The Role of State Faith Community Liaisons in Charitable Choice Implementation

Abstract

Faith community liaisons (FCLs) - official contacts at the state or local level between government and faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) - had been established in at least 36 states and in many localities by the end of 2008. Their work typically entailed facilitating partnerships with and within the FBCO community, encouraging the organizational capacity of FBCOs, and educating both faith-based organizations and public agencies about the opportunities and requirements of the federal Charitable Choice and “equal treatment” provisions that sought to “level the playing field” for religious organizations collaborating with government. A recent study of the role of state faith community liaisons in Charitable Choice implementation conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) explored the FCLs’ work in eight case-study sites - Alabama, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, and Virginia. Sites were chosen where existing evidence indicated effectiveness in Charitable Choice implementation along a range of dimensions. In particular, the study explored the FCLs’ resources and contexts, and key practices related to outreach to the FBCO community, organizational capacity building, and education of faith-based organizations (FBOs) and public agencies about Charitable Choice opportunities and legal requirements. It also highlighted FCL initiatives to address pressing social issues.

In brief, the study found that FCLs typically worked with a wider range of organizations than Charitable Choice would suggest or than was commonly perceived - including both FBOs and CBOs, and in particular small “grassroots” groups. FCLs often did not ask the organizations to identify themselves by type (secular vs. FBO), instead seeing their missions as assisting a range of groups working on social issues. The liaisons participating in the study largely focused on: development of both funded and unfunded partnerships; building the capacity of grassroots organizations; and, to a lesser extent, education of FBOs and public agencies about the opportunities and requirements of Charitable Choice. Many seemed cautious about implementing Charitable Choice policy, seeing the legal ground as complex and unsettled. None systematically monitored either FBOs’ or public agencies’ understanding of or compliance with Charitable Choice law. The approaches taken by FCLs in the eight sites varied and were shaped by their political cultures and socioeconomic conditions, among other factors. Ultimately, they were both more inclusive and more cautious than either proponents or opponents of Charitable Choice may have anticipated.

Keywords: nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, faith-based initiative