programs. Possible approaches might include 

the following: 

• With the leadership of the Department of State and USAID, the U.S. Government 

could institute a monthly consultation, sector or country-specific, with the U.S. NGO 

community to solicit feedback and guidance on U.S. Government programs and 

interventions.

• The Chief of Mission in all countries could be given a clear mandate to consult with 

multiple U.S. and local NGOs through a regular and ongoing dialogue. The Chief of 

Mission should regularly collaborate and communicate with those U.S.-based NGOs 

that work in-country and with their local partners and develop mechanisms for 

accountability to this dialogue.

• Where USAID mission directors are not already engaged in such meetings, they 

might be expected to conduct monthly meetings with NGO country directors.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 107

Recommendation 6: Strengthen the capacity for local civil society engagement in 

development, and encourage gender-sensitive development models.

Strong civil society organizations, especially organizations that include or represent poor 

people, are important to successful development and poverty reduction. Communities and 

concerned individuals organize themselves to meet social needs directly and to urge their 

governments and aid agencies to respond to social needs and to use public funds effectively. 

Civil society organizations include faith groups, local development NGOs, advocacy groups 

(on the environment, for example, or on gender justice issues), and organizations that 

include many poor people (such as farmer associations, labor unions, and low-income 

community organizations). Gender equality is fundamental to development effectiveness, 

and investments in women and girls have proven successful toward reducing global poverty 

and improving the lives of the world’s poorest individuals; therefore, gender-sensitive 

development models should be encouraged. In many countries, families of civil society 

organizations have grouped themselves together, partly to facilitate their interaction with 

government and external assistance agencies. The U.S. Government can play a key role in 

solving problems locally by being even more open to dialogue with and support for civil 

society organizations.

We suggest that the U.S. Government’s development assistance programs publish data on 

their grant funding to local civil society organizations and set targets for increased support.

A strong civil society is critical to providing the checks and balances to ensure that 

governments are responsive to their people, that both donor and government-funded 

development activities are participatory and reflect the needs of the national population, 

and that they have clear accountability for outcomes. An effective and functioning civil 

society is a crucial factor that will allow countries to graduate from assistance. 

We would like to see the U.S. Government pay particular attention to the potential of civil 

society partners in developing countries to: 

• Organize and carry out services of benefit to the community by including resources to 

build the operational capacity of local organizations in every USAID-funded program; 

• Create opportunities for organization and create channels, including meeting 

places for collaboration, through which individuals and groups who are poor and 

discriminated against can make their voices heard, raise demands for the realization 

of their human rights, and influence the development of society;

• Act as proposers of ideas and watchdogs of those in power; 

• In general terms, and particularly under authoritarian regimes, act as a 

counterweight to and force for democratization regarding the state; and 

• Offer adult education to strengthen the capacity of individuals and groups who are 

poor and discriminated against to change their lives.

NGO platforms, which serve as umbrella organizations for local and international NGOs 

in-country, support civil society organizations and provide an effective link to national 

governments and donors. We strongly encourage USAID and the Department of State to 

develop a structure that creates a positive working relationship with these national NGO 
108 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

platforms. There are currently 86 countries with established national NGO platforms, or 

coordinating mechanisms. The U.S. Government can strengthen the capacity of the national 

platforms and its own ability to partner effectively with NGOs in-country through increased 

funding for capacity building and technical assistance as well as strategic support for the 

institutional and operational strengthening of NGO platforms. These efforts, coupled with 

support of local civil society organizations, will yield a more vibrant sector that can support 

effective development efforts.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 109

Recommendation 7: Revive capacity-building support for U.S. development NGOs.

There is a strong public policy benefit to connect the U.S. Government with the full range 

of U.S. civil society organizations interested in international development both to engage 

broader sectors of the U.S. public and to remove barriers to groups that can deliver services. 

Recognizing the diversity of U.S. civil society organizations involved in development, we 

suggest that USAID improve its great work by providing ready and meaningful access to 

resources, networks, and information to smaller and even larger NGOs and faith groups 

that have limited experience working with the U.S. Government. Where larger NGOs are 

concerned, the U.S. Government might consider focusing on leveraging their substantial 

investments by providing opportunities for robust collaborations and building capacity to 

work with the U.S. Government. 

Our sense is that the U.S. Government has room to further develop its partnerships with the 

NGO community by paying more attention to smaller, faith-based, and more “grassroots” 

NGOs, including those representing America’s pluralism and Diaspora communities. USAID 

disbanded its office that supported private voluntary organizations through capacity-building 

grants. This program’s demise put smaller and medium-sized NGOs at a disadvantage and 

limited the U.S. Government's relationships with the established NGO community. 

Small- to mid-sized organizations, especially those that are not currently partnering with the 

U.S. Government, are in need of support in establishing a relationship. One idea for a helpful 

mechanism to meet this need would be to establish a fund for small- to mid-sized NGOs to 

build their capacity to operate in this and other countries. This fund could be supplemented 

by an increased small grants program for mid-sized NGOs and local NGOs, to help them 

initiate partnerships with the U.S. Government through its various funding structures. 

As USAID focuses on increasing its capacity and hiring new staff, we recommend specific 

training that highlights the powerful contributions to development made by NGOs and 

Diasporas in the United States and in the field and encourages partnerships with these 

sectors. The U.S. Government would help solve development challenges by strengthening 

local (in-country) NGOs with targeted funding. We also would encourage the creation of 

a transition fund intended to help “pass the baton,” from NGOs carrying out U.S.-funded 

development programs to host governments or local NGOs. As we have said in the Reform of 

the Office report, in awarding capacity-building grants (as with all grants), the Government 

should make decisions on the basis of merit, not political or religious considerations. 
110 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 8: Review and set limits on the role of the Department of Defense 

in development work

Since 1998, the Department of Defense’s share of U.S. Official Development Assistance 

increased from 3.5 percent to 22 percent. The Department of Defense has dramatically 

expanded its relief, development, and reconstruction assistance through programs such as 

Section 1207, the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program (CERP), and the Combatant 

Commanders’ Initiative Fund, as well as through the activities of the regional combatant 

commands, particularly AFRICOM and SOUTHCOM, and the Provincial Reconstruction 

Teams (PRTs). 

Yet, the Department of Defense does not appear to have a methodology for measuring 

the effectiveness of its development and humanitarian activities. In light of the fact that 

these are not its core competencies, but those of USAID, we think it would be particularly 

appropriate and helpful for the Department of Defense to measure its development 

effectiveness in close coordination with experts at USAID.

As a general rule, experienced civilian agencies, especially USAID, seem to us to be best 

placed to support effective development, humanitarian assistance, and reconstruction 

activities that address the needs of the poor. Similarly, the Department of Defense is 

uniquely suited to a wide range of military and defense purposes. In light of the increased 

development and reconstruction work being done under the auspices of the Department of 

Defense in recent years, we recommend a U.S. Government requirement for the Department 

of Defense to demonstrate the utility of specific development, humanitarian, and 

reconstruction activities it undertakes to advance security interests. 

At the same time, it should monitor and evaluate development and humanitarian activities 

according to international standards and best practices, including how such activities 

impact local communities and their relationship with U.S. PVOs. 

The kinds of short-term, “quick-impact” projects that are typically implemented for 

security purposes tend to be unsustainable because they address the symptoms of poverty, 

as opposed to its underlying causes. Such projects do not usually encourage community 

ownership and participation, which are essential for addressing the long-term needs of 

beneficiaries. In our experience, these projects often restrict the access of PVOs, undermine 

the development process by failing to promote sustainability, and even hinder the mission of 

preventing further conflict.

Last, we have found that the blurring of boundaries between civilian and military actors in 

the field has heightened insecurity for PVO staff, local partners, and beneficiaries and has 

thus restricted access to the communities served.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 111

Recommendation 9: Ensure that the Partner Vetting System (PVS), as currently 

designed, is not implemented, and enter into more detailed discussions with U.S.

PVOs to create an effective system that addresses their concerns that PVS as currently 

designed would significantly harm partnerships with local communities and 

compromises the safety of U.S. PVO personnel. Ensure that the Department of Defense’s 

Synchronized Pre-deployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT) database authority is 

not expanded and that it is not applied to grants and cooperative agreements.

The U.S. Government has a number of procedures in place to help minimize the risk 

that taxpayer-funded assistance could be diverted for terrorist purposes. These include 

restrictive clauses in solicitations, contracts, and grant agreements; NGO certifications prior 

to award of assistance instruments; and mandatory checks of OFAC and other public lists 

of designated terrorists. 

While some of these procedures are justified and effective, others directly hinder the ability 

of faith-based and nonprofit groups to function with the independence and neutrality 

needed to build the trust of a local population. In fact, such procedures can put the lives of 

their staff at risk. 

To complement existing procedures, USAID has been developing a capability known as the 

Partner Vetting System (PVS). PVS is a program under which USAID will screen applicants for 

funding by comparing data collected from them against data in secure terrorism databases 

maintained by the U.S. Government law enforcement and intelligence communities. A vetting 

program separate from the proposed PVS has been implemented in Gaza. The U.S. Agency for 

International Development implemented in 2004 a worldwide anti-terrorism certification 

rule that requires the vetting of all U.S. PVO personnel. It was implemented after 3-years of 

extensive negotiations with U.S. non-profits, foundations, and other members of U.S. civil 

society. This vetting system has been implemented worldwide by the U.S. PVO community at a 

cost often exceeding $100,000 per organization. 

Prior to awarding assistance funds, USAID’s PVS would screen all principal individuals, 

officers, or other officials of a potential recipient, as well as first-tier subrecipients of 

assistance and recipients of scholarships. USAID would screen principal individuals of 

organizations applying for USAID registration as PVOs. 

On April 1, 2009, USAID issued an Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directive (AAPD), 

requiring the addition of a contract clause and assistance provision to new solicitations and 

existing awards in Iraq valued over $100,000. The clause or provision requires contractors 

and award recipients to enter employee information into the SPOT database monitored 

by the Department of Defense. The AAPD results from section 861 of the 2008 National 

Defense Authorization Act. Section 861 directs the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, 

and USAID to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to contracting 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the MOU, the three agencies agreed that the Department of 

Defense’s SPOT database will record contract and contract personnel information required

by section 861. The three agencies also agreed voluntarily to apply these same requirements 

to grants and cooperative agreements in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this time, the AAPD only 

applies to contracts, cooperative agreements, and grant awards in Iraq. The authority from 

section 861 could be expanded. 
112 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Grounded in many years of trust building and 

partnership, the critical relationship between PVOs 

and their in-country local partners will be seriously 

damaged if we are forced to subject our local 

partners to the PVS, SPOT, or another similar process. 

In a country such as Lebanon, for example, U.S. PVOs 

work with a range of credible local groups to deliver 

badly needed services to people across sectarian 

lines. This work advances U.S. national interests by 

strengthening nonviolent groups, demonstrating 

that basic living conditions can improve in the 

absence of fighting, and indirectly undermining the 

appeal of violent elements of society. Should U.S. 

PVOs be required to comply with the PVS or similar 

process, Lebanese local partners would distance 

themselves from U.S. PVOs, who would inevitably 

be perceived as too closely tied to U.S. security and 

intelligence interests. As these partners severed their 

relationship with PVOs, extremist groups would also 

perceive that U.S. PVOs were connected with the U.S. 

security structure and would target PVO staff and 

their local partners. 

Recommendation 10: Use the Obama 

Administration’s Global Hunger and Food 

Security Initiative as a Model for new 

partnerships between the Administration and 

civil society.

In order to demonstrate how the recommendations 

listed above would translate into practice, we have 

decided to apply many of the key principles and 

suggestions to the specific case of the Global Hunger 

and Food Security Initiative. We are aware that we 

could create a similar list for other areas. In the box 

below, we have outlined a blueprint for our vision 

and specific ideas to create, enhance, and innovate 

partnerships between U.S. Government and faithbased and community groups. Our sector’s extensive 

knowledge about and experience with fighting hunger 

in the developing world make this a particularly 

constructive area for us to use as a template to explore 

practical applications of our recommendations. 

The interagency planning team has been open 

to suggestions from interested NGOs, and these 

recommendations are made with that in mind, with 

the goal of creating a model for such partnerships in 

all sectors of global development work.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 113

Recommendations Applied to the Obama Administration’s World Hunger Initiative

1. Launch a public engagement campaign.

The President’s announcement of a hunger and food security initiative is an important 

and welcome step in reinvigorating U.S. standing in the world and addressing the needs of 

hungry and poor people. 

The Administration could start the expanded program of public engagement we recommend 

with its hunger initiative. In keeping with President Obama's call for transparency and 

accountability in government, a hunger initiative Website can serve as a model and first 

step for a more thorough Web portal that provides information about U.S. programs and 

policies in support of global development and poverty reduction. The Website should 

link with USAID, inform people about Global Hunger and Food Security and poverty, and 

provide information about what our government is doing. It should also explain how 

individuals can help to reduce world hunger and link to the Websites of U.S. NGOs that are 

active on agriculture, hunger, and food and nutrition security programs. The name of the 

Administration’s initiative should clearly reflect its compelling purpose: to reduce hunger, 

mainly by strengthening agriculture among the world’s poor.

2. Reform foreign assistance and engage civil society in the process. 

The Department of State has led an interagency team in planning the hunger and food 

security initiative, and they have done a commendable job in seeking input from civil society. 

NGOs have urged a comprehensive approach that includes agriculture, nutrition, safety nets, 

and emergency assistance. The engagement of NGOs should be continued, especially as the 

Administration decides how to manage this initiative in a way that will contribute to the 

broader reform of development policy and foreign assistance. 

3. Emphasize long-term development goals and local engagement 

Secretary Clinton has repeatedly stressed that this initiative will be grounded in country 

consultations that bring the host government, official donors, and diverse civil society 

organizations together to consider local needs and coordinate efforts. This is an excellent 

strategy. Special efforts will be required to strengthen the participation of farmer organizations 

and organizations that represent women, extremely poor groups, and the environment. The 

U.S. Government should support U.S. NGOs with relationships with these local groups to help 

them contribute meaningfully to the consultation process and followup actions. 

During the implementation of the hunger initiative, RFAs should stress the importance of 

preexisting community relationships, long-term presence in-country, and commitment to 

local participation.

4. Increase the share of U.S. development assistance awarded through 

partnerships with civil society organizations that have demonstrated 

commitment to working with poor communities.

To get the hunger initiative started quickly, the U.S. Government should support an 

expansion of U.S. NGO projects in agriculture and food security that are already underway. 

On an ongoing basis, the Administration’s hunger and food security initiative can be 

a model of an expanded partnership between the U.S. Government and civil society 

organizations. U.S. and local civil society organizations should also be involved in monitoring 
114 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

implementation and results, including surveys to check whether the initiative is resulting in 

improvements in child nutrition. 

5. Place religion and civil society engagement officers in USAID missions.

The initial countries of focus for this initiative should also be among the first countries with 

civil society engagement officers at USAID.

6. Strengthen the capacity for local civil society organizations.

The effectiveness of food and nutrition security programs will depend in part heavily on 

civil society groups, many of them faith and community based, that have direct contact 

with farmers and hungry people. Building the capacity of these groups will allow them 

to participate in planning and implementing the hunger initiative. Only through full 

implementation of this recommendation will the perspectives of women who are often the 

smallest subsistence farmers, the experience of farmer cooperatives, and the real issues of 

environmental sustainability be reflected and acted on. 

7. Revive capacity-building support for U.S. development NGOs.

We specifically recommend support for smaller U.S.-based NGOs that are doing food and 

nutrition security work in developing countries. They often do solid development work, 

complement public funds with private contributions, and mobilize millions of concerned 

Americans.

CONCLUSION

President Obama has issued a clarion call for a new era of U.S. engagement with the world. 

Tangible action must follow that call. The recommendations contained in this document 

represent the best and most considered thinking from an underused resource of development 

experts who have honed over decades successful and proven methods of designing programs, 

building relationships, and leveraging resources. Reinvigorating and leveraging the 

relationship of the U.S. Government and the U.S. NGO community is essential to more effective 

U.S. engagement in the world and renewed progress toward overcoming global poverty.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 115
116 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 117

 

Reform of the Office 

of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships

Members of the Taskforce

Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies, Founder and President, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance

Noel Castellanos, CEO, Christian Community Development Association

Fred Davie, Senior Director, The Arcus Foundation

Nathan J. Diament, Director of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Bridget McDermott Flood, Executive Director, Incarnate Word Foundation

The Reverend Dr. Welton Gaddy, President, The Interfaith Alliance

Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, Human Rights Campaign Foundation

The Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director, Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., General Counsel, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Melissa Rogers, Director, Center for Religion and Public Affairs, Wake Forest University Divinity School

Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action

Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty

Rabbi David Saperstein, Director and Counsel, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
118 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 119

Introduction

President Obama has asked the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships to make recommendations for improving the operations of the White 

House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and Agency Centers and for 

strengthening the social service partnerships the Government forms with nongovernmental 

providers, including strengthening the constitutional and legal footing of these partnerships. 

The following recommendations address some of the legal and nonlegal issues that cut 

across a wide range of these partnerships. At the Administration’s direction, the Council did 

not address the issue of religion-based employment decisions regarding jobs partially or 

fully subsidized by Federal funds.

A number of the reforms advocated in these recommendations are aimed at honoring our 

country’s commitment to religious freedom. The recommendations call, for example, for 

greater clarity in the church-state guidance given to social service providers so that tax 

funds are used appropriately and providers are not confused or sued. The recommendations 

also insist that beneficiaries must be notified of their religious liberty rights, including their 

rights to alternative providers. And the recommendations urge the Administration to take 

steps to increase confidence that the rules applicable to federally funded partnerships are 

actually being observed and that decisions about government grants are made on the merits 

of proposals, not on political or religious considerations. 

Other reforms call for the development of more nearly seamless and transparent networks 

among Federal, State, county, and city officials and the creation of additional tools to help 

providers identify the partnerships—financial or nonfinancial—that would best suit them. 

The recommendations also emphasize that progress in this area will depend in part on 

fostering greater public understanding of these partnerships, including the roles of the 

White House Office and Agency Centers in them. Further, the recommendations urge the 

White House Office to lead a strategic review of government-supported training, technical 

assistance, and capacity building for service providers and to encourage more information 

sharing on best practices in the delivery of federally funded social services. 

Reform of the Office 

of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships 

SECTION F:
120 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The Council’s recommendations call for several different kinds of actions by the Obama 

administration to further these and other goals. Some of the recommendations urge the 

Administration to amend a 2002 Executive Order (Executive Order 13279) that sets forth 

fundamental rules for federally funded partnerships with religious and secular providers. 

Other recommendations call for governmental agencies to revise some of the regulations 

and guidance associated with the distribution of Federal social service funds. Still other 

recommendations advocate changes in governmental communications strategies or 

intergovernmental relations.

The Council’s diversity has been an asset in the development of these recommendations. 

The Council includes members who are critics of “charitable choice” and those who are 

supporters.1

 Some of us believe the Government must or should refrain from directing 

cash aid (including social service aid) to certain kinds of religious entities,2 whereas others 

of us believe that, although the Constitution limits the use of direct government aid for 

religious activities, it allows such aid for secular activities, regardless of the character of the 

provider.

3

 As the recommendations note, Council members continue to differ over these and 

other important issues. But members have come to an agreement on 12 recommendations 

presented here. As far as we know, this is the first time a governmental entity has convened 

individuals with serious differences on some church-state issues and asked them to seek 

common ground in this area. It should not be the last time a government body does so. 

Policies that enjoy broad support are more durable. And finding common ground on churchstate issues frees up more time and energy to focus on the needs of people who are struggling.

If adopted, these recommendations would improve social services delivery and strengthen 

religious liberty. They also would reduce litigation, enhance public understanding of these 

partnerships, and otherwise advance the common good. Accordingly, the Council urges the 

Administration to implement these proposals.

1

 Then-Senator John Ashcroft introduced the first “charitable choice” provision in 1995, and it ultimately became part of the welfare reform package 

signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, although Clinton expressed certain reservations about the provision . See 42 U.S.C. Section 604a (2010). Similar 

provisions have been added to a few other laws, but legislative efforts to extend charitable choice beyond these contexts have failed. When legislative 

efforts to extend charitable choice failed, the Administration of President George W. Bush adopted and widely extended the basic charitable choice 

model through executive action.

2 See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors, 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995) (noting that a lower court was “correct to extract from our decisions the principle 

that we have recognized special Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to sectarian institutions” in a case 

upholding the payment of outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of student publications, including student religious publications); Mitchell 

v. Helms, 530 U.S. 843-844 (O’Connor & Breyer, JJ., concurring in the judgment) (noting that the Court’s “concern with direct monetary aid is based on 

more than just diversion [of the aid to religious use]” and that “the most important reason for according special treatment to direct money grants is that 

this form of aid falls precariously close to the original object of the Establishment Clause's prohibition.”); Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 

755 (1976) (aid may flow only to institutions that can separate secular activities from “sectarian” ones, and “that if secular activities can be separated 

out, they alone may be funded”). See also David Saperstein, Public Values in an Era of Privatization: Public Accountability and Faith-Based Organizations: 

A Problem Best Avoided, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1353 (2003). For other views on these issues, see Melissa Rogers and E.J. Dionne, Serving People in Need, 

Safeguarding Religious Freedom, at 42-44, and Melissa Rogers, Appendix: Legal and Policy Backgrounder #2 (2008), available at http://www.brookings.

edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_religion_dionne/12_religion_dionne.pdf. Recommendation 12 discusses these views in more detail.

3 See Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 827 (plurality opinion) (rejecting the “pervasively sectarian” test and arguing that “the religious nature of a recipient 

should not matter to the constitutional analysis, so long as the recipient adequately furthers the government’s secular purpose”); Id. at 857 (O’Connor 

& Breyer, JJ., concurring in the judgment)(saying Court had rejected “a presumption of indoctrination” when government aid flows to religious schools 

“because it constitutes an absolute bar to the aid in question regardless of the religious school’s ability to separate that aid from its religious mission . . . 

.”); Colo. Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2008) (McConnell, J.) (finding exclusion of “pervasively sectarian” school from funding violates 

First Amendment principles against religious intrusion and discrimination by government). See also Douglas Laycock, Theology Scholarships, the Pledge of 

Allegiance, and Religious Liberty: Avoiding the Extremes but Missing the Liberty, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 156 (2004). Michael McConnell, Religious Participation 

in Public Programs - Religious Freedom at a Crossroads, 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 115 (1992). Recommendation 12 discusses these views in more detail.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 121

OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS

Strengthening the Effectiveness of Partnerships

Recommendation 1: Perform a strategic review of government-supported technical 

assistance and capacity building.

Recommendation 2: Convene and encourage learning communities of social service 

programs and providers.

Recommendation 3: Develop a strategy to partner with State, county, and city officials.

Strengthening Constitutional and Legal Footing of Partnerships

Recommendation 4: Strengthen constitutional and legal footing of partnerships, and 

improve communications regarding White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships and Agency Centers.

Recommendation 5: Clarify prohibited uses of direct Federal financial assistance.

Recommendation 6: Equally emphasize separation requirements and protections for 

religious identity.

Recommendation 7: State more clearly the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” aid.

Recommendation 8: Increase transparency regarding federally funded partnerships.

Recommendation 9: Improve monitoring of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory 

requirements that accompany Federal social service funds.

Recommendation 10: Assure the religious liberty rights of the clients and beneficiaries of 

federally funded programs by strengthening appropriate protections.

Recommendation 11: Reduce barriers to obtaining 501(c)(3) recognition.

Recommendation 12: Promote other means of protecting religious liberty in the delivery 

of government-funded social services.
122 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Strengthening the Effectiveness of Partnerships

Recommendation 1: Perform a strategic review of government-supported technical 

assistance and capacity building.

The Council recommends that the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 

lead an administration-wide strategic review of government-supported training, technical 

assistance, and capacity building for social service providers. This strategic review would 

focus on four components: avoiding duplication of services; focusing increased attention 

on supporting only the most effective providers; seizing more opportunities to use the 

Government’s convening power to encourage stronger collaboration among providers; and 

reaching out to as broad a range of qualified providers as possible. 

Background and Explanation: 

The Council recognizes the value of many different kinds of community providers, ranging 

from innovative fledgling organizations to established mature agencies. It also recognizes 

that effective providers across the spectrum need and deserve training and support. Some 

need basic training, technical assistance, and capacity building, such as grant-writing 

training, skill building in organizational development, and financial management. At the 

other end of the spectrum, more mature providers need skill building related to program 

enhancement and training for community organizational leadership. 

Currently, government-funded training, technical assistance, and capacity-building 

requirements in grant and contract programs typically are aimed at providing basic skills 

in areas such as grant writing or marketing or intermediate-level training in organizational 

or leadership development. These types of educational opportunities are designed for 

religious and secular providers that range from start-up organizations to those that are 

growing toward maturity. In our experience, opportunities like these are often offered by 

nongovernmental as well as governmental sources at the local level. 

Especially given the renewed emphasis on funding effective organizations—whether those 

providers are new groups or well-established organizations—a strategic review is needed 

to determine the best contributions government can make in this area. Government should 

not offer duplicative services, and it must ensure that its funding only supports effective 

interventions. Sometimes, for example, it would be appropriate for the Government to leave 

basic training to others and focus on more sophisticated training, technical assistance, and 

capacity building that will enable agencies and provider groups to take effective programs 

to scale and meet community needs in a more comprehensive manner. The Government 

also often can and should do more to develop collaborative partnerships that will foster 

more comprehensive responses to social service issues, forge a shared vision among diverse 

organizations and populations and better coordinate responses that can harvest the most 

effective approaches for local needs. 

Given the difficult economic circumstances currently facing our Nation, thinking 

strategically about government’s role in this area is particularly important. The Council, 

therefore, urges the Administration to engage in this kind of strategic review.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 123

Recommendation 2: Convene and encourage learning communities of social service 

programs and providers.

The Council recommends that the Administration encourage Federal agencies to share 

information about federally funded projects with the larger community of those who are 

working on or interested in social service partnerships. This exchange could be accomplished 

in a number of ways. For example, each grantee could be required to complete a short Webbased form that could be accessed by providers and the public through a virtual library. The 

Council further recommends that the Administration do more to convene actual and virtual 

information-sharing sessions among representatives of State, local, and county governments; 

secular and faith-based providers; intermediaries; and the philanthropic sector.

Background and Explanation: 

Government funding already requires a reporting component for its own reviews. By 

creating a virtual library of funded programs, the value of the funding moves beyond the 

services provided in individual grants to a more systemic level. Shared knowledge can assist 

social service partnerships in developing new programs or enhancing existing efforts. By 

sharing information regarding program content, goals, objectives, and outcomes, other 

providers may benefit from shared learning and enhance their social service programs 

and delivery. This mechanism also creates greater transparency and enables State and 

local governments, academics, and the general public to learn how funds are spent and the 

results that are achieved. 

The Council further recommends that the Administration do more to convene informationsharing sessions among representatives of State, local, and county governments; secular and 

faith-based providers; intermediaries4

; and the philanthropic sector. These sessions should 

include sharing details about best practices that relate to specific social service programs. 

Another element that could be addressed in these sessions would be discussions of best 

practices in complying with applicable constitutional or legal principles. These informationsharing sessions could be in person or rely on other methods of communication like 

Webinars. In these ways, the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the 

Agency Centers can promote effective partnerships and develop comprehensive strategies 

to meet community needs. 

It is important to note that governmental bodies are not the only ones that play convening 

roles in these areas—nongovernmental organizations do, too. When the Government seeks 

to convene partners and potential partners, it should always work to ensure that it is not 

duplicating existing effective efforts and that it is otherwise playing a complementary rather 

than competing role in the joint effort to serve those in need.

4

 An intermediary is an organization that accepts government funds and distributes those funds to a network of other organizations that in turn provide 

government-funded social services. See Recommendations 5, 6, and 9. 
124 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 3: Develop a strategy to partner with State, county, and city officials.

The Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Agency Centers should 

develop a strategy to communicate to State, county, and city officials the church-state 

standards that accompany the Federal funds that State and local governments award to 

nongovernmental organizations. The Office and Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships should assist Federal officials who interact with State and local officials to 

understand and communicate the standards; collaborate with organizations of State and 

local officials (such as the National Governors Association and the National Association 

of Counties) to communicate the goals and rules of the Federal initiative; and expand 

and systematize their collaboration with State and local faith-based and neighborhood 

partnership offices and assist them in educating their government colleagues.

An important part of the Office’s and the Centers’ communications and training strategy with 

secular and faith-based organizations should be to clarify that State and local officials award 

most Federal social service funding and to help those organizations connect with those State and 

local officials. Outreach and training events and publicity and guidance documents should stress 

that church-state standards accompany the Federal funds, and these efforts also help community 

groups identify and connect with State and local agencies that award Federal funds.

Background and Explanation:

Up to 90 percent of Federal funds designated for social services are distributed to State, 

county, or city governments rather than being directly expended by Federal agencies.5

 

Thus, most Federal funds awarded to secular and faith-based organizations are awarded 

not by Federal officials but by State or local officials. Federal church-state rules accompany 

the money,6 but those awarding the money are at a considerable distance from the Federal 

Government and the Federal faith-based and neighborhood partnership initiative.

This distance has two serious consequences. First, State and local officials do not always 

fully understand the Federal rules that should guide their award decisions.7

 This factor can 

lead to wrongly limited eligibility or to inadequate implementation of important standards. 

Second, secular and faith-based organizations that become aware, because of the Federal 

faith-based and neighborhood partnership initiative, of their eligibility to partner with the 

Government too often simply presume that they must go to Federal agencies to seek funding, 

overlooking the closer city, county, and State agencies that actually award the majority of 

the Federal funding. Outreach and educational efforts such as Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnership conferences and guidance documents that do not specifically 

5 Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs (White House, August 2001), 

for example, includes a table showing that in FY 2001 91 percent of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants were formula grants to 

State and local agencies and only 9 percent of the grants were discretionary grants awarded by HUD officials to organizations to provide services (p. 4). 

6

 The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution says Federal law is the supreme law of the land. Thus, where there is a conflict between Federal 

and State law, Federal law prevails. This is the well-settled rule with regard to conditions on Federal funds that are imposed by Congress. However, 

if the Federal executive branch imposes conditions on Federal funds that States believe would cause them to violate their constitutions, and States 

challenge such conditions, it is not clear whether courts would uphold the conditions or whether they would find that such conditions do not trump State 

constitutional law unless they are imposed by Congress. See Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, The State of the Law 2005: Legal Developments Affecting 

Partnerships Between Government and Faith-Based Organizations (The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy) at 99-101. It is also important 

to note that in order for Federal law to preempt contrary State law, there must be a clear expression of intent to do so. Federal authorities may choose 

not to preempt contrary State law or to preempt it only with respect to the use of Federal funds, not State funds. See id. 93-98. For more information 

on these complex issues, see, e.g., James T. O’Reilly, Federal Preemption of State and Local Law: Legislation, Regulation and Litigation (American Bar 

Association 2006); University of North Carolina First Amendment Law Review Symposium Issue: Separation of Church and States: An Examination of State 

Constitutional Limits on Government Funding for Religious Institutions (Volume 2, Winter 2003). 7 See, e.g., Jonathan Jacobson, et al., State and Local Contracting for Social Services Under Charitable Choice (Mathematica Policy Research: August 2005), 

for HHS (available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/CharitableChoice/index.htm).
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 125

8 See, e.g., the HHS study, Partnering with Faith-Based and Community Organizations: A Guide for State and Local Officials Administering Federal Block 

and Formula Grant Funds (available at http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/For%20State%20and%20Local%20Officials/partneringpub.html). 9

 Note that during the last year or so of the previous Administration, outreach and training conferences offered by the White House Office of Faith-Based 

and Community Initiatives typically included a day of discussions and other events with State and local officials to work collaboratively on how the various 

government agencies might better connect with faith- and community-based organizations.

10 Pamela Winston, et al., The Role of State Faith Community Liaisons in Charitable Choice Implementation: Final Report (Mathematica Policy Research: 

December 2008), for HHS (available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/RoleFCL/index.shtml).

discuss this Federal, State, and local partnership and help nongovernmental organizations 

to identify State and local programs that expend Federal funds may inadvertently confirm 

the mistaken view. Such outreach and educational efforts may mislead those novice 

organizations to ignore more accessible funding and instead focus on the highly competitive 

Federal discretionary grant competitions.

To counter these problems, the Council recommends that the Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships develop and implement a set of countervailing actions such as 

the following:

a. The Office should work with the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood 

Partnerships to train, encourage, and help Federal officials who interact with 

State and local officials to accurately communicate church-state rules and the 

Administration’s intent to expand and strengthen financial and nonfinancial 

partnerships with faith- and community-based organizations. HUD, for example, has 

an extensive network of regional offices and officials to interact with and assist State 

and local officials who use HUD funding. In recent years, the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) undertook specific efforts to help regional Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) officials to understand applicable rules and 

to assist State and local authorities in their respective regions to comply with those 

rules. The Bush administration published materials to guide State and local officials.8

Existing efforts should be evaluated, and then expanded and improved as needed. 

b. The Office and Centers should collaborate with organizations of State and local 

officials to discuss and communicate the Federal initiative and its goals and 

rules, for example, with the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference 

of Mayors, the National Council of State Legislators, the National Association of 

Counties, the National Association of State Procurement Officials, and the National 

Institute of Governmental Purchasing.9

 It appears that the least formal outreach and 

collaboration so far has been accomplished with county governments and officials, 

despite the crucial role that county agencies and programs play in the delivery of 

federally funded social services.

c. The Office might expand and systematize its collaboration with State faith-based 

and neighborhood partnership offices or officials, with mayors’ liaison officials, and 

with county officials or liaisons that are created. The Office should ensure that its 

State and local partners understand the rules and goals of the Federal initiative and 

should encourage them to work with program, legal, and other officials in their own 

governments to help them understand and apply the Federal rules.10

d. Outreach and training offered by the Office and the Centers to nongovernmental 

organizations should always stress that church-state rules are attached to the 

Federal funds and that most of the Federal funds are awarded to nongovernmental 

organizations by State or local, not Federal, agencies. Ways to communicate this 
126 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

dimension include providing information about State and local contacts to which 

organizations can turn (e.g., the State faith-based and neighborhood partnership 

offices) and, when possible, co-sponsoring the outreach and training sessions with 

the respective State and local liaisons and offices. The Centers’ Websites should 

clearly explain that most of their respective departments’ funding goes first to State 

or local agencies before being awarded to nongovernmental organizations.

e. Publicity and guidance documents from the Federal initiatives should stress 

and explain the Federal, State, and local partnership dimension of Federal social 

service funding and should provide information to direct the readers to State 

and local sources of information and help. For example, a revised version of the 

Bush administration’s Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on 

Partnering with the Federal Government11 might better be entitled Guidance... on 

Partnering with Federal, State, or Local Agencies to Provide Federally Funded Social 

Assistance and contain specific sections on the use by State, county, and city agencies 

of Federal funds and how readers can find out more about those agencies and their 

federally funded programs.

11 See http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/guidance_document_01-06.pdf for this guidance document.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 127

Strengthening Constitutional and

Legal Footing of Partnerships

Recommendation 4: Strengthen constitutional and legal footing of partnerships, 

and improve communications regarding White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships and Agency Centers.

The Council recommends that the Administration amend Executive Order 1327912 to make 

it clear that fidelity to constitutional principles is an objective that is as important as the 

goal of distributing Federal financial assistance in the most effective and efficient manner 

possible. Likewise, in all their communications, the White House Office of Faith-Based and 

Neighborhood Partnerships and Agency Centers should highlight this principle. 

We also recommend that this executive order be amended to emphasize that grantmaking decisions must be free from political interference or even the appearance of 

such interference, and that White House and agency activities must abide by applicable 

constitutional and statutory restrictions, including the Hatch Act’s limits on the use of 

government resources for partisan political activities. Toward this end, participants in 

grant-making decisions—whether they are governmental employees or nongovernmental 

peer reviewers—should be specifically instructed in and required to abide by these 

principles. Similarly, government officials should instruct these individuals to refrain from 

taking religious affiliations or lack thereof into account in this process. 

When selecting peer reviewers, the government should never ask about religious affiliation 

or lack thereof or take such matters into account. But it should encourage religious, 

political, and professional diversity among peer reviewers by advertising for these positions 

in a wide variety of venues. 

The Council further urges the White House Office and Agency Centers to continue to 

emphasize the role of the Government as a convenor of diverse communities as well as a 

funder of certain social services. We applaud the effort to promote realistic expectations 

among potential grantees about financial partnerships, better match nongovernmental 

organizations with appropriate opportunities, and further underscore the value of 

nonfinancial partnerships between the Government and nongovernmental organizations. 

Likewise, we recommend that the White House and Agency Centers continue to promote 

a more accurate understanding of what they do and do not do. For example, it should 

be emphasized that while the White House Office and Agency Centers often notify 

neighborhood groups—religious and secular—about a variety of opportunities to partner 

with government, the Office and Centers play no role in decision making about which 

nongovernmental organizations receive Federal social service funds. 

Background and Explanation:

The Council recommends that the Administration make clear that keeping faith with 

constitutional principles is an objective that is as important as the goal of distributing 

Federal financial assistance in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Toward this 

end, the Council recommends that the Administration amend Executive Order 13279 to 

underscore the fact that fidelity to the Constitution is a fundamental and overarching goal 

12 Executive Order 13279, Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations (December 12, 2002) (“Executive Order 13279”). 

See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. Part 87.2(c).
128 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

in this area.13 This message also should be an essential part of all communications of the 

White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Agency Centers.

Additionally, we recommend that Executive Order 13279 be amended to reflect the 

commitment to nonpartisanship set forth in a September 2009 memorandum for White 

House staff and for agency and department heads.14 The executive order should be revised 

to make clear that all agency funding decisions must be “free of political interference or 

even the appearance thereof,” and that White House and agency activities must abide by 

applicable constitutional and statutory restrictions, including the Hatch Act’s limits on the 

use of government resources for partisan political activities.15 Also, participants in grantmaking decisions—whether they are governmental employees or nongovernmental peer 

reviewers—should be specifically instructed in and required to abide by these principles.

Likewise, governmental officials should instruct participants in the grant-making process to 

refrain from taking religious affiliations or lack thereof into account in this process. In other 

words, an organization should not receive favorable or unfavorable marks merely because it is 

affiliated or unaffiliated with a religious body, or related or unrelated to a specific religion. 

When selecting peer reviewers, the government should never ask about religious affiliation 

or lack thereof or take such matters into account. But it should encourage religious, political, 

and professional diversity among peer reviewers by advertising for these positions in a wide 

variety of venues.16

The White House Office and Agency Centers should continue to stress the role of the 

Government as a convenor as much as a funder of social services. The power of government at 

all levels to bring together diverse communities to share information and network is a critical 

but sometimes overlooked asset. Likewise, the White House should continue to seek to promote 

realistic expectations among potential grantees about financial partnerships. Sometimes, this 

goal will require the Administration and other governmental bodies to develop more targeted 

communications that better match organizations with appropriate opportunities. It is also 

important to emphasize that financial partnerships with government are not the right option 

for every community organization -- other kinds of collaboration may be more suitable. For this 

and other reasons, nonfinancial partnerships between the Government and nongovernmental 

organizations should be emphasized as much as financial partnerships. 

Finally, the White House Office should continue to promote a more accurate understanding 

of what it and the Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in various Federal 

agencies do and do not do.17 For example, it should be emphasized that while the White House 

13 Section Two: Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria, Executive Order 13279. This executive order discusses some constitutional principles, 

but it does so only in reference to particular issues rather than as an overarching commitment. Also, while distributing assistance in the most effective 

and efficient manner possible is listed as the first principle—principle (a)—in this section of the executive order, the Establishment, Free Exercise, 

and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment are not specifically mentioned until principles (e) and (f). Another reason to describe constitutional 

commitments early in this section and to identify the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses jointly is that the commands of these clauses 

sometimes overlap and often reinforce one another. See also Recommendations 5 to12 that seek to strengthen the constitutional and legal footing of 

social service partnerships between the Government and nongovernmental organizations. 

14 Gregory Craig and Norman Eisen, Memorandum for White House Staff and for Agency and Department Heads on Guidelines for Public Outreach 

Meetings, September 22, 2009 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/WH_COUNSEL_MEMO_GUIDELINES_FOR_PUBLIC_

OUTREACH_MEETINGS.pdf).

15 Id.

16 Other issues linked to the peer review process deserve further examination, including the application process for positions as peer reviewers and 

notification of peer reviewers about opportunities to report any violations of laws, rules, and regulations that occur during these processes. Because 

of time constraints, the Council did not address these issues. Council members believe, however, that governmental bodies and nongovernmental 

researchers and entities could profitably explore these issues and perhaps offer suggestions for improving the transparency, fairness, and effectiveness of 

the peer review process.

17 The White House Office and Agency Centers also should emphasize the large role State and local governments play in the delivery of federally funded 

social services. See Recommendation 3.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 129

18 When the term “direct aid” is used in these recommendations, it includes aid in the form of federally funded grants and contracts as well as 

the federally funded subgrants and subcontracts that an intermediary (whether governmental or nongovernmental) awards to nongovernmental 

organizations. See Recommendations 7 and 9.

19 Executive Order 13279. See, e.g, 45 C.F.R. Part 87.2(c). 20 GAO, Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability (GAO-06-

616), June 2006 (“GAO Report”), 34-35. 

21 See Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, The Faith-Based Initiative and The Constitution, 55 DePaul L. Rev. 1, 79 (2005). 22 “If understood too narrowly,” Lupu and Tuttle have said, “the regulatory proscription on direct government financing of religious instruction 

significantly understates [the relevant constitutional principle]. . . .” Ira C. Lupu and Robert W. Tuttle, Constitutional Change and Responsibilities of 

Governance Pertaining to the Faith-based and Community Initiative, Conference on Innovations in Effective Compassion (June 2008), 269. 23 Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743 (1973). 24 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793 (2000). 25 As Professors Lupu and Tuttle noted in 2005, “Almost all of the lawsuits challenging aid to [faith-based organizations] have involved faith-intensive 

social services, and each decision in these cases has reaffirmed the principle that direct public aid may not be used for social services with that character.” 

Lupu and Tuttle, The Faith-Based Initiative and The Constitution, 55 DePaul L. Rev. at 86 (2005).

Office and Agency Centers often notify neighborhood groups—religious and secular—about 

a variety of opportunities to partner with government, the Office and Centers play no role in 

decision making about which organizations receive Federal social service funds. 

Recommendation 5: Clarify prohibited uses of direct Federal financial assistance.

Existing Federal regulations and an executive order prohibit the use of direct government 

aid (e.g., government grants, contracts, subgrants, and subcontracts) for “inherently 

religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization.” The Council 

recommends that the Administration replace the words “inherently religious activities” 

with “explicitly religious activities” in these regulations and in the relevant executive 

order, as well as in associated guidance materials. The Council also recommends that the 

Administration provide additional examples of activities that constitute “explicitly religious 

activities” in regulatory or guidance materials. 

Background and Explanation:

Existing regulations and an executive order prohibit nongovernmental organizations 

from using direct government aid (e.g., government grants, contracts, subgrants, and 

subcontracts)18 for “inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, 

and proselytization.”19 The term “inherently religious” is confusing. In 2006, for example, 

the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that all 26 of the religious social service 

providers it interviewed said they understood the prohibition on using direct government 

aid for “inherently religious activities,” but it also found that four of the providers acted in 

ways that appeared to violate that rule.20 

Further, while the Supreme Court has sometimes used the term “inherently religious,” it has 

not used it to indicate the boundary of what the Government may subsidize with direct aid.21 

If the term is interpreted narrowly, it could permit some things the Constitution prohibits.22 

On the other hand, one could also argue that the term “inherently religious” is too broad 

rather than too narrow. For example, some might consider the provision of a hot meal to a 

needy person an “inherently religious” act when it is undertaken from a sense of religious 

motivation or obligation, even though it has no overt religious content. 

The Court has determined that the Government cannot subsidize “a specifically religious 

activity in an otherwise substantially secular setting.”23 It has also said a direct aid program 

impermissibly advances religion when the aid results in governmental indoctrination of 

religion.24 This terminology is fairly interpreted to prohibit the Government from directly 

subsidizing any explicitly religious activity, meaning any activities that involve overt 

religious content.25 Thus, direct Federal aid should not be used to pay for activities such as 
130 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

religious instruction, devotional exercises, worship, proselytizing or evangelism; production 

or dissemination of devotional guides or other religious materials; or counseling in which 

counselors introduce religious content.26 Similarly, grant or contract funds may not be used 

to pay for equipment or supplies to the extent they are allocated to such activities. The term 

“explicitly religious activities” would not include, however, activities that may be the result 

of religious motivation like serving meals to the needy or using a nonreligious text to teach 

someone to read. From the standpoint of the Government, these activities lack religious 

content.

Likewise, it is important to emphasize that the restrictions on explicit religious content 

apply to content generated by the administrators of the federally funded program, not 

to spontaneous comments made by individual beneficiaries about their personal lives in 

the context of these programs. For example, if a person administering a federally funded 

job skills program asks beneficiaries to describe how they gain the motivation necessary 

for their job searches and some beneficiaries refer to their faith or membership in a faith 

community, these kinds of comments do not violate the restrictions and should not be 

censored. In this context, it is clear that those administering the government program are 

not orchestrating or encouraging such comments. 

The Administration, therefore, should amend regulations and the relevant executive order 

to prohibit the use of direct aid to subsidize “explicitly religious activities, such as worship, 

religious instruction, and proselytization.” Associated guidance materials should also be 

revised to reflect this change in language.27 Regulatory or guidance materials should offer 

additional examples or brief case studies to explain the meaning of the term “explicitly 

religious” and note that any explicit religious content must be privately subsidized and offered 

separate in time or location from programs funded by direct government aid.28 This change in 

language will provide greater clarity and more closely match constitutional standards. 

26 These activities and items, however, may be privately funded and offered in a program that is voluntary for beneficiaries and separate in time or 

location from the program that is funded by direct aid. See Executive Order 13279. See also Recommendation 6. 27 Current guidance sometimes uses the terms “inherently religious activities” and “religious activities” interchangeably. For example, a guide entitled 

Designing Sub-Award Programs states:

Support of only non-religious social services — A subawardee cannot use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund “inherently religious” 

activities which can include religious worship, instruction or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government funds only to 

support the non-religious social services they provide. This doesn’t mean the organization cannot have religious activities. However, they 

cannot use taxpayer dollars to fund them.

Lisa Lampman, Designing Sub-Award Programs at 18, Intermediary Development Series, Compassion Capital Fund National Resource Center. 28 As noted in the Introduction, Council members differ over the issue of whether the Government must or should refrain from directing cash aid to 

certain kinds of religious entities. See also Recommendation 12.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 131

Recommendation 6: Equally emphasize separation requirements and protections for 

religious identity.

Regulations and guidance regarding the use of Federal social service funds should give 

prominent and equal emphasis to the following requirements: (1) when the Government 

directly funds a program, any explicitly religious activities offered by a provider must be 

privately funded, separate in time or location from the government-funded program, and 

voluntary for beneficiaries; and (2) nongovernmental providers that receive Federal grant or 

contract funds may maintain their institutional religious identity in the ways described below. 

Especially because providers often lack specific guidance about how to create a meaningful 

and workable separation between a program funded by a government grant or contract 

and a privately funded religious one, the Administration should provide more extensive 

guidance on this matter. Accordingly, the Council sets forth guidelines articulated by the last 

Administration in a particular case and urges the present Administration to adapt them for 

general use. For example, we urge the Administration to include these basic principles in 

regulations and guidance that accompany Federal social service funds. 

At the same time, the Administration should give equal emphasis to the fact that religious 

organizations receiving direct Federal aid may maintain their institutional religious 

identity. They may use religious terms in their organizational names, select board members 

on a religious basis, and include religious references in mission statements and other 

organizational documents. 

Members of the Council disagree, however, about whether the Government should allow 

social services subsidized by Federal grant or contract funds to be provided in rooms 

that contain religious art, scripture, messages, or symbols. A majority of the Council (16 

members) believe the Administration should neither require nor encourage the removal of 

religious symbols where services subsidized by Federal grant or contract funds are provided, 

but instead should encourage all providers to be sensitive to, and to accommodate where 

feasible, those beneficiaries who may object to the presence of religious symbols. These 

members also affirm that, if these voluntary measures do not meet the objections of the 

beneficiaries, those beneficiaries must have access to an alternative provider to which they 

do not object. 

A minority of the Council differs. Seven Council members believe that revisions should 

be made to these documents to allow federally funded programming in areas with these 

religious items only when there is no available space in the organizations’ offices without 

these items and when removing or covering such displays would be infeasible (e.g., where 

it would take great effort to remove or cover a religious icon mounted high on a wall or 

remove or cover a large statute). Two Council members believe the Administration should 

amend existing regulations, guidance, and an executive order to permit nongovernmental 

organizations to offer federally funded programming only in areas devoid of such items. 

Nevertheless, all Council members agree that the Government should permit providers 

to retain other aspects of their religious identities while providing federally funded 

social services.

Background and Explanation:

An executive order and associated regulations properly indicate that the Government must 

ensure that any religious activities offered by a nongovernmental provider are privately 
132 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

funded, separate in time or location from programs funded by direct government aid,29 and 

purely voluntary for beneficiaries.30 Further, some of the past Administration’s guidance 

on these separation requirements has been quite good, but it has not been made standard 

across Federal agencies, and it could bear greater emphasis.31 

As part of the settlement of a case, HHS produced a guidance document entitled Safeguards 

Required.

32 The document articulates a number of principles for separating programs 

with explicit religious content from programs supported by direct federal aid. A copy 

of the Safeguards Required document is attached to this recommendation. We urge the 

Administration to adapt the principles set forth in this document for general use. It should 

ensure that these principles are reflected in regulations and guidance accompanying Federal 

social service funds. Especially because providers often lack specific instructions about how 

to create a meaningful and workable separation between a federally funded program and 

a privately funded religious one, it is critical that providers receive practical and specific 

guidance.

These materials also should outline with equal prominence and clarity the protections for a 

religious organization’s identity when that organization receives direct government funds. 

Religious organizations may use religious terms in their organizational names, select board 

members on a religious basis,33 and include religious references in mission statements 

and other organizational documents. Simply because an organization’s mission is overtly 

religious, for example, does not mean it cannot separate (and privately pay for) explicitly 

religious activities from activities funded by a federal grant.

Members of the Council disagree, however, about whether the Government should allow 

nongovernmental providers of federally funded social services to provide those services in 

rooms that contain religious art, scripture, messages, or symbols. 

A majority of the Council (16 members) believe that the Administration should neither 

require nor encourage the removal of religious symbols where services subsidized by 

Federal grant or contract funds are provided, but instead should encourage all providers 

to be sensitive to, and to accommodate where feasible, those beneficiaries who may object 

to the presence of religious symbols.34 These members also affirm that, if these voluntary 

measures do not meet the objections of the beneficiaries, those beneficiaries must have 

access to an alternative provider to which they do not object. 

A minority of the Council differs. Seven Council members believe that revisions should 

be made to these documents to allow federally funded programming in areas with these 

29 See supra n.18 for a description of some of the forms of aid that are included within the definition of direct government aid. See also Recommendations 

7 and 9.

30 Executive Order 13279. See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. Part 87.2(c). See also Recommendation 5 (recommending substitution of “explicitly religious activities” for 

“inherently religious activities”).

31 These requirements have not been not well understood by some providers. In 2006, for example, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that all 26 

of the religious social service providers it interviewed said they understood the requirements, but it also found that four of the providers acted in ways 

that appeared to violate the rules. GAO, Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could 

Enhance Accountability (GAO-06-616), June 2006 (“GAO Report”), 34-35. Further, as Professors Lupu and Tuttle noted in 2005, “Almost all of the lawsuits 

challenging aid to [faith-based organizations] have involved faith-intensive services, and each decision in these cases has reaffirmed the principle that 

direct public aid may not be used for social services with that character.” Lupu and Tuttle, The Faith-Based Initiative and the Constitution, 55 DePaul L. 

Rev. at 86. 

32 Letter from Jeffrey S. Trimbath, Director, Abstinence Education, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, to Denny Pattyn, Silver Ring Thing 

(September 20, 2005). 

33 Council members differ on what is required if board members are paid with government funds. 

34 These Council members are Diane Baillargeon, Charles Blake, Noel Castellanos, Arturo Chavez, Nathan Diament, Joel Hunter, Vashti McKenzie, Dalia 

Mogahed, Otis Moss, Frank Page, Anthony Picarello, Melissa Rogers, Richard Stearns, Larry Snyder, Judy Vredenburgh, and Jim Wallis.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 133

35 These Council members are Anju Bhargava, Peg Chemberlin, Harry Knox, Eboo Patel, David Saperstein, Bill Shaw, and Sharon Watkins.

36 These Council members are Fred Davie and Nancy Ratzan.

37 45 C.F.R. Part 260.34(1) (2010). See also 42 C.F.R. Part 96 n.1 (2010). 38 See supra n.4 for definition of an intermediary. 39 42 C.F. R. Part 96 n.1 (2010). See also Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002). 40 45 C.F.R. Part 360.34(2) (2010).

religious items only when there is no available space in the organizations’ offices without 

these items and when removing or covering such displays would be infeasible (e.g., where 

it would take great effort to remove or cover a religious icon mounted high on a wall or 

remove or cover a large statute).35 Two Council members believe the Administration should 

amend existing regulations, guidance, and an executive order to permit nongovernmental 

organizations to offer federally funded programming only in areas devoid of such items.36

Nevertheless, all Council members agree that the Government should permit providers 

to retain other aspects of their religious identities while providing federally funded social 

services. These aspects include using religious terms in their organizational names, 

selecting board members on a religious basis, and incorporating religious references in 

mission statements and other organizational documents. These protections for religious 

identity are important, and they have been greatly emphasized in recent years. By 

emphasizing the separation and maintenance of religious identity requirements on an 

equal footing, the Administration will strike a more appropriate balance. 

Recommendation 7: State more clearly the distinction between “direct” 

and “indirect” aid.

The Council recommends that the Administration, in its guidance to Federal employees, 

service providers, and the broader public, state with greater clarity the distinction 

between direct and indirect forms of government aid to religious institutions. Similarly, the 

Administration should clearly label each program it offers as involving direct or indirect 

aid, so that providers can better assess, sooner rather than later in the process, whether 

a program might suit their particular institutional commitments and structure. Members 

of the Council differ sharply on many other questions surrounding indirect aid, and so 

prescind from them in these recommendations.

Background and Explanation:

Federal regulations state that direct social service funding “means that the government or 

an intermediate organization. . . selects the provider and purchases the needed services 

straight from the provider (e.g., via a contract or cooperative agreement).”37 Direct aid 

includes federally funded grants and contracts as well as the federally funded subgrants and 

subcontracts that an intermediary38 awards to nongovernmental organizations. Thus, the 

restrictions that bind direct Federal aid (e.g., such funds may not be used to pay for explicitly 

religious activities) apply to all of these funds. The vast majority of federally funded social 

service programs are funded by direct aid. 

Federal regulations classify other social service programs as ones funded by indirect aid. 

The regulations state that indirect social service funding is funding “an organization receives 

as the result of the genuine and independent private choice of a beneficiary”39 through a 

voucher, certificate, or similar mechanism.40 

Under current U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, indirect financial aid to religious service 

providers is treated differently from direct financial aid. The distinction has great practical 

significance, but it is not generally well understood except among religious freedom specialists.
134 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Members of the Council disagree about what the law should be regarding the definition 

and consequences of direct and indirect aid, and indeed, regarding many other questions 

surrounding the direct/indirect distinction. Among others, these questions include: whether 

any program outside the precise factual context of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639, 

652 (2002), qualifies as “indirect” aid; if any aid may ever qualify as “indirect,” how the 

applicable constitutional standards or other requirements41 would differ from the direct 

aid standards; whether it would be good or bad policy, apart from constitutional standards, 

to apply the standards governing direct aid to indirect aid programs; and whether it 

would be good or bad policy, apart from constitutional standards, to alter the number of 

existing programs employing an indirect funding mechanism.42 Because of constraints of 

time and page length, as well as to avoid needless contention, the Council does not offer 

recommendations on these questions.

Members of the Council nonetheless agree that it would be beneficial if the 

Administration—not the Council—stated clearly its operative understanding of the existing 

law in this area, especially in ways accessible to nonlegal and otherwise broader audiences. 

The Council also believes that it would have practical value to make this distinction and its 

consequences better known and understood by Federal employees, service providers, and 

beneficiaries. That additional measure of clarity would promote better communication and 

collaboration, and correspondingly reduce confusion and potential litigation.

For example, if service providers are told clearly which existing programs involve direct and 

which involve indirect aid, providers that are unwilling to separate religious and secular 

components of their programming are likelier to self-select out of direct aid programs. This, 

in turn, would reduce the filing of grant applications that would either fail or, if granted, 

result in needless legal risk for both the provider and its government partner.

41 Among Council members, there is disagreement over whether the beneficiaries’ protections set forth in Recommendation 10 are required in the case 

of programs using “indirect” funding mechanisms (e.g., vouchers for substance abuse counseling). Some Council members believe that in programs in 

which the eligible beneficiary may take the Federal service voucher to the provider of his or her choice, it is the provision of notice prior to entering a 

particular program, and the availability of several alternative service providers, which afford the protection for the beneficiary’s religious liberty rights. 

Thus, the extensive beneficiaries’ protections set forth in Recommendation 10 for direct aid programs need not be required in indirect funding contexts. 

Other Council members believe that the beneficiaries’ protections prescribed in Recommendation 10 are also required in indirect funding contexts in 

order to assure proper protections. 

42 Council members also disagree about the issue of whether the Government must or should refrain from directing cash aid to certain kinds of religious 

entities. See Introduction and Recommendation 12.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 135

43 President Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on Transparency and Open Government, January 21, 

2009 (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government/).

44 See supra n.4 for definition of an intermediary.

Recommendation 8: Increase transparency regarding federally funded partnerships.

The Council recommends that the Administration require governmental bodies 

that disburse Federal social service funds to post online all guidance documents for 

nongovernmental organizations that provide those services as well as other documents 

needed to receive and maintain Federal funding, including requests for proposals, 

grants, contracts, and assurances. It also recommends that the Administration require 

governmental bodies to post online a list of entities that receive such aid and to do so in a 

timely manner.

Background and Explanation:

At present, there is great variation among government agencies, and sometimes within 

them, regarding the accessibility of the guidance and grant documents relating to the 

provision of federally funded services by nongovernmental organizations. Even as members 

of this Council, it has not been easy for us to locate and access information such as standard 

grant documents and certificates of assurance as well as PowerPoint presentations and 

other materials given to potential and actual government grantees. Equally important, lists 

of the names of entities that receive Federal social service funds (e.g., through grants or 

contracts) are not routinely made available to the public. 

We have found no evidence of an intentional effort by past Administrations to limit the 

accessibility of these materials. Indeed, past Administrations have often disseminated 

guidance materials at various conferences, workshops, and meetings, and lists of 

government grantees and contractors have sometimes been made publicly available. 

However, past Administrations have not made it a priority to provide wider and more 

routine access to this information. 

Although some of this information may be publicly available through actions like Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the public will be much better served by making it 

available on the Web. As President Obama said in January 2009, “Executive departments 

and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations 

and decisions online and readily available to the public.”43 We propose, therefore, that 

the Administration require governmental agencies that partner with nongovernmental 

organizations to provide federally funded social services to post online all guidance 

documents for nongovernmental organizations that provide (or seek to provide) those 

services. We also propose that the Administration require such governmental agencies 

to post documents needed to access or maintain Federal social service funds, including 

requests for proposals, grant agreements, assurances, and other materials. 

Likewise, we recommend that the Administration require governmental bodies to post 

online a list of entities that receive such aid and to do so in a timely manner (e.g., within 

30 days of making a decision about an award or as part of a routine quarterly report on a 

grant program). This transparency obligation would include posting the names of all entities 

receiving Federal social service funding through decisions made by nongovernmental 

intermediaries.44 These intermediaries should promptly report the names of such entities 

to the relevant governmental body (e.g., within 30 days of making a decision about an 

award or as part of a routine quarterly report to the Government). The governmental 

body should then make this list public in a timely manner (e.g., within 30 days of receiving 
136 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

the information from the intermediary or as part of a routine quarterly report on a grant 

program involving intermediaries).

There is often much confusion about the nature of the partnerships the Government forms 

with nongovernmental organizations and the rules that apply to those partnerships. All 

those who are interested in these relationships, including the taxpayers who fund them, 

will be better served by being able to access guidance and grant materials, even when 

they cannot attend a conference or a workshop or find the right government employee to 

ask for copies of these materials. Posting these materials on governmental Websites will 

increase public understanding of and confidence in these partnerships. Similarly, ensuring 

that governmental bodies that disburse Federal social service funds post online a list of 

entities that receive such aid, whether those entities receive the aid from the Government 

or from nongovernmental intermediaries, will help interested Americans to gain a better 

understanding of how their tax money is spent.

We are also aware that not everyone has high-speed Internet access, and that even those 

who do would sometimes appreciate other forms of assistance. Thus, the Council considered 

recommending that the Administration establish a toll-free telephone number that citizens 

could call to inquire about potential or ongoing partnerships with government. We learned, 

however, that the previous Administration had tried such a system and found that it was 

unproductive. We encourage the present Administration to continue to search for new 

ways to connect with those who may lack high-speed Internet service and those who need 

different kinds of help in understanding the Government’s role in the delivery of social 

services.

Recommendation 9: Improve monitoring of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory 

requirements that accompany Federal social service funds.

The Council recommends that Executive Order 13279 be amended to describe the 

Government’s obligation to monitor and enforce constitutional, statutory, and regulatory 

requirements relating to the use of Federal social service funds, including the constitutional 

obligation to monitor and enforce church-state standards in ways that avoid excessive 

entanglement between religion and government. The Council further recommends that 

associated regulations and guidance materials be similarly revised. All grants and contracts 

involving federally funded social services should set forth applicable responsibilities and 

restrictions following those funds, and organizations that are awarded such funds should 

undergo training about these responsibilities and restrictions. 

The Administration also should ensure that church-state safeguards are included in the 

monitoring tools used in the audit required of non-Federal entities expending $500,000 

or more annually in Federal funds and in all other audits of non-Federal entities receiving 

Federal social service funds. Each governmental body disbursing Federal funds must 

have a mechanism in place to allow that body to take necessary enforcement actions for 

noncompliance with church-state standards as well as other applicable standards.

Nongovernmental organizations receiving government subgrants or subcontracts 

from intermediaries are subject to the same church-state standards that apply to the 

nongovernmental organizations receiving the primary government grants or contracts.45 For 

example, subgrantees and subcontractors must separate any explicitly religious activities 

from programs funded by direct government aid just as grantees and contractors must 

45 See Recommendation 7.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 137

do. Additionally, the Council urges the Administration to develop specific guidance for 

nongovernmental intermediaries to instruct them in their obligations regarding monitoring 

of subgrantees and subcontractors. 

Background and Explanation:

To guard against inappropriate uses of Federal funds, the Government must monitor and 

enforce the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory standards that follow social service funds. 

The obligation to monitor and enforce these standards applies to all such funds, whether they 

flow to religious or secular organizations, and the Government should not assume that one 

class of providers is more apt to violate applicable standards than another. There is, however, 

a component of the Government’s monitoring obligation that is constitutionally mandated 

and specifically focused on religion-related issues. The First Amendment requires the 

Government to monitor the activities and programs it funds to ensure that they comply with 

church-state requirements, including the prohibition against the use of direct aid in a manner 

that results in governmental indoctrination on religious matters.46 

At the same time, the Government must respect the constitutional command against 

excessive entanglement between government and religion.47 So, for example, the 

Government need not and should not engage in “pervasive monitoring” of religious bodies,48 

and its oversight need not constitute a “failsafe mechanism capable of detecting any instance 

of diversion” of government aid to religious use.49 But the Government clearly fails to 

discharge its responsibilities if its safeguards “exist in theory only”50 or “only on paper.”51 In 

several cases involving government funds administered by nongovernmental organizations, 

including religious institutions, the Supreme Court has found that a variety of methods of 

monitoring meet these standards.52 

46 Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 780 (1973) (“In the absence of an effective means of guaranteeing that 

the state aid derived from public funds will be used exclusively for secular, neutral, and nonideological purposes, it is clear from our cases that direct aid 

in whatever form is invalid.”); Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 615 (1988)(“[t]here is no doubt that the monitoring of [government] grants is necessary 

if the [government] is to ensure that public money is to be spent in the way that Congress intended and in a way that comports with the Establishment 

Clause.”).

47 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). 48 Id. The Supreme Court has said that excessive entanglement includes “comprehensive, discriminating, and continuing state surveillance. . . . ” Id. at 619. 49 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. at 861 (O’Connor & Breyer, JJ., concurring in the judgment). 50 Freedom From Religion Foundation v. McCallum, 179 F. Supp. 2d 950, 976 (W.D. Wisc. 2002). 51 Id. at 977. 52 For example, the Supreme Court has upheld an educational aid program in which various levels of government engaged in monitoring activities such 

as (1) requiring participating nonpublic schools to sign assurances that they would use Federal funds only for “secular, neutral and nonideological 

purposes” and retaining the power to cut off aid in the event of failure to abide by these promises; (2) requiring nonpublic schools to submit applications 

with project plans for approval; (3) visiting nonpublic schools once a year and conducting followup visits when necessary; and (4) conducting random 

reviews of materials used in the government-funded programs. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. at 861-863 (O’Connor & Breyer, JJ., concurring in the 

judgment). In another case, the Court upheld an aid program in which governmental supervisors made unannounced monthly visits to nongovernmental 

organizations providing government-funded services. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 234 (1997). The Court has also determined that government review 

of educational materials and programs coupled with periodic site visits is another way of meeting constitutional requirements in this area. Bowen v. 

Kendrick, 487 U.S. at 615-617. In 1976, the Court upheld a program that required nongovernmental educational institutions to promise that the aid they 

received would not be used for sectarian purposes. See Roemer v. Board of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 742-743 (1976). These nongovernmental bodies 

also were required to describe specific nonsectarian uses of government funds and to file reports itemizing the use of such funds. Id. 
138 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Monitoring and enforcement obligations are not specifically discussed in Executive 

Order 13279.53 And while current Federal policy requires non-Federal entities that 

expend $500,000 or more in a given year in Federal money to undergo “a single or 

program-specific audit,”54 a June 2006 GAO report found that “the single audit...generally 

does not include checks for church-state safeguards.”55 The June 2006 GAO report also 

noted that many non-Federal entities that receive Federal funds may not be subject to 

the single-audit requirement.56 The GAO report concluded that, without some meaningful 

monitoring of these safeguards, “the government has little assurance that the safeguards are 

protecting beneficiaries, government agencies, and religious organizations as intended.”57 

It recommended that all Federal agencies include information on relevant church-state 

safeguards in grant documents, refer to these safeguards in monitoring tools that agencies 

use to oversee federally funded grantees, and “ensure that program-specific single audit 

supplements, where appropriate, include a reference to these safeguards.”58

The Council recommends that Executive Order 13279 be amended to discuss the general 

obligation to monitor and enforce constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements 

relating to the use of Federal social service funds, whether those funds flow to secular or 

religious organizations. It also should cite the constitutional obligation to monitor and 

enforce church-state standards in ways that avoid excessive entanglement between religion 

and government. The Council further recommends that associated regulations and guidance 

materials be similarly revised. Agreements involving federally funded social services should 

set forth the restrictions and responsibilities following those funds,59 and organizations 

that are awarded such funds should undergo training about these responsibilities and 

restrictions. The Administration should also ensure that church-state safeguards are 

included in the monitoring tools used in the audit required of all non-Federal entities 

expending $500,000 or more annually in Federal funds and all other audits of non-Federal 

entities receiving Federal funds.60

With respect to direct Federal aid, we believe policies like the following ones would fulfill 

the relevant constitutional requirements: 

53 Executive Order 13279. 

54 See Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, at http://www.

whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html 

55 GAO, Faith-Based and Community Initiative: Improvements in Monitoring Grantees and Measuring Performance Could Enhance Accountability (GAO-06-

616), June 2006 (“GAO Report”), 29. See also infra n.60.

56 GAO Report at 36. 

57 Id. at 52. 58 Id. at 53. 59 A summary and status report on the recommendations in the 2006 GAO Report indicates that, since the issuance of the 2006 report, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has implemented the GAO’s recommendation that OMB “ensure that all agencies [with centers for faith-based and 

community initiatives] include information on [church-state] safeguards in program grant documents for which faith-based organizations are eligible.” 

See Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action and Status of Those Recommendations at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-616. This 

recommendation is broader—it calls for the inclusion of information about all relevant restrictions and responsibilities that accompany Federal social 

service funds in all agreements with nongovernmental organizations involving those funds. 

60 A summary and status report on the recommendations in the 2006 GAO Report indicates that, since the issuance of the 2006 report, the OMB has 

directed “federal agencies and, where appropriate, state agencies, to include a reference to [church-state] safeguards in the[ ] monitoring tools the 

agencies use to oversee federally funded grantees.” See Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action and Status of Those Recommendations at 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-616. This report says, “Agencies must know 1) which office will be responsible for monitoring; 2) what means of 

monitoring will be used (site visits, spot checks by phone); 3) whether equal treatment regulations need to be added to existing compliance checklists; 

4) and must work with appropriate offices within a specific agency to address issues when monitoring efforts uncover a violation.” Id. But this report also 

notes that OMB has not yet implemented GAO’s recommendation that OMB ensure that “program-specific single audit supplements, where appropriate, 

include a reference to these safeguards.” See Summary of Recommendations for Executive Action and Status of Those Recommendations at http://www.

gao.gov/products/GAO-06-616. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 139

61 See Recommendation 10. 62 Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 620 n.16 (1988). 63 See, e.g., 45 C.F.R. Part 1050.2 (2010). Some programs, including substance abuse prevention and treatment services programs, provide that the 

Government may enter into agreements with nongovernmental intermediaries authorizing those intermediaries to select nongovernmental subgrantees 

or subcontractors. See, e.g., 42 C.F.R. Part 54.12 (2010)(“If a nongovernmental organization (referred to here as an ‘intermediate organization’), acting 

under a contract or other agreement with the Federal Government or a State or local government, is given the authority under the contract or agreement 

to select nongovernmental organizations to provide services under any applicable program, the intermediate organization shall have the same duties 

under this part as the government.”)

64 See Recommendation 7.

• Grant and contract documents that spell out applicable constitutional, legal, and 

regulatory standards, including church-state safeguards, and requirements that all 

grantees and contractors sign assurances reflecting their agreement to abide by 

these standards. 

• Reporting documents that ask grantees and contractors questions such as whether 

they offer any explicitly religious activities that are privately funded. If providers do 

offer such activities, reporting documents should ask them to describe the method 

by which they separate privately funded religious content from the governmentfunded program; steps they have taken to ensure that beneficiaries understand they 

are not in any way required to participate in any privately funded religious activities; 

and steps providers have taken to help beneficiaries understand that they have the 

right to obtain benefits from an alternate provider if they object to the character of 

their current provider.61 These reporting documents also should ask such grantees 

and contractors about the uses of government funds and means of tracking the 

use of those funds. These questions should appear on reporting forms required of 

all providers. If these questions are inapplicable because a provider does not offer 

privately funded religious activities, the provider would so note. 

• Follow up on these reporting documents with telephone calls or onsite visits as 

necessary. 

Some obligation to monitor and enforce applicable constitutional, statutory, or regulatory 

standards applies to every entity that disburses Federal social service funds, whether it is a 

Federal agency, a State or local governmental body, or a governmental or nongovernmental 

intermediary.62 An intermediary is an organization that accepts government funds 

and distributes those funds to a network of other organizations that in turn provide 

government-funded social services.63 The Federal Government must take special care to 

ensure that intermediaries understand and carry out the oversight responsibilities assigned 

to them. Accordingly, the Council also recommends that the Administration develop 

guidance for intermediaries concerning their obligations to monitor subgrantees and 

subcontractors. 

Likewise, nongovernmental organizations receiving federally funded subgrants or 

subcontracts from nongovernmental or governmental intermediaries must understand 

that they are subject to the same church-state standards that apply to the nongovernmental 

organizations receiving the primary government grants or contracts.64 For example, 

subgrantees and subcontractors must separate explicitly religious content from programs 

funded by direct government aid just as grantees and contractors must do. The Council 

recommends that every federally funded program utilizing nongovernmental intermediaries 

make this point clear in relevant regulations and guidance materials as well as in contracts 

and grant agreements.
140 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Finally, the Council believes the Administration should ensure that each governmental body 

that disburses Federal funds has a mechanism in place to allow that body to take necessary 

enforcement actions for noncompliance with church-state standards as well as other 

applicable standards.65 

Recommendation 10: Assure the religious liberty rights of the clients and 

beneficiaries of federally funded programs by strengthening appropriate protections.

Existing statutes and Federal executive branch regulations, an executive order, and guidance 

materials provide that all organizations that receive Federal funds for the purpose of 

delivering social welfare services are prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries 

or potential beneficiaries of those programs on the basis of religion or religious belief. There 

is variance among these authorities about the specifics of the protections, but the principle 

they seek to uphold is uniform. 

The Council recommends that such requirements and protections continue to be clearly 

stated in all Requests for Proposals (RFPs), contracts and guidance materials, and 

monitoring guidelines.

The Council further recommends that the Administration take certain additional steps to 

bolster the protections of beneficiaries’ rights and make the protections uniform across 

Federal programs. 

These steps include:

1. Amending Executive Order 1327966 to apply the protections codified in the 

legislation and regulations of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) program,67 with appropriate modifications, to all service 

provision program partnerships that receive direct Federal funding 68, including 

three modifications recommended by the Council:

65 See, e.g., 41 C.F.R. Part 60 (describing purview of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs in the Department of Labor). 66 Executive Order 13279. 

67 Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 290kk-1, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 300x-65, et seq., regulations were promulgated at 42

C.F.R. Part 54 (and Part 54a similarly) that provide: 

§54.7 Nondiscrimination requirement. 

A religious organization that is a program participant shall not, in providing program services or engaging in outreach activities under applicable 

programs, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a 

religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice. 

§54.8 Right to services from an alternative provider. 

(a) General requirements. If an otherwise eligible program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary objects to the religious character of a program 

participant, within a reasonable period of time after the date of such objection, such program beneficiary shall have rights to notice, referral, and 

alternative services, as outlined in subsections 54.8(b)-(d) below.

(b) Notice. Program participants that refer an individual to alternative service providers, and the State government that administers the applicable 

programs, shall ensure that notice of the individual’s right to services from an alternative provider is provided to all program beneficiaries or prospective 

beneficiaries. The notice must clearly articulate the program beneficiary’s right to a referral and to services that reasonably meet the requirements 

of timeliness, capacity, accessibility, and equivalency as discussed in this section. A model notice is set out in Appendix A to Part 54a. 

(c) Referral to an Alternative Provider. If a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary objects to the religious character of a program 

participant that is a religious organization, that participating religious organization shall, within a reasonable time after the date of such objection, refer 

such individual to an alternative provider. The State shall have a system in place to ensure that referrals are made to an alternative provider. That 

system shall ensure that the following occurs: 

(1) the religious organization that is a program participant shall, within a reasonable time after the date of such objection, refer the beneficiary to an 

alternative provider; 

(2) in making such referral, the program participant shall consider any list that the State or local government makes available to entities in the geographic 

area that provide program services, which may include utilizing any treatment locator system developed by SAMHSA; 

(3) all referrals shall be made in a manner consistent with all applicable confidentiality laws, including, but not limited to, 42 C.F.R. Part 2 (“Confidentiality 

of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records”); 

(4) upon referring a program beneficiary to an alternative provider, the program participant shall notify the State or responsible unit of government of

such referral; and (continued on page 141)
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 141

a. The protections clearly require, and state in all relevant documents, that 

program providers must give beneficiaries notice of their rights in writing 

at the time the beneficiary enters or joins the program.

b. The protections clarify that the protected refusal to “actively participate” 

in a religious practice includes the refusal to even attend such a practice. 

c. The protections clearly affirm that a beneficiary who requests an alternative 

service provider, due to that beneficiary’s objection to the religious character 

of the initial service provider, shall have his or her objection redressed either 

by referral to an alternative provider which is religiously acceptable to the 

beneficiary, or an alternative provider which is secular.

2. Amending agency regulations and revise guidance to reflect these changes.

Background and Explanation:

There is clear precedent and consensus for the vigorous protection of the religious liberties 

of beneficiaries of federally funded programs. The “Welfare Reform” statute, for example, 

contains explicit provisions on this matter.69 Similarly, the legislation proposed in 2001 

during the Bush administration to expand and codify “charitable choice” across the universe 

of Federal social welfare programs contained not only the protections previously enacted in 

TANF and three other program statutes, but went further to assure the right of an eligible 

beneficiary to demand a secular alternative program and would have placed the obligation 

on the Federal or State agency to assure its provision.70

One cannot assume that those who are seeking aid through the array of federally funded 

social welfare programs would be aware of their religious liberty rights. Thus, a notice 

requirement of those rights to program beneficiaries is essential and should be provided at 

the outset of the person’s participation in the federally funded program. 

But notice alone may be insufficient to protect the rights of an eligible beneficiary without 

the actual availability of an alternate means of receiving the service delivery. It is also 

essential that grantee agencies, particularly their staff and volunteers who interact directly 

with beneficiaries, are educated and trained with regard to these parameters. As discussed 

in Recommendation 9, granting agencies should have such training as a component of their 

work with grantees once awards are made and prior to implementation.

The Council understands that implementing this recommendation could result in significant 

costs for the government. Nonetheless, Council members believe the government must take 

these steps in order to provide adequate protection for the fundamental religious liberty 

rights of social service beneficiaries. 

(5) the program participant shall ensure that the program beneficiary makes contact with the alternative provider to which he or she is referred.

(d) Provision and Funding of Alternative Services. If an otherwise eligible applicant or recipient objects to the religious character of a SAMHSA-funded 

service provider, the recipient is entitled to receive services from an alternative provider. In such cases, the State or local agency must provide the 

individual with alternative services within a reasonable period of time, as defined by the State agency. That alternative provider must be reasonably 

accessible and have the capacity to provide comparable services to the individual. Such services shall have a value that is not less than the value of the 

services that the individual would have received from the program participant to which the individual had such objection, as defined by the State agency. 

The alternative provider need not be a secular organization. It must simply be a provider to which the recipient has no religious objection. States may

define and apply the terms “reasonably accessible,” “a reasonable period of time,” “comparable,” “capacity,” and “value that is not less than.” The 

appropriate State or local governments that administer SAMHSA-funded programs shall ensure that notice of their right to alternative services is provided 

to applicants or recipients. The notice must clearly articulate the recipient’s right to a referral and to services that reasonably meet the timeliness, 

capacity, accessibility, and equivalency requirements discussed above.

68 See Recommendation 7 and accompanying footnote 41. 69 42 U.S.C. Section 604a(e) (2010).

70 See HR7, Community Solutions Act of 2001, Section1994a. 
142 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Recommendation 11: Reduce barriers to obtaining 501(c)(3) recognition.

The Council recommends that the Administration reduce some of the administrative 

burdens and other costs associated with obtaining formal recognition of 501(c)(3) status, 

because this reduction would facilitate the voluntary pursuit of that formal recognition and 

the creation of separate 501(c)(3) entities.

Background and Explanation:

In general, religious organizations may be formally recognized as exempt from Federal income 

tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in two ways: (1) under an 

individual exemption determination letter issued by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (i.e., 

by individual request), or (2) by coverage as a subordinate organization under a group tax 

exemption issued by IRS to a church or religious denomination (i.e., by “group ruling”).

In addition, under section 508(c)(1)(A) of the IRC, certain religious organizations—namely, 

churches,71 integrated auxiliaries of a church,72 and conventions or associations of churches 

(hereinafter, “Self-Declared 501(c)(3)s”)—may qualify for exemption under section 501(c)

(3) without obtaining either an exemption determination letter or inclusion in a church 

group ruling. In other words, the IRS automatically considers these entities to be 501(c)(3) 

tax-exempt organizations; they are not required to apply for and obtain formal recognition 

of that status from the IRS.73

Council members agree that, where a government program requires private providers to 

be 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations,74 it is advisable for Self-Declared 501(c)(3)s that 

want to participate either (1) to obtain one of the two types of formal recognition of its own 

501(c)(3) status or (2) to create a separate entity and obtain formal recognition of its 501(c)

(3) status. Council members agree that the formal recognition associated with either course 

would provide valuable proof of a provider’s 501(c)(3) status. 

Council members also agree that the process for the formal recognition of 501(c)(3) status 

should be streamlined. The cost and administrative burden of these processes deter even 

willing Self-Declared 501(c)(3)s from undertaking them. Among the concrete steps the 

Administration could take would be to have the IRS create an “EZ application form” for 

501(c)(3) status, waive existing filing fees, expedite processing, and take other steps to help 

smaller organizations to form separate 501(c)(3) organizations.75

71 The IRS uses the word “church” as a generic term for all houses of worship. This recommendation does the same. 

72 An integrated auxiliary of a church is an organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code, other than a private foundation, is affiliated with 

a church, and is qualified as “internally supported.” An organization is considered internally supported unless it both:

(1) Offers admissions, goods, services, or facilities for sale, other than on an incidental basis, to the general public (except goods, 

services, or facilities sold at a nominal charge or substantially below cost), and

(2) Normally receives more than 50 percent of its support from a combination of governmental sources; public solicitation of 

contributions (such as through a community fund drive); and receipts from the sale of admissions, goods, performance of services, 

or furnishing of facilities in activities that are not unrelated trades or businesses.

See IRC § 6033(a)(3)(A)(i); Treas. Reg. § 1.6033-2(h). 73 See “IRS Tax Guide for Churches and Other Religious Organizations,” IRS Publ. 1828 (Rev. 6-2008) at 3 (available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/

p1828.pdf).

74 Government programs are sometimes implemented by for-profit providers, or nonprofit providers that need not be 501(c)(3)s. In those cases, this 

rationale for seeking some type of formal recognition would not apply.

75 See, e.g., The Care Act of 2003 (S.476), Section 304 (“Expedited Review Process for Certain Tax-Exemption Applications”) (available at http://frwebgate.

access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s476rs.txt.pdf). This Act was introduced in the Senate in 2003, but it was never 

subject to a vote. See also Harris Wofford, et al., “Finding Common Ground,” at 22 (January 2002) (available at http://www.sfcg.org/programmes/us/

report.pdf).
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 143

Recommendation 12: Promote other means of protecting religious liberty in the 

delivery of government-funded social services.

The Council recommends that the Administration comprehensively gather existing, 

successful means of keeping direct aid separate from explicitly religious activities and 

promote those means to faith-based providers that may receive such aid. In consultation 

with nongovernmental providers that receive (or have received) direct Federal social service 

funds, the Administration should develop a list of best practices regarding accounting 

procedures and tracking mechanisms that help facilitate and demonstrate the constitutional 

use of those funds. The Administration should then promote those methods among faithbased providers, which at once informs them of their constitutional obligations and offers 

them various means to meet those obligations. 

Council members are almost evenly divided over the issue of whether the government 

should also require houses of worship that would receive direct Federal social service funds 

to form separate corporations to receive those funds. A narrow majority of the Council 

(13 members) believe the federal government should take such a step as a necessary 

means for achieving church-state separation and protecting religious autonomy, while also 

urging States to reduce any unnecessary administrative costs and burdens associated with 

attaining this status. A minority of the Council (12 members) believe separate incorporation 

is sometimes, but not always, the best means to achieve these goals and should not be 

required because it may be prohibitively costly and would disrupt or deter other successful 

and constitutionally permissible relationships.

Background and Explanation:

The Council believes that the Administration could very effectively promote compliance 

with constitutional requirements regarding the handling of direct aid—which have 

implications for church autonomy, church-state entanglement, and other important First 

Amendment principles—by providing faith-based providers with the full range of tools to 

achieve that compliance. 

In particular, the Administration could develop a list of best practices regarding accounting 

procedures and tracking mechanisms that help nongovernmental social service providers to 

implement and demonstrate proper use of Federal direct aid. Of course, the Administration 

should develop this list in consultation with nongovernmental providers that have received 

Federal social service funds and have established exemplary records in terms of compliance and 

effectiveness. 

One example of such a practice could be the creation and maintenance of a separate bank 

account for direct grant or contract funds. This step could make it easier for both the 

provider and the Government to ensure that direct aid is used only for constitutionally 

authorized purposes. It also would make it easier for the Government to identify the money 

it needs to scrutinize and regulate. Thus, this kind of practice would promote compliance 

with the constitutional principles prohibiting the use of direct aid for explicitly religious 

activities and prohibiting excessive church-state entanglement.

Council members are almost evenly divided over the issue of whether the government 

should also require houses of worship that would receive direct Federal social service funds 

to form separate corporations to receive those funds. A narrow majority of the Council (13 
144 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

members) believe that, for the good of both church and state, the Government should also 

require houses of worship that would receive direct federal social service funds to form 

separate corporations to receive those funds.76 They believe forming a separate corporation 

is a uniquely valuable and indispensable method for achieving the goals of church-state 

separation, church autonomy, accountability and transparency, and insulation from liability. 

At the same time, these Council members would also urge the Obama administration to call 

on States to explore whether their incorporation requirements place unnecessary burdens 

on bodies that would be required to form separate corporations. 

A minority of the Council (12 members) believe that although separate incorporation is 

sometimes the best way to achieve these same goals, it should not be imposed as a one-sizefits all solution.77 Depending on the provider’s size, the type of program, and many other 

factors, the costs of separate incorporation may be prohibitive, the benefits may be slim or 

none, and the alternatives may be more effective. These members believe that it suffices for the 

Administration to provide guidance that fleshes out for faith-based providers, as thoroughly 

as is feasible, the full range of effective alternatives, including separate incorporation, so that 

faith-based providers can choose the methods that are best suited to their religious beliefs and 

polity, their proposed project with the Government, and their risk tolerance. 

What follows is a summary of the deliberations among Council members surrounding the 

particular issue of separate incorporation.

* * *

Some Council members believe the Government should require churches and conventions 

or associations of churches to form separate corporations to receive direct Federal social 

service funds, while also urging States to reduce any unnecessary administrative costs and 

burdens associated with attaining this status. 

The desire to maintain a separation between the institutions of church and state counsels in 

favor of interposing an additional corporate entity between the two. Allowing government 

funds to flow directly to houses of worship will inevitably result in government regulation 

and oversight of the activities of these core religious bodies. For example, if there are 

warning signs about possible misuse of tax funds by an organization, the Government may 

search beyond an account the organization would deem to be the separate one holding 

government funds. If the organization is a house of worship, this search could raise 

profound concerns about governmental intrusion into church autonomy. If the house of 

worship forms a separate corporation, however, it would be much more difficult for the 

Government to assert a legitimate basis for looking into church records. These Council 

members believe there is value for both church and state in ensuring that this core sector 

of the religious community—houses of worship—is free from government subsidies and 

corresponding oversight.78

Likewise, the formation of a separate corporation would help shield the church from 

liability. In the event successful claims are made against the separate corporation, a court 

would generally limit recovery of claims to the assets of the separate entity.

76 These Council members are Diane Baillargeon, Anju Bhargava, Charles Blake, Fred Davie, Harry Knox, Vashti McKenzie, Otis Moss, Nancy Ratzan, 

Melissa Rogers, David Saperstein, Bill Shaw, Jim Wallis, and Sharon Watkins.

77 These Council members are Noel Castellanos, Arturo Chavez, Peg Chemberlin, Nathan Diament, Joel Hunter, Dalia Mogahed, Frank Page, Eboo Patel, 

Anthony Picarello, Larry Snyder, Richard Stearns, and Judy Vredenburgh. 

78 And, as described in Recommendation 6, entities receiving government grants or contracts would need to separate any privately funded religious 

activities from taxpayer-funded activities. Entities that would not agree to such a separation should not receive direct government aid. 79 See supra n.2 

and associated text in the body of this report.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 145

79 See, supra n.2 and associated text in the body of this report 80 See, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995). 81 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 856 (O’Connor & Breyer, JJ., concurring in the judgment). 82 See IRC Section 7611. 83 The Lobbying Disclosure Act provides that “[t]he term ‘lobbying contact’ does not include a communication” that is made by “a church, its integrated 

auxiliary, or a convention or association of churches that is exempt from filing a Federal income tax return under paragraph 2(A)(i) of section 6033(a) of 

title 26,” 2 U.S.C. § 1602(8)(B)(xviii)(2010).

84 See Melissa Rogers and E.J. Dionne, Serving People in Need, Safeguarding Religious Freedom, at 39 (2008) (“A strong case can be made that the more 

equitable and consistent position is to recognize there is a rough symmetry of exemption and limitation under First Amendment principles”), available 

at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_religion_dionne/12_religion_dionne.pdf. 85 National Congregations Study available at 

http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/explore.html.

Some Council members believe it is not only prudent to require this separation, they also 

believe constitutional concerns are implicated here, at least with regard to monetary 

aid that the Government directs to houses of worship.79 The Supreme Court has said it 

is “correct to extract from our decisions the principle that we have recognized special 

Establishment Clause dangers where the government makes direct money payments to 

sectarian institutions.”80 And some justices have noted that the Court’s “concern with direct 

monetary aid is based on more than just diversion of the aid to religious use” and that 

“the most important reason for according special treatment to direct money grants is that 

this form of aid falls precariously close to the original object of the Establishment Clause’s 

prohibition.”81 These Council members believe that prohibiting the Government from 

directing monetary aid to houses of worship is an essential step in maintaining our Nation’s 

proud tradition of church-state separation, a tradition that has helped to foster a strong and 

independent religious sector. 

Even if requiring separate incorporation were not constitutionally required, it is good public 

policy for all the reasons described above. It is quite legitimate—and necessary, these Council 

members believe—for the Government to require houses of worship that wish to receive 

direct government funds to form separate corporate entities as a way to avoid intrusions into 

these core religious bodies, maintaining a clear distinction between the institutions of church 

and state, and avoiding some of the most difficult church-state conflicts. 

And while these Council members recognize there is no perfect symmetry between 

exemption and limitation in this area, they believe requiring congregations to form separate 

corporations to receive direct government funds would be in line with other special legal 

protections for churches. For example, churches and conventions or associations of churches 

benefit from special restrictions on IRS inquiries and examinations into their operations.82 

These bodies also are exempt from registration under the Lobby Disclosure Act.83 If the 

Government treats churches specially with regard to their eligibility for government funding 

(requiring congregations that wish to seek direct government funds to form separate 

corporations), some Council members believe this will help safeguard special treatment on 

the other side of the coin—special protections for congregational autonomy.84

It is also worth noting that some congregations have joined together to form a corporation 

collectively to receive and administer government social service funds. This entity is 

separate from the congregations. Congregations may do this on an interfaith basis or in 

partnership with secular groups. Alternatively, congregations of the same faith group may 

unite to form a corporation separate from all of their respective houses of worship. These 

arrangements can make it possible for small congregations to play a role in administering 

government social service programs without having to bear the full burden of establishing 
146 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

their own separate corporation. Also, when a church creates a separate corporation, that 

corporation would be free to use physical space in church buildings to provide governmentfunded social services, assuming the church agrees to such use.

Many religiously affiliated organizations receive government funding, but National 

Congregations Study data from 1998 and 2006 to 2007 show that only 4 percent 

of congregations receive government funding.85 Likewise, a 2007 study found that 

“government grant activity was rare among congregations...”86 Still, because some houses 

of worship currently receive government funding for some of their social service work, we 

think it makes sense to ensure that the provision of service under current arrangements 

is not disrupted and to carefully consider the impact of new requirements on the effective 

delivery of services to beneficiaries. 

Toward this end, these Council members urge the Obama administration to call on States 

to explore whether their incorporation requirements place unnecessary burdens on bodies 

that would be required to form separate corporations.87 The integrity of the incorporation 

process must be maintained. But, as with the system by which an organization obtains 

formal status as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, State laws on incorporation may sometimes 

place burdens on these providers that are onerous and yet serve no significant purpose.88 

The Administration should urge each State to explore this issue. One way it could do so 

is to create a taskforce composed of State and Federal governmental officials, as well 

as representatives of small social service providers, to examine this issue and propose 

solutions where problems are identified. The Administration also could urge the National 

Association of Governors and other appropriate State bodies to put this item on their 

agendas for consideration. The Government can and should promote church-state 

separation and religious liberty while being sensitive and responsive to the practical 

challenges providers face and the urgent needs of beneficiaries.

In sum, for the reasons described above, we believe the Government should move toward 

a system that requires houses of worship to form separate corporations to receive direct 

government funding. But we recognize that this must be done carefully, and perhaps 

incrementally, and only in a way that recognizes and addresses any unnecessary burdens 

this might place on these providers and any disruptions this would cause in the delivery of 

needed social services.

* * *

Other Council members share the same basic goals—assuring compliance with separation 

requirements, protecting church autonomy, limiting liability, and promoting public 

accountability and transparency—but differ on the best means of achieving them. Forming 

a separate corporation is surely the best solution in some cases, but it is just as surely 

not the best—and may be the worst—in other cases. These members are particularly 

concerned that a blanket requirement of separate incorporation would disrupt some very 

85 National Congregations Study, available at http://www.soc.duke.edu/natcong/explore.html

86 John C. Green, American Congregations and Social Service Programs: Results of a Survey (Rockefeller Institute of Government, December 2007) at 41 

(random sample of 1,800 congregations taken from the lists of congregations provided by American Church Lists).

87 State law generally governs the requirements for incorporation.

88 See Recommendation 11. 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 147

effective, longstanding, and existing relationships with faith-based service providers. Such 

a requirement also would deter new ones from forming, all with little or no upside benefit, 

because the same goals can be achieved by less restrictive means.

Consider the example of protecting church autonomy. Many, if not all, Council members 

are keenly aware that accepting government funds may pose certain risks to religious 

institutional autonomy. But the risks vary in many ways—some risks are more likely to 

materialize than others; some risks have greater impact if they materialize than others; and 

the probability and impact of some risks can be reduced more easily than others. Risks also 

vary among providers, with different institutional structures; among religious traditions, 

with different levels of comfort in working with the Government; and among government 

programs, with different funding mechanisms and relationships with providers.

Not only might these risks to church autonomy be small in particular cases, they must be 

balanced against the administrative burdens of establishing the separate organization and 

maintaining that separate form consistent with generally accepted accounting rules and IRS 

requirements. These burdens would weigh more heavily on smaller religious 501(c)(3)s, 

and so would likely deter many of them from entering or continuing a financial relationship 

with the Government.

In addition, some Council members emphasize that the Government should not decide—

least of all categorically by a blanket rule—how much risk to a church’s institutional 

integrity is too much and which institutional forms best mitigate those risks. The church 

autonomy concerns that all Council members share may well prompt many churches to 

decide for themselves that they are better off establishing a separate corporation to accept 

government funds. But it is quite another thing for the Government to make that decision on 

churches’ behalf. Church-state separation is eroded, not reinforced, when government acts 

with the purpose of protecting churches from themselves. That separation is further eroded 

when the government action is a requirement to change the church’s institutional form.

The example of church autonomy illustrates the breadth of the variables and the complexity 

in weighing them, which counsels in favor of allowing a fact-specific, case-by-case 

assessment of whether to form a separate corporation and against a blanket rule requiring it.

Speaking more broadly, in relation to all the goals Council members hope to achieve, key 

variables include the number, size, and duration of anticipated grants or contracts relative 

to the size, budget, and capacity of the Self-Declared 501(c)(3).89 Imagine, for example, 

a large church that decides to bid on Federal funding that would represent a very small 

proportion of the church’s budget and that would provide secular job training services to 

the neighborhood surrounding the church for a fixed term of 2 years.

Is it really the case that such a small amount of money for such a short period of time 

warrants the formation of an entirely separate corporation and that no other method of 

segregating the funds will do? That the church’s receipt of these funds for this project 

“will inevitably result in government regulation and oversight of the activities” of the 

church, apart from the particular program? That participation in a terminal program will 

meaningfully tempt the church not to speak out prophetically against the Government 

when it otherwise might? That the terms of the Government’s grant or service contract—

which may require segregation of funds, the ability to audit relevant accounts and program 

performance, and whatever other measures would provide the Government sufficient 

89 See Id
148 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

transparency and accountability in its dealings with any other provider—would somehow 

prove insufficient for such a faith-based provider? That insurance would be unavailable to 

cover any liability risks associated with the program?

These Council members think not—or more precisely, think that reasonable religious 

institutions might think not, and so should not be compelled to alter their corporate 

structure as a condition of participating in a program like the one described above. In fact, 

many Self-Declared 501(c)(3)s have chosen not to create a separate corporation under 

circumstances like these, and have provided human services with government funds 

effectively, efficiently, and within constitutional bounds. These relationships would be 

disrupted (and similar, future relationships would be deterred) by any blanket rule requiring 

all churches and conventions or associations of churches to form a separate corporation.

These Council members also do not believe that the First Amendment categorically forbids 

churches or other Self-Declared 501(c)(3)s from receiving government funds. To be 

sure, these entities must take care to assure that government funds pay only for secular 

services, but this task is—to understate the point—at least possible for at least some SelfDeclared 501(c)(3); establishment of a distinct corporation is not the only way to achieve 

the requisite separation. If, for example, a church offers job training in Microsoft Office 

in its basement, and the training serves secular purposes, has no religious content, and 

the supporting government funds are properly segregated and accounted for, the bare 

fact that the service provider happens to be a church or convention or associations of 

churches should be irrelevant under the Establishment Clause.90 Indeed, to disqualify a 

service provider simply because it is “too religious” generates, rather than alleviates, First 

Amendment concerns.

Some Council members also question whether the formation of a separate corporation 

is an effective remedy to separationist concerns. Forming a separate corporation is not a 

panacea—nothing prevents that corporation from becoming just as religious as the original 

Self-Declared 501(c)(3) from which it derives. In contrast, by taking other steps more 

closely tailored to the problem—such as creating segregated bank accounts, accounting, 

and auditing systems, or even other noncorporate entities, such as trusts or single-member 

LLCs—a Self-Declared 501(c)(3) could achieve a more effective separation. Accordingly, 

these members believe that the Administration would do more to promote constitutional 

90 The controlling opinion in Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 836-67 (2000)—the concurrence of Justice O’Connor, joined by Justice Breyer—underscored 

that the mere potential for direct aid to be diverted to religious indoctrination does not violate the Establishment Clause, and that instead, a plaintiff 

must prove that the aid was actually diverted in order to prevail. Id. at 857-58. Organizations with an adequate system of internal safeguards are 

presumed to follow them in good faith, and so to comply with Establishment Clause requirements, unless proven otherwise. Id. at 863. See also supra n.3 

and associated text in the body of this report.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 149

compliance by providing faith-based providers with more nearly comprehensive guidance 

regarding the various ways they might achieve that goal—by identifying all of the tools in 

the toolbox, rather than insisting on the use of just one.

appendix 

Safeguards Required

1. Separate and Distinct Programs

Any abstinence education program with religious content must be a separate and distinct 

program from the federally funded abstinence education program, and the distinction must 

be completely clear to the consumer. Some of the ways in which this may be accomplished 

include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

• Creating separate and distinct names for the programs;

• Creating separate and distinct looks for the promotional materials used to promote 

each program; and

• Promoting only the federally funded abstinence education program in materials, 

websites, or commercials purchased with any portion of the federal funds.

45 CFR 87.1(c). ("Organizations that receive direct financial assistance from the Department 

under any Department program may not engage in inherently religious activities, such as 

worship, religious instruction, or proselytization, as part of the programs or services funded 

with direct financial assistance from the Department.”). 69 Fed. Reg. 42586, 42593 (2004).

2. Separate Presentations

Completely separate the presentation of any abstinence education program with religious 

content from the presentation of the federally funded abstinence education program by 

time or location in such a way that it is clear that the two programs are separate and distinct. 

If separating the two programs by time but presenting them in the same location, one 

program must completely end before the other program begins. 

Some of the ways in which separation of presentations may be accomplished include, but 

are not limited to, the following examples: 

• The programs are held in completely different sites or on completely 

different days.

• The programs are held at the same site at completely different times.

Separation may be accomplished through such means as: 

• Have sufficient time between the two programs to vacate the room, turn down 

the lights, leave the stage, etc. in order to reasonably conclude the first program 

before beginning the second; 

• Completely dismiss the participants of the first program; 

• The second program could follow in the same room or, where feasible, in a 

different room to further distinguish the difference between the programs. 
150 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

• The programs are held in different locations of the same site at the same time.

Separation may be accomplished through such means as: 

• Completely separate registration locations; and 

• Completely separate areas where programs are held such as by room, hallway, 

or floor, etc. 

45 CFR 87.1(c). ("If an organization conducts [inherently religious] activities, the activities 

must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded with 

direct financial assistance from the Department....”). 69 Fed. Reg. 42586, 42593 (2004).

Note: federal guidelines that have been drafted for situations where a federal grantee also 

provides religious programming use examples where an organization offered programs 

that are completely different from each other such as a soup kitchen and a prayer meeting. 

Because the SRT organization offers two programs that both promote abstinence until 

marriage and because the clients served are children, it is very important that the 

separation between the programs be accentuated.

3. Religious Materials

Eliminate all religious materials from the presentation of the federally funded abstinence 

education program. This includes:

• Rings with religious messages;

• Bibles;

• Abstinence vows with religious references;

• Registration materials that include religious inquiries or references;

• Follow up activities that include or lead to religious outreach; and

• Religious content in parent materials.

45 CFR 87.1. (c). (“If an organization conducts [inherently religious] activities, the activities 

must be offered separately, in time or location, from the programs or services funded with 

direct financial assistance from the Department....”) 69 Fed. Reg. 42586, 42593 (2004).

4. Cost Allocation

Demonstrate that federal funds are only being used for the federally funded abstinence 

education program. Some of the ways in which separation of funds may be accomplished 

include, but are not limited to, the following examples:

• Implement the use of time sheets that keep track of all staff hours charged to the 

federally funded grant, whether the staff work in other programs or not.

• Require any staff working in both federally funded programs and other programs to 

clearly indicate how many hours are spent on each program.

• If any staff work on both a federally funded program and a non-federally funded 
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 151

program at the same site on the same day, require the staff to clearly indicate not 

only how many hours are spent on the federal program but also which specific 

hours are spent on the federal program. The hours should reflect that time spent 

on any abstinence education program with religious content have been completely 

separated from hours spent on the federally funded abstinence education program.

• Show cost allocations for all items and activities that involve both programs such as 

staff time, equipment, or other expenses such as travel to event sites.

This may be accomplished through such means as:

• Example: if transportation is used to go to a site where a federally funded 

abstinence education program is conducted and a religious or non-religious 

program funded through other means is also conducted by the grantee at the 

same site, one half of the travel costs (gas, lodging, etc.) should be charged to the 

federal program. If three separate and distinct programs are conducted at a site 

by a federally funded grantee and one of them is the federally funded program, 

only one third of the travel costs should be charged to the federal program, etc.

• Example: if an electronic device is used 30% of the time for federally funded 

abstinence education program, this should be demonstrated through clear 

record keeping. Only 30% of the cost of the electronic device should be charged 

to the program.

OMB Circular A-I22, Attachment A. Section A.4.a.(2); 45 C.F.R.. 87.1.

5. Advertisements

Federally funded programs cannot limit advertising the grant program services to only 

religious target populations.

45 CFR 87.1 (e). (“An organization that participates in programs funded by direct financial 

assistance from the department shall not, in providing services, discriminate against a 

program beneficiary or prospective beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief.”)

6. Invitation to Religious Program 

At the end of the federally funded abstinence education program, grantee may provide a 

brief and non-coercive invitation to attend the religious abstinence education program. 

The invitation should make it very clear that this is a separate program from the federally 

funded abstinence education program, that participants are not required to attend, and 

that participation in federally funded programs are not contingent on participation in other 

programs sponsored by the grantee organization.

Religious materials, such as the Silver Ring Thing Bible, a ring with religious elements, and 

registration that includes religious follow-up may only be provided in the privately funded 

program rather than the federally funded program.

45 CFR 87.1 (c). (“participation [in any privately funded inherently religious activities ] must 

be voluntary for beneficiaries of the programs or services funded with [direct federal financial] 

assistance.”) 69 Fed. Reg. 42586, 42593 (2004).
152 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 153

Bios of council members 

Diane Baillargeon

Diane Baillargeon is President/CEO of Seedco, a national nonprofit organization that 

supports low-income people and communities in their efforts to move toward economic 

prosperity. In partnership with community and faith-based organizations, Seedco operates 

workforce development, benefits access and small business assistance programs in fifteen 

states and the District of Columbia. She recently served as a member of the NYC Mayor’s 

Commission on Economic Opportunity. Prior to joining Seedco, Ms. Baillargeon served as 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy Management of the NYS Department of Social Services 

and as Deputy Administrator for Program Development in NYC’s Human Resources 

Administration.

Anju Bhargava

Anju Bhargava is a Credit Risk and Strategic Business Transformation senior professional. 

A change catalyst pioneer and social entrepreneur, she has worked to build healthy 

communities in corporate and community arenas in U.S. and India. A former Community 

Builder Fellow, she has provided thought leadership in the public and private sectors, 

published papers and received many awards. Her distinctive research based approach 

leverages best practices from many spheres - education, government, civic, social, faith 

based, and corporate. Early in her tenure on the Council she formed Hindu American Seva 

Charities to mobilize Hindu Americans to volunteer and develop sustainable faith based 

Seva Centers which could address priority social service needs of the community and 

strengthen America. 

Bishop Charles Blake

Bishop Charles E. Blake serves as Presiding Bishop of the Church of God in Christ. Founder 

and CEO of Save Africa's Children, Bishop Blake oversees the support of more than 

100,000 children, in 340 orphan care programs, throughout more than 23 nations on the 

continent of Africa. Bishop Blake was also the founding Chairman of the Board of Directors 

for C.H. Mason Theological Seminary. In 2006 he served on the Los Angeles Board of the 

Azusa Centennial Celebration. He serves as the Chairman and Founder of the Los Angeles 

Ecumenical Congress (LAEC), an interdenominational coalition of religious leaders and 

pastors. 

Noel Castellanos

Noel serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Christian Community Development 

Association based in Chicago, IL, which works to inspire, train and connect Christian leaders 

and their organizations to restore under-resourced communities. CCDA currently works 

with over 5000 faith-based organizations throughout the world. He is the author of A Heart 

for the Community, New Models for Urban and Suburban Ministry, and has contributed to 

various other books and publications, including Deep Justice in a Broken World. He currently 

serves on President Obama’s Council for Faith and Neighborhood Partnerships.
154 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Dr. Arturo Chávez

Dr. Arturo Chávez is the President of the Mexican American Catholic College in San Antonio, 

Texas. He has worked for over 28 years as a teacher, youth minister, a chaplain to the 

incarcerated, and a community organizer. He has been instrumental in establishing faithbased partnerships in Texas to address the urgent needs of families who are poor and 

disenfranchised. His commitment to community-based activism, education, and peacebuilding continues through his ministry as a teacher, facilitator, and international speaker. 

Dr. Chávez holds a Masters degree from Oblate School of Theology of the Southwest, and a 

Ph.D. in Religious and Theological Studies, from the University of Denver and the Iliff School 

of Theology, with a focus on religion and social change.

The Reverend Canon Peggy Chemberlin

The Rev. Canon Peg Chemberlin is the president of the National Council of Churches of 

Christ. The NCC has 35 member judicatories and more than 45 million constituents. She 

is the first person elected from a state council of churches position. Chemberlin leads 

the Minnesota Council of Churches, and has galvanized the relationships of it constituent 

members, brought the council to be a predominate actor for the faith community in other 

sectors, and increased its budget more than five-fold. Chemberlin graduated from United 

Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, where she was awarded the academic prize for 

historical theology.

Frederick A. Davie

Frederick (Fred) Davie is Senior Director of the Arcus Foundation, which supports social 

justice that is inclusive of sexual orientation, gender identity, religion and values and race, 

and ensures conservation of the habitats of great apes. Fred is the immediate past President 

and CEO of Public/Private Ventures. Also an ordained Presbyterian minister and former 

NYC public official, Fred has deep knowledge and expertise in social justice, community 

development, and successful programming for formerly incarcerated individuals. Fred is a 

graduate of Yale Divinity School and Greensboro College. 

Nathan J. Diament

Nathan J. Diament is the Washington DC-based director of public policy for the Union of 

Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. An honors graduate of Yeshiva University and 

Harvard Law School, Diament has worked closely with members of both political parties 

to craft congressional legislation and administration policies addressing religious liberty 

issues, education reform, family friendly fiscal policies and life issues. Diament has been 

described in the press as “the face of Orthodox Judaism in Washington” and was named to 

The Forward’s list of the 50 most influential Jews. He resides in Maryland with his wife, 

Elizabeth, and their four children.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 155

Dr. Joel C. Hunter

Joel C. Hunter, M.Div., D.Min. is senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed. This 

pioneering congregation of 12,000 meets at four locations in Metro Orlando and worldwide 

via the Web. An internationally respected evangelical leader, he serves on the boards of 

the World Evangelical Alliance (420 million constituents) and the National Association of 

Evangelicals (30 million members). He is a participant in the United Nation’s Alliance of 

Civilizations, the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, and the Parliament of World Religions—and 

has been interviewed by most major media on “Compassion Issues,” including immigration 

reform, nuclear proliferation, pro-life concerns and creation care.

Harry Knox

Harry Knox is director of the Religion and Faith Program of the Human Rights Campaign 

Foundation, which seeks to amplify the voices of LGBT-affirming clergy and to help LGBT 

people of faith and their allies use faith language in advocacy. A former executive director 

of Georgia Equality and program director at Freedom to Marry, Harry is a graduate of 

Lancaster Theological Seminary and a former pastor of a United Methodist church in 

Georgia. He was the recipient of the 2000 Cordle Award for Promotion of God's Diversity 

and Lancaster Theological Seminary's 2005 Robert V. Moss Medal for Excellence in Ministry. 

Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie

Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie serves as the 117th elected and consecrated bishop 

of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Currently she is the presiding prelate of the 

13th Episcopal District which includes the State of Tennessee and the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky. She has done extensive work and expanded services to children orphaned or 

affected by HIV/Aids in regions throughout Africa. Bishop McKenzie is also the author of Not 

without a Struggle, Strength in the Struggle, Journey to the Well and Swapping Housewives. 

Bishop McKenzie is a graduate of the University of Maryland; holds a Master of Divinity from 

Howard University School of Divinity and earned her Doctor of Ministry from the United 

Theological Seminary in Ohio.

Dalia Mogahed

Dalia Mogahed is a Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim 

Studies. With John L. Esposito, Ph.D., she is coauthor of the book Who Speaks for Islam?: 

What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Mogahed also serves on the boards of Freedom House, 

Women in International Security (WIIS) and Soliya. Her analysis has appeared in The Wall 

Street Journal, Foreign Policy magazine, the Harvard International Review, the Middle East 

Policy journal, and many other academic and popular journals. In 2009, The Royal Islamic 

Strategic Studies Centre identified Mogahed as one of the 500 most influential Muslims in 

the world. 
156 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The Reverend Otis Moss, Jr.

Dr. Otis Moss, Jr. is the Pastor Emeritus of Olivet Institutional Baptist Church in Cleveland 

Ohio where he served for thirty-three years. He is a graduate of Morehouse College, and 

the Inter-denominational Theological Center. His doctor of ministry degree is from the 

United Theological Seminary. Dr. Moss has long been an active advocate for human rights 

and social justice. He was a leader in the student movement of the 60’s and worked with 

Martin Luther King, Jr. for more than a decade. His ministry is recognized worldwide. He 

has served as advisor to former Presidents Carter and Clinton. He is former chairman of the 

Board of Trustees of Morehouse College. 

Dr. Frank Page

Dr. Frank Page is serving as Vice President for the Evangelization Group at the North 

American Mission Board (NAMB) which oversees the work of more than 5,600 missionaries. 

Dr. Page is a graduate of Gardner-Webb University and received his Master of Divinity 

Degree and his Ph.D. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Most recently, Dr. 

Page served as Pastor for Taylors First Baptist Church, Taylors, South Carolina. Dr. Page 

served as President for the Southern Baptist Convention from 2006-2008, and is serving 

as a member of the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force of the Southern Baptist 

Convention, 2009-2010. 

Dr. Eboo Patel

Dr. Eboo Patel is the founder and executive director of Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicagobased institution building the global interfaith youth movement. He serves on the Religious 

Advisory Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Committee of the Aga 

Khan Foundation USA and is a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum. Dr. Patel 

is an Ashoka Fellow and was named by US News and World Report as One of America’s Best 

Leaders in 2009. He is author of the award-winning book Acts of Faith and writes a featured 

blog on religion for the Washington Post.

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr.

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr. is the General Counsel for United States Conference of Catholic 

Bishops in Washington, DC. Previously, Anthony spent seven years litigating First 

Amendment cases at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and three years as an associate 

at Covington & Burling, following a federal district court clerkship. In January 2007, he was 

named to The American Lawyer's list of the top 50 litigators under age 45. Anthony earned 

his J.D. from the University of Virginia, an A.M. in Religious Studies from the University 

of Chicago, and an A.B. in Social Anthropology and Comparative Religion from Harvard 

University.

Nancy Ratzan

Nancy Ratzan is president of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), a grassroots 

organization of volunteers and advocates at the forefront of social justice for over a century. 

Nancy, an attorney by profession, has spent the last two decades mobilizing progressive 

Jewish women to create social change, locally, nationally and in Israel, though grassroots 

engagement around issues effecting women, children, families and civil rights. Nancy was 

the second women to serve as president of a large reform congregation in Miami Beach and 

founding chair of The Open Tent, creating diverse partnerships, outreach and innovative 

initiatives in the Jewish world.
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 157

Melissa Rogers

Melissa Rogers serves as director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake 

Forest University Divinity School and as a nonresident senior scholar in the Governance 

Studies program of The Brookings Institution. Rogers previously served as the executive 

director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and as general counsel of the Baptist 

Joint Committee on Religious Liberty. In 2008 Baylor University Press published a casebook 

co-authored by Rogers, Religious Freedom and the Supreme Court. Rogers earned her law 

degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and she graduated Phi Beta Kappa 

from Baylor University.

Rabbi David Saperstein

Rabbi David Saperstein represents the Reform Jewish Movement to Congress and the 

Administration as the Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC). 

During his over three-decade tenure at the helm of the RAC, Rabbi Saperstein has headed 

several national religious coalitions, including the Coalition to Protect Religious Liberty. He 

serves on the board of numerous national organizations including the NAACP, People For the 

American Way, Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life and the World Bank’s “World 

Faith Development Dialogue.” In 1999, Rabbi Saperstein was elected as the first Chair of the 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Also an attorney, Rabbi Saperstein 

teaches seminars in First Amendment Church-State Law and in Jewish Law at Georgetown 

University Law School.

The Reverend William J. Shaw

Reverend Dr. William J. Shaw has served as Pastor of the historic White Rock Baptist Church 

in West Philadelphia since 1956. Reverend Dr. Shaw graduated from Bishop College in 1954 

and has also received a master of divinity and doctor of ministry. His current affiliations 

include Chairman of the Trustee Board for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania 

and is a member ex officio on the Board of Penn Medicine. He chaired the hospital’s Human 

Resources Subcommittee and served on its Long-Range Planning Committee and the 

Martin Luther King, Jr., Fellows in Black Church Studies. Dr. Shaw served as President of the 

National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. from 1999-2009.

The Reverend Larry J. Snyder

As its president since 2005, Rev. Larry Snyder leads Catholic Charities USA—the national 

office of over 1,700 local Catholic Charities agencies and institutions nationwide. Working 

to reduce poverty in America, Catholic Charities nationwide serve more than 8.5 million 

people of all faiths a year. Father Snyder served more than 14 years at Catholic Charities of 

St. Paul-Minneapolis, including five years as its executive director. He is a member of the 

President’s Council of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The Nonprofit Times has 

recognized Father in its annual “Power and Influence Top 50.” Pope Benedict XVI named 

him to the Pontifical Council Cor Unum, which oversees the Catholic Church's worldwide 

charitable activities.
158 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

Richard E. Stearns

Since 1998, Mr. Stearns has served as president of World Vision U.S., one of the largest 

NGOs in the United States. Prior to joining World Vision, Mr. Stearns held CEO positions 

for two corporations. He chronicles his journey from the for-profit sector to the non-profit 

sector in his book, “The Hole in Our Gospel”, published last year. He has served on the 

boards of InterAction, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, and USAID’s 

Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid, among others. He holds degrees from Cornell 

University and The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.

Judith Vredenburgh

Judy Vredenburgh is a seasoned executive, having held executive leadership positions in 

the nonprofit as well as private sector. Most recently, Judy served as President and CEO 

of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, a $300 million organization. Under her leadership, 

the organization doubled its capacity, expanded evidence based programs serving at risk 

youth, created an innovative technology system to measure performance and outcomes, 

and developed extensive public-private partnerships. Prior to this, Judy served as Senior VP 

of Strategic Marketing and Revenue Development for the March of Dimes Foundation. Judy 

received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania, her M.B.A. from SUNY, Buffalo and 

holds honorary doctorates from Philadelphia University and Lynchburg College.

Jim Wallis

Jim Wallis is a bestselling author, public theologian, and frequent speaker on faith and public 

life. He is the author of God’s Politics, and his latest book is Rediscovering Values: On Wall 

Street, Main Street, and Your Street. He is President and CEO of Sojourners and editor-inchief of Sojourners magazine, whose combined print and electronic media have a readership 

of more than 250,000 people. His columns appear in major newspapers and blogs, and he 

regularly appears as a television and radio commentator. He is a husband, father of two 

young boys, and a Little League baseball coach. 

The Reverend Dr. Sharon E. Watkins

Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins serves as General Minister and President of the Christian Church 

(Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada. Dr. Watkins is a member of the Central 

Committee of the World Council of Churches and serves on the WCC's Permanent Committee 

for Consensus and Collaboration. She also serves on the National Council of Church's 

Governing Board. Dr. Watkins holds a Doctor of Ministry degree from Phillips Theological 

Seminary in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a Master of Divinity from Yale Divinity School, and a 

Bachelor's Degree in French and Economics from Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.

 
A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 159
160 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 161

Photography Credits

Page 1- Photo Credit: United Way Worldwide

Page 9- Photo Credit: United Way Worldwide

Page 10- Photo Credit: Laura Sikes for Catholic 

Charities USA

Page 18- Photo Credit: United Way Worldwide

Page 25- Students at Esperanza Academy 

Charter High School gather for a special event 

during graduation week. Reverend Luis Cortés, 

Jr., President and founder of Esperanza, opened 

the charter high school in 2002; currently, it 

provides high-quality education to 700 minority 

and low-income inner city students per year. 

Photo Credit: Esperanza Inc.

Page 26- Fatherhood Initiative picnic in 2009. 

Seedco’s Fatherhood Initiative celebrates 

the successes of fathers working to further 

connections with their children with a picnic on 

Father’s Day. Photo Credit: Seedco

Page 32- Photo Credit: Marshall Clarke for 

Center for Urban Families

Pg. 66 – Agronomist Mariela Zamora, LEFT, 

examines the health of coffee trees with coffee 

farmer Rosa Amelia Centano Centano (cq), 52. 

Centano is one of five members of Fundacion 

Entre Mujeres/Foundation Among Women 

(FEM) a collective group of women formed in 

1999 to pool their knowledge, resources and 

land to produce crops in a quantity that gives 

them more power in the marketplace. FEM 

is made up of five families, four of which are 

women-run households who share the workload 

and profits from their efforts growing coffee, 

corn, beans and jimaica. ACORDAR which began 

in 2007, is providing assistance in increasing the 

amount of land already owned by FEM that will 

be producing coffee. ACRODAR will also provide 

the collective with a more modern and efficient 

wetmill to process the coffee cherries into the 

coffee beans. Photo Credit: Photo by Rick D’Elia 

for Catholic Relief Services

Page 68- Leadership Consultation on Interfaith 

Action on Malaria, December 12, 2008, hosted 

by the Center for Interfaith Action on Global 

Poverty (CIFA) and the Berkeley Center for 

Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. Photo 

Credit: Donovan Marks

Page 72- Dr. Williams F. Vendley, Secretary 

General, Religions for Peace, working with 

His Eminence The Archbishop of Canterbury 

and other religous leaders on the formation 

of multireligious partnerships. Photo Credit: 

Religions for Peace

Page 81- Photo Credit: Dr. Ingrid Mattson, 

Islamic Society of North America

Page 92 - The opening ceremony at the 

Indonesia-US Interfaith Cooperation Forum, 

a key follow-up to President Obama's Cairo 

speech. From right to left: Dr. Williams F. 

Vendley, Secretary General of Religions for 

Peace; Dr. Din Syamsuddin, President of 

Muhammadiyah and an Honorary President 

of Religions for Peace; K.H. Hasyim Muzadi, 

General Chairman, Nahdlatul Ulama and 

a Co-President of Religions for Peace; U.S. 

Ambassador Cameron Hume; H.E. Dr. Marty 

Natalegawa, Indonesian. Photo Credit: 

Religions for Peace

Page 93- Nigerian Interfaith Action Association 

(NIFAA) Co-Chairs Archbishop John Onaiyekan 

and Sultan of Sokoto Muhammad Sa’adu 

Abubakar at the Faiths United for Health Launch 

in Abuja, December 2009. NIFAA will train and 

mobilize over 300,000 Muslim and Christian 

faith leaders to partner with the national 

malaria campaign. Photo Credit: CIFA 2009/

Sarah Day

Pg. 94 – Across rural villages in mountainous 

Afghanistan, children can be seen making their 

way to pre-school with their young mothers 

and older sisters, also carrying books for their 

own accelerated learning courses. Just five or six 

years ago, education was something experienced 

only by brothers, husbands and fathers, and 

only if the family had the means to send them 

to a government school possibly several miles 

away. Since 2003, Catholic Relief Services has 

been working with local partners in rural, 

marginalized Afghan communities to strengthen 

access to schools and quality education for boys, 

girls and young adult women who missed out on 
162 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

education during the formal rule of the Taliban. 

This photo shows students on the first day 

of the opening of their new school outside of 

the city of Herat, moments after they received 

their new school supplies and materials. Photo 

Credit: Agustinus Wibowo for Catholic Relief 

Services

Pg. 96 -Emerendino Dias Torres (orange shirt), 

works with son-in-law Ferreira Edmilson De 

Almeida on the younger man’s farm in Santa 

Barbara, Brazil. It is common for family and 

community members to join forces to quickly 

accomplish a needed task on each others 

farms. The family has been trained in better 

farming and irrigation techniques, learning to 

care for their soil and plant crops in addition 

to the traditional mantioc (cassava) to have 

success even during the dry times. Receiving 

assistance through the Family Agriculture 

Empowerment and Gender programs of 

Movimento de Organizao Comunitaria/ 

Movement of Community Organization (MOC), 

they have learned to plant a variety of crops, 

including lettuce, onions, oranges and beans, 

among others to keep the soil healthy, provide a 

more balanced diet and to earn some addtional 

income. In the past many farmers only planted 

the manioc which caused the deterioration 

of the soil on many farms across the region. 

To make matters worse, the Semi-Arid region 

often suffers through seasons of erratic rainfall 

making it difficult to grow certain crops 

consistently without the new techniques.

Photo Credit: Rick D’Elia for Catholic Relief 

Services

Page 98-Photo Credit: Jon Warren for World 

Relief

Page 99-Photo Credit: World Vision

Page 101- Women attending the launch of the 

Faiths United for Health Campaign hosted by the 

Nigerian Inter-faith Action Association in Abuja, 

Nigeria December 2009. Photo Credit: CIFA 

2009/Sarah Day 

Page 104- Photo Credit: American Jewish 

World Service

Page 108- Photo Credit: Jon Warren for World 

Relief

Page 109- Photo Credit: Church World Service

Page 110- Photo Credit: Sam Worthington, 

InterAction

Pg. 112 - Ysidro de Jesus Torrez Laguna waters 

tomato seedlings in an ACORDAR-funded 

greenhouse in La Sirena, Esteli, Nicaragua. The 

Association of Social Development in Nicaragua 

(ASDENIC) works with farmers in the La Sirena 

area to improve farming techniques. after 

being held in a planting house for four days 

to germinate, the plants are laid out in the 

greenhouse to grow for 15-20 days before being 

planted in the farmers fields. The greenhouse 

can produce 200,000 plants at a time with a 

loss of about five percent of the plants.

Photo Credit: Photo by Rick D’Elia for Catholic 

Relief Services

Pg. 114 - Community president Edwin Roblero 

Barios prepares rations of oil for a Catholic 

Relief Services and Catholic Relief Services 

partner CARITAS Guatemala food distribution 

in the Sanajaba community in the Northern 

highlands of San Marcos, Guatemala. Expectant 

mothers and mothers with children under 

three years of age receive the supplemental 

food rations as well as educational workshops 

in order to promote proper childhood 

development. Guatemala has the highest levels 

of malnutrition in Latin America. The infant 

mortality rate is 33 percent higher than the 

regional average. Photo Credit: Photo by Sara 

A. Fajardo/Catholic Relief Services

Pg. 115- Girls gather at a spot on the edge of 

the village to play together. Boys and girls fall 

into their traditional roles at early ages in rural 

India, which leaves little time for idleness and 

play. 

Photo credit: David Snyder/Catholic Relief 

Services

Pg. 159- Photo Credit: United Way Worldwide

All other photographs in the book are 

provided by Corbis Images 2002-2010.
 

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommendations to the President - March 2010 163
164 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW

Washington, DC 20006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/partnerships