U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–085 PDF 2005

REVITALIZING COMMUNITIES: ARE FAITH-BASED

ORGANIZATIONS GETTING THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE THEY NEED?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM

AND THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM Q05

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 14, 2005

Serial No. 109–81

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

——— ———

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

JOHN CUADERES, Staff Director

URSULA WOJCIECHOWSKI, Professional Staff Member

JULIANA FRENCH, Clerk

ADAM BORDES, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 14, 2005 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Knox, Thomas, chairman of the board, We Care America; Sister Rose

Wilenhaus, St. Mary Development Corp.; Mark Howard, senior vice

president, World Vision; and Reverend Michael Jones, Friendly Temple

Missionary Baptist Church, in cooperation with the Robert Fulton Development, Inc. .............................................................................................. 38

Howard, Mark ............................................................................................ 49

Jones, Reverend Michael .......................................................................... 55

Knox, Thomas ............................................................................................ 38

Wilenhaus, Sister Rose ............................................................................. 44

Streeter, Ryan, Director, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Terri Hasdorff, executive director, Alabama Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives ............................................................................................... 6

Hasdorff, Terri ........................................................................................... 13

Streeter, Ryan ............................................................................................ 6

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 36

Hasdorff, Terri, executive director, Alabama Governor’s Office of FaithBased and Community Initiatives, prepared statement of ....................... 15

Howard, Mark, senior vice president, World Vision, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 51

Jones, Reverend Michael, Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church,

in cooperation with the Robert Fulton Development, Inc., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 57

Knox, Thomas, chairman of the board, We Care America, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 41

Streeter, Ryan, Director, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, prepared statement of .......... 9

Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 4

Wilenhaus, Sister Rose, St. Mary Development Corp., prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 46

(1)

REVITALIZING COMMUNITIES: ARE FAITHBASED ORGANIZATIONS GETTING THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE THEY NEED?

TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERALISM AND THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:19 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael R. Turner

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Turner, Shays, Dent, Foxx, Maloney, and Clay.

Staff present: John Cuaderes, staff director; Ursula

Wojciechowski, professional staff member; Juliana French, clerk;

Adam Bordes, minority professional staff member; Earley Green,

minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. TURNER. Welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee on

Federalism and the Census. We apologize for the late delay; we

were going to be taking up H.R. 2385. What we are going to do instead is begin with this hearing, and then we will suspend when

we have minority representation, we will take up the bill, and then

we will reconvene as part of the hearing.

So I would like to welcome you to the subcommittee’s oversight

hearing entitled, ‘‘Revitalizing Communities: Are Faith-Based Organizations Getting the Federal Assistance They Need?’’ The subcommittee will examine how faith-based organizations accomplish

community revitalization using Federal grants.

The administration’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative provides a chance for faith-based groups to participate in federally

funded community development efforts that were previously inhibited by bureaucratic restrictions. In the past, Federal grant and cooperative agreement programs have commonly considered private

or nonprofit entities, including religious and secular organizations,

eligible to receive Federal funds. However, interpretation and application of the establishment clause of the first amendment, as

well as policy decisions by administrators, has in the past required

publicly funded programs operated by religious organizations to be

essentially secular in nature.

The importance of this program was self-evident in the 9-days

after his inauguration. The President issued Executive Order

13198, which established offices and responsibilities at five Federal

agencies for faith-based and community efforts. The President later

issued Executive Order 13279, which required that Federal departVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

ments treat all organizations fairly and without regard to religion

in Federal programs.

A 2001 administration report, entitled the ‘‘Unlevel Playing

Field: Barriers to Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs,’’ found that various

Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, imposed burdensome regulations on faithbased groups. In response to this report and Executive orders,

HUD expanded its partnerships with faith-based groups to promote

home ownership, provide emergency shelter and transitional housing for the homeless, build affordable housing for the elderly and

persons with disabilities, and promote economic development in

neighborhoods.

The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives urges faith-based organizations to look into partnering with

State and local governments. To date, 26 States and the District

of Columbia have set up offices for faith-based groups and community initiatives to perform outreach and other functions similar to

those carried out by Federal offices. State actions are important because the majority of social service assistance is administered

through State agencies receiving Federal support.

In the report entitled, ‘‘The Expanding Administrative Presidency: George W. Bush and the Faith-Based Initiative,’’ the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy states, ‘‘The administration has advanced the initiative to leverage the work of caring people and private resources to supplement, not replace, the government’s work.’’ Religions and other voluntary organizations serve to

strengthen families and neighborhoods. Proximity and familiarity

with the people and problems facing communities often qualifies

many small faith-based grassroots organizations as the most suitable social service providers.

It is very important to understand how small faith-based organizations can provide for their communities and how the government,

via Executive orders or legislation, can assist those religions

groups. Accordingly, this subcommittee will hear the successes and

impediments to the redevelopment of cities via services and infrastructure improvements provided by faith-based organizations.

I am eager to hear from our first witnesses about the changes

made at HUD and the efforts underway to assist the faith-based

organizations in their charitable efforts. We welcome remarks from

Mr. Ryan Streeter, Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development. Our second witness, Ms. Terri Hasdorff, the executive director, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives of Alabama Governor

Riley’s Office, will discuss the State’s effort to support religions

groups and their community development projects.

Our second panel of witnesses will discuss the important work

that they do and what we can do to help them. First, we will hear

from Mr. Thomas Knox, the chairman of the board at We Care

America; second, we will hear from Sister Rose Wilenhaus from the

St. Mary Development Corp. in Dayton, OH; third, we will hear

from Mr. Mark Howard, senior vice president from World Vision;

and, finally, we will hear from Reverend Michael Jones from the

Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church in St. Louis, MO.

3

I look forward to the testimony our distinguished panel of witnesses will be providing today, and we thank each of you for your

time and welcome you here.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael R. Turner follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. TURNER. We will now start with the witnesses of our first

panel. Each witness has kindly prepared written testimony, which

will be included in the record of this hearing. The witnesses will

notice that there is a timer with a light at the witness table. The

green light indicates that you should begin your prepared remarks

and the red light indicates that time has expired.

It is the policy of this committee that all witnesses be sworn in

before they testify. If you would please rise and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Let the record show that all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. We will then begin with Mr. Streeter.

STATEMENTS OF RYAN STREETER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; AND TERRI HASDORFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALABAMA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF FAITHBASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

STATEMENT OF RYAN STREETER

Mr. STREETER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The committee has my written remarks. With your permission,

I would like to offer a highlighted version of those remarks.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to describe the

progress being made in the major initiative of President Bush and

Secretary Jackson, which is improving the quality and effectiveness

of government-funded social services by making faith-based and

community organizations eligible to deliver those services.

President Bush has said that the Federal Government should

work with those organizations that ‘‘provide hope and provide inspiration so that the American dream is available in every corner

of America.’’ Toward this end, he signed Executive orders that ensure that all faith-based and community organizations are able to

compete on an equal footing for Federal financial assistance in a

way that upholds the religion clause of the Constitution.

HUD is actively implementing the President’s Executive orders.

Successfully implementing the President’s policies requires making

changes inside and outside of HUD. Internally, outdated and longstanding departmental priorities have made it difficult for faithbased organizations to participate in HUD programs without fundamentally changing who they are.

One of the most significant internal changes we have made is to

our regulations. Until recently, HUD had regulations governing

nearly $71⁄2 billion in grant funds that treated faith-based organizations in an unequal manner. For instance, two programs prohibited primarily religious organizations from receiving funds ‘‘for any

activity, including secular activities’’ as a general rule with overly

restrictive exceptions to that rule. HUD finalized new rules for

these programs in September 2003 and provided detailed guidance

on how to implement the new rules in 2004. Also in 2004, HUD finalized a rule extending equal treatment provisions to all of HUD’s

remaining programs. We now allow faith-based organizations engaging in eligible activities to apply for and receive funding for

7

those activities. We do not require a group to fundamentally

change its identity.

We are also clear about what cannot be done. HUD’s old regulations prohibited ‘‘religious influences,’’ whatever those were. HUD’s

new regulations clearly state that faith-based organizations may

not use direct Federal funds for ‘‘inherently religious activities,

such as worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.’’ A group

may continue to engage in such activities so long as they are not

funded with direct government funds, are separate in time or location from the government program, and are voluntary for the Federal program’s beneficiaries. Furthermore, a direct grant recipient

may not discriminate in the provision of services to a beneficiary

based on the beneficiary’s religion.

The point is this: HUD cares about results. Faith-based organizations that provide public services for the public good should not be

excluded because of their faith, and our new regulations make that

clear.

Another internal change at HUD involves our grant application

process. All of HUD’s notices of funding availability explicitly state

that faith-based and community organizations are welcome applicants. HUD recognizes that larger, repeat applicants often have an

advantage over smaller, new grassroots groups. In an attempt to

level the playing field, HUD now awards a point in the grant scoring process to grassroots organizations, that is, small groups that

are rooted in their communities, serving their neighbors on a small

budget.

These internal changes at HUD are essential to fulfilling President Bush’s goals for the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,

but they are not sufficient on their own. That is why HUD has also

placed a strong emphasis on outreach and education. One of the

most significant barriers to the inclusion of faith-based and community organizations is that they are simply out of the loop, they

are unfamiliar with Federal grants-in-aid that can assist their mission and work, they have been told they have no business

partnering with government agencies, or they simply believed the

government programs were not for them and the individuals that

they serve.

In 2003, HUD responded to this problem by appointing faithbased and community liaisons in each of its 81 regional and field

offices. These liaisons spend significant amounts of time educating

grassroots organizations about HUD, how it works, and how its

funds and other resources can be accessed.

We have not stopped there. Another significant barrier has been

the lack of understanding among small organizations about what

makes the grant application successful. So in 2004, HUD completed

180 2-day free grant writing seminars for faith-based and other

community organizations across the Nation. More than 16,000 from

more than 10,500 organizations participated in these sessions,

which consisted of hands-on practical grant writing training delivered by professionals.

HUD is committed to continuing its training of grassroots groups

so that the pool of competitors for HUD funds is enriched and our

services improved.

8

President Bush and Secretary Jackson have made it clear that

HUD cares about results, and we are beginning to see the fruit of

our labor in the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. We saw

more first-time grantees each year between 2002 and 2004, and the

number of faith-based grantees and the dollars for which they have

successfully competed also rose last year. And this is only the beginning. HUD is committed to making sure that the most effective

organizations receive the taxpayers’ dollars to serve those who really need our help.

A level playing field is the best playing field. And those who suffer in poverty and despair the best of playing fields. HUD understands this and will continue to ensure that all eligible organizations, regardless of their size, religious affiliation, or lack thereof,

are able to compete fairly for HUD resources.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Streeter follows:]

9

10

11

12

13

STATEMENT OF TERRI HASDORFF

Ms. HASDORFF. Thank you, Chairman Turner and the subcommittee members and staff, for the opportunity to speak with

you about the positive impact being made by faith-based organizations, as well as the work of the Alabama Governor’s Office of

Faith-Based and Community Initiatives [GFBCI].

Most of us are in public service because we want to make a difference in the lives of others. I have been working with the FaithBased Initiative in Alabama for the last 2 years, and never before

in my career have I seen an initiative that acts more as a catalyst

for bringing about change in individuals and communities.

Alabama is in the top 10 for a number of children living in poverty. We have the lowest budget per inmate in the country and the

third highest in the Nation for students caught with firearms in

school, which is an indicator for at-risk youth. Substance abuse is

also prevalent in our State, where heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine use is steadily increasing.

There are parts of Alabama with great poverty and need. But

even in these areas there is a resource that we are rich in. Our

State is rich with faith-based organizations and people of compassion. I am amazed at the willingness of faith and community-based

organizations to join together with one another, as well as those in

government, to combine their strengths to confront critical issues.

This initiative is a catalyst for average people to join with other average people to do extraordinary things so unique to their hometown that no government agency or political body could ever construct or mandate a solution so excellently tailored to heal individuals, families, and communities.

The GFBCI is unique in that we have combined the resources of

the Corporation for National and Community Service with an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Governor Riley

made the decision to combine his Faith-Based Office with the existing State Office on Service and Volunteerism that coordinates the

Alabama AmeriCorps program. After all, who is more committed to

service and volunteerism in communities than faith and community-based organizations? As David Eisner, CEO of the Corporation

for National Community Service, put it, ‘‘The programs of the corporation act as a vital supply line to the armies of compassion.’’

Combining these two offices maximizes their resources and impact,

and is being used to leverage ways to meet the most critical community needs facing the State.

The GFBCI was established to serve as a bridge between communities and government. This office also directs a grassroots homeland security initiative called Citizen Corps that provides training

and volunteer opportunities for citizens in how to prevent, prepare,

and respond to disasters. This is a natural fit since volunteers in

faith and community-based groups are often the first to respond

and the last to leave in disaster response situations. The FaithBased Initiative is woven throughout everything we do and plays

a critical role in connecting communities to the resources they

need.

Three other important initiatives managed by the office are the

Alabama Women’s Commission, the Alabama Statewide Interagency Council on Homelessness, and the Faith-Based Substance

14

Abuse Treatment Task Force, which is working with our office and

the Alabama Department of Mental Health to more effectively address the issues of substance abuse treatment in our State.

Alabama has had a very productive relationship with both the

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and

the faith-based liaisons within the Federal agencies. The staff of

the White House Office provided much needed guidance and resources as Governor Riley established plans for the GFBCI, and

they continue to provide resources and pertinent information.

Other agency faith-based liaisons have been invaluable to our

work. David Caprara, director of the Faith-Based Center at the

Corporation for National and Community Service, has worked extensively with our office, and last year our office partnered with

the Department of Housing and Urban Development Faith Center

to host the 2004 Alabama Faith and Community-Based Development Conference, where HUD was a major participant. The conference was a great success because Federal and State government

partnered with financial institutions, for-profit and nonprofit

groups to provide training for faith-based organizations who are

striving to revitalize their communities.

One of the great enablers for faith-based organizations are financial and technical resources. Unfortunately, the lack of those resources is also one of the greatest barriers to their success. More

funding is needed for capacity-building Federal grants like the

Compassion Capitol Fund. Other enables are the faith center in the

Federal agencies who provide up-to-date information on the latest

grants and funding opportunities, and act as an information resource for faith and community-based organizations.

Barriers to overcome are the lack of funding for State offices and

a lack of clear understanding from the State agencies and some

faith-based groups regarding the charitable choice laws, and what

the initiative is and what it is not, such as that it is not a new pot

of money and it is not an affirmative action for faith-based organizations. Helping these groups understand that the government can

fund compassion, but it cannot fund conversion, is one of the biggest parts of what we do.

Our office receives frequent calls from social service providers in

need of guidance as they attempt to navigate the Federal grant application process. The faith-based liaisons within the Federal agencies are greatly needed for the State liaisons to be able to call upon

them for assistance. And as the initiative continues to grow, the demand for this will only increase. I urge Congress to consider sustaining these offices.

Thank you for your time and attention. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today and share with you how the

Faith-Based Initiative is making a difference in the lives of Alabamians. I cannot overstate my support of this initiative, because

I see on a daily basis how it draws diverse groups into incredibly

innovative partnerships that can truly transform lives, communities, and perhaps even a Nation. I feel very blessed to have the

opportunity to serve in my current position, and how would be

happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hasdorff follows:]

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. DENT [presiding]. Well, thank you both for your testimony.

I have a question that I hope you can answer. Mr. Streeter, in

my district we have organizations like the Conference of Churches,

Jewish Family Services, Lutheran Ministries, Catholic Social Agency. To what extent, to your knowledge, have those organizations

been embracing the administration’s Faith-Based Initiative program?

Mr. STREETER. Thank you for the question, Mr. Congressman.

We have reached out to a broad group of organizations around the

Nation, large organizations such as those you mentioned, as well

as smaller ones, and we found a great receptivity to what we are

trying to do. When organizations have concerns with what we are

trying to do, we have been receptive to meeting with them and discussing differences.

I think that we have found a great level of receptivity among

some of the larger organizations to what we are basically trying to

do in terms of creating a level playing field. To date, I have made

with representatives at one level or another of many of the organizations that you have met, either in our offices or when we have

been traveling, and have found that whatever differences there

might be with respect to specific policy proposals that the administration might be forwarding, that the general spirit and direction

of the Faith-Based Initiative is something that they support.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. And how has your office and your efforts

progressed since your first time after its establishment in 2001?

Mr. STREETER. I think we have made good progress. Since its establishment in 2001, the office, like all the other offices across the

Federal Government have been focused on a couple of very large

objectives. One is leveling the playing field and making sure that

faith-based groups and other smaller grassroots organizations are

treated equally and fairly in the Federal grants application process

and in Federal programs.

So we have made quite a lot of progress in changing our regulations. You might be aware that HUD has had a history of relatively

prohibitive regulations with regard to primarily religious organizations, and through a couple of waves of regulatory reform we have

made sure that the entire set of programs at HUD are covered by

equal treatment provisions in our regulations.

We have also addressed another major objective of the initiative,

which is to make sure that organizations that have not been exposed to Federal programming and have not played a role in Federal programming to date have had an opportunity to learn from

Federal professionals on how these programs work and how to access the funds. So as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we

have done lots of grant writing training and technical assistance

workshops around the country, 180 last year, which reaches 16,000

people.

And what I would also like to point out about that training is

that these organizations were, by and large, very small; about a

third of them had budgets under $100,000 and fewer than three

staff. So we think we are really reaching these organizations that

are doing the kinds of things the Federal Government pays for, but

have not been included to date.

25

Mr. DENT. A followup on that question really to both of you.

Again, as you mentioned in your testimony, HUD and Governor

Riley’s FBCI office hold conferences that do instruct small faithbased organizations on writing these grants, as just mentioned.

Has the number of first-time HUD grantees increased as a result

of this? And how effectively are faith-based organizations getting

the Federal dollars they need to help disadvantaged Americans?

Mr. STREETER. For starters, I will say that as we have been

tracking them the last couple of grant cycles, first-time grantees,

being those grantees that have not previously been awarded funds

under a program at HUD, have increased about 100 percent in the

last 2 years. So we see that as a good first step. The data requires

a lot of mining to come up with those numbers, and we have confidence that in the last couple of years we have seen the numbers

increase by that amount, 100 percent from 2002 to 2004.

Ms. HASDORFF. And I would have to echo that. We have seen a

definite increase in the State of Alabama with the partnerships

that are being formed with faith-based organizations and the number that are getting the grants. There are still some barriers in

place, and I think that is something that we are working to address

through more education and training, especially with the local governments, of what the initiative is and the nuances of working with

faith-based organizations.

Mr. DENT. And again a question to both of you. After the establishment of the FBCI offices and the changes in regulation, what

more could be done to assist the smaller faith-based groups across

the country that focus on community development?

Ms. HASDORFF. I will start. The offices I believe have a great

need for more capacity-building resources. That is one of the biggest things that I face. On a weekly basis I am contacted by a number of faith-based organizations that are looking to partner. I know

that our State Department of Economic and Community Affairs is

contacted quite frequently as well. They are the agency in our

State that handles all of the community development funds.

And there is definitely a tremendous increase in interest. It is

just a matter of providing the organizations with the training that

they need to be strong enough to compete for those funds and properly administer them, and then also the capacity-building resources

for the organizations.

Mr. STREETER. Mr. Congressman, I will add to that and just say

that I think the President has spoken very clearly about getting

charitable choice provisions throughout all Federal statutes, and I

think that is particularly important in this particular instance. I

think that Federal resources that support community and economic

development ought to have a clear statement within them, provisional clause that basically protects their equal rights in terms of

their ability to participate in the Federal programs much like we

have in the charitable choice provisions, and I think expanding

those throughout Federal programs is definitely a step that we

need to take.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Streeter, I have another question. How many notfor-profit organizations have you recruited so far to help them become HUD-approved housing counseling agencies?

26

Mr. STREETER. I don’t have exact numbers on the ones we have

directly assisted. We have done a lot of outreach around the country on that particular issue. We have had several hundred of them

consult with HUD about the requirements that they need to start

building up in their portfolio. But as you may be aware, it takes

some time to become a HUD-approved housing counseling agency;

there are certain things that you have to be doing, like providing

those services for a year and reaching so many people. I do know

that we have provided assistance in one form or another to more

than 500 organizations over the last 3 years to get them the educational resources they need about becoming HUD-approved.

Mr. DENT. And does HUD intend to make any further regulatory

changes to assist religious grassroots organizations involved in

community development?

Mr. STREETER. At this point, we don’t have any regulatory reform

proposals on the docket. We have done the first wave of reform in

2003. We changed eight programs within the Office of Community

Planning and Development that had explicit, we thought, outdated

provisions on religious organizations in eight programs. We

changed those. We created a general rule extending those basic

provisions to all HUD programs in 2004, and then we also did a

separate rule for HUD’s Indian programs, since those required a

separate rulemaking process. So to date we have made the regulatory changes that we have needed to make to ensure that all of

HUD’s programs are covered.

Mr. DENT. And again, Mr. Streeter, how does your office facilitate cooperation between faith-based organizations and State and

local government offices? What type of cooperation has there been

and have you helped facilitate that cooperation with these private

groups and organizations?

Mr. STREETER. We do it through direct contact with organizations like Terri’s on an as-needed basis when there is an organization in her jurisdiction that has HUD-related issues. We also have

faith-based and community liaisons in all of HUD’s 81 regional and

field offices, which is just a tremendous asset for this initiative. I

think that we have done a good thing by appointing those liaisons

and creating this outreach structure. So our local liaisons play a

major role in facilitation. They have been building solid relationships with a wide swath of faith-based and community groups in

their communities, and they often take the lead on ensuring that

those faith-based organizations are connected with the local unit of

government that they need to be to get their needs addressed and

their questions answered.

Mr. DENT. And again, Mr. Streeter, which State FBCI office

would you grade the highest and why?

Mr. STREETER. State FBCI office?

Mr. DENT. Correct.

Mr. STREETER. We have several that are high performers. It

would be difficult for me at this point to say which ones are performing better than others. One stated objective of the President’s

initiative over the next couple of years is to increase our cooperation and coordination with the State offices. So we are, internally,

right now consulting with the White House Office of Faith-Based

and Community Initiatives developing a basic State checklist that

27

we want States to take a look at, that they would be able to measure themselves against. And when that work is done, we will be

more than happy to share it with you. Until we have that work

done, I would be hesitant to say which offices I thought were performing better than others.

Mr. DENT. OK. And before I turn the gavel back to the chairman,

I would just like to ask Ms. Hasdorff does Alabama give out State

grants to faith-based groups that are involved in community development?

Ms. HASDORFF. We do. They are given out through the local governments and the HUD funds that come to the faith-based groups.

We are not presently tracking, but we are working with the State

agencies within Alabama to put in measures in place so that we

can begin to track that. And as soon as that data is available, I

would be happy to share that with the committee.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. We would appreciate that.

With that, I will return the gavel to the chairman.

Mr. TURNER [presiding]. Pardon me for not only exiting, but also

not having been present for your answers to the previous questions. I am certain there is going to be some redundancy here. But

I want to go to the issue with faith-based groups, as they start to

get capacity and expertise in working in areas where either before

they had been prohibited or before had not targeted for receiving

funding for social service efforts, I wonder to what extent if people

raised the issue of measures of success, that they are either going

to be impacted because they are startups or if we already are hearing some anecdotal information about their level of success compared to other programs. Could you talk a moment, both of you,

about what you are seeing either in discussions of measurements

of success that might be applied; the impact of the fact that these

organizations are going to, in part, be startups and how it might

impact, they might need some lead-time to be able to show significant success; or, three, if you already have some evidence or anecdotal data that shows the success of these organizations? Mr.

Streeter.

Mr. STREETER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to respond

to that. We have been noticing a level of growth in both interest

and ability among smaller organizations, grassroots groups, faithbased and otherwise, that haven’t been involved in our programs

until now. We will be, in conjunction with the White House Office

of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, over the next year, collecting even more of these anecdotal pictures of that success, because we are starting to see some penetration by groups that were

not formally involved in Federal programs.

What I would like to point to is that in the grant writing training

that we conducted through HUD around the Nation, 180 2-day sessions which were free to the public last year—and we are doing

more of those this year—we did a participant survey and we looked

at what that survey showed us, and we saw that we were definitely

reaching a small organization with not a lot of experience. I think

one in four of the faith-based organizations in that training had not

ever applied for a Federal grant before, and one-third of those organizations were smaller than $100,000 a year in terms of their overall budget. So we had a large representation from smaller organizaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
28

tions. We also had larger, very experienced organizations there as

well.

After that was completed last year, we did a rough survey of participants that had been involved, and there were thousands of organizations involved around the country. But we were able to track

down nearly 100 organizations last year that had received funding

that they attributed to something that they had taken away from

the training, that built a capacity within them to successfully complete. Together, that total of funding was nearly $45 million; not

just HUD funding, but a variety of sources of funding, other Federal agencies, some private sector funding, as well as State agencies. That, to us, was a signifier that we are headed in the right

direction.

I think we are seeing organizations that did not have the knowledge and, in some cases, the confidence to partner with other organizations in their community to approach either the Federal Government or a State or local office that managed Federal funding to

get in the game, so to speak. We think those are initial signifiers

of success, and we look forward to producing similar results as we

move forward.

Ms. HASDORFF. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have

been working on in Alabama is looking at a performance outcome

driven aspect to our office and to working with faith-based organizations. We are very fortunate in Alabama that we have a team of

internationally known experts on return on investment [ROI]. They

work in the corporate world but also have been applying what they

do to the public sector as well. We have contacted them and they

have committed to work with our office on implementing outcome

measures for all of our programs. We are also developing outcome

measures that can be used for faith-based organizations.

And as I go out and speak across the State to faith-based organizations that are training for capacity-building resources, one of the

first things that I always encourage them to do is implement outcome measures from the ground up as they are starting these programs, to start them with that in place so that they have some system in place to measure what their successes are. We have found

that is very important and critical to the work that we are doing,

and we are also putting surveys and data collection in place so that

can be measured more effectively in Alabama.

Mr. TURNER. Well, it would seem, certainly as many of the faithbased organizations have a theological basis for wanting to engage

in the very types of outreach and social services that many of the

grant programs are trying to direct, you are harnessing a level of

energy and commitment that would certainly seem to add to the

likelihood of success, or at least certainly the energy and enthusiasm.

Let us say there is a faith-based organization out there who has

not yet participated in the programs that HUD has had on grant

writing sessions, who sees a need in their community and wants

to begin the process of looking at how their organization can participate in receiving funding to assist in social services outreach.

What advice would you have for them today as they begin to look

out in their community and then look to both the Federal GovernVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
29

ment and the State and local governments for assistance? Mr.

Streeter.

Mr. STREETER. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman. I would

begin by first of all saying that you want to make sure your mission is clearly defined and you are true to that mission. The most

successful organizations all say the same thing: ‘‘we never change

our mission to pursue the dollars; we pursue dollars to the extent

that it buttresses and supports our mission.’’ That is the first thing.

The second thing would be to make sure that your community partnerships are solid and strong, that you partner judiciously with

other organizations that have certain contributions to make to your

mission-critical aspects of your organization.

After you have done that, I think you are in a good position to

start consulting around the community on what the best opportunities are for you in terms of funding.

As it relates to HUD, when an organization has an interest in

HUD-related activities and HUD funding, the first thing that I

would advise them to do is to be in touch with one of our local liaisons. As I mentioned earlier, we have liaisons for the Faith-Based

and Community Initiative in each of HUD’s 81 regional and field

offices. We think that is a great asset to our organization. It certainly gives people a point of contact very close to home. And our

HUD offices are also very well connected and known by the local

agencies, either the city or State agencies that manage HUD funding. They are the first point of contact and will always be able to

meet with an organization to help them identify where they have

particular needs and what types of HUD opportunities might support those needs. That is the best place to start.

When an organization runs into some particular problem and

they need some headquarters mediation, then they always call us.

But our liaisons have been a great front line of activity for us. They

achieve a lot. They meet with organizations, and the portfolio of organizations they are working with really grows every day.

Ms. HASDORFF. I would echo that. Basically what we have is

quite a few of those types of groups that come to our office on a

regular basis, and one of the first things that I say to them is to

not be the Wal-Mart of social services, to isolate one or two areas

of focus, make those an area that you have a passion for, that you

would do whether or not you had any kind of government assistance in doing them or not. And then we have three Cs that we encourage them to keep in mind: capacity building, which is obviously

one of the most important, making sure that they have the right

board structure, the right 501(c)(3) setup, all of that; making sure

that they have collaboration, partners that they can work with who

can help them not reinvent the wheel, that they can work with to

build those types of programs they are looking to develop without

duplicating services. Then the third thing that we try and make

them understand is that the government can fund compassion, but

not conversion, and to keep that aspect structured properly from

the beginning in how they are building their programs so that you

can isolate out certain portions for Federal fundings if that is what

you are looking to do.

Mr. TURNER. As you are looking to assist faith-based organizations, are you finding that there are still impediments either within

30

HUD or within other organizations or agencies in rules and regulations that HUD must deal with that are outside of your control

that provide an impediment for faith-based organizations to access

funding and partner?

Mr. STREETER. One thing, Mr. Chairman, that comes to mind is

that an organization will sometimes find that its local unit of government has particular procedures and practices which are at odds

with what we are doing, our particular local ordinances or other

rules that are in conflict with the principles that we have articulated in our regulations. And when we come across a situation like

that, we deal with that on a case-by-case basis. We try to be as responsive as we can. We involve our counsel’s office and build a relationship with the local unit of government, if we need to, to intervene in that way. So that is one thing that organizations may run

into.

I think that increasingly the impediments are less having to do

with our regulations, since we have changed those. I think they are

finding a greater receptivity in HUD-funded programs because of

what we have done with the regulations, and more simply the need

to build their knowledge base of how to access those funds. So I

think ongoing education, a stronger relationship with Governors’

offices like the one that Terri runs, and a continuing role for our

liaisons in the field is the best way to overcome that knowledge

gap.

Ms. HASDORFF. And I would agree with that and basically just

add that I think a lot of times in local governments, especially,

there is a fear of partnering with faith-based because they don’t

understand how the initiative is structured, and sort of the separation of church and State concern. Once we sit down with them and

explain a lot of times how the initiative actually works, that alleviates a lot of that concern. But it is something that there is a real

need. That, I guess, is probably one of the largest impediments.

And what we have said earlier about the capacity-building side of

things. The organizations a lot of times have a passion for what

they want to do, but they have not been working in this long

enough to have the proper structure in place. So making sure that

they are a little bit more sophisticated and able to compete before

they approach a funder like that for a grant is typically the two

largest impediments that we have found.

Mr. TURNER. In my next question I want to acknowledge my

predecessor, Tony Hall, who was the Congressman from the Third

District of Ohio, who now is the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Food

Program, who in 2001 was the co-author and co-sponsor of H.R. 7,

that was an attempt to legislatively expand the opportunities in

this area for faith-based groups and organizations. And recognizing

that we are currently operating under Executive order, I wanted

your thoughts, Mr. Streeter and Ms. Hasdorff, as to our needs to

make certain that, as we begin this process, that we have one that

can have longevity. As we look to the investment that we are making in capacity building for faith-based organizations, I know many

are concerned that if there is a change of administrations that does

not have the same view on this issue, that faith-based organizations might have the rug pulled out from them. I would like your

31

thoughts as to how we might proceed and what needs there might

be in that area.

Mr. STREETER. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I

think that, for starters, making sure that charitable choice provisions and equal treatment language, statutorily speaking, are

adopted in as many programs as possible. The President has made

a commitment to making sure we have charitable choice legislation

that guarantees the equal treatment of faith-based organizations,

and I think that is a top priority of this administration. I think,

as well, the continuing capacity-building. Resources is a real need

in the Compassion Capitol Fund. It would be better if it were fully

funded, and the work that it is doing is great and provides resources to grassroots organizations all around the country to help

them get their organizations up to speed, and a continuing commitment there I think is also essential.

I also would say that the goal of our center is to make sure that

as many of HUD’s program offices as possible are operating with

proper guidance on how to implement our regulations, and we have

produced guidance to that effect. I am confident that, with the ongoing adoption of the guidance that we have provided throughout

our offices, that our program offices themselves will operate in a

way that is truly fair and equitable to faith-based groups and other

inexperienced grassroots organizations.

Ms. HASDORFF. And I know that for myself personally—and I

would say that this would probably be true of many of my colleagues in other States that have Offices of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives—if there weren’t these types of offices on the

Federal level or in the White House, I think that there would be

a real deficit, because you have so many groups that come to you

and many times have questions that they need clarification on or

that you are looking for assistance in locating specific grants that

they want information on. Having someone who is a liaison within

the agencies to be able to call is invaluable.

The other thing, if you weren’t to have an Office of Faith-Based

and Community Initiatives in the White House or in the agencies,

you would still have the charitable choice laws in place, but you

just wouldn’t have quite as much of a mechanism for education and

training for the faith-based organizations on how to properly implement that. So I would strongly urge legislation to try and move

that forward.

And I have to echo what Ryan said about the CCF, the Compassion Capitol Fund. I think that is so critical to this initiative, because there really is a need for that to be fully funded. That is one

of the largest needs that our office has as a State faith-based office.

Mr. TURNER. I have one more question before we turn to my colleague, Mr. Clay, for his questions. In all of the presentations that

we have today, even the testimony that is coming in the second

panel, there is a great deal of effort and focus on the issue of funding faith-based organizations, social service activities is not funding

religious activities. And I think, Ms. Hasdorff, you made the issue

of we are not funding activities of conversion. And I applaud the

White House’s efforts and HUD’s efforts and the faith-based groups

and organizations that have tried to make certain that the sensitivVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

ity of providing social services to individuals, versus providing religious instruction or other activities not be funded.

But there is the reverse of this also, which I would like for you

to talk about for a moment, and that is the issue that was somewhat prevalent in the situation we were in before the efforts to include faith-based organizations, and that is the conversion of religious organizations to non-religious organizations, the actual constraining or restricting religious organizations in, for example, the

presentation of religious symbols, limiting the types of activities

that can occur in various spaces and places. That balance is, of

course, obviously very important, because as we try to harness that

love for trying to provide social services to others through a religious or a theological view, you don’t want to suppress that ability

for a religious organization to identify itself as a religious organization.

Could you speak to that for a moment and your efforts to ensure

that this is not a burdensome restriction on religious organizations

as we encourage them to undertake this process?

Mr. STREETER. Yes. We have made it very clear in our regulatory

language that faith-based organizations retain their independence

as faith-based organizations. If you take the faith out, they are no

longer faith-based and they lose a critical part of who they are.

There are certain things that are important to maintaining their

level of commitment to their faith and being able to operate with

government funds: one, they want to make sure that they are able

to look and feel like the faith-based organization that they are.

Many of them want to be able to hire people who share their fundamental religious views. Many of them want to make sure that

the motivation that is provided, that it gives the impetus to their

staff is something that is able to be maintained. We have made it

very clear that independence is protected. And the view of this administration is that the religious nature of an organization ought

not be compromised.

At the same time, we have made it very clear that they need to

be able to conduct their religious activities in a way that is separate from the government-funded activities; needs to be separate in

time or location, those activities need to be voluntary for anyone

assisted with the Federal funds. And I think we have been clearer

than previous rules and regulations have been. There is a myth out

there that we are blurring the line between church and State. In

fact, I think we have made the line much clearer. I think that in

our regulatory language we have spoken very clearly about what

constitutes inherently religious activities.

And I would also like to say that the many hundreds and thousands of faith-based organizations that we have dealt with in conferences and in workshops, that have dealt with our liaisons or visited us in our office, are very comfortable with those changes.

Many of them are very well educated about what they can and cannot do, and none of them have the intent of using government

funds to promote their religious mission. It is ultimately up to

them. They need to be able to decide whether or not it is worth it

to take the strings that are attached to Federal funds to be able

to carry out their mission. We just think there should be a level

playing field. And we found a great receptivity to the nature of the

33

changes that we have made and a great appreciation for the degree

we have gone to protect the religious identity of the organizations

involved.

Mr. TURNER. Ms. Hasdorff.

Ms. HASDORFF. This has been an issue that has come up a lot

on the State level as well, and I think that one of the things that

I have encouraged the different State agency folks that have talked

to me about this is to understand that we are looking for the best

providers of social services across the board. If faith-based organizations can compete for that and are given a seat at the table, and

they come in as the top provider for that social service under the

grant guidelines, then they need to be the one who is considered

being awarded that. But, on the same token, we try and structure

things in such a way so that they are not being unfairly burdened

to try and change their program so much that it is not going to be

the same program once you get through with the funding being

given to them.

I think one area to really consider looking at, though, more in

depth on this is the voucher issue. I know the President’s Access

to Recovery Grant has been something that our State has applied

for and did not receive this last go-round, but we hope that there

will be additional opportunities to apply for grants like that, because I see that as a real way to effectively address this issue and

protect both interests.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank you for

conducting this hearing on such an important subject.

I will be brief, since we are in the middle of votes on the floor.

For Mr. Streeter, since the implementation of the Executive

order in 2002, has HUD been forced to address cases of employment discrimination or instances where beneficiaries felt they were

forced to play a role in religious activities from faith-based organizations?

Mr. STREETER. It is a great question, Congressman Clay. Thank

you for the question. I am happy to respond. We have had surprisingly little activity in this area. We have, in a case-by-case basis,

addressed certain complaints that might arise, either through a

grantee or through a local State office where they feel as though

there is a problem in one of those areas. To date, we have not had

any particular situations where the employment discrimination

issue has involved our involvement. There have been a couple of instances where we have received calls from a local grantee that believes that some faith-based organization is upholding some type of

religious foil in terms of how it serves its beneficiaries, and we

have intervened and usually made sure there is clarity on that.

And in each case it has been resolved to the satisfaction of all involved, including our general counsel’s office.

Mr. CLAY. So you address the issue as it comes up.

Mr. STREETER. Right. We address this on a case-by-case basis as

these complaints and questions come to us about issues related to

either the nature and condition of employment of a faith-based organization or the requirements placed upon the people being

served.

I should say we have found really virtually no problems, though,

with respect to faith-based organizations placing religious condiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
34

tions on the people that they serve. They are there to serve their

communities, and it doesn’t matter to them. And those who receive

HUD funds especially it does not matter to them what the religious

persuasion, or lack thereof, is on the people that they are serving.

Mr. CLAY. Would it be possible for you to provide this committee

with some kind of data on how many complaints and what types?

Mr. STREETER. I would be happy to do that.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much.

And my last question, Mr. Chairman, to Ms. Hasdorff, is since

the Executive order was issued, can you indicate whether there has

been an increase or decrease in the number of faith-based providers

in your State, and if there has been an increase, has the sharp increase in Federal funds under this administration allowed for more

participation by faith-based groups in your State?

Ms. HASDORFF. Yes, sir, I would say that there has been an increase, and I believe that the President’s emphasis on this initiative and the charitable choice legislation has paved the way for

that to be something that is infiltrating into the faith-based community. I think that more and more are becoming aware of the opportunities that are now available to them. It is amazing how every

time this is mentioned in a speech or something like that, our office

is continuously contacted after that. So, yes, I would say there is

a definite increase in faith-based organizations.

Mr. CLAY. Do you see the government depending more on faithbased organizations to do the work that was traditionally done by

the government?

Ms. HASDORFF. I see the government picking partners who can

most effectively deliver those social services in the best way possible. And I think that there is an increase in partnerships. In

some ways that may shift to more work being spread around, but

I think that what it is is looking for the most tailored solutions to

communities. And this seems to be an initiative that is a catalyst

for building a lot of energy into communities that may not have

looked to those resources in the past.

Mr. CLAY. Well, thank you for your response.

Mr. TURNER. Thank you. They have called a vote, so that is why

you see the Members leaving. So we are going to recess for the

Members to vote. We are finished with panel one. I want to thank

you for your time here. And if there is anything else that you

would like to add in your testimony as a result of what you have

heard today, feel free to present that to the committee and we will

add it and supplement the record with your additional comments.

So we will recess this portion. When we come back, we will convene the business meeting to handle legislation, and then we will

reconvene for panel two.

Thank you all for being here today.

Mr. STREETER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. HASDORFF. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. TURNER. I would like to bring to order the Subcommittee on

Federalism and the Census and reconvene our hearing on ‘‘Revitalizing Communities: Are Faith-Based Organizations Getting the

Federal Assistance They Need?’’

35

We are now going to introduce our second panel. But before we

do so, I would like to ask you all to rise to be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. TURNER. Let the record show that all witnesses have responded in the affirmative. Our four panelists for this panel are

Mr. Thomas Knox, chairman of the board of We Care America; Sister Rose Wilenhaus, St. Mary Development Corp.; Mr. Mark Howard, senior vice president for World Vision; and Reverend Michael

Jones, Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church, in cooperation

with Robert Fulton Development, Inc.

I would like to now turn to Mr. Clay for a statement.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to say I am proud to welcome a constituent, Pastor Michael Jones of Friendly Temple Missionary Baptist Church of St.

Louis. I have had the pleasure of visiting Friendly Temple and am

very impressed with the work that congregation does in St. Louis.

Pastor Jones leads an organization that is based in the heart of the

inner city of St. Louis, serving an area with the highest incidence

of poverty throughout the region. Some of the major issues Pastor

Jones and his members seek to remedy on a daily basis include

high unemployment, reducing the number of children living in poverty, poor housing quality, and the extensive needs of the elderly

and the infirm.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome him before our panel, and

thank you for yielding.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

36

37

38

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Clay.

This committee looks forward to receiving your testimony.

We will begin with Mr. Knox.

STATEMENTS OF THOMAS KNOX, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD,

WE CARE AMERICA; SISTER ROSE WILENHAUS, ST. MARY DEVELOPMENT CORP.; MARK HOWARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, WORLD VISION; AND REVEREND MICHAEL JONES,

FRIENDLY TEMPLE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, IN COOPERATION WITH THE ROBERT FULTON DEVELOPMENT,

INC.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS KNOX

Mr. KNOX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank

you for the privilege of testifying today before the committee. My

name is Tom Knox. I am chairman of the board of We Care America, a faith-based nonprofit, and I am bringing you greetings from

the entire leadership team who is actually in California right now,

all of them providing technical assistance to 115 different community and faith-based groups as part of the Compassion Capitol

Fund Grant.

Dave Donaldson was the founder of this organization. He started

it in 2001. And he started it because of a personal experience

where his father was killed by a drunk driver and his mother was

badly injured, and Dave and his family had to rely on the compassion of the government, local churches, community groups, and

even corporations that provided everything from food, clothing,

companionship, and even mentoring Dave and his family.

Dave’s goal in starting We Care America was to provide guidance

and expertise to similar organizations that helped him, who were

small, didn’t have the capacity and ability to do things on a large

scale, but were extremely influential in his own life. And our continuing mission at We Care America is to unite the efforts of leaders, churches, organizations, government, and corporations to provide effective solutions and bring lasting change to spiritual and social crises that affect so many.

We Care America continues to be a strong supporter of the administration’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative. We see this

initiative as taking a step to the ‘‘Shining City on a Hill’’ so eloquently described by President Reagan. And it is a combination of

public resources with the love and compassion of faith-based and

community organizations, and it is powerful and transformative.

And we have been able already, in just a short time, to help more

than 140 non-profits garner first-time funding from the Federal

Government and have disbursed more than $10 million to these

groups. In southern California, our region for the Compassion Capitol Fund, we have more than 40 ministries we are helping and

have trained more than 4,000 groups to date on capacity-building

to drastically increase their reach and scope.

One transformative agency partnering with We Care America is

Templo Calvario, the largest Hispanic church in America. It is located right next to an empowerment zone in Santa Ana, CA, an

area which 80 percent of the residents are foreign-born and live in

poverty. And when you go out there, you just see them as an oasis

39

in this chaotic area. To answer some of the needs of its neighbors,

Reverend Dan DeLeon started Obras De Amor, Works of Love, a

benevolence program which each week provides groceries, clothing,

furniture, counseling, referrals, and emergency assistance to 250

families. In addition, Works of Love operates after-school centers

for elementary school children, sponsors teenagers at summer

camp, donates backpacks loaded with school supplies, and distributes Christmas toys to 4,000 children.

Works of Love, of course, cannot meet every need and, as a result, must leverage itself with other organizations. In addition to

delivering its own services, it provides groceries, clothing, furniture, and occasional funding to a network of now 60 other

churches and community-based organizations called the Kingdom

Coalition. In turn, those members extend from Los Angeles to San

Diego and are now providing food, counseling, after-school centers,

and furniture to more than 80,000 people a month. And when you

see their operation, extremely sophisticated in what it does.

Food and shelter, of course, are essential for sustaining life, but

they are not the only essential elements. Shelter is necessary. And

here is where the partnership of Templo Calvario, We Care America, and now the Federal Government is bearing much fruit. The

Church, aided by Federal dollars through the Compassion Capitol

Fund, in 2002 started Templo Calvario Community Development

Corp. This community development corporation [CDC] focuses on

six core things: affordable housing; business and job creation; education; youth programs; a Senior Service Enterprise that provides

home care, transportation, and other services to seniors; and a

community fair for more than 100 community organizations.

We Care America provides technical assistance to the CDC

through a 3-year Compassion Capitol Fund grant, Templo has

about 20 organizations that it, in turn, is helping to grow with We

Care’s help.

Although the administration has at least temporarily removed

many barriers to public funding of faith-based and community organizations, some barriers still remain. Just this past week, Reverend DeLeon, when he was in town, recounted to one of our staffers that he faces barriers frequently at the State and local level.

Reverend DeLeon said he needs to educate the State and local officials regularly that it is OK for them to partner with a 501(c)(3)

and provide services to the most vulnerable in his community.

Even locally there is an organization called Beach Care within

the last 2 years is providing soup kitchens, thrift shops, counseling

centers, and after-school programs, and I watch with the $35,000

capacity building grant they have created a board and gotten their

budgets in place and are now able to increase what they are doing,

but spend their time on fundraising instead of having the funds allocated to do more good work.

At We Care, we are proud to partner with ministries and community organizations that do a lot to provide solutions in their

neighborhood. Barriers, however, still remain. The simple fact that

we can’t rattle off at this point hundreds of examples is an example

of detractors that have had a chilling effect on providing a level

playing field for the faith-based organizations to provide social

services.

40

Through the Compassion Capitol Fund, the capacity of many

charities on the front lines has been raised, and the charities are

delivering more aid, with more accountability, to our Nation’s poor

and needy. As their capacity increases, these neighborhood charities will increase the competition for public funds, which should

help the taxpayer in the long run, in addition to the poor and

needy.

However, whether it is in the housing market, providing substance abuse treatment, or even after-school programs, there must

be a concerted effort to communicate the principles of the faith and

community-based initiative down to the State and local level without the fear of litigation that stops providers from being successful.

And that hiring rights are long-held historic traditions in all faith

communities in this Nation and that voucherizing social services

may be the most effective way to navigate the current landscape.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knox follows:]

41

42

43

44

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Knox.

Sister Wilenhaus.

STATEMENT OF SISTER ROSE WILENHAUS

Sister WILENHAUS. Good morning. St. Mary Development Corp.

was started in 1989 in Dayton, OH, in Montgomery County. Our

mission is to provide community development and provide housing

and holistic services to low-income residents.

We began our work when we were prompted by seeing the look

of hopelessness in the eyes of the residents in a depressed neighborhood in East Dayton. We try to bring hope to the declining

neighborhoods by empowering people to do all that they are capable of doing, and to create an environment where all things are

possible.

We focus our efforts around these guiding principles: faith in

God, firm commitment to the community, development and empowerment of the people, and persistence in purpose.

Throughout our 15 year history, we have expanded our programming to include Southeast Dayton Housing to serve as a general

contractor to provide single-family homes and rehab homes, specifically, many times for senior citizens.

Another one of our primary goals is the creation of affordable

housing as a catalyst for neighborhood development. We currently

have five senior buildings that is home to over 600 independent living seniors of low to moderate-income. We provide a unique quality

of life at an affordable price for low and moderate-income seniors.

St. Mary Development places a high priority on collaboration

with other non-profits with the city, State, Federal Governments.

We rely on partners for assistance with transportation, health care

services, nutritional counseling, and senior fitness programs. One

of our senior buildings even has an in-house grocery store for the

convenience of in-bound residents.

We partner with colleges, the transportation agency,

NeighborWorks of America, Ohio Capital Corp. for Housing, and we

do all of this in complete partnership; otherwise, our organization

would be able to do very little. The local churches provide residents

with spiritual needs. We have neighborhood prayer breakfasts, gospel choirs, weekly visits from ministers, and residents’ Bible study

groups, that nourish not only the body, but the soul and keep hope

and love alive in our residents.

St. Mary’s has also created a Home Ownership Center of Greater

Dayton. Its mission is to educate and empower residents of Greater

Dayton area to achieve and sustain home ownership and financial

success. We provide training in many areas, particularly right now

we are focusing on assistance to victims of predatory lending.

St. Mary’s has also been committed to the education not only of

children, but adults. We began with the GED program with the

Dayton public schools. We have Head Start programs with Miami

Valley Child Development, and we are also partnering with Richard Allen Academy Charter School areas. Children in poor areas

and parents need education in order to achieve what they always

wanted.

In spite of these achievements, we know we have lots to do. Cities don’t deteriorate over night, and rebuilding neighborhoods and

45

restoring hope to their people is a lengthy process. SMDC has barely scratched the surface, and the resources are not available to address all of the present needs. We continue to search for funding

to help achieve our mission.

Federal grants to faith-based organizations like St. Mary are essential if we are to continue our work. Unfortunately, Federal

grants are often intimidating and create impossible barriers for

small organizations. We just finished a 202 project that took four

people 5 weeks to do, and all of the other work that they would

have done had to be put on hold. We would like to see that

changed. We would like to have Federal agencies help with grants

to underwrite performance-driven programs that deliver positive,

measurable effects. Faith-based organizations are usually grassroots and are close to and trusted by the neighborhood organizations and residents. They have the advantage of knowing first-hand

the needs and priorities of the communities they serve.

We really appreciate this opportunity to share our experience

with you. We are fortunate to have developed into a vital, resourceful organization that is now large enough to deal with significant

programs that will favorably impact the people we serve. We are

looking forward to continuing to practice our mission and serving

a diverse population in a caring and dignified manner.

We thank you.

[The prepared statement of Sister Wilenhaus follows:]

46

47

48

49

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Howard.

STATEMENT OF MARK HOWARD

Mr. HOWARD. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you, Member Clay and other members of the committee, for inviting World Vision to testify before your committee today. My name

is Mark Howard, and I serve as the general counsel for World Vision, and I have served in this role for the past 15 years.

World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization

operating in nearly 100 countries, with an overall budget worldwide of about $11⁄2 billion. In 2004, World Vision in the United

States contributed $800 million to this total, of which $285 million

came from the U.S. Government. World Vision has over 1 million

private donors from every State and congressional district in the

United States.

Motivated by our faith in Jesus, World Vision serves the poor, regardless of a person’s religion, race, ethnicity, or gender, as a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for all people. We understand and respect the cultures in which we work, and we do not

proselytize.

Within the United States, World Vision works in collaboration

with thousands of local faith and community-based organizations.

In 2004, World Vision assisted more than 11⁄2 million American

children and adults. Here in Washington, DC, World Vision is

working with at-risk youth on the streets and in the schools in

Wards 7, 8, and in Prince George’s County. World Vision is working on a cutting edge program in northern Virginia to break the vicious cycle of gang violence.

And World Vision is one of the largest non-commercial providers

of school supplies both here in Washington, DC, and across the Nation through our gifts-in-kind program.

While the majority of World Vision’s grants from the U.S. Government are for international programs, we have been growing our

domestic programs with both private and public resources. The domestic portfolio currently includes funding from the Department of

Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the D.C.

Appropriations bill, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. World Vision has applied for and won two HUD rural

capacity building grants for a combined total of $600,000 to be disbursed over the next 5 years.

World Vision would like to thank President Bush and the U.S.

Congress for its support of the many faith-based and community

initiatives. These numerous efforts have begun to reduce the barriers for faith-based organizations, with the goal of bringing a level

playing field for all organizations, both faith-based and secular.

However, for World Vision and other faith-based organizations, the

reforms have not gone far enough. While we are invited to participate and apply for all programs, in many cases the price of participation, especially on U.S. domestic programs, is too high. We are

asked to forfeit our right to hire staff that share our faith, which

we refuse to do.

Religious staffing is essential to the character of our organization, and is protected by the exemptions set out in Section 702 of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

50

Some of the programs World Vision and other faith-based organizations are being invited to participate in do not recognize this key

religious staffing freedom. The Youthbuild and Youth Offender Reentry opportunities are two such programs. Both of these programs

carry Workforce Investment Act stipulations that roll in at the

local level. These stipulations would require World Vision to forfeit

our religious hiring requirement in order to participate. Each program is from an agency World Vision has accepted funds from in

the past without any restrictions in religious hiring.

In particular, Section 188(a), subparagraph (2) of the Workforce

Investment Act prohibits organizations from hiring employees

based on religion. While the funding for Youthbuild programs

comes directly from HUD, the fact that any Youthbuild grantee

must be a mandatory partner in a One-Stop Center pulls over the

Workforce Investment Act requirement and effectively prevents

World Vision from accessing such funding, since World Vision will

not forego our hiring based on religion.

In evaluating this grant opportunity, World Vision’s ability to engage in a timely conversation with the faith-based office of HUD

was essential. The faith-based office assisted in detailed fact-checking of our internal legal review. The knowledgeable input we received from the HUD faith-based office confirmed our own legal review and reinforced that the appropriate decision for World Vision

was not to submit a proposal. The faith-based offices are aware of

these issues and World Vision hopes Congress will change these

statutory restrictions to conform to the exemption containing the

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

World Vision strongly supports H.R. 1054. Not only should the

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives be codified, but

also expanded so that organizations, particularly those without the

resources and staff of World Vision, can get the guidance and assistance that they need.

World Vision believes that religious staffing is essential to the religious integrity and autonomy of faith-based organizations. The

White House Faith-Based and Community Initiative Offices have

played an integral role over the past few years in educating and

advising grassroots faith-based and community organizations. Although the playing field is far from level, the ability to access these

offices ensures that issues of concern to organizations like World

Vision will receive the attention they deserve.

I would be glad to entertain any questions you have. Thank you

for allowing us to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Howard follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

Mr. TURNER. Thank you.

Pastor Jones.

STATEMENT OF REVEREND MICHAEL JONES

Reverend JONES. Thank you, Chairman Turner, Ranking Member Clay, and other subcommittee members, for this opportunity to

share with you Friendly Temple’s accomplishment with community

revitalization.

Friendly Temple Church, also known as FTMBC, is a faith-based

organization committed to leveraging its resources and building relationships to revitalize its community surrounding. With the establishment of nonprofit corporations, development of several properties, coordination of congregational members, and the collaboration with various community partners, FTMBC has been able to

make a significant impact on the community it serves.

Friendly, also known as FTMBC, is located in the heart of the

inner city of St. Louis, MO. Our surrounding area is characterized

as one of the areas in the city of St. Louis with the highest incident

of poverty. We have, for example, one of the highest incidents of

unemployment; census tracts with the highest proportion of persons living in poverty; highest percentage of children living in poverty; poor housing; many tracks of vacant, abandoned, and boarded

up homes; also a high incident of crime.

We are located in an area that many of you are all too familiar

with, that represents America’s disinvested community.

Because of the needs, our congregation wanted to make a difference in the lives of people around FTMBC, so we created a nonprofit organization called Robert Fulton Development, Inc. Many of

FTMBC’s outreach efforts are managed through Robert Fulton, established in 1996, named in honor of our founding pastor, Robert

Fulton Davis. The mission of Robert Fulton is to revitalize the community by maximizing the potential of all community members

through a holistic approach, focusing on six areas: one is children

and youth development; education; health services; counseling; food

and clothing; and affordable housing. Through these six focus

areas, with the dedication of a strong volunteer base, Robert Fulton

has been able to serve the community with a number of initiatives

from feeding the hungry to tutoring school-aged children. These

services operate through and from FTMBC facilities and depend

strongly on the dedication of its members. FTMBC invests in the

world of Robert Fulton Inc.

The members of our church have contributed various skills and

talents to serve the needs of the community. There are a number

of individuals gifted with skills in areas like organizational development, management, food preparation, carpentry, general maintenance, and child care, key skills needed in the delivery of the many

outreach services offered through the church. With just as much

commitment there are also a number of professionals who donate

so much of their time and efforts toward fulfilling the church’s outreach mission. They represent professionals such as education,

counseling, law, accounting, social work, computer science, engineering, and architecture.

In addition to utilizing the skills and talents available through

the congregation, our church has also been successful at building

56

community partnerships with government entities, Federal and

local, corporations, other churches, colleges, universities, and other

community organizations. These partnerships have enabled Friendly Temple to increase the impact of its work by serving more people

and developing projects at a larger scope. Through the leveraging

of resources and building of relationships, we have been able to do

much. For example, we serve at least 4,000 individuals annually

through our various outreach programs; we have been able to also

develop 10 housing units for low to moderate-income families

through the renovation of decaying properties; develop our first

senior housing project; we also renovated a 40,000 square foot

building, now known as our Family Life Center; we have been

given, granted, awarded, a 202 project and now the second one is

in the works; we also operate a VITA project as well; and through

the development of our corporation in the last 5 years, we have

been able to produce projects totaling at least $15 million in gross

abilities.

And because of the Executive Order 13279, many of our faithbased organizations were pleased to hear that this opportunity was

made affordable unto us, and I will say that our opportunity to

share and to serve with HUD has been a wonderful relationship

with us, not only with our initial 202 program, but we have the

second one coming, and they have provided wonderful resources in

support of our 202 programs as well.

I think my time is up.

[The prepared statement of Reverend Jones follows:]

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. TURNER. Well, first off, I want to thank each of you for participating today. I know it took a tremendous amount of time for

your participation and for your attendance. But also I want to

thank you for your dedication to your communities and to the people whose lives you are trying to impact, because as part of your

ministry, this is certainly a giving effort, and it is one that makes

a big difference to our country and to our neighborhoods. When we

look at issues of community development and community capacity

building, we always find people who are giving, taking time away

from their professions or the lives of their families, and I know

with each of you that this is a love that can be transforming for

communities.

It is great to have a hearing where people talk, in terms of social

services, in the context of love, because so many times the issues

of outcomes can overshadow the most effective delivery system we

have, which is, of course, through love.

As you heard from the beginning panel that we had, panel one,

we focused on the changes that occurred that allowed greater entry

and access for faith-based organizations. We also discussed a little

bit the issue of the ease of access and what needs to happen in capacity-building, and then we also talked about whether there needs

to be changes in the current structure or status with need for legislation either to lower additional impediments that may be present

or to codify what currently is there so that groups and organizations like yours do not have your rug pulled out from underneath

you. And then also we talked about the issue of the reverse conversion of the fear of government imposing upon you the conversion

from religious organizations, religious-focused organizations to secular organizations.

I would like to start our discussion really focusing on those four

things, but with the first question of looking at faith-based organizations and the access to Federal funds, both from your own perspective and what you see from assisting other faith-based organizations, what help do you or they need currently in facilitating the

access to these Federal funds? Mr. Knox.

Mr. KNOX. Well, I appreciate the question. I think in We Care’s

case, the greatest impact it has made, even today training 115 organizations, is the technical training to understand how to access

the funds. I think a couple years ago, when this all came about,

there was a great groundswell in interest, and at the We Care offices the phone was ringing off the hook: how do I access it; what

do I do? People thought the floodgates were going to open. They

quickly realized two things: No. 1, there was a fear developed about

taking the money, which is a good thing. People ought to know it

is the right thing for their organization. But, second, like the distinguished lady next to me said, people spend months working on

grants; they take existing staff, because they can’t afford new staff,

and pull them away from current projects to work on different

grants.

And I think that making the funds available for training and

also equipping organizations like We Care and other faith-based organizations who are helping educate the ability to have technical

training on call to increase their Web tools, to increase allow the

smaller organizations—a lot of them are budgets of $100,000,

62

$200,000 $300,000, maybe even less—to access technology to be

able to increase their capabilities to access the funds. And I think

the education, the technical assistance is extremely important in

that regard. Otherwise, people get frustrated 3 or 4 months in and

stop, and will never ever attempt to access it again.

Mr. TURNER. Sister Rose.

Sister WILENHAUS. He said it perfectly. It is the technical training and the ability to hire staff that can carry that out.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Howard.

Mr. HOWARD. I think a common theme you have heard, both in

the earlier testimony and in what you are hearing here, is capacitybuilding is a huge issue for smaller grassroots organizations, something World Vision has been working on as well. As Pastor DeLeon

was referenced in the earlier testimony from Mr. Knox, the other

issue is the education of State and local officials about the faithbased initiative and the impact of the imposition of local ordinances

and regulations on faith-based organizations when it is tied to the

use of Federal funds. I think that would be of huge assistance.

Mr. TURNER. Reverend Jones.

Reverend JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also agree with capacity-building. Our organization has really been working for a

number of years in this area and has also talented and gifted people who volunteer much of their time and services to our work. If

we had the ability to bring those people on, it could really increase

our opportunities of expansion, and growth as well. Second, I would

also mention that I think it would be helpful, as we have had, an

entry point of contact within the organization such as HUD. We

have always had someone to facilitate us, to oversee us, and to

really support our work as well, and I think that point of contact

is critical as well.

Mr. TURNER. Very good.

At this point I am going to defer to Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me start with Sister Wilenhaus.

Sister WILENHAUS. Yes.

Mr. CLAY. Welcome.

Sister WILENHAUS. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Let me say, as a faith-based nonprofit organization,

how have the recent charitable choice rules improved the climate

for St. Mary’s to provide social services? Specifically, Catholic Charities has been utilizing government funds for years, so how have

these changes improved your ability to provide services?

Sister WILENHAUS. Thank you. We probably would have never

thought to apply for a Federal grant if this change had not come

about. So that was a big start for our organization. We have also

been able to think about partnering with other agencies that we

didn’t believe we would be able to do. So that is extremely important to a small nonprofit, to be able to hold hands with a bigger

organization.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

Mr. Howard, in your experience, has the self-imposed restriction

on religious hiring requirements limited the number of persons

qualified to work for World Vision? Do you find a shortage of qualified workers with restrictions such as this? And wouldn’t religious

63

restrictions hinder the quality of work, since you don’t always have

the best people to provide services?

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Clay. We haven’t had that experience to be true in the United States. We have always been able to

find highly qualified people who are willing to make a change in

their lifestyle to come to work for a nonprofit organization, even

one that imposes the kind of faith restrictions that we have. We

have not found that to be difficult.

Mr. CLAY. OK. You mentioned Youthbuild, which I am very high

on; I think it is a great program that helps young people transition

to world of work.

Mr. HOWARD. Absolutely.

Mr. CLAY. What is the difference in having someone with a religious affiliation or with a nonsectarian affiliation teach those kids?

Mr. HOWARD. For us it goes to the fundamental issue of people

who share our concerns and our mission. It is not so much the

technical capabilities that drives the issue around religious hiring

restrictions, it is those who share our passion, who share our faith,

who shares what drives us. We do what we do because of who we

are. We don’t do what we do because we can do it, we do it because

of who we are as Christians.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Well, thank you for that response.

Pastor Jones, welcome. Generally speaking, Pastor, what are the

areas of greatest need in the St. Louis community, are they housing related or are there other pressing needs, such as social services, emergency shelter, day care programs, that need to be addressed? What do you see as the greatest need?

Reverend JONES. Congressman, I see probably all of the above.

We try and reach out in many areas of the mentioned areas that

you have listed there, and housing is critical, especially in our area.

Outreach services, once a person lives and moves within a community, they then will need additional resources to work and additional resources for their children, additional resources for other capacities as well. So I see a combination of all the above as we try

and reach the entire individual as well.

Mr. CLAY. Having visited your offices in November of last year,

I saw first-hand that you are a well deserved recipient of the 2003

HUD St. Louis Field Office Shining Star Award. You obviously

know how to design and implement a program from its creation to

completion. As you work with other faith-based and nonprofit social

service groups, what practices can you share to help them become

more effective and efficient in their operations, and are there universal managerial practices that you consider key to fulfilling a

project’s goal?

Reverend JONES. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. We have, in our

area, established a coalition of churches, religious leaders who are

working together to try and achieve similar goals, and in and with

this organization we think that there are skills and talents within

the framework of the organization where we can share with each

other strengths and weaknesses, and try and improve upon the

weaknesses and share the strengths within, which creates an opportunity for effective service to the community and effective application of resources, a disbursement of resources efficiently within

the community as well.

64

Our experience within this organization, there are some smaller

churches who have not the experience that maybe we have, and we

have an opportunity to share with them, to help educate them, to

train them within and enable them to put them in position to do

work as we do it as well.

Mr. CLAY. Someone like mentoring.

And my final question, Mr. Chairman, as a faith-based community development organization, have you encountered resistance

from other foundations or private funding sources to partner with

because of your religious affiliation?

Reverend JONES. I can’t say directly that we have. We have been

blessed with many opportunities, but I will tell you that primarily

our organization and our church has really funded itself through

its own resources. We have been assisted greatly by the resources

that the Federal Government has given us, but we always would

like to be partners, bringing our portion to the table and working

with individuals. So since we have something to bring to the table,

we typically are not rejected, often, when we are applying.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. Thank you for your responses.

I thank the entire table for their responses. I appreciate it, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. TURNER. Pastor Jones, I would love to hear your thoughts on

the issue of being a faith-based organization, being required to hire

those individuals who have no faith, or even individuals who might

be antagonistic to faith, what impact, if any, that might have on

your faith-based organization.

Reverend JONES. Well, interesting for us, we are in a unique position. Our membership totals over 4,000, and we have a great

wealth of talented pool of people who are qualified and would love

to share in our work and in our ministry as well. But even when

we have had the opportunity to hire from without, we typically

don’t see any problems, if you will, with hiring individuals such as

those who may not share the same faith or the same religious commitment that we have. We have done it. We have partnerships, we

have relationships with them and it has worked well.

Mr. TURNER. I want to congratulate you on your success. Mr.

Clay was commenting on the size of your organization and your effective outreach program. So that is certainly a sign of excellent

success, and the numbers of people that you are reaching.

I want to turn back to the topics that we had in the first panel,

and if you could talk about current restrictions that still might be

an impediment. We have talked about local ordinances. If there are

others that you know of that we need to take into consideration,

it would be great to hear those from you.

Mr. KNOX. Well, I think one of the things I notice from a little

bit more of a global board perspective of working with We Care

America is the perception and the fear of organizations who could

leverage faith-based organizations to a new level, a fear of getting

involved. For instance, I feel like the corporate sector, which traditionally gives a larger amount of money, only maybe 2 to 3 percent

of that money goes to faith-based organizations because there is a

perception of what that may entail. And I think the education of

the corporate community, understanding what the Federal GovernVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:33 Nov 18, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\24085.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
65

ment is doing to bring down those walls, can leverage, maybe even

double some of the funds that are coming into these organizations.

The second thing that I think is more of a knowledge basis across

the country of best practices, and I think that one of the things

that needs to be done, if possible, is to track the performance of organizations that have received funds, how they have done it professionally, how the accountability brought on by receiving Federal

funds has helped in their growth, and allow other organizations to

grow in that.

So they can probably answer a little more directly on some of the

restrictions. Again, we train people on what those restrictions are,

but I think that a lot of it also is in the perception and allowing

others to get involved.

Mr. TURNER. Sister Rose.

Sister WILENHAUS. I also agree that it is the perception of what

a not-for-profit faith-based organization is doing that sometimes

causes other groups not to want to fund or to give you the assistance that you might need. Maybe some of that is our own fault, as

faith-based organizations, that we don’t speak to what we really do

strong enough and loud enough in the community.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Howard.

Mr. HOWARD. We have already spoken to the regulations. I think

to go through and look at all the various programs that faith-based

organizations could quality for domestically and just ensure the

charitable choice and all the provisions of the faith-based initiatives are instituted in all those programs across, the stipulations

are removed from the restrictions. As I stated earlier, I think the

next big issue that we are going to be facing is the implementation

at the State and local level of Federal block grant funds, and working with local and State officials like the lady from Alabama who

shared this morning, a great example of a State that is taking a

proactive stance, trying to facilitate that. Not all States are doing

that, and certainly very few municipalities and localities.

Mr. TURNER. Pastor Jones.

Reverend JONES. Thank you, Chairman. As we stated earlier, I

think the restrictions or the limitations are with the capacity-building and some of the other supportive areas that we could benefit

from. I also think that communication within not only our circle,

but from the government’s point of view. Often, I think that when

people hear faith-based initiative or faith-based, they think immediately money, they think that there are dollars that are going to

just be freely given. And I think that in the training and in the dialog, it is critical to communicate clearly the qualifications and what

is expected of each organization as we apply and pursue these

kinds of deals or opportunities.

Mr. TURNER. I have a couple more questions that are not necessarily for the whole panel, so I am just going to break for a moment and call this the commercial section of the testimony. You all

have had the opportunity to talk about what you have done in the

past, and I would like for you for a moment, if you will, to just tell

me for the record some of the things that you have on the board,

some of the things that you foresee that you want to accomplish,

your dream and vision of where you are going as we partner together in the faith-based initiative.

66

Pastor Jones, you are smiling the biggest, so I will let you start.

Reverend JONES. Well, I smiled first, chairman, because I am a

preacher and we have limited time. But we are encouraged by our

community work and our partnerships within our community. We

mentioned earlier our second 202 project which has been funded

will have over 100 units within this community; and we are looking

to build market rate homes. We are acquiring apartments to provide housing for individuals in our community; youth worship center, youth recreational centers; strip mall, which would also demand commercial development as well within our organization, we

are looking to do that; an additional school that we are hoping to

do as well.

So we have a variety, a myriad of things that we are looking forward to doing. And the support that we receive, we must admit

and I must admit, enables us to really pool our resources in a different way in order that we can maximize our resources. So we

have a lot we are doing, and this has just provided those kind of

opportunities for us.

Mr. HOWARD. World Vision is working presently in about eight

metropolitan areas in the inner city. Our focus is mostly on at-risk

youth and on substandard housing. We would like to expand that

to more cities. We would like to be able to expand our ability to

help develop capacity for other organizations. When you say what

would you like to do in the future, what we really need is have one

of our program folks here who can talk to when you see a kid who

has been in and out of the juvenile justice system, and you see the

change that you can make by getting them out of that system and

giving them positive role models, and putting them together with

people in his community or her community that make a difference,

and you have the opportunity to expand that across a broader area,

you would grab every chance you could.

So those are the three principal areas we work in, is trying to

build capacity, working with at-risk youth, and then making contributions of both gifts-in-kind from the corporations, but also from

the U.S. Government, available on as broad a basis as possible.

Sister WILENHAUS. St. Mary Development is, of course, working

hard on that 202 project that we want to do. Specifically, we would

like to do the housing on the Veterans Administration grounds, and

we would hope that many of our future residents would be veterans

ourselves. We have partnered and done tax credits, single-family

homes, and now our part of the work begins, and that is the education of the families who will be moving in. St. Mary’s says a lot

of people can put a roof over someone’s house. We say we want to

keep the people in that house. And we intend to do that through

education, and we will also do that through hand-holding, which

takes a lot of staff and a lot of special time.

We would like to work with Trotwood, OH and their grandiose

plan of changing the Salem Dayton Mall into a new face and a new

use, and that will be a new venture for us. We are going to open

early childhood classes in the fall, and this will be working with

children 3, 4, and 5, because, again, we believe that the sooner you

can educate someone, the better chance they have. So we want to

work not only with the children, but with their parents.

67

Dayton is also experiencing a strong influx of Hispanic families,

so since I know nothing in Spanish, you know there is something

I have to learn and our staff will have to learn, because we believe

that we are there to help them become acclimated to Dayton and

make Dayton a better place.

Mr. KNOX. I think a couple of things that We Care America will

be focusing on is one I touched on earlier, is as this whole process

evolves and money is being accessed and faith-based organizations

are growing and it is becoming more commonplace, we are seeing

a greater interest in the corporate community, so what we are trying to do is create a new thrust within the organization to meet

with the corporate community organizations and large Fortune 500

companies who have never given to faith-based organizations.

And with the credibility of also working and receiving funds from

the Federal Government, coming to them and saying why don’t we

leverage this money together in your community, and we are getting great feedback on that. So what we are seeing is kind of a coalition of the government, faith-based organizations, and the corporate community.

Second is centers in major cities, and actually the CCF, which is

the Capitol Fund, is also starting the process of starting centers in

individual cities where we can bring together the best practices. We

Care America doesn’t actually perform the work on the ground, it

empowers and helps other organizations to do it. And if there were

centers where local smaller, non-profit, faith-based organizations

come to and receive information on the best practices, what is

working for after-school programs, mentoring programs, drug rehab

programs, to bring it into practice in your own organization, and

maybe receiving money from the Federal Government and from

corporations, but to have a local entity that can do that.

And I think the third thing is to help these organizations—I had

mentioned earlier in my testimony, just a local organization I am

not affiliated with in southeastern Virginia, received $38,000, but

what it did was, as part of that grant process, it professionalized

their organization; it made them hire a real board, it got their

budgets together, they hired key personnel. And they grew from

$100,000 to $300,000, $350,000 just by making those changes,

without receiving further money. But now they have the capacity

for more. So I think accessing whatever can be done for those organizations to help them grow.

And the last thing is when you go to these training programs,

people are seeing a new faith in their government, I think, because

they are there and the government is paying them to train how to

professionalize their organization, but not only that, training them

on how to access funds, their tax dollars. And that is an empowering thought. And I think by changing this from an Executive order

and creating legislation, hopefully that will continue the faith in

that process and people will feel like they should continue to invest

in learning how to do it, because it is not going to go away.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Howard, next I have a question that is exclusively for you, and before I ask it I want to make a note for the

record that the entire membership of panel two are individuals who

are individuals of faith, representing faith-based organizations, and

Mr. Howard being general counsel, as an attorney, is certainly an

68

example that the legal profession and people of faith are not mutually exclusive.

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TURNER. And being a lawyer, that is an important distinction for me to make. But the question that I want to return to from

the first panel is that there is a concern, obviously, about the issue

of faith-based organizations advancing faith versus advancing social services, and there is a tremendous effort, both through the

regulations and through the actual practice, to ensure that what

the Federal Government is funding is social service provision and

not religious provision. On the converse side, there is also a significant amount of concern from faith-based organizations that by entering this realm, they may be subjecting themselves to regulation

or rules and laws that diminish their ability to operate as religious

or faith-based organizations.

My staff gave me a copy of a case, Catholic Charities of Sacramento v. Department of Managed Health Care in California,

where the Catholic Charities sought relief from a law that they believed would cause them to have to operate in a way that violated

their religious principles or philosophy. And the court applied from

that law a four-part test to determine whether or not they should

be excluded from it as a religious group or not, and the four-part

test was: was the corporate purpose the direct inculcation of religious values; does it primarily employ persons of its religious beliefs; does it serve people of all faiths and backgrounds; and is it

a 501(c)(3), all of which are tests many times that you are required

to be able to pass in order to receiving funding.

So you are both setting up a test and requiring people to satisfy

it to access funding, and then using the same test to determine

that you are no longer a religious organization; therefore, we can

fully and completely regulate you without any restriction that

might impact your religious beliefs or faith’s operation. Would you

want to comment on that?

Mr. HOWARD. Well, I would be curious to know if that is California State court or if that is a Federal court. That does make a little

bit different——

Mr. TURNER. It is California.

Mr. HOWARD. It is California courts?

Mr. TURNER. Yes. California Supreme Court, I believe. Yes, Supreme Court of California.

Mr. HOWARD. Supreme Court of California. I have not read that

case, but based on the four tests that you have set out, World Vision wouldn’t have any difficulty meeting those four tests. We do

work with churches, we do work with pastors in our programming,

and we do what we do because of our faith, and that is our motivation. You can’t separate that out. The reason we do something, you

can’t separate it out from the actual provision of the service.

We would never say in order to receive this benefit, this support

that is federally funded, that you have to sit through a sermon or

participate in a Bible study or convert to a different religion. That

is not what we do. We don’t proselytize. When we do work with

churches and local pastors—for instance, when we want to raise

the capacity of local pastors to minister to their community, so we

might put together a pastor’s resource center—we make sure that

69

is funded with private funds, separate in time and location from

the work that we do that is federally funded. We have been doing

that for 30 years on the international side. When we work with

local missionaries and local pastors to help build their capacities in

the country, we make sure that is funded separately from any

funds that we receive from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

We do give the benefit of what we do to everybody who comes.

In fact, the majority of our beneficiaries around the world are not

Christians, they are mostly Muslims and Buddhists and Agamous.

So we don’t make that kind of discrimination, so we wouldn’t have

any difficulty with that.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Howard, I want you to comment, though, on is

the reverse of your concerns of once you’re complying with the——

Mr. HOWARD. Once we receive the funds?

Mr. TURNER. Yes. You are complying by not crossing the line to

providing religious services versus social services.

Mr. HOWARD. Right.

Mr. TURNER. But now you may have opened yourself to regulation and the impact of laws that might go to the issue of impacting

your religious beliefs or your operations violate those tenets. Do

you, as I have heard from others, as faith-based organizations,

have a concern that process might result in a back door, if you will,

of regulating practices of faith?

Mr. HOWARD. Well, that risk always exists. You know, the old

song is the ability to tax is the ability to destroy, and the ability

to withdraw funds or to compel funds or to compel complaints with

that is always a risk for anyone who receives Federal funding. We

look for each program that we are going to propose for our grant

very carefully, and if we were concerned that we thought there

might be a creeping imposition on us, we would choose not to. Our

Board of Directors, which comes from all works of life from all over

the United States, has made it very clear that if at any point in

time Federal funding would restrict our ability to maintain our religious activities, we would stop taking Federal funds, plain and

simple.

Mr. TURNER. At this point I would like to open it for any closing

comments that you might have as a result of having heard others

or other thoughts that you might want to include in the record before we conclude.

Mr. Knox. Sister Rose.

Sister WILENHAUS. I would certainly like to partner with everybody at the table. I am in Dayton, OH. Be sure you look at that.

Mr. TURNER. I was going to suggest that everyone exchange

cards before this is over.

Mr. HOWARD. One other thought. One of the programs—the Empowerment Zone—is one other issue where there are restrictions on

religious staffing issues that you might have your staff look into.

One of the issues facing the inner city, of course, is incredible poverty, and what we can do, what we can’t to help facilitate the

growth of local and small business through Empowerment Zone

funding. We would love to participate in that, but have been precluded from doing so so far.

70

Mr. TURNER. Anyone else? If not, I want to thank you all for participating. I appreciate the time that you have spent in preparing.

It is certainly important to recognize the compassionate work and

praiseworthy results achieved by faith-based organizations. Regardless of religious affiliation, these organizations strengthen

American families and neighborhoods. I am pleased to hear of the

efforts underway at HUD to assist these groups, and I hope that

Congress will continue to support the President’s initiative in community development efforts carried out by faith-based organizations.

In the event there are any additional questions that we did not

have time for today, the record shall remain open for 2 weeks for

the submission of questions and answers. Thank you all.

We will be adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ