Charitable Choice
Overview of Research Findings on Implementation Gao ID: GAO-02-337 January 18, 2002Charitable choice provisions require states and localities to allow religious organizations to compete for federal funding on the same basis as other social service providers, without impairing the religious character of such organizations. Congress has been considering legislation to expand charitable choice provisions to other government programs. At least 19 states have contracted with faith-based organizations (FBOs) to provide some welfare services. Moreover, states are using various approaches to implement charitable choice legislation. For example, some states have created state faith-based liaisons to promote greater awareness of charitable choice provisions or removed barriers to contracting with FBOs. Several factors have limited the establishment of collaborations between FBOs and states, including some FBOs' lack of awareness and understanding of charitable choice provisions, their reluctance to partner with government, and the limited financial and administrative capacity of some FBOs. Once collaborations have occurred, some small FBOs have had problems (1) covering ongoing costs while awaiting government reimbursement or (2) managing the performance-based contracts because of limited technological and management systems. GAO found no information with which to assess the effectiveness of FBOs as providers of social services. Although some anecdotal evidence suggests that FBOs have been successful, the research community has not rigorously examined the effectiveness of FBOs as social service providers.
GAO-02-337, Charitable Choice: Overview of Research Findings on Implementation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-337
entitled 'Charitable Choice: Overview of Research Findings on
Implementation' which was released on January 18, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters
January 2002:
Charitable Choice:
Overview of Research Findings on Implementation:
GAO-02-337:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 18, 2002:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
This report addresses your request for an overview of research findings
on the implementation of charitable choice provisions in current law.
Charitable choice provisions require states and localities to allow
religious organizations to compete for federal funding on the same
basis as other social service providers, without impairing the
religious character of such organizations. These provisions apply to
several programs, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program, the Community Services Block Grant program, and substance
abuse treatment and prevention programs under amendments to the Public
Health Services Act in 2000.
The Congress has been considering legislation to expand charitable
choice provisions to other specific government programs. To provide you
with information to consider during this debate, you asked that we
review the available literature to determine (1) the extent to which
and how states have responded to charitable choice provisions in
current law; (2) the factors that have limited the collaboration
between states and faith-based organizations (FBOs); (3) the issues
that have been encountered once collaboration has occurred; and (4) how
FBOs performed as compared to secular providers of social services.
To address your request, we reviewed the existing research on charitable
choice provisions and interviewed several experts in the field. We
conducted our work from June through July 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. We briefed your staff
on the results of our work on July 27 and August 28, 2001. This report
formally conveys the documents used at those briefings.
In summary, while the literature does not provide a national picture of
the extent to which states have responded to charitable choice
provisions, it provides some useful information. At least 19 states
have contracted with FBOs to provide some welfare-related services.
Moreover, states are using a variety of approaches to implement
charitable choice legislation. For example, some states have created
state faith-based liaisons to promote greater awareness of charitable
choice provisions or changed state procurement requirements to remove
barriers to contracting with FBOs. Several factors have limited the
establishment of collaborations between FBOs and states, including some
FBOs‘ lack of awareness and understanding of charitable choice
provisions, their reluctance to partner with government, and the
limited financial and administrative capacity of some FBOs. Once
collaborations have occurred, some small FBOs have encountered
difficulties in covering ongoing costs while awaiting government
reimbursement or difficulties managing the performance-based contracts,
due to limited technological and management systems. Finally, the
literature we reviewed provides no information with which to assess the
effectiveness of FBOs as providers of social services. While some
anecdotal evidence attributes success to FBOs, the effectiveness of
FBOs as social service providers has not been rigorously examined by the
research community.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the
White House, and the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
in the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, Justice, and Labor. We will make copies available to
others upon request. If you or your staff have any questions about this
report, please contact me on (202) 512-7215 or Andrew Sherrill on (202)
512-7252.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Charitable Choice: What Does The Literature Tell Us About
Implementation?
Briefing for Congressional Staff of Senator Lieberman, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs:
July 27, 2001:
Charitable Choice: What Does The Literature Tell Us About
Implementation?
Briefing for Congressional Staff of Representative Cummings, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human
Resources, House Committee on Government Reform:
August 28, 2001:
Outline of Briefing:
* Objectives;
* Background;
* Scope and Methodology;
* Findings;
* Other Issues;
* Relevant Reports.
Objectives:
Determine what information the available literature provides to answer
the following questions:
1. To what extent and how have states responded to charitable choice
provisions?
2. What factors have limited the collaboration between states and faith-
based organizations (FBOs)?
3. What issues have been encountered once collaboration has occurred?
4. How have FBOs performed as compared to secular providers of social
services?
Background: Programs with Charitable Choice Provisions:
Charitable Choice provisions require states and localities to allow
religious organizations to compete for, or receive, contracts, grants,
certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement on the same
basis as any other non-governmental provider without impairing the
religious character of such organizations and without diminishing the
religious freedom of beneficiaries of assistance. The provisions apply
to:
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Welfare-to-Work
grants as well as Supplemental Security Income(SSI), Medicaid, Food
Stamps, and child support enforcement under the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).
* Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG), reauthorized in 1998.
* Substance abuse treatment and prevention programs under two separate
amendments to the Public Health Services Act in 2000.
Background: Terminology:
Although ’faith-based organization“ is not defined in the law, the term
is commonly used in the literature as follows:
* Faith-based organizations (FBOs) are religious organizations or
religiously affiliated not-for-profit entities. FBOs that may provide
social services could be classified into two major categories:
- Sectarian - ’Pervasively religious“ organizations, such as churches,
temples, synagogues, mosques, and congregations.
- Non-Sectarian - Separate, secular organization created by a religious
organization to provide social services, such as Jewish Family
Services, Catholic Charities USA, Lutheran Social Services, and the
Salvation Army.
Background: How Charitable Choice Affects FBOs:
FBOs have historically provided help for the needy in partnership with
the government through their non-sectarian entities. Now, sectarian
FBOs that receive federal funding under charitable choice provisions:
* Are not required to separate their religious nature from their social
service activities in order to receive federal funding.
* Are not prohibited from displaying religious symbols.
* Are allowed, in their employment practices, to discriminate on
religious grounds.
* Are prohibited from discriminating against beneficiaries in delivery
of services.
* Are subject to the same financial audit regulations for federal funds
as are other non-governmental organizations.
* Must not use public funds received directly, through contracts and
grants, for the purpose of worship, religious instruction, or
proselytizing.
Background: How Charitable Choice Affects States and Localities:
Charitable choice provisions do not prescribe how states or localities
should implement the law, however, these provisions:
* Require states and localities to allow religious organizations to
compete for, or receive, federal funding for the provision of social
services on the same basis as any other non-governmental provider.
* Provide that if a beneficiary objects to the religious nature of a
provider, the state or locality must make available an alternative
(non-religious), accessible provider.
* Prohibit states and localities from requiring an FBO to change its
form of internal governance or to remove religious art, icons, or
symbols.
Scope and Methodology:
We limited the scope of our work to programs that have charitable
choice provisions:
* To identify relevant reports and publications that have been issued
since PRWORA in 1996, we conducted library and internet research and
interviewed some study authors and experts in the field.
* We reviewed over 30 reports and publications; of these, 8 provided
information directly relevant to our objectives.
* Most of the 8 reports have methodological limitations, preventing us
from drawing conclusions about the national experience with charitable
choice. However, these reports provide some useful information about
aspects of charitable choice.
To what extent have states responded to charitable choice provisions?
There is no national picture of the extent to which states have
responded to charitable choice, due to the limited number, scope, and
quality of existing reports. However:
* One survey reported that 19 states had contracts with FBOs that were
funded by TANF or Welfare-to-Work funds. (Meckler)
* A study of 9 states identified TANF or Welfare-to-Work financial
agreements with 45 FBOs that had not previously received federal
funding. (Sherman)
* Only 3 percent of a national sample of religious congregations
surveyed in 1998 reported receiving government funding to provide
social services. (Chaves)
How have states responded to charitable choice provisions?
Some states have taken an active approach in responding to charitable
choice provisions. Some state activities identified in one or more of
these 8 reports included:
* Creating a central office, appointing liaisons, or hosting educational
meetings to promote greater awareness of charitable choice provisions
and increase coordination with FBOs.
* Developing demonstration projects to gain experience in working
with FBOs.
* Changing state procurement requirements and practices to remove
barriers to contracting with FBOs.
* Entering into various types of financial agreements with FBOs,
including contracts, grants or vouchers.
What factors have limited the collaboration between states and FBOs?
Some key factors identified in one or more of these 8 reports included:
* Lack of awareness and understanding of charitable choice provisions
on the part of some states and FBOs.
* Unwillingness on the part of some FBOs to partner with government due
to general mistrust of government, fear of erosion of their mission, or
fear of oversight.
* Theological or philosophical beliefs of some FBOs that preclude
collaboration with government.
* Difficulty of contracting process for some FBOs that lack experience
with the RFP process.
* Limited administrative capacity of some FBOs to develop accounting
systems for administering grants or contracts.
* Limited financial capacity of some FBOs to obtain start-up funds for
such projects.
* Limited numbers of staff or volunteers in some FBOs.
What issues have been encountered once collaboration has occurred?
Key issues identified in one or more of these 8 reports included:
* Capacity Issues - Some small FBOs have experienced difficulties in
managing performance-based contracts, due to limited technological and
management systems. In some cases these issues became less problematic
when larger organizations were used as intermediaries.
* Financial issues: Some small FBOs have encountered difficulties in
covering their ongoing costs while awaiting government reimbursement on
cost-based contracts.
* Coordination Issues: Some FBOs have reported difficulties obtaining
client information from, and coordinating activities with, other social
service agencies.
* Oversight Issues: Some state officials have expressed concerns about
the challenges they face in holding FBOs accountable for their
performance.
How have FBOs performed as compared to secular providers of social
services?
The literature that we reviewed provides no information on which to
assess the effectiveness of FBOs as providers of social services.
Other Issues:
Some aspects of charitable choice have generated significant debate.
However, there is little or no information in the literature about the
extent to which the following aspects have been problematic:
* Exemption of FBOs from prohibition of discrimination based on
religion in their hiring practices.
* Requirement that FBOs do not discriminate in the delivery of
services.
* Requirement that FBOs do not use federal funds for worship, religious
instruction, or proselytizing.
* Requirement that an alternative (non-religious) service provider be
made available upon request by a beneficiary.
* State discretion to exempt or partially exempt from state
certification or programmatic oversight those FBOs that provide
specified services (e.g. childcare, substance abuse treatment, or youth
homes).
* State discretion to determine the range of organizations covered by
charitable choice provisions.
Relevant Reports:
Anderson, Scott, Orr, John, and Carol Silverman, ’The California
Religious Community Capacity Study: Technical Report,“ California
Council of Churches, 2000.
Bartkowski, John P., and Regis, Helen A. ’Charitable Choice and the
Feasibility of Faith-Based Welfare Reform in Mississippi,“ Working
Paper, Joint Center for Poverty Research, 1999.
Center for Public Justice, ’Charitable Choice Compliance: A National
Report Card,“ 2000.
Chaves, Mark, ’Congregations and Social Services: What They Do, How
They Do It, and With Whom,“ University of Arizona, 2000.
Cnaan, Ram, and Boddie, Stephanie. ’Philadelphia Census of
Congregations and Their Involvement in Social Service Delivery,“
University of Pennsylvania, 2001.
Meckler, Laura, ’Most States Pass on Charitable Choice,“ Associated
Press, 2001.
Reingold, David A., Pirog, Maureen, and Brady, David. ’Empirical
Evidence on Welfare Reform & Faith Based Organizations,“ Indiana
University, 2000.
Sherman, Amy, ’The Growing Impact of Charitable Choice: A Catalogue of
New Collaborations Between Government and Faith-Based Organizations in
Nine States,“ Hudson Institute, 2000.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
