An Evaluation of the Participation of Faith-Based and Community Organizations in U.S. 

Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs and as Supplemental Educational 

Services Providers 

Joseph McCrary 

Adrienne Hosek 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

U.S. Department of Education 

December 2007
U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Bill Evers 

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

December 2007 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Although permission 

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, An Evaluation of the 

Participation of Faith-Based and Community Organizations in U.S. Department of Education Discretionary Grant 

Programs and as Supplemental Educational Services Providers, Washington, D.C., 2007. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or (202) 260-0818. 
iii 

Contents 

List of Exhibits ....................................................................................................................... iv 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... vi 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 

Data and Methodology ........................................................................................................... 3 

Results ................................................................................................................................... 10 

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 29 
iv 

Exhibits 

Exhibit E-1. Percentage of Program Applications From Faith-Based or Community 

Organizations, FY 2001 to FY 2004.................................................................... vii 

Exhibit E-2. Percentage of Faith-Based and Community-Based Applicants That Were 

Successful in Their Grant Applications, FY 2001 to FY 2004 ............................. viii 

Exhibit E-3. Number of Faith-Based Organizations Approved by States as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005......................................................................................................... x 

Exhibit 1. Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in the Community Technology Centers 

Program, FY 2001 to FY 2004............................................................................ 5 

Exhibit 2. Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in the Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program, FY 2002 to FY 2004 ........................................................... 6 

Exhibit 3. Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in Mentoring Programs, FY 2002 and 

FY 2004.............................................................................................................. 7 

Exhibit 4. Percentage of Program Applications From Faith-Based or Community 

Organizations, FY 2001 to FY 2004.................................................................... 10 

Exhibit 5. Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to the 

Community Technology Centers, by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 to 

FY 2004.............................................................................................................. 11 

Exhibit 6. Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to the Carol 

M. White Physical Education Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 

to FY 2004.......................................................................................................... 12 

Exhibit 7. Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to Mentoring 

Programs, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004..................................... 13 

Exhibit 8. Number and Percentage of Disqualified Applications to CTC, PEP, and 

Mentoring by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 to FY 2004 ....................................... 14 

Exhibit 9. Percentage of Faith-Based and Community-Based Applicants That Were 

Successful in Their Grant Applications, FY 2001 to FY 2004 ............................. 15 

Exhibit 10. Number and Success Rate of Grant Applications for Community 

Technology Centers, by Type of Applicant ......................................................... 16 

Exhibit 11. Number and Success Rate of Grant Applications for Carol M. White 

Physical Education Program, by Type pf Applicant............................................. 17 
v 

Exhibit 12. Number and Success Rate of Grant Applications for the Mentoring 

Programs, by Type of Applicant.......................................................................... 17 

Exhibit 13. Dollar Amount and Percentage of Grant Funds Received, by Program 

and Recipient, FY 2001 to FY 2004.................................................................... 18 

Exhibit 14. Average Grant Application Scores, by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 to 

FY 2004.............................................................................................................. 20 

Exhibit 15. Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to the 

Community Technology Centers Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 

2001 and FY 2004 .............................................................................................. 21 

Exhibit 16. Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to the Carol M. 

White Physical Education Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 and 

FY 2004.............................................................................................................. 22 

Exhibit 17. Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to Mentoring 

Programs, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004..................................... 23 

Exhibit 18. Average Grant Application Scores of Successful Applicants, by Type of 

Applicant, FY 2001 to FY 2004.......................................................................... 24 

Exhibit 19. Number of Faith-Based Organizations Approved by States as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005......................................................................................................... 25 

Exhibit 20. Number of States Approving Faith-Based Organizations as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005......................................................................................................... 26 

Exhibit 21. Number of States by the Percentage of Faith-Based Supplemental 

Educational Services Providers Operating in March 2005 ................................... 27 

Exhibit 22. Faith-Based Organization Supplemental Educational Services Providers 

as a Percentage of All Providers, December 2002 to March 2005........................ 28 
vi 

Executive Summary 

Historically, faith-based organizations (FBOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) have 

been involved in the provision of social services, such as drug treatment, job training, 

community redevelopment, housing, and education. However, FBOs and CBOs have not often 

participated in U.S. Department of Education (the Department) grant programs. In 2001, the 

Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center) was created within the Department to 

“break down existing barriers and empower faith-based and community groups, enlisting them in 

support of the Department’s mission to ensure equal access to education and to promote 

educational excellence for all Americans.”1

 Since then, the Center has worked to promote 

participation by faith-based and community organizations (collectively referred to as FBCOs) in 

Department programs. This evaluation examines three questions: 

1. Are FBCOs as successful as non-FBCOs in winning discretionary grants? 

2. Has the quality of programs funded by the Department, as measured by applicant scores, 

increased from fiscal year (FY) 2001 to FY 2004 as a result of FBCO participation in the 

grant application process? 

3. How many FBOs have been approved by states as supplemental educational services 

(SES) providers under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended? 

To address questions one and two, the report presents data on three federally administered grant 

programs— Community Technology Centers (CTC), the Carol M. White Physical Education 

Program (PEP), and Mentoring Programs (Mentoring). Although these programs are markedly 

different in purpose and scope, they were selected for this report for three reasons: (1) the 

Department has worked actively to promote FBCO involvement in these programs; (2) FBCO 

participation in the three programs is large enough to permit analysis; and (3) the programs have 

run new award competitions since the inception of the Center in 2001. At the time of selection, 

CTC, PEP, and Mentoring were the only Department programs that met all three criteria for 

inclusion. The data used in these analyses derive from two sources: the Grant Award Database 

and the Grant Administration and Payment System database (GAPS). The Grant Award 

Database includes all records of applications received during an award competition. GAPS 

contains applicant information and the average score assigned by the three-person team that 

reviewed each application. 

This report also presents data on the number of FBOs that have received approval to provide 

SES. (CBO data not available.) From December 2002 through May 2005, the Department 

collected monthly information on state-approved SES providers. 
vii 

Main Findings 

Between FY 2002 and FY 2004, applications from FBCOs to CTC, PEP and Mentoring 

increased. In FY 2004, FBCOs comprised a greater proportion of the applicants for CTC and 

PEP grants than in FY 2002. Additionally, the proportion of FBCO applicants for Mentoring 

grants remained fairly consistent (Exhibit E-1). 

Exhibit E-1 

Percentage of Program Applications From Faith-Based or Community 

Organizations, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

48%

38%

9%

67%

44%

20%

51%

28%

68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Community Technology

Centers 

Carol M. White Physical

Education Program

Mentoring Programs

Program

Percentage of Applications From 

FBCOs

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004

Note: Grant competitions were not held in years for which no date are presented. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, 48 percent of the CTC grant applications received were 

from FBCOs. 
viii 

The success rates for FBCO applicants to PEP and Mentoring have, with the 

exception of FY 2003, remained fairly stable while they declined for FBCO 

applicants to the CTC grant program. Both PEP and CTC saw large increases in 

the percentages of FBCO applicants that received grants in FY 2003. The 

percentage of successful FBCO applicants for CTC grants, however, declined from 

7 percent in FY 2002 to 4 percent in FY 2004. In FY 2002 and FY 2004, the 

percentages of FBCO applicants to receive grants under PEP and Mentoring were 

fairly constant (Exhibit E-2). 

Exhibit E-2 

Percentage of Faith-Based and Community-based Applicants That Were 

Successful* in Their Grant Applications, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

9%

7%

29%

4%

13%

20%

12% 11%

10%

15%

6%

31%

10%

31%

24%

20%

7%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY

2001

FY

2002

FY

2003

FY

2004

FY

2002

FY

2003

FY

2004

FY

2002

FY

2004

Percentage of Successful FBCO Applicants

FBCO

non-FBCO

Community Technology 

Centers

Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program

Mentoring Programs

Program 

* Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, 9 percent of the eligible grant applications to the CTC grant program 

from FBCOs were successful; this decreased to 4 percent of eligible FBCO applicants in FY 2004. 

The participation of FBCOs is associated with an increase in the pool of higher-quality 

applicants to PEP and Mentoring as measured by applicant scores; the evidence for CTC is 

neutral. Among the top-scoring applicants, gaps between FBCOs and non-FBCOs in PEP 

application scores closed considerably from FY 2002 to FY 2004. In Mentoring, the top FBCO 

applicants shared similar scores to the top non-FBCO applicants in both competition years. 

These trends suggest that competition among the applicants most likely to receive awards (e.g., 

those with the highest scores) increased as a result of FBCO participation in the PEP and 

Mentoring competitions. In the CTC program, however, gaps between FBCO and non-FBCO 

application scores at the higher ends of their distributions persisted from FY 2001 to FY 2004, 

indicating that FBCO participation was not necessarily associated with an improvement in the 

pool of higher-quality applicants to this program. 
ix 

The report uses overall applicant scores as the measure of quality and does not evaluate the 

criteria by which the applicants are judged in the scoring process. In competitions for new 

awards, applicants receive scores based on several factors, including the degree to which their 

proposal meets program requirements and other aspects that may not directly relate to 

implementation. The Department may establish a competitive preference for a grant program. In 

competitions with competitive preferences, applicants are eligible to receive points in addition to 

the usual 100 points available based on selection criteria. When assessing applicant scores in this 

report, the scores reflect the peer reviewer scores plus any competitive preference. 

States approved an increasing number of faith-based organizations as supplemental 

educational services providers between December 2002, when states first began approving 

SES providers, and March 2005. The number of faith-based SES providers increased twentyfold (from 11 to 261), while the total number of approved SES providers increased fourfold 

(from 662 to 2,689) during this time period. Furthermore, the proportion of SES providers that 

are FBOs increased from 2 percent of all providers to 10 percent. Lastly, the number of states 

that have approved FBOs as SES providers grew from six in December 2002 to 29 in January 

2005. Throughout this report, the District of Columbia is classified under the term “state.” 

The lack of available data prevented more in-depth analyses of several important topics, 

especially the participation of FBCO partnerships in federal grant programs and as SES 

providers. Nonprofits, including faith-based and community-based organizations, can join with 

local districts, states, colleges and universities, and national organizations to apply for federal 

grants. In such cases, the Department records the participation of the lead applicant only and not 

the FBCO (Exhibit E-3). 

Exhibit E-3 

Number of Faith-Based Organizations Approved by States* as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005 

16 21 33

90 103 114

166

200

261

11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Dec-02

Mar-03Jun-03

Sep-03Dec-03

Mar-04Jun-04

Sep-04Dec-04

Mar-05

Date

Number of FBOs State-approved 

as SES Providers

* Includes the District of Columbia for Mar-03, Jun-03, Dec-03, Jun-04, Sep-04, 

Dec-04, and Mar-05. 

Exhibit reads: The number of faith-based supplemental educational services 

providers increased from 11 in December 2002 to 261 in March 2005. 
1 

Introduction 

Historically, faith-based organizations (FBOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) have 

been involved in the provision of social services, such as drug treatment, job training, 

community redevelopment, housing, and education. However, FBOs and CBOs have not often 

participated in U.S. Department of Education (the Department) grant programs. The White 

House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives found that, in fiscal year (FY) 2000, the 

Department awarded approximately 2 percent (25 of 1,091) of its discretionary grants to FBOs 

and CBOs (collectively referred to as FBCOs).2

 This percentage was nearly the same in the 

previous fiscal year with a slight increase from FY 1997 and FY 1998. That same report cited 

several barriers to participation by FBOCs in government regulation and oversight of federal 

grants. 

In response, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13279, “Equal Protection of the 

Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations” in December of 2002. The executive order 

mandates that federal agencies shall not discriminate against FBOs and CBOs their applications 

for federal financial assistance for the provision of social services in programs for which for they 

are eligible. Furthermore, FBOs and CBOs do not have to alter their missions, nor do they need 

to remove any religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols from their facilities. The 

executive order also enumerates several responsibilities for FBOs and CBOs that receive federal 

funds. These organizations may not engage in inherently religious activities while providing 

federally funded services. Additionally, recipient organizations of federal financial assistance 

cannot discriminate against individuals seeking program benefits on the basis of individuals’ 

religious preferences. On June 4, 2004, the Department issued final regulations on the 

participation of FBOs and CBOs in its programs to further clarify that religiously affiliated 

organizations should be able to compete on the same basis as other eligible organizations for 

Department funding within the framework of constitutional church-state guidelines.3

 

Established in early 2001, the goal of the Department’s Center for Faith-Based and Community 

Initiatives (Center) is to “break down existing barriers and empower faith-based and community 

groups, enlisting them in support of the Department’s mission to ensure equal access to 

education and to promote educational excellence for all Americans.”4

 The Center has provided 

outreach and technical assistance to FBOs and CBOs in several federal education discretionary 

grant programs, including Community Technology Centers (CTC), the Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program (PEP), and Mentoring Programs (Mentoring). In addition, the Center also has 

provided outreach and technical assistance to FBOs and CBOs that wish to be approved as 

supplemental educational services (SES) providers. 

Evaluation Purpose 

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if FBOs and CBOs are as successful as traditional 

grant recipients (non-FBCOs) in competing for the Department’s discretionary grants in 

programs in which they are eligible and in becoming SES providers. The study also investigates 
2 

whether the participation of FBO and CBO applicants in federal grant competitions has 

improved the overall quality of the applicant pool. 

This evaluation will examine three questions: 

1. Are FBCOs as successful as non-FBCOs in winning discretionary grants? 

2. Has the quality of programs funded by the Department, as measured by applicant scores, 

increased from FY 2001 to FY 2004 as a result of FBCO participation in the grant 

application process? 

3. How many FBOs have been approved by states as supplemental educational services 

providers under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended? 

This report addresses the evaluation questions through analysis of data collected from 

Department records, including grant applications, grant application reviews, and state-by-state 

summaries of SES providers. 
3 

Data and Methodology 

This evaluation focuses on the participation of FBCOs in CTC, PEP, and Mentoring. Although 

these programs are markedly different in purpose and scope, they were selected for this report for 

three reasons: (1) the Department has worked actively to promote FBCO involvement in these 

programs; (2) FBCO participation in the three programs is large enough to permit analysis; and 

(3) the programs have run new award competitions since the inception of the Center in 2001. At 

the time of selection, CTC, PEP, and Mentoring were the only Department programs that met all 

three criteria for inclusion. The report also investigates FBO participation as SES providers. 

Specifically, the report presents data on the number of FBOs states have approved to provide 

SES between December 2002 and March 2005. It was not possible to collect information on the 

participation of CBOs as SES providers for the report. This section opens with a description of 

each of the programs, including changes in focus that may affect the interpretation of data. 

Following that discussion, the section ends with a summary of each of the evaluation topics, and 

the data, concepts and methods used to answer each question. 

Data Sources 

Data used in the analyses of FBCO participation in CTC, PEP, and Mentoring in Department 

discretionary grant programs was amassed by the Department as part of a large database that 

included information on grant applicants and recipients. The Department derived the data from 

two sources: the Grant Award Database and the Grant Administration and Payment System 

database (GAPS). The Grant Award Database includes all records of applications received 

during an award competition. This data is supplemented with applicant information contained 

within the GAPS database, including the average score assigned to each application by the threeperson review team. The three grant programs under review in this report each use a peer review 

process to assess grant applications. The Department retains the services of external experts, who 

rate each application according to a specific set of criteria established by the program office that 

administers the grant program. Three reviewers evaluate each grant application, and the scores 

from the three are averaged. 

The Department may establish a competitive preference for a grant program. In competitions 

with competitive preferences, applicants are eligible to receive points in addition to the usual 100 

points available based on selection criteria. A competitive preference is established before the 

grant competition, and is a vehicle by which the Department encourages applications from 

entities that have certain characteristics or that agree to meet specified conditions of grant 

implementation. For example, the competitive preference for novice applications (generally an 

applicant that has never received a grant under the program from which it seeks funding and has 

not had any federal grant in the five prior years) is designed to help such applicants compete 

more effectively with experienced applicants who have received one or more federal grants. 

Rater scores typically range from 0 to 100, but may exceed 100 when a competitive preference 

for a grant competition has been announced by the Department. For this evaluation, the Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer assembled a database of applicants for the three programs, and the 

Department identified the FBOs and CBOs included among these applicants.5
4 

The report’s analyses of grant applicants focus solely on competitions for new awards, and do 

not include grantees that received continuation awards. The original database included records of 

both applicants and grant recipients requesting a continuation of their existing grants. Focusing 

the analyses solely on new competitions allows for a more accurate reflection of the impact of 

changes in the participation of FBOs and CBOs in Department grant programs. The analyses did 

not include the following grantees receiving continuing awards: 122 CTC grants applying for 

continuation awards in FY 2002, 121 Mentoring grants receiving continuation awards in FY 

2003, and 121 Mentoring grants receiving continuation awards in FY 2004.6 

The report also includes information on state-approved Title I SES providers, information the 

Department collected monthly from December 2002 through May 2005.7

 These lists identify 

providers that are FBOs. They do not, however, identify those that are CBOs, preventing 

analyses on the number of CBO SES providers. States are required by law to approve only those 

providers that have a demonstrated record of effectiveness and to monitor the providers’ 

effectiveness in improving student achievement in order to maintain their status as approved 

providers. 
5 

Program Descriptions 

Community Technology Centers 

The purpose of CTC was to fund local technology centers in economically distressed urban and 

rural communities. These centers provided training in information technology and other related 

areas to the community and also supplemented instruction to 9th- through 12th-grade students 

enrolled in high-poverty, low-performing schools. CTC has not been funded since 2005. CTC 

selection criteria maintained some similarity over the time period covered in this evaluation. 

However, while the competition for FY 2001 funds made no special provision for novice 

applicants, in FY 2002 novices were eligible to receive an additional five points. In FY 2003, 

the Department ran two separate competitions, one exclusively for novices and another for both 

novices and non-novices. In FY 2004, the Department ran one competition; however, the 

Department indicated it would rank and fund the two groups separately, reserving at least 75 

percent of the total program funds for non-novice applicants and up to 25 percent for novice 

applicants.8

 Furthermore, non-novices also had to meet an additional requirement—applications 

from non-novices had to include a partnership between a community organization and a local 

education agency or school. 

The dollar value of new applicants funded for CTC dropped substantially between FY 2001 and 

FY 2004 (Exhibit 1). 

Exhibit 1 

Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in the Community 

Technology Centers Program, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

Fiscal Year Amount ($) 

FY 2001 $34,414,822 

FY 2002 $12,204,954 

FY 2003 $29,577,969 

FY 2004 $9,551,518 

Note: Amounts are in actual, unadjusted dollars. 

Exhibit reads: The dollar value of CTC grants funded declined 

from $34,414,822 in FY 2001 to $9,551,518 in FY 2004. 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program 

The PEP program provides grants to local education agencies and community-based 

organizations to support efforts to initiate, expand, or improve physical education programs for 

students in grades kindergarten through 12. Applicants must include a plan to assist students in 

meeting state standards for physical education. The program requires that grantees fund at least 

10 percent of the total project cost in the first year and at least 25 percent in the second and third 
6 

years.9 In the FY 2004 competition, grantees could receive funding for up to three years; prior to 

this, awards were made for one year only. 

The PEP competition process also has changed over time. In FY 2002, the Department held one 

competition and novice applicants were eligible to receive five points added to their score. In FY 

2003, the Department held two separate competitions, one for novice applicants and one for nonnovice (and those that did not request novice status) applicants. Up to 25 percent of available 

grant funds was reserved for novice applicants.10 In FY 2004, one competition was held, and 

novice applicants received an additional five points in the review process. 

The amount of funding appropriated for the PEP program increased substantially from FY 2002 

to FY 2004 (Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2 

Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in the Carol M. 

White Physical Education Grant Program, FY 2002 

To FY 2004 

Fiscal Year Amount ($) 

FY 2002 $49,174,485 

FY 2003 $59,050,088 

FY 2004 $68,355,741 

Note: Amounts are in actual, unadjusted dollars. 

Exhibit reads: The dollar value of PEP grants funded increased 

from $49,174,000 in FY 2002 to $68,355,741 in FY 2004. 
7 

Mentoring Programs 

Mentoring Programs funds school districts, FBCOs, and partnerships between them for schoolbased mentoring programs. Mentoring Programs serves children in grades 4 through 8 in rural 

areas, high-crime areas, troubled homes, or who are enrolled in schools with violence problems. 

Mentoring projects focus on students with the greatest need to improve academic performance 

and interpersonal skills, increase the likelihood of remaining enrolled in school, and decrease the 

likelihood of joining a gang and engaging in delinquent behavior.11 Competitions for new grant 

applicants were held in FY 2002 and FY 2004. In the FY 2002 competition, novice applicants 

were eligible to receive five points in addition to the score assigned by the peer reviewers.12 In 

the FY 2004 competition, the competitive preference was changed to provide five points to 

consortia between districts and nonschool FBCOs as well as between a private school that 

qualifies as a nonprofit CBO and another, nonschool FBCO. Also, in the FY 2004 competition, 

requirements dictated that services had to be school-based. An additional statutory requirement 

called for the selection of at least one grant recipient from each state for which there is an 

eligible entity that submits an application of sufficient quality. 

The amount appropriated for Mentoring Programs increased in FY 2004 (Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3 

Dollar Amount of Grants Funded in Mentoring 

Programs, FY 2002 and FY 2004 

Fiscal Year Amount ($) 

FY 2002 $17,325,000 

FY 2004 $29,685,610 

Note: Amounts are in actual, unadjusted dollars. 

Exhibit reads: The dollar value of Mentoring Programs grants 

funded increased from $17,325,000 in FY 2002 to 

$29,685,610 in FY 2004. 

Research Topics and Organization of Results 

Results are organized along four main topics: number of applicants, applicant success rates, the 

quality of applications as measured by applicant score, and the number of SES providers. 

Number of grant applications 

The first results section reports on the number and distribution of applications received from 

FBOs, CBOs, and non-FBCOs for each of the three grant programs covered by this report. 

Growth in the number of FBO and CBO applicants is one indication that they perceive that the 

door to Department grant programs has opened. 
8 

A further question of interest is the number of eligible applications received from each type of 

provider. That is, each program has specific requirements that, if not met, will disqualify the 

application before it gets to peer review. The Grant Award Database and GAPS file system do 

not have a field to indicate that a specific applicant was determined to be ineligible to receive 

funding. However, in these cases, the applicant receives a final score of 0. The assumption is 

made in this analysis that a rater score of 0 indicates that the application was deemed ineligible. 

Note that this may slightly overstate the number of ineligible applications in that it is possible a 

review team could assign a grant application a score of 0; this is unusual, however. 

Grant application success rates 

This section examines the relative success rates for FBOs and CBOs compared with other 

organizations and whether any gap in success rates has narrowed over time. Grant application 

success rates are calculated as the proportion of eligible applicants who receive funding. 

Quality of applications 

One question is whether the participation of FBOs and CBOs in the Department grant process 

has enabled the Department to fund higher-quality applications. This analysis compares the 

application scores of FBO and CBO applicants with the peer review scores of non-FBCO 

applicants. If FBOs and CBOs receive high scores, then the participation of FBCOs expands the 

pool of higher-quality applications. 

However, comparing application scores of FBOs and CBOs to non-FBCOs is not 

straightforward. FBOs and CBOs are often novice applicants,13 and each of the grant programs 

offers preferential treatment for novice applicants. In Mentoring (for the FY 2002 but not the FY 

2004 competition) and PEP, novice applicants were eligible to receive an additional five points 

added to their final reviewer score. In CTC, the Department held separate review processes for 

novice and non-novice applicants in FY 2001 through FY 2003. In FY 2004, the Department 

held one competition but ranked and awarded novices and non-novices separately, reserving at 

least 75 percent of the funds for non-novice applicants. Between two applicants that received the 

same peer reviewer score, these various types of preferences make it more likely that the novice 

applicant will receive funding. Analyses that rely on the scores assigned by peer review teams, 

then, should be separated out into novice and non-novice applicants. However, these data have 

only been collected for FY 2004, preventing this disaggregation. Therefore, the analysis 

compares applicants’ overall scores. 

Number of FBOs who are approved SES providers 

The last set of research questions examines the changes in the number of FBOs approved as SES 

providers. Three measures will be used to track changes from December 2002 to March 2005. 

First, the total number of FBOs approved as SES providers is one indicator of the degree of 

participation. Another indicator is the percentage of all approved providers that are FBOs. 

Increases in this percentage over time demonstrate that the number of approved FBOs has grown 

faster than the number of approved non-FBOs. The third indicator is the number of states that 

have approved an FBO as an SES provider. This is a useful measure of the degree to which 

acceptance of FBOs has spread across states. 
9 

Data Limitations 

There are several limitations, due to the source and availability of data, that warrant caution in 

interpreting findings. First is that inferences about changes in the quality of applications across 

years should not be made by comparing scores across years. Different program requirements and 

selection criteria from one year to the next, as well as different panel reviewers, result in scores 

that are not comparable across programs or years. 

A second limitation is that other factors contribute to the distribution of scores of funded 

applications aside from application quality. One such factor is the amount of funding available. 

That is, with more funding, a program can choose more applicants to receive grants. However, as 

the number of funded applicants increases, average scores may decrease. This is a result of the 

way grantees are selected. Generally, program offices rank applicants by their scores. The 

program office then goes down the list, and funds applicants until the funding limit is reached. 

On the other hand, reductions in funding could have the effect of inhibiting potential applicants 

in that they may consider their chances of receiving funding low, and thus they may not apply. 

Ultimately, then, while available funding may affect the pool of applicants and the range of 

scores selected, it is difficult to know the specific impact. 
10 

Results

Prior to examining the success rates and quality of funded applications, it is important to note the 

degree to which application rates from FBOs and CBOs have changed. Following this 

examination of application rates is an analysis of success rates. The next section then presents 

analyses on whether FBCO participation is associated with a change in the pool of higher-quality 

applicants. A discussion of the participation of faith-based organizations in supplemental 

educational services rounds out the analyses in this section. 

Grant Application Rates 

Since FY 2002, faith-based and community organizations have become more active in 

applying to the three Department grant programs under review in this report. FBOs and 

CBOs have become a greater proportion of the applicants for CTC and PEP grants (Exhibit 4). 

Additionally, the proportion of applicants for Mentoring that are FBOs and CBOs has remained 

fairly consistent from FY 2002 to FY 2004. 

 

Exhibit 4 

Percentage of Program Applications From Faith-Based or Community 

Organizations, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

48%

38%

9%

67%

44%

20%

51%

28%

68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Community Technology

Centers 

Carol M. White Physical

Education Program

Mentoring Programs

Program

Percentage of Applications From 

FBCOs

FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004

Note: Grant competitions were not held in years for which no data are presented. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, 48 percent of the CTC grant applications received were from FBCOs. 
11 

Overall, the number of applicants to CTC declined from 1,277 in FY 2001 to 494 in FY 2004, a 

decline of 61 percent (Exhibit 5). Throughout the four years, the number of faith-based 

applicants remained fairly consistent while the total number declined, such that by FY 2004, they 

comprised 10 percent of all applicants. The number of CBO applicants also declined during the 

same time period, but the proportion of applicants who were CBOs remained around 40 percent 

of all applicants. 

Exhibit 5 

Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to the Community 

Technology Centers, by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

25 50

564

318 198

200

664

607 285 244

49 51 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Fiscal Year

Percentage of Grant Applications

FBOs CBOs non-FBCOs

Exhibit reads: There were 49 applications from FBOs to CTC in FY 2001 and 50 in FY 2004. The 

proportion of applications from FBCOs increased from 38 percent in FY 2002 to 51 percent in 

FY 2004. 
12 

The numbers of applications from FBOs and CBOs to PEP have grown substantially since FY 

2002, when 34 CBOs and 29 FBOs submitted applications (Exhibit 6). Furthermore, the pace of 

growth in applications from FBOs and CBOs has outdistanced that of non-FBCOs, even as the 

total number of applications received increased from 709 in FY 2002 to 1,510 in FY 2004, an 

increase of 113 percent. Almost all of the growth in the number of applications between FY 2003 

and FY 2004 was due to increases in applications from CBOs. Applications by FBOs as a 

proportion of all applications grew between FY 2002 and FY 2003 such that, in both FY 2003 

and FY 2004, FBOs comprised approximately 11 percent of all applicants. The proportion of 

applications received from CBOs has grown steadily throughout the time period studied, 

increasing from nearly 5 percent in FY 2002 to 10 percent in FY 2003 and 17 percent in FY 

2004. 

Exhibit 6 

Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to the Carol M. White 

Physical Education Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 to FY 2004 

159

258

646

1,084 1,093

144 29

130

34

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Fiscal Year

Percentage of Grant Applications

FBOs CBOs non-FBCOs

Exhibit reads: There were 29 applications from FBOs to PEP in FY 2002, which 

increased to 159 by FY 2004. The proportion of applications from FBOs increased from 

4 percent in FY 2002 to 11 percent in FY 2004.
13 

Overall, the number of applications to Mentoring has increased 23 percent from FY 2002 to FY 

2004, increasing from 1,280 applications to 1,568 (Exhibit 7). The number of grant applications 

to Mentoring from FBOs and CBOs has grown over the time period to keep pace with the 

number of applications from non-FBCOs. In FY 2002, the Department received 120 applicants 

from FBOs, which constituted 9 percent of all applications. Two years later, the number of 

applications from FBOs increased to 199, or 13 percent of total applications. During the same 

time period, the number of applications from CBOs increased from 742 to 865, while the 

percentage of applications received from CBOs dropped slightly, from 58 percent to 55 percent. 

Exhibit 7 

Number and Percentage Distribution of Grant Applications to Mentoring 

Programs, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004 

120 199

742 865

418 504

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY 2002 FY 2004

Fiscal Year

Percentage of Grant Applications

FBOs CBOs non-FBCOs

Exhibit reads: There were 120 applications from FBOs to Mentoring in FY 2002, which increased 

to 199 in FY 2004. The proportion of applications from FBOs increased from 9 percent in 

FY 2002 to 13 percent in FY 2004. 
14 

The rates of applications to CTC and Mentoring that were received from FBOs and CBOs and 

then subsequently disqualified were the similar to or lower than the non-FBCO or overall rates of 

application disqualification (Exhibit 8). However, larger proportions of applications from FBOs 

and CBOs to PEP were disqualified than non-FBCOs. 

Exhibit 8 

Number and Percentage of Disqualified Applications to CTC, PEP and Mentoring 

By Type of Applicant, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

 FBO CBO Non-FBCO Overall 

Program Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Community Technology 

Centers 21 12% 227 18% 308 17% 556 17% 

Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program* 68 20% 84 20% 412 15% 564 16% 

Mentoring Programs* 8 3% 51 3% 42 5% 101 4% 

* PEP results includes data from FY 2002 to FY 2004, and Mentoring includes only FY 2002 and FY 2004. 

(Grant competitions were not held in years for which no data are presented.) 

Note: Percent refers to percentage of total applications from that type of applicant. 

Exhibit reads: Twenty-one of the applications received from FBOs to the CTC grant program from FY 2001 to FY 

2004 were disqualified. 
15 

Grant Application Success Rates 

The success rates for FBCO applicants to PEP and Mentoring have, with the exception of FY 

2003, remained fairly stable while they declined for FBCO applications to the CTC program. 

The percentage of FBCO applicants for CTC grants who were successful declined from 9 percent 

in FY 2001 to 4 percent in FY 2004 (Exhibit 9). Among FBCO applicants to PEP, the percentage 

that received a grant increased by seven percentage points from FY 2002 to FY 2003, and then 

decreased by eight percentage points in the subsequent year. The percentage of FBCO applicants 

successful in their applications for Mentoring decreased by one percentage point from the FY 

2002 to FY 2004 competitions. The trend in FBO success rates mirrored the trend in non-FBCO 

success rate for PEP and Mentoring (see Exhibits 11 and 12), whereas the trend in CBO success 

rates differed from the trend in non-FBCO success rates (see Exhibits 10–12). 

Exhibit 9 

Percentage of Faith-Based and Community-based Applicants That Were 

Successful* in Their Grant Applications, FY 2001 to FY 2004 

9%

7%

29%

4%

13%

20%

12% 11%

10%

15%

6%

31%

10%

31%

24%

20%

7%

13%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

FY

2001

FY

2002

FY

2003

FY

2004

FY

2002

FY

2003

FY

2004

FY

2002

FY

2004

Percentage of Successful FBCO Applications

FBCO

non-FBCO

Community Technology 

Centers

Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program

Mentoring Programs

Program 

* Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, 9 percent of the eligible grant applications to the CTC grant program 

from FBCOs were successful; this decreased to 4 percent of eligible FBCO applicants in FY 2004. 
16 

Between FY 2001 and FY 2004, the FBO and CBO success rates for applications to CTC 

fluctuated relative to the non-FBCO success rate (Exhibit 10). During this time, the total number 

of CTC grants funded declined from 148 to 25. Concurrently, CTC grants to FBOs and CBOs 

also declined. However, by FY 2004, the FBO and non-FBCO rates were nearly the same. CBO 

applicants were typically less successful than non-FBCO applicants. 

Exhibit 10 

Number and Success* Rate of Grant Applications for Community 

Technology Centers, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 to FY 2004 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Number 

Success

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate 

FY 2001 4 8% 47 9% 97 15% 148 12% 

FY 2002 4 9% 18 7% 34 6% 56 7% 

FY 2003 5 22% 32 30% 42 31% 79 30% 

FY 2004 3 8% 4 3% 18 10% 25 7% 

Total 16 10% 101 10% 191 13% 308 11% 

* Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, four CTC grant applications from FBOs were successful. These four successful grant 

applications were 8 percent of the eligible grant applications to the CTC grant program from FBOs. 

While the success rates for FBO and CBO applicants to the PEP grant program from FY 2002 to 

FY 2004 are typically lower than that of non-FBCOs, differences over time have decreased 

(Exhibit 11). In FY 2002, the success rate for FBOs was 14 percentage points less than the nonFBCO rate and declined to a difference of seven percentage points in FY 2004. The CBO 

success rate has fluctuated substantially during the time period under review. In FY 2002, the 

CBO success rate was 21 percentage points below the non-FBCO success rate; in the next fiscal 

year, the CBO success rate exceeded the non-FBCO success rate by two percentage points. The 

CBO success rate then fell to eight percentage points below the non-FBCO success rate in FY 

2004. 
17 

Exhibit 11 

Number and Success* Rate of Grant Applications for Carol M. White 

Physical Education Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 to FY 2004 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Number 

Success 

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate Number 

Success 

Rate 

FY 2002 4 17% 2 10% 170 31% 176 30% 

FY 2003 15 14% 28 26% 213 24% 256 23% 

FY 2004 17 13% 25 12% 195 20% 237 18% 

Total 36 14% 55 16% 596 21% 687 20% 

* Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2002, four PEP grant applications from FBOs were successful. These four grant 

applications were 17 percent of the eligible grant applications to the PEP program from FBOs. 

In both years during which there were competitions for Mentoring, the FBO success rates were 

below the non-FBCO success rates; the CBO success rate at first exceeded that of non-FBCOs 

but fell below in FY 2004 (Exhibit 12). Between FY 2002 and FY 2004, the FBO success rate 

increased by four percentage points; however, the difference between the FBO and non-FBCO 

success rates also increased. In FY 2002, the FBO success rate was one percentage point below 

the non-FBCO rate; by FY 2004, this difference increased to three percentage points. The CBO 

success rate declined by two percentage points over the course of the two competitions; whereas 

the CBO success rate exceeded the non-FBCO success rate by five percentage points in FY 

2002, it fell short of the non-FBCO success rate by three percentage points in FY 2004. 

Exhibit 12 

Number and Success* Rate of Grant Applications for the 

Mentoring Programs, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Number 

Success

Rate Number 

Success

Rate Number 

Success

Rate Number 

Success

Rate

FY 2002 7 6% 87 12% 28 7% 122 10% 

FY 2004 20 10% 81 10% 64 13% 165 11% 

Total 27 9% 168 11% 92 10% 287 10% 

* Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2002, seven Mentoring grant applications from FBOs were successful. These seven 

grant applications were 6 percent of the eligible grant applications to Mentoring Programs from FBOs. 
18 

FBOs have increased the share of grant funds they received each year in each of the three 

programs, while the percentage received by CBOs has fluctuated throughout (Exhibit 13). 

The share of CTC grant funds received by FBOs increased from 2 percent in FY 2001 to 11 

percent in FY 2004; the share of PEP grant funds received increased from 2 percent in FY 2002 

to 9 percent in FY 2004; and the share of Mentoring grant funds increased from 5 percent in FY 

2002 to 11 percent in FY 2004. CBOs were very involved in CTC and Mentoring, receiving 32 

percent and 71 percent of grant funds for those two programs in the first years of this evaluation, 

respectively. After increasing their share of CTC grant funds to 40 percent in FY 2003, CBOs 

only received 14 percent of CTC grant funds in FY 2004. In Mentoring, the share of funds going 

to CBO applicants decreased to 48 percent in FY 2004. CBOs received less than 10 percent of 

PEP grant funds in FY 2003 and FY 2004. 

Exhibit 13 

Dollar Amount and Percentage of Grant Funds Received, by Program and Recipient, 

FY 2001 to FY 2004 

Community Technology Centers 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount 

FY 2001 $710,445 2% $11,006,126 32% $22,698,251 66% $34,414,822

FY 2002 $745,901 6% $3,946,176 32% $7,512,877 62% $12,204,954

FY 2003 $2,020,520 7% $11,935,830 40% $15,621,619 53% $29,577,969

FY 2004 $1,005,468 11% $1,380,401 14% $7,165,649 75% $9,551,518

Total $4,482,334 5% $28,268,533 33% $52,998,396 62% $85,749,263

 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount 

FY 2002 $965,996 2% $142,319 <1% $48,066,170 98% $49,174,485

FY 2003 $2,289,567 4% $4,993,946 8% $51,766,575 88% $59,050,088

FY 2004 $6,129,555 9% $6,112,345 9% $56,113,841 82% $68,355,741

Total $9,385,118 5% $11,248,610 6% $160,896,586 89% $181,530,314

 

Mentoring Programs 

 FBO CBO non-FBCO Total 

 Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount 

FY 2002 $934,991 5% $12,336,515 71% $4,053,494 23% $17,325,000

FY 2004 $3,173,750 11% $14,116,815 48% $12,395,245 42% $29,685,810

Total $4,108,741 9% $26,453,330 56% $16,448,739 35% $47,010,810

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, successful FBO applicants received a total of $710,445; this represented 2 percent of 

the total dollar value of CTC grants that year. 
19 

Quality of Applications 

This section addresses two aspects of application quality. First, the report assesses the 

relationship between FBCO participation in competitions and the overall quality of all eligible 

applications to determine if there have been improvements in the application pool. The second 

section addresses the quality of funded applications, and if there have been improvements over 

time in their quality. 

Application scores are used as the measure of quality. Each eligible application received a score 

from a review by three panelists and also may have been awarded a competitive preference. 

Scores assigned to faith-based and community organizations are compared to those assigned to 

non-FBCOs within each year to see if there are any relative changes. If the average scores 

received by FBO and CBO applications are initially lower than those received by non-FBCO 

applicants, and then the differences close in subsequent application cycles, one may presume that 

the quality of applications from FBOs and CBOs has increased and more closely matches the 

quality of applications from non-FBCOs. As a result, the pool of higher-quality programs, as 

measured by applicant score, may have increased due to the participation of FBOs and CBOs. 

The Quality of All Eligible Applications 

Changes in application quality, as measured by average scores, were mixed across the three grant 

programs (Exhibit 14). Scores of FBCO applicants to CTC increased relative to non-FBCO 

applicants from FY 2001 to FY 2004, resulting in no statistically significant difference between 

average scores for the two groups in the last two fiscal years. The average scores of FBCO 

applications to PEP remained significantly lower than those from non-FBCOs between FY 2002 

and FY 2004, though the gap closed over time. The difference between FBOs and non-FBCO 

scores narrowed by four points while the difference between community organizations and nonFBCO scores closed by 13 points. The average application scores of FBO applicants in 

Mentoring remained statistically significantly lower than those of non-FBCOs, and the 

differences increased by two points from FY 2002 to FY 2004. There was no statistically 

significant difference in average application scores between CBOs and non-FBCOs for 

Mentoring in FY 2002. However, in FY 2004, the difference was statistically significant, though 

the difference between average scores of CBOs and non-FBCOs was still smaller than the 

difference between average scores of FBOs and non-FBCOs. 
20 

Exhibit 14 

Average Grant Application Scores, by Type of Applicant, by Program, 

FY 2001 to FY 2004 

 FBOs CBOs Non-FBCOs 

Community Technology Centers Program 

FY 2001 76* 77* 83 

FY 2002 80* 83* 86 

FY 2003 69 67 67 

FY 2004 71 68 70 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program**

FY 2002 62* 52* 73 

FY 2003 49* 59* 64 

FY 2004 63* 62* 70 

Mentoring Programs**

FY 2002 70* 74 75 

FY 2004 68* 72* 75 

*The difference between this group of applicants and non-FBCO applicants was statistically significant at 

p < .05. 

** Grant competitions were not held in years for which data are not presented. 

Note: Comparisons across years should not be made, as the criteria may change between competitions, 

different reviewers are used, and the maximum score may change. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, the average score on applications from FBOs to CTC was 76, while the average 

score on applications from non-FBCOs was 83; the difference is statistically significant. In FY 2004, the 

average score on applications from FBOs to CTC was 71 while the average score on applications from nonFBCOs was 70; the difference is not statistically significant. 

While average scores provide a measure of the overall quality of the applicant pool, they do not 

indicate whether the quality of grant recipients (i.e., funded grant programs) may have improved. 

Grant recipients are selected from among the top-scoring applicants. Examining the overall 

distribution of scores allows for detecting the degree to which faith-based and community 

organizations scored in this select group of competitive applicants. If the scores of the top 

FBCOs were similar to those of the top non-FBCOs, then one could presume that there were 

more top-scoring applicants as a result of the FBCO participation. 

The remainder of this section relies on box plots to illustrate how the distributions of scores 

changed over time. Referring to Exhibit 15, the dotted horizontal line is the median score for all 

eligible applicants in that year. Each of the vertical bars illustrates the distribution of scores 

received by that group in that year. The solid horizontal line in the middle of each box is the 

median score in that group. The box surrounding that horizontal line illustrates those applicants 

whose scores fell within the 25th and 75th percentiles of all scores for that group that year. The 
21 

vertical lines (also known as whiskers) extending from the boxes show the range of most, or all, 

of the remaining scores. Beyond the whiskers, dots indicate extreme outliers. 

Even though differences in average scores among applicants to CTC mostly disappeared by 

FY 2004, differences in the top-scoring applicants remained. There were only small changes 

in the top end of application scores from FBCOs relative to those of non-FBCOs (Exhibit 15). In 

FY 2001, the median and 75th percentile scores of FBCO applicants are five and four points 

below the median and 75th percentile scores of non-FBCO applicants, respectively. By FY 2004, 

these differences only decreased by one point each. This fact suggests that the quality of the topapplicants to CTC did not improve as a result of FBCO participation. Note that the highest 

scoring FBCO organization had about the same score as the highest scoring non-FBCO 

organization in FY 2001 and again in FY 2004. 

One noticeable change, however, was in the lower end of the score distributions for CTC 

applicants. In FY 2001, the 25th percentile and minimum scores of FBCOs were lower than 

those of non-FBCOs. By FY 2004, however, FBCO applicants scored much higher than nonFBCOs in FY 2001. This shift in the distributions of scores among the least qualified applicants 

explains why the average difference between FBCO and non-FBCO narrowed for the program. 

That is, the relative changes in average CTC scores reported in Exhibit 14 are due in large part to 

a higher percentage of non-FBCOs scoring below 40 in FY 2004 than in FY 2001. 

Exhibit 15 

Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to the Community 

Technology Centers Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2001 and FY 2004 

FY 2001 FY 2004 

*The maximum score in FY 2001 competition was greater than 100, while the maximum was 100 for FY 2004. 

Note: In this type of plot, the vertical line spans the range of scores obtained in the group, with the dots representing 

outliers. The box spans the range for the middle 50 percent of the distribution, from the 25th to the 75th percentile, 

and the horizontal line within the box identifies the 50th percentile, or median. The horizontal dotted line across 

each plot is the median for all applicants that year. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, the median score for all applicants was 86. For non-FBCOs, the median score was 87, 

the score at the 25th percentile was 76, and the score at the 75th percentile was 96. For FBCOs the median score 

was 82. 
22 

The participation of FBCOs in the PEP grant process is associated with an increase in the 

pool of high-scoring applicants due to the increase of FBCO scores at the higher end of the 

distributions in FY 2004 (relative to non-FBCO scores). Although differences in the average 

scores of applications between FBOs and CBOs compared with non-FBCOs remained 

statistically significant through FY 2004, the distribution of scores of FBCO applicants to the 

PEP grant program at the higher end increased relative to non-FBCO applicants (Exhibit 16). 

The difference in the median scores between FBCO applicants compared with non-FBCOs 

decreased from 24 points in FY 2002 to 10 points in FY 2004. Similarly, the differences at the 

75th percentiles decreased from 14 points to five points. Finally, there was no difference in the 

maximum scores in FY 2004 whereas the difference in FY 2002 was eight points. 

Exhibit 16 

Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to the Carol M. White 

Physical Education Program, by Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004 

FY 2002 FY 2004 

Note: In this type of plot, the vertical line spans the range of scores obtained in the group, with the dots representing 

outliers. The box spans the range for the middle 50 percent of the distribution, from the 25th to the 75th percentile, 

and the horizontal line within the box identifies the 50th percentile, or median. The horizontal dotted line across 

each plot is the median for all applicants that year. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2002, the median score for all applicants was 77. For non-FBCOs, the median score was 78, 

the score at the 25th percentile was 60, and the score at the 75th percentile was 90. For FBCOs the median score 

was 54. 
23 

The participation of FBCOs in Mentoring was associated with an increase in the pool of 

high-scoring applicants in both FY 2002 and FY 2004. Recall that Exhibit 14 showed that in 

both FY 2002 and FY 2004, the differences in the average scores between FBOs and non-FBCOs 

were statistically significant. However, the scores at the higher ends of both the FBCO and nonFBCO distributions were very similar (Exhibit 17). At the 75th percentile, the difference was one 

point in FY 2002 and two points in FY 2004. There were almost no differences in the 90th 

percentile and maximum scores in both years. 

Exhibit 17 

Application Score Distributions of Eligible Applicants to Mentoring Programs, 

 By Type of Applicant, FY 2002 and FY 2004 

FY 2002 FY 2004 

Note: In this type of plot, the vertical line spans the range of scores obtained in the group, with the dots representing 

outliers. The box spans the range for the middle 50 percent of the distribution, from the 25th to the 75th percentile, 

and the horizontal line within the box identifies the 50th percentile, or median. The horizontal dotted line across 

each plot is the median for all applicants that year. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2002, the median score for all applicants was 79. For non-FBCOs, the median score was 79, 

the score at the 25th percentile was 65, and the score at the 75th percentile was 90. For FBCOs the median score 

was 78. 
24 

The Quality of Funded Applications 

As would be expected in a competitive grant process, there was almost no difference in the 

average scores of successful applicants across programs in each year (Exhibit 18). The largest 

difference, four points, is found between FBO and non-FBCO applicants to PEP in FY 2003.14 

Exhibit 18 

Average Grant Application Scores of Successful* Applicants, by Type of Applicant, 

FY 2001 to FY 2004 

 FBOs CBOs Non-FBCOs 

Community Technology Center Program 

FY 2001 101 101 101 

FY 2002 106 105 106 

FY 2003 91 88 89 

FY 2004 97 97 97 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program 

FY 2002 95 92 94 

FY 2003 86 89 90 

FY 2004 97 96 95 

Mentoring Programs 

FY 2002 97 97 97 

FY 2004 99 99 100 

Note: Comparisons across years should not be made, as the criteria may change between competitions, 

different reviewers are used, and the maximum score may change. 

*Received grant. 

Exhibit reads: In FY 2001, the average score of funded FBO, CBO, and non-FBCO applications to CTC 

is 101. 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers 

States’ approval of faith-based organizations as supplemental educational services (SES) 

providers has increased substantially since December 2002, when states first began approving 

SES providers.15 The number of faith-based SES providers increased from 11 to 261 (over 

twentyfold) between December 2002 and March 2005 while the total number of approved SES 

providers increased fourfold (from 662 to 2,689) over the same time period. Furthermore, the 

number of states that have approved FBOs as SES providers increased from six in December 

2002 to 29 in March 2005. Lastly, the proportion of SES providers that are FBOs increased from 

2 percent of all providers to 10 percent during the same time period. The number of faith-based 

state-approved SES providers increased dramatically since the beginning of SES under the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Exhibit 19). In December 2002, states had approved 11 
25 

faith-based providers. As states worked to implement the requirements of NCLB, the number of 

approved faith-based SES providers increased gradually through September 2003, by which time 

states had approved 33. Between September and December 2003, the number of approved faithbased SES providers increased by 57. The next six months were relatively slow in the number of 

approved faith-based SES providers, but then picked up through March 2005 as the number 

almost tripled to 261. 

Exhibit 19 

Number of Faith-Based Organizations Approved by States* as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005 

16 21 33

90 103 114

166

200

261

11

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Dec-02

Mar-03Jun-03

Sep-03Dec-03

Mar-04Jun-04

Sep-04Dec-04

Mar-05

Date

Number of FBOs State-Approved 

as SES Providers

* Includes the District of Columbia for Mar-03, Jun-03, Dec-03, Jun-04, Sep-04, Dec-04, 

and Mar-05. 

Exhibit reads: The number of faith-based SES providers increased from 11 in December 

2002 to 261 in March 2005. 
26 

The number of states that have approved faith-based SES providers also has increased since 

states first began approving providers (Exhibit 20). At first, six states had approved faith-based 

SES providers. This number increased gradually to 11 states and the District of Columbia in June 

2003. Between then and December 2003, an additional eight states that had not approved faithbased SES providers added them to their rolls. During the subsequent 12 months, the number of 

states with approved faith-based SES providers increased by seven. Since January 2005, two 

additional states have added at least one faith-based SES provider to their approved lists, 

bringing the total number of states with approved faith-based SES providers to 29. 

Exhibit 20 

Number of States* Approving Faith-Based Organizations as 

Supplemental Educational Services Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005 

9

12 14

20 22 24

27 27 29

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dec-02

Mar-03Jun-03

Sep-03Dec-03

Mar-04Jun-04

Sep-04Dec-04

Mar-05

Date

Number of States Approving 

FBOs as SES Providers

* Includes the District of Columbia for Mar-03, Jun-03, Dec-03, Jun-04, Sep-04, 

Dec-04, and Mar-05. 

Exhibit reads: The number of states that approved faith-based SES providers increased 

from six in December 2002 to 29 in March 2005. 

The 29 states that had approved faith-based SES providers in March 2005 were Alabama, 

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New 

Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. The number of faith-based SES providers by 

state ranged widely. Twenty-one of the 29 states had approved only one to five faith-based 

providers. There were five states, however, that had more than 20 faith-based organizations listed 

among their approved providers. In March 2005, the state with the greatest number of approved 

faith-based providers was Ohio, with 57 faith-based providers on its approval list. 
27 

The variance in the number of approved faith-based providers by state is related to the total 

number of approved providers, including non-faith-based organizations, in the state. Demand and 

availability for SES likely explain most of the variation in the overall numbers. Rural states or 

states with fewer schools identified for improvement tend to be more likely to have lower 

numbers of approved SES providers. Faith-based organizations make up less than 10 percent of 

the approval list in over four-fifths of the states (Exhibit 21). In Wisconsin and Ohio, however, 

FBOs constitute a substantial proportion of all providers. In Wisconsin, FBOs made up 24 

percent of all providers, while in Ohio, they accounted for more than a quarter (27 percent) of 

them. Both states were among the top 10 states with the largest overall numbers of approved 

providers. It is unclear why faith-based providers appear to have been more successful in certain 

states. 

Exhibit 21 

Number of States* by the Percentage of Faith-Based Supplemental 

Educational Services Providers Operating in March 2005 

3 2 2

9

13

22

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21 or

higher

Percentage of SES Providers That Are FBOs

Number of States

* Includes the District of Columbia. 

Exhibit reads: In March 2005, faith-based SES providers made up 1 to 5 percent of 

the total number of providers in 13 states. 
28 

The overall percentage of SES providers that are FBOs increased from 2 percent in December 

2002 to 10 percent in March 2005 (Exhibit 22). During the first nine months when states began 

approving SES providers, the percentage that was faith-based remained around 2 percent. This 

proportion increased dramatically through December 2003, to 6 percent. Growth in the 

percentage of SES providers that are faith-based has been fairly steady since then, increasing to 

10 percent by March 2005. 

Exhibit 22 

Faith-Based Organization Supplemental Educational Services 

Providers as a Percentage of All Providers, December 2002 to 

March 2005 

2% 2% 2%

6% 6% 6%

7%

8%

10%

2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Dec-02

Mar-03Jun-03

Sep-03Dec-03

Mar-04Jun-04

Sep-04Dec-04

Mar-05

Date

FBO SES as Percentange of All 

Providers

Exhibit reads: The percentage of approved SES providers that are faith-based 

organizations increased from 2 percent of all SES providers in December 2002 to 10 

percent in March 2005. 
29 

Conclusions 

It is clear that, since FY 2001, faith-based organizations (FBOs) and community-based 

organizations (CBOs) have sought to become more active in the three grant programs reviewed 

in this report. While funds to the CTC program had diminished by FY 2004, the proportion of 

grant applicants who were FBOs and CBOs increased. Furthermore, the numbers of FBO and 

CBO applicants to the PEP and Mentoring grant programs increased during the time period 

covered in this report and, in both instances, became larger proportions of applicants to those two 

programs. 

There were no clear patterns in the disqualification rates for FBOs and CBOs to the three grant 

programs. Among applicants for CTC grants, the disqualification rate for FBOs was lower than 

the disqualification rate for non-FBCOs while the CBO disqualification rate was about the same 

as the non-FBCO rate. Among applicants for PEP grants, applications from FBOs and CBOs 

were disqualified at higher than applications from non-FBCOs. The disqualification rates for 

FBO and CBO applicants for Mentoring grants were about the same as the non-FBCO rate. 

While FBOs and CBOs have been more active in applying for Department grants, they have met 

with mixed results in the success of those applications. FBO success rates have typically been 

lower than overall success rates. FBO success rates twice exceeded the overall success rates for 

CTC applications, in FY 2002 when 56 grants were awarded and again in FY 2004, when only 

25 grants were awarded to FBOs. Furthermore, FBO success rates were consistently below 

overall rates for PEP and Mentoring. By FY 2004, the gaps in the success rates between FBOs 

and non-FBCOs had closed in CTC and PEP but increased slightly in Mentoring. CBO 

applicants did not fare much better. Their success rates for each program sometimes exceeded 

the overall rates and sometimes fell well below them. 

The participation of FBCOs is associated with an increase in the pool of higher-quality 

applicants to PEP and Mentoring as measured by applicant scores, however the evidence for 

CTC is neutral. Among the top-scoring applicants, gaps between FBCOs and non-FBCOs in 

scores for the PEP grant program closed considerably from FY 2002 to FY 2004. In the 

Mentoring program, the top FBCO applicants shared similar scores to the top non-FBCO 

applicants in both competition years. These trends suggest that competition among the applicants 

most likely to receive awards (e.g., those with the highest scores) increased as a result of FBCO 

participation in the PEP and Mentoring competitions. In the CTC program, however, gaps 

between FBCO and non-FBCO scores at the higher ends of their distributions persisted from FY 

2001 to FY 2004, indicating that, based on scores alone, FBCO participation did not necessarily 

improve the quality of grant recipients to this program. 

Lastly, there was tremendous growth in the participation of FBOs in the provision of 

supplemental educational services (SES). The number of FBOs approved to be SES providers 

increased from 11 in December 2002 to 261 in March 2005. This growth rate vastly exceeded 

that of non-FBOs, as the percentage of all providers who were FBOs grew from 2 percent to 10 

percent during the same 26-month time period, and a greater number of states have approved 

FBOs as SES providers. 
30 

Notes 

1

 U.S. Department of Education. “Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.” 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=oc (last accessed on Nov. 29, 2007). 

2

 White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (2001). Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to 

Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/unlevelfield.html (last accessed on Nov. 29, 2007). 

3

 U.S. Department of Education, “Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; 

Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants”; final rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 31707–31715 (June 

4, 2004), codified at 34 CFR 74.44(f), 75.52, 76.52, 80.36(j). 

4

 U.S. Department of Education. “Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.” 

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=oc (last accessed on Nov. 29, 2007). 

5

 In Title IX, Sec. 9101, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a CBO is defined as a “public or private 

nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that—(A) is representative of a community or significant 

segments of a community; and (B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community.” The 

Department does not have a standard definition for an FBO. The Department identifies FBOs using a combination 

of methods. For example, a nonprofit organization that applies for federal funds may self-identify as an FBO as part 

of a voluntary survey that is included in grant application packages. In cases where an organization elects not to 

complete this survey, the Department applies a number of other methods to identify organizations, including the 

review of information from grant applications, information provided by program staff familiar with the organization, 

Internet research, or name recognition. If there is any uncertainty, an applicant is not identified as an FBO. 

6

 These grants were identified by extracting the two-digit award year from the grant award number. When a grant 

application is first received, it receives an award number, a portion of which is the fiscal year. 

7

 U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service. "Supplemental Service Providers on State 

Web Sites," (May 3–5, 2004 and April 28–30, 2003), unpublished database. 

8

 U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Vocational and Adult Education; Community Technology Centers 

Programs; Notices,” 69 Fed. Reg. 20765, 20769 (April 16, 2004). 

9

 See 20 U.S.C. 7261e(a). 

10 U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools--Carol M. White Physical Education 

Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003”; 68 Fed. Reg. 15912 (April 1, 

2003). 

11 U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Overview Information; Mentoring 

Programs; Notice for Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004”; 69 Fed. Reg. 30799 (May 

28, 2004). 

12 U.S. Department of Education, “Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools; Overview Information; Mentoring 

Programs; Notice for Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002”; 67 Fed. Reg. 36580, 36581 

(May 24, 2002). 

13 An internal OSDFS FY 2002 Mentoring Programs summary found that 72 percent of FBCO applicants were 

novice applicants and 53 percent of LEA (non-FBCO) applicants were novice applicants. Considering that FBCOs 
31 

are, or were, barred from many Department grant programs, it is not surprising that most FBCO applicants were 

novices. While there are no data for other years or other programs, it is reasonable to conclude that FBCOs are often 

novice applicants. 

14 Tests for the statistical significance of difference were not run due to small group size, below 10 in many cases. 

15 All counts of SES providers include the 50 states and the District of Columbia.