Faith-Based Organizations Providing 

Employment and Training Services: 

A Preliminary Exploration

Fredrica D. Kramer

Demetra Smith Nightingale

John Trutko

Shayne Spaulding

Burt S. Barnow

Revised

February 2002

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

This report was prepared at the Urban Institute under U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration contract number 1-6830-8-00-80-30, Task Order #6. Opinions expressed are those of the 
2

authors, and do not represent official positions of the Department of Labor, the Urban Institute, its Trustees 

or its sponsors.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HIGHLIGHTS................................................................................................................III

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1

Definitions.....................................................................................................................2

Approach and Limitations ............................................................................................4

2. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AGENCIES’ CONTRACTING WITH FAITHBASED ORGANIZATIONS.......................................................................................6

3. WORK-RELATED SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGIOUS 

CONGREGATIONS .................................................................................................10

Informal or episodic assistance..................................................................................10

Referral services and other cross-institutional relationships...................................11

Formal Congregation Services and Programs.......................................................... 12

4. WORK-RELATED SERVICES PROVIDED BY FAITH-BASED NON-PROFIT 

ORGANIZATIONS...............................................................................18

Types of Organizations.............................................................................................. 18

Funding Sources..........................................................................................................21

Nature of Services......................................................................................................22

5. CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................23

General Findings.........................................................................................................23

Outstanding Issues.....................................................................................................27

APPENDIX A: FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING WELFARE-TOWORK GRANTS ......................................................................................................29
ii

APPENDIX B: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS’ CONTRACTING 

WITH FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.............................................................30

APPENDIX C: NUMBER OF CONGREGATIONS IDENTIFIED THAT 

PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT- RELATED SERVICES, BY CITY........................31

APPENDIX D: NONPROFIT FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS .......................32
iii

HIGHLIGHTS

This is an exploratory examination of faith-based organizations’ (FBOs)—congregations 

and nonprofit organizations—provision of employment related services in five cities: Baltimore, 

Ft. Worth, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. The review suggests the following points:

• All five of the local workforce investment agencies (WIAs) contract with FBOs. 

The value of FBO contracts in 2000 range from $36,000 in Milwaukee to $3.6 million in 

San Diego. But FBO contracts represent just a small portion of the WIA local budgets, 

ranging from about 1percent (in 3 cities) to about 6 percent in San Diego and 10 percent in 

Pittsburgh. The median FBO contract in 2000 was about $98,000. All five agencies 

indicate that they expect more FBO contracts in the future.

• Most of the religious congregations/houses of worship contacted indicated that 

they do not formally provide employment-related services. Several explained that 

they provide help on an informal case-by-case basis to persons who need or request help, 

and that sometimes might include work-related help. But such assistance is not

characteristically formal, extensive, or prolonged.

• However, one to three congregations contacted in each of the five cities provide 

more formal or programmatic services that are work-related, such as English tutoring 

or other remedial education help, job search assistance, and supportive services like clothes 

or transportation to work. In these congregations, the levels of service and numbers served 

are extremely wide ranging (from fewer than 10 to hundreds of clients), public funds are not 

used, and resources may still be minimal (e.g., staff are volunteers or spending is $1,000 or 

less a year).

• A few of the—usually large—congregations that provide fairly substantial

employment-related services may serve substantial numbers of individuals (several 

hundred a year), and resemble programs operated by nonprofit organizations. 

Three such programs were identified--one each in Ft. Worth, Milwaukee, and San Diego. 

Services may include pre-employment preparation, job search training, supportive services, 

job placement, and arranging for work experience or transitional jobs.

• FBO-nonprofit organizations, like other employment service providers, offer a

range of employment or supportive services, sometimes in combination with other 

services for the particular populations that they target. Forty-three FBO nonprofit 

organizations that provide employment-related services were contacted across the five 

cities. Nearly half have federal funding, with HUD being the most prevalent source of the 

funds, and many of the organizations are homeless shelters, other transitional housing

facilities, or social service agencies.
1

1. INTRODUCTION

Employment and training services in the United States have historically been delivered 

through a decentralized network of local public, private, and nonprofit agencies and programs. 

Among the many service providers, some faith-based entities, particularly nonprofit service 

organizations, have provided a variety of employment-related services, for example, to help 

people prepare for work, improve basic skills, find jobs or new jobs, or arrange for social or 

emergency services that might be needed. Some of these organizations receive some public 

funds and deliver publicly-funded services in a secular, not a religious context. Others use only 

private resources (e.g., from philanthropic foundations, charitable donations, and religious

groups), and may have religious features or activities as part of the services they provide.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 

1996 included a “charitable choice” provision, which allows faith-based organizations to 

compete for state and federal welfare funds on the same basis as other organizations and 

maintain their religious character. Legislation governing other federal programs, including

substance abuse education, prevention and treatment, and community services block grant 

services, subsequently also included a charitable choice provision. The Bush Administration has 

placed new emphasis on expanding the role of community-based and faith-based organizations 

in the provision of services to meet the social and emotional needs of families and individuals. 

While faith-based organizations are an important partner in the workforce development 

area, there is little systematic information about the extent of their involvement in the formal 

public employment and training system, the amount of federal funds they receive, particularly 

through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) or the nature of work-related services they 

provide.
2

The purpose of this report, therefore, is to provide a basic understanding of the extent 

to which faith-based organizations are providing employment-related services, drawing upon 

exploratory information compiled for five communities: Baltimore, Maryland; Fort Worth, 

Texas; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and San Diego, California. The

communities were purposively (not randomly) selected to provide geographic diversity to

address three general questions:

• How much federal employment and training funding is going to faith-based 

organizations?

• What sorts of employment-related services do faith-based organizations provide?

• How much employment-related services do religious congregations provide and to 

whom?

The examination and the findings are exploratory, but nonetheless offer insight into the possible 

scale of activity by faith-based organizations in the workforce development system, and suggest 

the feasibility of conducting more empirical and comprehensive research to examine this issue 

more fully.

Definitions

There is no single generally-accepted definition of what a faith-based organization

(FBO) is. For the purposes of this report, a faith-based organization is an organization 

that holds religious or worship services, or is affiliated with a religious denomination or 

house of worship.1 This includes churches and other congregations or houses of worship; 

nonprofit organizations affiliated with churches, congregations or religions; and local nonprofit 

 

1

 A broader conception of faith-based organizations could include secular entities that are not religiously 

affiliated or religiously-based but have specific missions to promote certain values, beliefs, character, or 

moral behavior, or that are affiliated with groups with particular philosophic objectives. This study, 

however, focuses only on those associated with or founded according to a religion or religious faith.
3

organizations affiliated with an umbrella or national faith-based network. Faith-based nonprofit 

organizations generally maintain a faith-based mission but the services they deliver may or may 

not have a faith-based content and they do not necessarily restrict participants to those who 

adhere to that faith.2

For simplicity, the discussion in this report refers to two types of FBOs: (1) local 

congregations of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other houses of worship; and (2)

nonprofit organizations with some religious or faith-based association. Admittedly, the second 

category encompasses a wide range of organizations, each worthy of separate examination but 

which are considered together in this exploratory review: local affiliates of national networks 

such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services, Lutheran Social Services, the Salvation 

Army, as well as local independent organizations or ministry groups operating in a single 

community.

Some large national organizations originally founded with a religious affiliation no longer 

consider themselves faith-based, even though some local affiliates may so define themselves. 

Goodwill Industries and the YMCA/YWCA are perhaps the largest of the secular nonprofit 

service organization networks with a faith-based origin. A few local Goodwill affiliates consider 

themselves to be FBOs, although the vast majority of Goodwill affiliates and local

YMCA/YWCAs, like their parent organizations, consider themselves secular. In this report, 

organizations such as Goodwill and YMCA/YWCA which are primarily secular, are excluded 

from the broader faith-based organization category. Local affiliates of other large national

organizations, such as Jewish Family Services and Lutheran Social Services, which have

carefully distinguished their secular services and activities, but still provide some separate

services that are more religious in nature; these types of organizations are included in the study.

 

2

 This study does not address whether the services provided by the organizations include any religious 

content or whether individuals do or are asked to adhere to (be receptive to) that content. These are 

important issues, but beyond the scope of this report.
4

Approach and Limitations

This is an exploratory study, examining FBO provision of employment-related services 

in five communities. Within each site, information was collected along three tracks:

1. Extent of WIA contracting with FBOs, based on telephone

discussions with the local WIA administrator or designated staff person who 

was asked whether they contract with FBOs and the dollar amount of the 

contracts; and discussions with the 9 largest WIA contractors, who were also 

asked whether they subcontract to FBOs.

2. Nature of employment-related services provided by

congregations, based on telephone discussions with the nine largest

congregations and houses of worship and nine smaller ones (100-700 

members) selected at random from a list obtained from the American Church 

Lists. 

3. Nature of employment-related services by faith-based nonprofit 

organizations, based on telephone discussions with nine organizations selected 

at random from organizations presumed to be religiously affiliated, identified 

from an on-line telephone directory search (switchboard.com) under the

categories “social services/welfare” or “employment agencies and

opportunities.”

The information compiled from these informal telephone discussions is summarized in the 

following sections.

There are obvious limitations. First, the study is exploratory—while the congregations 

and nonprofit organizations were randomly chosen, the selection process did not involve
5

statistical random sampling,3 and only a small number of congregations, nonprofit organizations, 

and workforce investment agencies4 were contacted. 

Second, because we drew our samples from incomplete listings and contacted a limited 

number, the estimates presented in this report may understate the activity by faith-based 

organizations. It is likely that there are more faith-based organizations than we were able to 

identify. The extent of the underestimate, however, is unknown, and a precise estimation would 

require further research with larger samples. 

Thus, the samples of congregations and nonprofit organizations are not statistically

representative, and the findings cannot provide a valid generalization of the sites in the study or 

of any other sites. The patterns of findings in this exploratory study, however, provide a useful 

starting point and offer a rough estimate, or approximation, of the extent of FBO involvement in 

employment-related services.

 

3

 Statistical random sampling requires a complete enumeration of the entire population, but we used listings 

that were likely to incomplete. For example, we sampled only churches for which we had a known 

congregation size in order to contact both large and small institutions. However, in identifying faith-based 

nonprofits, we attempted to avoid introduction of systematic bias by identifying every nth entry with 

presumed religious affiliation to produce a total of nine from the list, and substituting the entry immediately 

next if the organization was either not faith-based or did not offer employment-related services. 

4

 For consistency throughout the text, the term workforce investment agency is used to characterize the 

local organization that administers federal workforce investment funds under the Workforce Investment Act. 

The appointed board as well as the administering agency are sometimes both referred to generically as the 

Workforce Investment Board (WIB).
6

2. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AGENCIES’ CONTRACTING WITH FAITHBASED ORGANIZATIONS 

Five workforce investment agencies5 (WIAs) (in Baltimore, Ft. Worth, Milwaukee, 

Pittsburgh, and San Diego) were contacted to determine the extent to which they contracted 

with FBOs in the last full 12-month period for which data were available (usually this was 

program year 2000). Table 1 summarizes the information by workforce investment agency in 

terms of: the number of FBOs under contract, the number of FBO contracts, the total value of 

the FBO contracts, the program funding sources (such as WIA/JTPA or Welfare-to-Work 

grants) for FBO contracts, and the percent of the agency’s total budget that goes to FBOs. 

Two of the five cities, Milwaukee and San Diego, have programs operated under national

competitive Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants. Appendix A provides additional information on 

FBO participation in the WtW program.

The extent of FBO contracting by workforce investment agencies in these sites varied, 

ranging from less than 1 percent (in three cities) to as much as 10 percent (in Pittsburgh). A 

total of 19 FBOs received contracts from these five boards in the most recent program year. 

Several of these FBOs had multiple workforce board contracts from different funding

sources—and so, the total number of contracts let to FBOs by the boards was 26. Across the 

five boards the median value of an FBO contract was about $98,000, and FBO contracting 

represented about 4 percent of the boards’ total budget. Appendix B summarizes the FBO 

contracting reported by each of the five agencies.

There was, however, much variation across the boards, as indicated in Table 1. With the 

exception of Three Rivers Workforce Investment Board in Pittsburgh (which contracted with 11 

FBOs), the boards included in our sample contracted with between one (two of the boards) 

and three FBOs. The total contract value of awards to FBOs ranged from under $150,000 (at 

 

5

 As noted in Chapter 1, the terms workforce investment agency and workforce investment board are often 

used interchangeably. Local agency names may vary depending on historical precedent, but each serves as 

the official body responsible for administering federal funds under the Workforce Investment Act. 
7

two of the boards) to slightly over $3.5 million (at the San Diego Workforce Partnership 

Board). Sources of funding were principally WIA/JTPA and Welfare-to-Work, though some 

FBOs received contracts from the local board under the Youth Opportunities program and the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, employment program. The total amounts 

contracted by local boards in 2000 to individual FBOs in the five cities ranged from $26,145 to 

nearly $3 million (for Metro United Methodist Urban Ministries in San Diego). However, half 

of the FBOs received contracts of less than $100,000.

Table 1

Selected WIA Agencies' Contracting with FBOs (most recent year)

Workforce Investment 

Area

# of FBOs 

as 

contractors

# of FBO 

contracts

Total value 

of FBO 

Contracts

FBO 

contracts as 

a % of 

Agency’s 

budget

San Diego Workforce 

Partnership Board, San 

Diego, CA

3 5 $3.6 million 6%

Mayor’s Office of 

Employment Development, 

Baltimore, MD

1 1 $300,000 1%

Three Rivers Workforce 

Investment Board, 

Pittsburgh and Allegheny 

County, PA

11 15 $1.8 million 10% 

Tarrant County Work 

Advantage Board, Ft. 

Worth and Tarrant County, 

TX

3 3 $144,000 1%

Private Industry Council of 

Milwaukee County, 

Milwaukee and Milwaukee 

County, WI

1 2 $36,000 Less than 1%

After reviewing program and fiscal data obtained from the five workforce investment 

agencies, brief telephone discussions were also held with administrators in the largest non-FBO 

contractors for each of the local boards to determine if these non-FBOs are subcontracting a 

portion of their funding to FBOs. Of the 26 non-FBOs with contracts from the WIA agency, 
8

just one had in turn sub-contracted with an FBO. This particular contractor had subcontracted 

about 15 percent of its workforce funds to an FBO to conduct intake, client assessment, and 

case management. However, a number of other non-FBO contractors to the WIA agency 

indicated that while they do not have a contractual or financial relationship with FBOs, they are 

well connected with the faith-based community in their localities. Some of these contractors 

noted that FBOs can be very helpful in recruiting individuals from targeted neighborhoods and 

providing in-kind support services to which program participants can be referred (e.g.,

emergency food, clothing, housing, and counseling services).

Future Funding Efforts

Some local board administrators and non-FBO service contractors are likely to expand 

their contracting with FBOs in the near future. Several board administrators observed that they 

either are in negotiations with additional FBOs for employment and training services for the 

upcoming program year or that they expect an expansion in the number of FBOs they contract 

with in the future. For example, one board administrator noted that while the Request for 

Proposals (RFP) process has always been open to FBOs on the same competitive basis as for 

other non-faith-based organizations and the board has funded some FBOs in the past,

awareness on the part of FBOs and desire to compete for contracts/grants has increased 

significantly in the faith-based community over the past year. 

 However, as would be true for many small organizations, especially those new to 

contracting within the workforce development system, workforce development board

representatives and FBO administrators are concerned about the ability of FBOs to meet the 

stringent audits imposed under programs such as WIA. As one administrator of a non-faithbased community-based organization with a long track record of contracting under JTPA/WIA 

noted, FBOs—especially churches—are “particularly viable service providers at the street 

level,” but often lack the infrastructure and expertise needed to administer contracts/grants 
9

under the exacting requirements imposed under DOL. He is in active discussions with several 

local FBOs (including a large church), and his organization is offering to act as a fiscal agent for 

local FBOs to manage funds and the documentation required under the contract/grant process.
10

3. WORK-RELATED SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELIGIOUS 

CONGREGATIONS 

In each of the five communities, informal telephone discussions were also held with 

representatives of a small number of religious congregations. The congregations were selected 

non-scientifically from lists obtained from the American Church Lists but represent a diverse 

mix of sizes and denominations. Telephone calls were made to selected congregations and the 

representative was asked whether they provide any employment-related services, casting the 

net widely to include, for example "...anything from job readiness or job retention services, 

training or education explicitly related to employment, or support services such as

transportation, tools or clothing to enable individuals to work" but excluding services that were 

not explicitly employment-related. If employment-related services were provided, they were 

asked to describe them and estimate approximately how many people received the services in a 

given year, and how much resources were dedicated to providing those services. About half 

the congregations contacted provide no employment services, about one-third provide informal 

or episodic services, several collaborate with other congregations or organizations to refer 

people to services, and a few directly provide more substantial or formal services.

Informal or episodic assistance

Congregations and church groups commonly provide humanitarian help to individuals in 

need; if members of their congregation or the community ask for or need help, that help will be 

provided, usually on an informal basis as needed. This help may at times be employmentrelated, such as providing bus tokens to get to work. While about half the congregations 

contacted indicated that they provide no employment-related assistance, over a third explained 

that they do provide some employment assistance, but that is tends to be primarily informal or 

episodic, involving very little expenditure of money, and serving very few people in the course of 

a year. 
11

For example, some congregations report providing one-time or time-limited 

transportation (for a few trips or a week) to a job or job interview. For example, one large Ft. 

Worth church6 provides bus tokens, paid for by the City, for one-time transportation to a 

confirmed job or job interview, and arranges access to a "career clothing closet" to persons 

referred by a caseworker from a service agency, such as a local women's shelter. In the past 

year, “hundreds” of bus tokens were distributed. Volunteers from that church also help another 

local church tutor and assist students with schoolwork. 

Informal help might also include general job search assistance, such as posting job 

opportunities on a bulletin board, and referring individuals who say they are looking for a job or 

training to agencies that do provide skills training or education, depending on the individual’s 

needs. In addition, churches may house child care facilities, which may enable a parent to 

work, but such facilities are not considered employment-related for this study unless the facility 

was established for that purpose. None that we identified were established for that purpose. 

Referral services and other cross-institutional relationships

In some cases, churches have established relationships with other institutions that offer 

employment services, although these relationships have varying degrees of formality and may or 

may not involve explicit expenditures by the church. For example, one Baltimore church is a 

pick-up location for a "Bridges to Work" program that provides transportation to work. In Ft. 

Worth, one church refers, and contributes a small amount of funds, to a larger church that 

operates a formal program for employment assistance. That program is profiled below. 

Some churches support activities as part of a consortium of churches or through an 

umbrella institution. One Ft. Worth church contributes about $5,000 a year to an inter-church 

social service agency that provides a variety of employment-related services. In Milwaukee a 

 

6

 Some representatives contacted asked that published information not specifically identify them. Therefore, 

in general, congregations are not identified by name in the report. 
12

formal consortium of churches makes referrals to a faith-based nonprofit organization that 

works with 29 Lutheran churches and a larger network of multi-faith congregations and some 

employers to provide life skills, career development, counseling, and placement services. One 

church in San Diego makes routine contributions and ran yearly fundraisers to support an

organization within the United Church of Christ that provides services. In Pittsburgh, volunteers 

from an inter-faith reemployment organization provide speakers to help in reemployment issues, 

such as resume preparation.

 These types of collaborations were identified in the course of conversations with

representatives of the congregations contacted, but it was beyond the scope of the study to 

pursue further information specifically from or about the networks. That would be a useful 

activity in future research to gain a fuller understanding of the role of congregations.

Formal Congregation Services and Programs

In each of the five cities, typically one or two of the large congregations contacted 

provide what could be characterized as substantial services explicitly related to employment. 

As defined here, substantial employment-related services include routine programmatic services 

or a formal organizational component, such as a social service ministry dedicated to

employment-related and perhaps other support services. Small congregations seem less likely to 

provide such services and provide services on a much smaller scale. 

Twelve congregations were identified that provide some type of service related to 

employment that appears to be fairly substantial and somewhat formal. This represents around 

10 to 15 percent of the congregations contacted. While this is not a statistically valid estimate of 

the percent of congregations that provide services, it does offer a rough 
13

idea of the extent of congregation involvement with employment services. Of those churches 

that described more formal programs or services to help individuals with employment needs, the 

levels of service and the numbers served are extremely wide ranging, as summarized in Table 2.

Some of these churches have a social welfare ministry through which they offer

counseling, job search assistance, clothing, or tutoring, but in general the services provided are 

modest or episodic. For example, a church in Baltimore (Case 1) uses its social welfare 

ministry to offer counseling in employment and education, provided by retired educators or 

other individuals in the church as needed. The church also offers tutoring to high school dropouts and adult education students through a local community college. But the level of

expenditures ($500 in 2000), number of volunteers, and numbers of participants (25 to 50) 

suggest the services are quite modest. 

Similarly, a church in Pittsburgh (Case 1) received an endowment from a private 

individual to provide tuition scholarships to needy students for college or trade school. Another 

Pittsburgh church (Case 2) is the site for an English as a Second Language (ESL) program and 

a site for the Pittsburgh Lutheran Center for the Blind. The ESL program, first subsidized by the 

church and now funded with a small grant from a church in another state, offers two semesters 

of two classes per week and a language lab for adults who are principally spouses of foreign 

graduate students (most of whom eventually return to their home country). The Center for the 

Blind provides computer classes for a fee to a small number of blind individuals. A church in 

Baltimore (Case 2) provides a comprehensive program for refugees where employment

assistance is a major component. The employment assistance consists of job search assistance, 

job counseling, and any supportive services necessary over a three-month period to help the 

refugees find and maintain employment. The program served four individuals in 2000.

At a somewhat higher level of service, a church in Pittsburgh (Case 1) offers computer 

training courses throughout the year and courses in how to build computers (mostly to young 

men). This program served approximately 80-100 individuals in 2000. A church in Ft. Worth 
14

(Case 2) has developed a system within the church for matching individuals needing work with 

older parishioners needing homecare or household assistance. While this program developed 

informally, the social service director now receives two to three calls per week from

parishioners needing assistance, although the actual extent of job creation or the duration of 

employment is unclear. The church also provides approximately 400 gas vouchers per year for 

individuals who need assistance in getting to work. 

Some churches provide even more comprehensive services, but the number of

participants and the level or intensity of service may still vary widely. For example, a church in 

San Diego (Case 1) contributes $12,000 of congregation funds (they are currently exploring 

foundation support) to provide mentoring, using teams of volunteers and a small commitment of 

paid staff, to a small number (18 in 2000) of single mothers and their families, all of whom have 

been on welfare. The mentoring is done by phone or in person, and continues for as long as 

needed, sometimes six months to a year. Initially the church received referrals from the state 

welfare program (CalWorks), but it now receives referrals mainly from another service

organization. Comprehensive services are also provided by a church in Baltimore (Case 3), 

which relies heavily on volunteers and served 1,200 individuals in 2000. Services include 

workshops on resume preparation, job search assistance, GED classes, life skills training, and 

vocational training. They also offer a range of supportive services including transportation to 

work, work clothing, and help with work expenses. 
15

Table 2

Summary of Employment-Related Services Provided by Selected Congregations 7

Education Job/Trng. 

Services

Support

Service

s

Total Annual 

Expenditures

Number 

Served8

Public 

Funding

Baltimore

 Case 1 X X X $500 25-50 None

 Case 2 X Minimal 

(refugee supp. 

up to 3 mos.)

4 None

 Case 3 X X X $0 (in-kind, 

volunteers)

90-480

(1200)

None

Ft. Worth

 Case 1 X X $0 

(volunteers)

(100s)9 None

 Case 2 X X $2,500 2-3 job

referrals/

wk 

None

 Case 3 X $140,000 30-300 

(530)

None

Milwaukee 

 Case 1 X X X n.a.

10 10-200 

(620)

None

Pittsburgh

 Case 1 X $8000 (tuition

scholarships)

50-100 

(100)

None

 Case 2 X X ESL: $2500 4-17 (21) None 

 Case 3 X n.a. 80-100 

(100)

n.a.

San Diego

 Case 1 X $12,000 18 None

 Case 2 X $1.1M 50-500 None

 

7

 Total expenditures, funding sources, and participants served are for 2000. Education services include 

literacy training, English as a Second Language (ESL), adult basic education, GED/ high school diploma 

preparation, and related services. Job or training services include job search assistance, job or career 

counseling, job mentoring or job coaching, life skills training, work experience, and specific trade or 

customized job training. Support services include transportation, tools or clothing provided specifically to 

enable work, help with work expenses, legal assistance related to employment, and any other support 

offered specifically to help individuals get or keep jobs. 

8

 Indicates range of individuals served in each of several program components. Numbers in parentheses 

suggest maximum total if no individuals participated in more than one component.

9

 Although 100s of individuals may receive services, these are limited and episodic access to bus tokens or 

clothing assistance.

10 Expenditure data not available, but church staff estimated that about two staff were directly engaged in 

providing employment- related services. 
16

(800)

Although expenditure and participation data were not consistently available, three

congregation programs identified appear to be providing extensive services (brief profiles of 

each are presented on the following page). Richland Hills Church of Christ (identified on Table 

2 above as Case 3 in Ft. Worth) provides weekly evening job fairs led by a deacon as a 

ministry within the church. Among the ministry activities, they also offer a 12-week course four 

times a year in financial planning and budgeting. About 300 persons participated in that course 

in 2000. In addition, they now have a social worker on site under the supervision of a church 

elder to provide case management to about 200 persons a year and are arranging short-term 

(ranging from 10 hours to two weeks) work experience opportunities for a small number of 

persons (30 in 2000) coming out of the criminal justice system or otherwise unemployed.

The Holy Redeemer Institutional Church of God in Christ (Case 1 in Milwaukee) 

operates several institutions within the church, including a social service agency that offers a 

range of employment services: 12-week on-the-job training (about 20 individuals received 

services in 2000) and vocational rehabilitation (20-30 in 2000); an 8-week life skills training 

course twice a year (about 30 received services in 2000); job mentoring/coaching services 

biweekly (about 200 individuals received services in 2000); GED/HS preparation and computer 

technology in partnership and paid for by a local junior college; and literacy and ESL (about 

100 received services). It also provides bus tickets (to about 25 per year) and refers a small 

number of participants (10-20) to outside agencies for legal assistance.

Impact Urban America (Case 2 in San Diego) operated a $1.1million program in 2000 

providing services ranging from job readiness to job placement. The program is in its second 

year of implementation, with funding coming from community members and from employers with 

whom it makes temporary, transitional, or permanent placements. The program uses a model 

aimed at developing job and life accountability skills, and has partnered with the San Diego 

Housing Authority to apply the model.
17

Profiles of Selected Congregation-based Employment Programs

Impact Urban America, a self-described "faith-based social entrepreneurial organization," is a project of the 

Maranatha Chapel, a Christian non-denominational church in San Diego, California. It has developed a 

model that combines leadership training with job and life accountability skills and customer service, using a 

seminar format and follow-up derived from a well-known executive leadership training model, to help 

residents of low income urban communities prepare for and find jobs. It has partnered with the San Diego 

Housing Authority to apply the model within the context of the HUD-funded Self-Sufficiency program. In 

addition, the program develops temporary, transitional, and permanent placements with local employers. 

Employers pay salaries for temporary or transitional workers through the program, thereby limiting their own 

costs for a direct hire. Now in its second year of operation, the program had a budget of $1.1 million in 2000, 

$100,000 of which came through community member contributions and $1 million was paid for by corporate 

placements. The project is a ministry of the Maranatha Chapel, the church provides no additional funds. In 

2000, about 800-1000 persons received some type of service. 

The Richland Hills Church of Christ in North Richland Hills, Texas, in the Fort Worth area, operates several 

ministries that offer a range of humanitarian assistance, some of which is explicitly employment-related. Their 

"Christian Career Network" is a deacon-led series of once-per-week evening workshops offering job search 

assistance. Job counseling is now offered as part of once-per-week job fairs. A social worker on site, under 

the direction of church elders, provides ongoing case management and served about 200 individuals in 2000. 

They also offer work experience, ranging from 10 hours to two weeks, to individuals coming out of the 

criminal justice system or otherwise unemployed. About 30 individuals received those services last year, 

including some who were referred from other churches in the area. Other services that may indirectly help 

with employment include their Crown Ministry, a course offered four times a year that teaches financial 

planning and other life skills in the context of biblical teachings. About 300 individuals took that course in 

2000. They also operate clothing resale shops whose profits go to homes for battered women, and they offer 

gas vouchers to help individuals get to work. 

About $140,000 was spent on employment and training-related services last year. All funds are raised by the 

congregation of about 2800 families (5000 individuals). 

Holy Redeemer Institutional Church of God in Christ in Milwaukee operates several educational and social 

service programs sponsored by the church. Among the services they provide are job search assistance 

(weekly), job counseling, job mentoring and job coaching, an eight-week course twice a year in life skills 

training (about 30 received services last year), case management (about 50 received services in 2000), on-thejob training and vocational rehabilitation in 12-week segments (20-30 received services in 2000), and career 

advancement assistance, GED preparation and computer technology through workshops in partnership with 

a local junior college. Also, about 100 individuals received literacy training, a similar number received 

assistance in English as a Second Language (ESL) training, and GED/High School preparation assistance. In 

addition the program provides bus tickets (about 25 a year), referrals for legal assistance (about 20 a year) 

and, less frequently, tools or clothing for work (about10 per year). The church has been providing 

employment-related services for about 10 years, with funds raised entirely by the congregation.
18

4. WORK-RELATED SERVICES PROVIDED BY FAITH-BASED

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Telephone calls were also made to a select number of nonprofit organizations in each of 

the five cities. The organizations were identified through a search of an on-line telephone 

directory. Those listings in the categories “social services/welfare” and “employment and 

opportunities” that were presumed to be religiously affiliated (based on the name of the

organization only) were identified. A non-scientific but fairly random group of nonprofit

organizations in each of the five cities were called to ask (1) their religious affiliation (to verify 

whether or not they indeed are FBOs), and (2) whether they provide employment related 

services. 

The results of these calls are discussed in this section, and Table 3 summarizes the types 

of organizations contacted, their sources of funds, and the nature of employment-related 

services they offer.

Types of Organizations

The entities contacted include some that are independent and some that are part of a 

larger social service or other organization. Similarly, in some of the organizations employmentrelated activities are part of a larger social service or faith mission, while in others, employment 

assistance is the principal purpose of the organization. 

For example, some programs are part of larger multi-purpose social service institutions, such as 

Catholic Charities, St. Vincent de Paul, Lutheran Social Services, Jewish Family Services (and 

related organizations), or the Salvation Army. Others, while still multi-purpose, have single 

discrete facilities, perhaps supported by a church or a consortium of churches and therefore 

quite modest in size. Even programs that were part of larger social service organizations take 
19

very different forms in different locations. Some are totally independent of the larger institution 

except for their receipt of funds and other resources, and others are programmatically quite 

connected. Since we were more concerned in this exercise to explore the nature of services 

being delivered, we cannot generalize about the magnitude of services or interconnections 

between the facility we contacted and the umbrella organization. 

As noted in Table 3, many of the faith-based programs contacted are in shelters or 

transitional housing facilities, in which employment assistance might be one component of a 

broader humanitarian mission to assist homeless individuals or families become stabilized, or 

part of a considerably narrower mission to offer short-term emergency assistance. A program 

might house individuals for six months to a year, provide them with a range of social services, 

offer them in-house work experience, or full employment services to transition into

independence. Or a program might be an emergency night shelter dealing with individuals with 

severe substance abuse or other challenges and less receptive to intervention, but the facility 

might still offer them small jobs within the shelter. 

A much smaller number of faith-based programs contacted serve special populations 

such as refugees. A still smaller number are those whose sole mission is employment and 

training. 
20

Table 3

Program Types, Funding Sources and Services Provided by Faith-Based Organizations

BALTIMORE

(n=8)

FT. WORTH

(n=9)

MILWAUKEE

(n=911)

PITTSBURGH

(n=8)

SAN DIEGO

(n=9)

Nature of Facility12

Shelter, Transitional, 

Supportive Housing

3 3 1 3 4

Social Service 

Agency 

2 6

13 4 4 4

Program for Special 

Population

3 2 1

Employment/Training 

Program

1 1

Public Funding14

HUD 2 2 1 1

15 2

DOL 1 1 2 1

FEMA 2 1

HHS 1

State of Local 3 1 2 1

Other Federal 1 1 2

16 1 217

Any Public Funding 4 4 4 5 5

Nature of Services

Comprehensive Mix 

of employment, 

educ/training, & 

support services

5 3 5 5 6

Basic Employment/ 

job search assistance

2 3 4 1 3

Education only 1

Support only 3 2

 

11 Facility type uncertain in one case.

12 Reflects the nature of the program at the site of interview. 

13 One program may also operate a shelter.

14 Programs may receive funding from more than one source and therefore be counted in more than one cell. 

Five cases did not report on funding sources.

15 HUD emergency shelter funds, through city.

16 Uncertain federal funding source through state and city.

17 One program receives Community Development Block Grant funds, source of federal funds for other 

program not known.
21

Funding Sources

About half of the programs reported receiving some public funding for employmentrelated services, but less than half received federal funding. Of the 43 programs contacted, 22 

receive some public funding, 19 of which receive federal funding. Funding typically comes from 

either the church or churches with which the program is affiliated or from foundations or private 

donations. The majority of federal funding reported (in seven of the programs) is from HUD, 

principally funds to support housing for the homeless. Five of the programs received funds from 

DOL, three from FEMA, two from HHS and six cited other federal sources, four of which 

were uncertain of specific sources (summarized in Table 3). Other public funding sources 

mentioned include state and local monies and could represent pass-through of federal funds 

about which the interviewee was unaware.

The HUD funding is principally from the McKinney Act and reflects the predominance 

of shelter and supportive housing in the sample. At least one program cited funding from HOPE 

VI, a program to revitalize the most distressed public housing and one which typically engages 

community-based organizations. The DOL funds were either not specifically identified other 

than as ETA grants, or were identified as "Welfare-to-Work" funds, although there is some 

uncertainty about whether these funds are from the DOL Welfare-to-Work Grant program or 

from other efforts related to TANF and welfare reform. One program was the conduit for the 

refugee resettlement program funded by the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement and under 

which they and several other social service agencies delivered services in the city. 
22

Nature of Services

The nonprofit FBOs contacted represent a variety of types of employment-related 

programs. As summarized at the bottom of Table 3, based on our very brief and informal 

conversations, it seems that some of the programs provide just one type of service—such as 

remedial education, or basic job search assistance or short-term job preparation, or support 

services such as transportation assistance. Most contacted, though, provide what appear to be 

a more comprehensive mix of services designed to improve employability and which include not 

only job search assistance and job placement, but also training or education as well as 

supportive services. The comprehensive programs, for example, might include a range of

employment preparation services, such as life skills or job readiness training, accompanied by 

remedial education and/or support services such as transportation or clothing.

The general categorization of types of services in Table 3, does not reflect a sense of the 

magnitude of the programs, however. Although we asked for estimates of the number of

individuals receiving services last year, that information was not consistently available for this 

study.
23

5. CONCLUSIONS

Faith-based organizations, both religious congregations and nonprofit service providers, 

have been delivering a variety of social services, sometimes including employment-related 

services, for many years. Some of these organizations are attached to congregations, some are 

community-based organizations, and some are affiliated with national social service

organizations. One question on the minds of many policymakers concerns understanding better 

the potential for expanding the role of faith-based organizations in providing social services, and, 

for the purposes of this report, specifically in providing employment-related services. This study 

explores the nature of current participation of congregations and faith-based organizations in the 

provision of employment-related services in order to contribute to the policy discussions.

General Findings

Congregations. Although many congregations provide limited humanitarian assistance 

that may help in employment—such as job postings, clothing, or occasional transportation—

most that we contacted do not provide programmatic or extensive services for employmentrelated needs of church or community members. Except in two cities (Ft. Worth and San 

Diego), the majority do not provide even limited employment assistance. Of the one to three, 

usually large, congregations in each of the cities that do provide substantial programmatic 

employment-related services, none operate these services with public funds. Rather, most use 

funds raised directly by the congregation, or in some cases from private charitable foundations. 

Whatever the funding source, the numbers served in these programs are also generally quite 

limited, ranging from under 10 to a little over a thousand in the largest program in the most 

recent year. 

Nonprofit Faith-based Organizations. Many faith-based social services

organizations, whether independent or local affiliates of national networks, do provide

employment-related assistance. Characteristically the assistance in the programs studied was 
24

one component of a broader array of services; few programs were devoted solely to

employment and training services. The numbers served in these programs were also often 

limited, although about one-quarter of the programs contacted served over 500 in the year 

2000. 

Workforce Investment Act and Other Public Funds. About half of the programs that 

we contacted received public funding. Of those that received federal funding, that funding was 

more likely to come from HUD to support services for the homeless than from other sources, 

including DOL through Workforce Investment Act or Welfare-to-Work grant programs. 

Consistent with those findings, WIA funding for faith-based organizations in the areas studied 

represented only a small portion of the local workforce investment agency's total contracting 

activity (less than 10 percent of total funding, and often for relatively small contracts to a small 

number of organizations). Though public funds and especially WIA funds are not typically 

supporting employment-related services provided by FBOs, local workforce investment

agencies in the areas studied frequently work collaboratively with the faith-based community in 

recruitment and referral of individuals and in providing supportive services to complement 

workforce development services. There is some indication that local workforce investment 

agencies may expand the participation of faith-based organizations in the near future. 

Magnitude of FBO Employment Service Activity. Because this is an exploratory 

study, involving only brief discussions with staff who were available at the time, and because the 

sample of FBOs is not scientifically representative, we cannot provide precise estimates of the 

magnitude of services or service levels provided by FBOs in the cities studied. But to provide 

some sense of the possible magnitude of FBO activity, we have attempted to develop a range of 

estimates, as presented in Table 4, based on the information compiled and using different 

explicit assumptions. 

To estimate the spending of all congregations on employment services in a city, we 

applied the percentage that provided employment services to the total number of congregations 
25

on the American Church Lists. For a conservative estimate ("Low Estimate" in Table 4), we 

assumed that congregations would spend on average $1,000 per year18 and therefore combined 

the spending identified in the congregations contacted with $1,000 for each of the remaining 

congregations to arrive at an estimate of total spending among all congregations. To produce a 

high estimate, we used the same extrapolation but included one congregation at a $50,000 

annual expenditure.

To estimate spending by nonprofit FBOs, we applied the percentage that provided 

employment services of all those contacted in the city to the total number of nonprofits

presumed to be faith-based in that city. We then assumed that half of those organizations 

spend $10,000, 42 percent spend $100,000, and the remaining 8 percent spend $1 million a 

year on employment-related services.

To produce the estimates of total spending on employment and training from local

workforce investment agencies (WIAs) and WtW grantees that appear in Table 4, we

combined the estimates of congregation and FBO spending with our estimates of allocations to 

FBOs made from WIA and WtW sources.

The detailed estimates for each of these calculations appear in Table 4. A very rough 

sense of the magnitude of FBO provision of employment-related services emerges. It suggests 

that local spending on employment services by congregations and nonprofit FBOs might range 

from perhaps $2.4 million a year (low estimate for Baltimore) to as much as $6.9 million a year 

(high estimate for San Diego). To put this in perspective, the level of spending by congregations 

and FBOs, largely not currently supported by public funds, is an amount equivalent to under 10 

percent (in Baltimore) to a little over 20 percent (in Pittsburgh) of the public funds spent in these 

cities on WIA and WtW activities.19

 

18 Congregations providing substantial services, noted in Chapter 3, often spent minimal or no direct funds. 

19 This percentage does not capture funds spent on employment and training-related services by FBOs that 

derive from all public and non-public sources, but is simply meant to provide some perspective on the 

magnitude of spending by congregations and FBOs for employment-related services in comparison with 

total WIA and WtW spending. 
26

Table 4: Rough Estimates of Magnitude of Spending for Employment-Related Services 

by Congregations and FBOs in Five Cities (Year 2000)

Estimates and assumptions Baltimore Ft. Worth Milwaukee Pittsburgh San Diego

CONGREGATIONS

 Approx. # 

Approx. % with substantial20

employment-related services

Spending On Empl. Services 

Low Estimate21

Spending On Empl. Services 

High Estimate 22

120023

15% (180)

$177,500

$226,500

900

15% (135)

$274,500

$323,500

700

5% (35)

$84,00024

$133,000

700

15% (105)

$112,500

$161,500

600

10% (60)

$1,170,000

$1,229,000

NONPROFIT FBOS (nonWIA)25

Possible # with empl. services 

Spending On Empl. Services 

(Non-WIA) (assumes 50% 

spend $10,000; 8% spend $1 

million; 42% spend $100,000)

16

$1,962,000

15

$1,905,000

17

$2,169,000

15

$1,905,000

15

$1,905,000

APPROX. WIA $s TO FBOS

% of all WIA $s

$300,000

1%

$144,000

1%

$36,000

1%

$1,800,000

10%

$3,600,000

6%

APPROX. WtW $s TO 

FBOS (non-WIA)

0 0 $147,577 0 $147,577

TOTAL SPENDING BY 

CONGREGATIONS AND 

FBOS

 Low Estimate

 High Estimate

$2,439,500

$2,488,500

$2,323,787

$2,372,787

$2,436,577

$2,485,577

$3,817,500

$3,866,500

$6,822,577

$6,881,577

TOTAL WIA, WtW, and 

other misc. E/T funds

$33,419,931 $26,495,077 $26,420,441 $17,981,382 $56,899,822

 

20 As defined in Chapter 3.

21 Dollars identified + $1,000/per congregation times remaining number of congregations assumed to 

provide employment services.

22 Dollars identified + 1 more congregation at $50,000 + $1,000/per congregation times remaining number of 

congregations assumed to provide employment services.

23 Possible inclusion of surrounding county may be responsible for larger number relative to other cities 

studied. 

24 Imputes $50,000 for church program for which no expenditure estimates were available, using estimates of 

number of staff providing services.

25 In order to estimate the number of FBOs in each city that provided employment-related services, the 

percentage who provided employment services of all those contacted was applied to the total presumed to 

be faith-based. 
27

Outstanding Issues

There is heightened interest on the part of the Bush Administration, the Congress, and 

some local workforce development boards to engage faith-based organizations more fully in 

providing publicly-funded social services. There is also interest on the part of some faith-based 

organizations to participate more fully in assisting individuals in employment-related and other 

social services and to use public funding to help support those efforts. The discussion is 

drawing sufficient attention that the governing bodies of several national religious organizations 

are reexamining the tenets and conditions under which they would receive or continue to receive 

public funds. While this study is exploratory, the findings suggest a number of important

questions that need to be addressed in order to understand appropriate directions for expanded 

support of faith-based efforts in employment and training. These questions include:

• What is the level of interest of faith-based organizations in expanding their services 

or receiving public funding under public rules? 

• What is the capacity of congregations or other faith-based community organizations 

to expand their services?

• What sorts of services are faith-based organizations best suited to deliver: how does 

the effectiveness of current FBO services and service models compare to current 

federally-funded programs providing such services?

The mission of many local organizations, including FBOs and especially local

congregations, is to provide highly flexible, often low cost, responses to local needs. Many such 

organizations have relatively little experience in the formal contracting requirements, financial 

tracking, and caseload tracking, including outcomes, required to meet audit requirements of 

federal, state, and local programs. Some could easily make the adjustment; others might find it 

difficult to focus on outcomes and maintain the character of their mission. In addition, our 

conversations suggested that some organizations who are faith-based but whose programs have 
28

no religious content may still resist the oversight over content that federal participation might 

entail. 

Our conversations with local administrators and faith-based organizations suggest that 

there is likely widespread need for technical assistance in conjunction with potential federal 

funding for these organizations. As with many first time federal grantees, adjustments will need 

to be made to fulfill federal reporting requirements. Federal and state governments may need to 

look for ways to help interested organizations build the necessary internal organizational

capacity, both from the standpoint of building effective service delivery systems and

safeguarding expenditures of public funds. 
29

APPENDIX A: FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING 

WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS

In addition to federal funds through WIA (and previously, JTPA), the Welfare to Work 

(WtW) grants represent a fairly large source of funding for communities and workforce boards. 

Grantees received WtW funds between 1999 and 2000, and were allowed three years in which to 

spend those funds (later extended by Congress to five years). Seventy-five percent of the $3 

billion Congress authorized for WtW grants was distributed by formula to states, which in turn 

must distribute 85 percent to local workforce boards or, in a few instances, to other sub-state 

organizations. Local boards operate programs with the grant funds or, more typically, contract 

with service providers to operate separate programs or deliver particular services. This means 

local boards may contract with FBOs for WtW services, just as they do for WIA services.

The other 25 percent of WtW funds has been distributed by DOL competitively, based on 

applications submitted by nonprofit organizations, public agencies, workforce boards, and consortia 

of various entities. About $40.3 million in WtW competitive funds nationwide were distributed 

directly to faith-based organizations, of the total $383 million total competitive grants allocated,

representing about 11 percent of the total competitive grant amount. The twelve faith-based 

WtW grantees, most of which are nonprofit organizations affiliated with a house of worship, are:

• DePaul University, Chicago ($5,000,000) (Jesuit)

• Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina ($4,771,156) (Baptist affiliated, Historically 

Black College)

• Vorhees College, Denmark, South Carolina ($1,990,859) (Episcopal affiliated, Historically 

Black College)

• Bethel New Life, Chicago ($2,739,506)

• Catholic Social Services of Albuquerque, Inc. ($1,351,541)

• Catholic Charities of Los Angeles ($3,037423)

• International Association of Jewish Vocational Services ($4,204,777) (multi-site grantee)

• Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona ($1,978,125)

• So Others Might Eat, Washington, DC ($963,865)

• St. John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church/North Brooklyn Coalition for Welfare 

Reform and Economic Development, New York City ($2,926,751)

• Catholic Social Services, Charlotte North Carolina ($1,086,006)
30

APPENDIX B: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARDS’ CONTRACTING WITH FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Note: Data are for period 7/1/2000-6/30/2001, except for Tarrant County (9/1/1999-8/30/2000) and PIC of Milwaukee County (7/1/1999-

6/30/2000).

Board Service Area # of FBOs # of FBO Total Value Program Sources Board's Budget "% of Board's

Contracted Contracts of FBO Contracted to Related to E &T Budget Contracted

Contracts FBOs to FBOs

San Diego Workforce San Diego Co. 3 5 $3,568,880 WtW, $56,437,345 6%

 Partnership Board (incl. San Diego) Youth Opportunities 

Mayor's Office of Employ- Baltimore City 1 1 $300,000 WtW $33,000,000 1%

 Ment Development

Three Rivers Workforce Allegheny Co., 11 15 $1,768,706 WIA (Adult, Youth, DW) $16,947,428 10%

 Investment Board (incl. Pittsburgh) WtW 

Tarrant County Work Tarrant County 3 3 $144,287 TANF (CHOICES) $26,995,077 1%

 Advantage Board (incl. Ft. Worth)

Private Industry Council Milwaukee Co. 1 2 $35,855 JTPA-Adult, Older Worker $25,400,000 0%

of Milwaukee County (incl. Milwaukee)

Totals 19 26 $5,817,728 $158,779,850 4%
31

APPENDIX C: NUMBER OF CONGREGATIONS IDENTIFIED THAT PROVIDE 

EMPLOYMENT- RELATED SERVICES, BY CITY

Large Congregations Small Congregations

Baltimore 2 (n=10) 1 (n=9)

Ft. Worth 3 (n=1126) 0 (n=10)

Milwaukee 1 (n=10) 0 (n=9)

Pittsburgh 1 (n=10) 2 (n=11)

San Diego 2 (n=10) 0 (n=10)

Informal discussions indicated that the following congregations provide employment-related 

services:

Baltimore: Concord Baptist Church

Bethel A.M.E.

St. Stephen United

Ft. Worth: First United Methodist Church

Richland Hills Church of Christ 

St. John the Apostle

Milwaukee: Holy Redeemer Institutional

Pittsburgh: First Trinity Evangelical Lutheran 

Monumental Baptist

St. Thomas More Church

San Diego: First United Methodist Church

 

26 Includes one church identified in the sample of faith-based affiliated organizations.
32

Maranatha Chapel

APPENDIX D: NONPROFIT FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Informal discussions were held with the following nonprofit FBOs, which indicated that they 

provide employment-related services.

Baltimore: Spanish Apostlate; Young Christian Workers; Salvation Army; Christopher Place; 

St. Ambrose Family Outreach; Payne Memorial Outreach; Brown’s Memorial Church Shelter 

Ft. Worth: Eastside Ministries; Catholic Charities; Bread Basket Ministries; Northside InterChurch Agency; Presbyterian Night Shelter; Cornerstone New Life Center; Restoring Hope 

Center; South Central Alliance of Churches; Salvation Army

Milwaukee: House of Peace; Holy Family House; Catholic Charities Archdioces; Islamic 

Family and Social Services; Service Empowerment and Transformation (SET) Ministry;

Milwaukee Christian Center; Salvation Army; Jewish Family Services; St. Vincent de Paul

Pittsburgh: Holy Family Institute; Jubilee Kitchen; Northside Common Ministries; St. Vincent 

de Paul; St. Joseph's House of Hospitality; Salvation Army; Light of Life Ministries

San Diego: First Step Ministries; Catholic Charities; Mid City Christian Service Agency; 

Center for Urban Ministry; Uptown Interfaith Services; Lutheran Social Services; San Diego 

Rescue Mission; St. Vincent de Paul; United Jewish Federation