List of faith-based grants provides more questions than answers

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Hollman Report
February 2005

The "faith-based initiative" has been difficult to track since it became mostly a matter of administrative action, implemented through the President's executive orders and administrative agency rule changes. We know what the executive orders say, but we are still learning how they play out on the ground. While federal agencies are being encouraged to expand the role of faith-based groups in providing federally funded services, we know little about which specific groups are receiving the money, how they are using it and to what effect.

Not surprisingly, one of the most commonly asked questions is: where is the money going? The question is not just one of idle curiosity. In light of the administration's aggressive pursuit of the initiative, its lenient interpretation of constitutional standards and its rhetoric lauding faith-based organizations, the public wants to know what faith-based groups are being funded. They also want to know how the new regulatory changes affect the beneficiaries of social services and whether organizations that receive the grants are playing by the rules to avoid government funding of religion.

According to a recent Associated Press story, some of questions are starting to be answered. The White House provided the AP with a list of "faith-based" organizations receiving funds and the amount they received. According to the list, the federal government gave more than $1.17 billion to "faith-based" groups in 2003. The story offered one of the first opportunities to evaluate how the initiative is working.

Two findings, however, underscore the political nature of the initiative. Clearly, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives wants to show it has effectively expanded the role of religious groups in providing government social services. In announcing how many faith-based groups have received federal funding, however, the administration seems to have exaggerated the initiative's success.

First, much of the funding reported went to large grant recipients that had been receiving federal funds for years. We can assume that they did so under traditional, more constitutionally protective rules. Those rules already allowed religious service providers to contract with the government. In fact, more than 80 percent of faith-based grantees awarded funds through the Department of Health and Human Services in 2003 have received government money in the past. Two programs, one under Head Start and the other Housing and Urban Development, account for half of the money reportedly given the faith-based groups. The stated goal of the faith-based initiative was to "level the playing field" and remove a perceived bias against religious organizations. The list, however, seems to show that faith-based organizations operating under the old rules are receiving the majority of the funds.

Second, representatives from several of the organizations listed by the White House said that their organizations are not "faith-based" and were mischaracterized. For example, an organization named "You Gotta Believe" was listed. According to the AP report, this entity promotes low-income housing and is not about believing in God, but it promotes the belief that all deserve a home. The White House admitted to the AP that the list contains organizations that do not identify themselves as faith-based but merely had names sounding religious.

On the other hand, the exaggeration does not mean there is nothing to worry about. The list of grantees contains a large number of churches, some receiving grants of $1 million, where the purpose of such grants is not identified.

Finally, it is clear that despite all the talk, there is very little new money for social services through faith-based grants. David Kuo, former White House Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative, made this point in a recent article posted on Beliefnet.com and reported on the front page of The Washington Post. He claims that actual monetary support for the faith-based initiative has not matched the enthusiasm shown in the administration's rhetoric. Kuo claims that in recent large budgets, other domestic priorities such as a repeal of the estate-tax surpassed any "compassion agenda."

As the administration continues to push the "faith-based" initiative, we will continue to seek answers about its implementation. How is the money being used? Have organizations complied with the regulations to avoid advancing religion in government programs? Are the programs effective? Have faith-based groups simply received money that otherwise would have been going to experienced, effective secular organizations? The questions still outnumber the answers.