Ofbnp Council Final Report

8/8/2019 Ofbnp Council Final Report

1/176


2/176

President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010ii

Publication of this document was coordinated by the White House Of ice of Faith-Based andNeighborhood Partnerships with support from the Of ice of Faith-Based and Neighborhood

Partnerships at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Special thanks to Joshua DuBois, Executive Director of the White House Of ice of Faith-Basedand Neighborhood Partnerships and Mara Vanderslice, Deputy Director and Coordinator of

the Presidents Advisory Council.


3/176

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommenda ons to the President - March 2010 i

Introduction from the Council Member

Li t of Council Member

Economic Recovery and Dome tic Poverty

Fatherhood and Healthy Familie

Environment and Climate Change

Inter-Religiou Cooperation

Global Poverty and Development

Reform of the Of ice of Faith-Ba ed and Neighborhood Partner hip

Bio of the Council Member

Photography Credit

TABLE OF CONTENTs


4/176

President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010iv


5/176

A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommenda ons to the President - March 2010

It is dif icult to overstate the generosity of the American spirit. From the rubble of Haitianneighborhoods to underserved communities across our own country, Americans areworking to address the needs of the most vulnerable among us. The Government is often apartner in this critical work, collaborating with local groups to serve those in need.

Although partnerships between the Government and community-serving organizationshave existed for centuries, until recently the United States Government had never formeda body comprised of grassroots leaders and other experts to assess and strengthen thosepartnerships. On February 5, 2009, President Barack Obama created the Advisory Councilon Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to do this work. In an executive order, thePresident noted:

The Council shall bring together leaders and experts in ields related to the work of faith-based and neighborhood organizations in order to: identify best practices andsuccessful modes of delivering social services; evaluate the need for improvementsin the implementation and coordination of public policies relating to faith-based andother neighborhood organizations; and make recommendations to the President,through the Executive Director [of the White House Of ice of Faith-Based andNeighborhood Partnerships], for changes in policies, programs, and practices that affect the delivery of services by such organizations and the needs of low-incomeand other underserved persons in communities at home and around the world.

Within this report, the Advisory Council proposes a number of such recommendations,and it urges President Obama and his Administration to adopt them. As members of thisCouncil, we are encouraged by the fact that the President and his Administration have madesustained dialogue with a diverse set of leaders a key part of this process, and we thank them for inviting the recommendations we present here.

President Obama asked the Council to focus its attention on making recommendations inthe following priority areas:

Economic Recovery and Domestic Poverty

Environment and Climate Change

Fatherhood and Healthy Families

Global Poverty and Development

Interreligious Cooperation Reform of the Of ice of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Each chapter of this report includes a number of recommendations in a speci ic issue area.No introduction could do justice to all of the recommendations, and this one certainly doesnot. We urge individuals to read the full report.

INTRODUCTION


6/176

vi President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

The recommendations often strike similar themes. We call for new principles of partnerships between the Government and community-serving organizations, onesrecognizing that these organizations not only provide essential services but also deservea seat at the table when reforms in policies affecting those partnerships are considered,designed, and implemented. To cite just a few examples, we urge the Federal Government toengage the nonpro it sector in its reviews of strategies for addressing global and domesticpoverty and international adaptation to climate change.

The term partnership should be expanded in other ways. Too often, this term isunderstood as being limited to government grants for private voluntary organizations.It should be understood much more broadly. The Federal Government often formsnon inancial partnerships with faith-based and neighborhood organizations. Thesepartnerships are as valuable to government as inancial partnerships, and they are preferredby many kinds of civil society organizations. The Government should highlight and developthese partnerships as much as partnerships involving inancial collaboration.

And while partnerships in this area are now commonly understood to encompass joint efforts with secular and single-faith bodies, they should also be understood as involving

relationships with multireligious or interfaith entities, both domestically and abroad.Multireligious or interfaith entities include religiously af iliated individuals or groupsfrom more than one distinct denomination, tradition, religion, or spiritual movement, andthey also may include individuals and groups identifying as secular. By partnering withorganizations like these and others working across faith lines, the Government can buildrespect for religious pluralism and freedom of religion or belief. As President Obama hasnoted in several speeches, including his historic Cairo address, interfaith service initiativesare a particularly good way to build understanding between different communities andcontribute to the common good. This report calls for the scaling and strengthening of suchinitiatives.

In recognition of Americas growing pluralism and diversity, the Federal Government also

should take speci ic steps to reach out to religious and cultural groups that traditionallyhave not been involved in partnerships with government. Government of icials should inviterepresentatives from these groups to be among the participants in, for example, workshops,training sessions, and networking opportunities. Steps like these will help to make good onour commitment to a government that truly represents all citizens.

Reverberating through this report is a call for the concerns of people who are poor andvulnerable to be prioritized. In our partnerships with government, the report notes, wewill always seek to make sure that the question of the impact on the poor is being asked.

Successful and innovative programs run by community-serving organizations that provideintegrated job training and support services to disadvantaged job seekers should beexpanded. Likewise, Federal agencies should ensure that low-income communities and

workers with barriers to employment are targeted when creating green job trainingprograms. They can often do so most effectively in collaboration with nonpro it groups.

In order to better serve those who are struggling, the Government should support thecreation of more single-site multiple-bene it access programs, including those administeredby religious and secular grassroots organizations. Far too many eligible families andindividuals do not receive the bene its to which they are entitled. This discrepancy deepensthe negative impacts of poverty on families and reduces the potential economic bene its


7/176

vA New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommenda ons to the President - March 2010

for low-income communities. The limited government funding that is available to support bene its outreach and access is typically focused on single bene its and single agencies. TheCouncil recommends that the Government pool these funds and revise relevant programrules to allow single sites to offer multiple bene its. In that way, families can access bene itssuch as the Earned Income Tax Credit; SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Progam(food stamps); medical bene its (including childrens health insurance); and veteransbene its in one place.

Similarly, Federal programs should eliminate restrictive rules prohibiting the integrationof funds or erecting signi icant barriers to effective coordination in programs affecting oureconomic recovery. The Administrations development of comprehensive and cross-cuttingprograms for communities like Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods is a stepin the right direction.

Cooperating across departments and levels of government is another essential step tobringing about better service. The Of ice of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnershipsand the Federal agency centers should continue to improve their communications withState, county, and city of icials, who award up to 90 percent of Federal social service funds.

Government agencies should create interdepartmental working groups to assess andaddress policies affecting fathers involvement in the lives of children, for example, takingthe father factor into account in the work they do. Interagency and intra-agency workinggroups that will equip agencies engaged in international affairs for engagement withinterfaith as well as secular and single-faith groups are needed.

The Federal Government also should make strides toward ensuring that it provides clearerand more accessible information about programs and partnerships. To collect the resourcesthat are available to faith-based and neighborhood groups on environmental issues andclimate change, the recommendations urge the Administration to create a centralizedWebsite with a name like Environment.gov.

The recommendations also call for Federal agencies and of ices that carry out foreignaid programs, for example, to publish information on their Websites about what theyare funding and where they are funding it. And the Council recommends that all bodiesdisbursing Federal social service funds be required to post online a list of entities receivingsuch aid and to do so in a timely manner.

Strengthened partnerships will require more emphasis on program evaluation. Evaluationshelp the Federal Government to identify and partner with the most effective organizations,whether they are secular or religious, large or small. Especially in new ields, theGovernment should invest in the development and assessment of new programs suchas ones promoting responsible fatherhood. Also, the report notes that federally fundedcapacity-building programs, those operating both at home and abroad, need to be reviewedand strengthened.

A reassessment of current agency strategies is sometimes necessary to improve thesepartnerships. The Council would like to see, for example, a modi ication in Requestsfor Applications (RFAs) at the United States Agency for International Development that would emphasize and recognize the value of preexisting community relationships, long-term presence in-country, support for sustainable development, and commitment to localparticipation. RFAs should include more impact and outcome criteria that support andrecognize organizations that are in development for the long haul and should be scored in a


8/176

viii President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010

way that values long-term engagement with a community and local investment. Change alsois needed with regard to some services provided by health and human service professionals.Curricular materials used by these professionals should give more attention to the criticalrole fathers play in child, family, and community well-being.

The report urges the Obama administration to implement a number of the reforms across

these partnerships that are aimed at honoring our countrys commitment to religiousfreedom. The recommendations call, for example, for greater clarity in the church-stateguidance given to social service providers so that tax funds are used appropriately andproviders are not confused or sued. The recommendations also insist that bene iciaries benoti ied of their religious liberty rights, including their rights to alternative providers. Andthe recommendations urge the Administration to take steps to increase con idence that the rules applicable to federally funded partnerships are actually being observed and that decisions about government grants are made on the merits of proposals, not on political orreligious considerations.

The Council began its work by assembling taskforces to develop recommendations in eachpriority area. Council members served on the various taskforces along with non-Council

members who are experts in the issue areas. The taskforces provided settings in which smallbut diverse groups of experts could draft recommendations for subsequent considerationby the larger Council. Once the taskforces completed the draft recommendations, Councilmembers reviewed the drafts, asking questions and offering suggestions. Based on thesecomments, the drafts were revised by the taskforces, and then the Council offered additionalfeedback. Through this process, the taskforce drafts were converted into one Council report.

In all of its work, the Council sought to identify recommendations that could bring about meaningful change and that all members could endorse. In the few instances in which wecould not accomplish the second aim, we have described our differences over the relevant matters. The fact that Council members have principled disagreements on some issuesdiscussed in the report highlights the importance of our agreement on others.

Governmental partnerships with nonpro its attest to the fact that government cannot doeverythingit needs partners from the private sector to promote the public good. But we also recognize that the Government cannot even do everything in partnership withnongovernmental groups. Partnerships between nongovernmental organizations, includingcharities and businesses, are vital to our Nations health. Further, some tasks are the soleresponsibility of the private sector. These areas, however, are not the focus of our report.President Obama asked the Council to make recommendations to the Federal Government about partnerships between the Government and nonpro it nongovernmental organizations,secular and religious, to serve people in need. Even though other partnerships werenot within the scope of our work, we recognize the importance of challenging our owncommunities to do more in those and other priority areas, and we gladly accept that

responsibility as we call on government to do more.If implemented, some of these recommendations will require substantial investments of government funds. At the same time, it is important to note that implementation of manyof these recommendations will result in signi icant savings. Adequately addressing globalclimate changethrough better and more extensive partnerships with nonpro its andother effortswill result, for example, in less migration, fewer refugee crises, and greaterfood security. Implementing other recommendations would reduce inef iciencies in the


9/176

iA New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommenda ons to the President - March 2010

distribution of aid and would save money by bringing about greater coordination of federallyfunded programs. For example, the report calls for the extension of Fathering Courts,programs identifying barriers that prevent fathers from making child support paymentsand linking those men with services, including education, counseling, and employment opportunities, that help them to overcome those barriers. In one Kansas City MissouriFathering Court, 281 graduates and current participants have become signi icantly moreinvolved in the lives of their children. They have contributed more than $2.6 million in childsupport, and as a result, the State has avoided more than $2.8 million in incarceration costs.

The Council also acknowledges that President Obama has proposed a freeze on totalnonsecurity discretionary spending for the next 3 years. We urge the President andCongress to recognize that effective programs aimed at helping people who are poor andvulnerable should be among our Nations highest discretionary spending priorities. Ourcountry faces dif icult choices. But those burdened by poverty face even more dif icult choices, and we dare not turn away from their needs.

In 2009, President Obama called us to work together, saying, Instead of driving us apart,our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the af licted; to

make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who havefallen on hard times. It is rare, if not unprecedented, for a governmental body to ask such adiverse group to seek common ground on a wide range of issues through sustained dialogueand deliberation. This process has been an education for Council members and, if we maysay so, a blessing. Our report is the fruit of that labor. The understanding and relationshipsthat have been built across lines of faith, belief, and political af iliation are equally important products of this work.

We urge other governmental bodies to establish similar forums in which diverse groupsof nonpro it experts can engage in long-term conversation. At a time when our politicaldiscourse is often dysfunctional because of bitter division and distrust, endeavors like theseare absolutely essential. Governmental leaders and citizens alike should take action now toimprove the conversation about our shared future, to protect the most vulnerable among us,and to form a more perfect union.


10/176

President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010


11/176


COUNCIL MEMBERs

Diane Baillargeon, President and CEO, Seedco

Anju Bhargava, President, Asian Indian Women in America Founder,

Hindu American Seva CharitiesBi hop Charle Blake, Presiding Bishop, Church of God in Christ

Noel Ca tellano , CEO, Christian Community Development Association

Dr Arturo Chvez, President and CEO; Mexican American Catholic College

The Reverend Canon Peg Chemberlin, President, National Council of Churches;Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches

Fred Davie, Senior Director, The Arcus Foundation

Nathan J Diament, Director of Public Policy,Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

Dr Joel C Hunter, Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed

Harry Kno , Director, Religion and FaithProgram Human Rights Campaign Foundation

Bi hop Va hti Murphy McKenzie, Bishop, Thirteenth Episcopal District,African Methodist Episcopal Church

Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst and Executive Director,The Center for Muslim Studies, Gallup

The Reverend Oti Mo , Jr , Pastor Emeritus, Oliviet Institutional Baptist Church

Dr Frank Page, Vice-President of Evangelization, North American Mission Board;and Past President of the Southern Baptist Convention

Dr Eboo Patel, Founder and Executive Director, Interfaith Youth Core Anthony R Picarello, Jr , General Counsel,United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Nancy Ratzan, President, National Council of Jewish Women

Meli a Roger , Council Chair, Director, Center for Religion and Public Affairsof the Wake Forest University Divinity School

Rabbi David saper tein, Director and Counsel,Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

The Reverend William J shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

The Reverend Larry J snyder, President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA

Richard E stearn , President, World Vision United States

Judith Vredenburgh, Immediate Past President and CEO,Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

Jim Walli , President and CEO, Sojourners

The Reverend Dr sharon E Watkin , General Minister and President,Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the United States and Canada


12/176

President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010ii


13/176


Economic Recoveryand Domestic Poverty

Member of the Ta kforce

Diane Baillargeon, President and CEO, Seedco

Judith Bell, President, PolicyLink

The Reverend Canon Peg Chemberlin, President, National Councilof Churches; Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches

The Reverend Lui Corte , President; andJodi Reynhout, Project Assistant, Esperanza

Vicki B E carra, President and CEO; andJean Yavi Jone , Senior Policy and Research Counsel, Feeding America

Commi ioner I rael L Gaither, Commander; andDeborah sjogren, National Liaison for Public Affairs, Salvation Army

Brian Gallagher, President and CEO; andJo ephine Robin on, Vice President, United Way Worldwide

Rabbi steve Gutow, President, Jewish Council for Public Affairs

Jill schumann, President and CEO, Lutheran Services in America

sr Mary scullion, Executive Director and President, Project H.O.M.E.(Housing Opportunities for Employment, Medical Care, Education)

The Reverend William J shaw, President, National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.The Reverend Larry J snyder, President and CEO, Catholic Charities USA

Jim Walli , President and CEO, Sojourners


14/176

2 President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - March 2010


15/176


INTRODUCTIONEvery dayin every part of Americafaith-based and neighborhood organizations areserving the most vulnerable members of our Nation in both profound and ordinary ways.

Faith- and community-based social service providers are an integral part of our Nations

fabric. They provide warmth, food, housing, job training, mentoring, and hope to millions inevery State, city, and town across America.

The impact of these organizations is enormous, whether funded by private or public dollars.For example, one of eight people living in poverty received services and support fromCatholic Charities. The United Way has 1,279 of ices located in every State and virtuallyevery congressional district and works with 37,300 partner agencies across the country.The Jewish Federations of North America represent 157 Jewish Federations, which raiseand distribute nearly $3 billion annually for social welfare, social services, and educationalneeds, through a network of agencies that also receive over $10 billion in governmentalfunds annually. Lutheran Services in America reports that its member agencies across thecountry worked with a budget of more than $16 billion last year. Nonpro it networks, like

Feeding America, serve more than 37 million people each year through some 61,000 localfaith- and community-based charitable agencies.

Additionally, there are thousands of smaller nonpro its that are working at the communityand neighborhood levels every day, whose combined impact cannot even be measured. But we know that without the compassion, innovation, and daring of these groups, this countrywould be a different place.

Faith- and community-based social service providers are serious, innovative, andin fact,indispensiblepartners for the U.S. Government in the economic recovery and in the ight against domestic poverty.

The principle behind our report underlines the assertion that the U.S. Government should

see these capable institutions as key partners in not only providing social services, but also insetting policy and helping model innovation to strengthen communities.

Partnerships, especially during the economic recovery, that will protect those most in needare essential; these partnerships need to be mutual and supportive .

Nonpro its are being asked to deliver a higher level of services with fewer resources. Forinstance, Catholic Charities saw a 10-percent increase in demand for services in 2008;Feeding America saw an increase of more than 30 percent in just one year from the numbers

Economic Recoveryand Domestic Poverty

sECTION A:


16/176


of those coming to their agencies for food assistance in 2008. 2-1-1, the health and humanservices information and referral line, operated in many states by United Way, saw morethan a 40% increase in call volume during 2008 the bulk of calls relating to basic humanneeds such as food assistance, utility assistance, and housing. At the same time, these andother charitable organizations are seeing income to provide their services decline from allavenues, private and public.

As nonpro it leaders, we realize that State and local governments also are facing tight budgets and funding shortfalls, and we are trying to do all that we can to help, howeveran assumption that nonpro its can meet the growing needs without greater government support is not feasible.

We were very heartened to learn that recent analysis by the Center on Budget and PolicyPriorities shows that provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009(hereinafter, the Recovery Act) are keeping more than 6 million Americans out of povertyand are reducing the severity of poverty for 33 million more. 1

But much more needs to be done.

We believe that this economic crisis gives those who serve the publicboth government and nonpro itan opportunity to work together and reinforce both the community fabricwoven by our Nations nonpro it and faith-based groups and the social safety net held byhealth care, human services, and social service providers.

We also are committed to supporting the Administration in seeking an inclusive EconomicRecovery that helps everyone, especially the most vulnerable and those most in need.

In this report, we suggest that the commitment to prioritize the concerns of the poorest among us should become a principle of partnership between government and faith-based and neighborhood organizations.

We would even go so far as to say that social policy must be made more accountable bypractices and guidelines that would serve to focus our shared attention on those on themargins of societythose whom the 25th chapter of Matthew calls the least of these, andshared Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Scriptures often refer to as the widow, the stranger,and orphan. Rg Veda of the Hindu scriptures emphasizes the need to strive at all times forthe well-being of all the people and many other sacred texts, and the moral traditions of ourcountry share similar teachings about caring for the most vulnerable. In our partnershipswith government, we will always seek to make sure that the question of the impact on thepoor is being asked.

We stand ready to work with President Obama and his Administration toward a stable andinclusive Economic Recovery, toward the stated goal of cutting poverty in half by 2015, andtoward ultimately building effective partnerships to end poverty in America.

1 Center on Budget and Policy Priori es, State-Level Data Show Recovery Act Protec ng Millions From Poverty Act; Also Sav ing and Crea ng Jobs,Boos ng Economy , December 17, 2009.


17/176


Three Area of RecommendationAcknowledging that there are many areas and topics we could have explored, the Counciloffers recommendations in three areas.

First, we recommend a set of principle of partner hip for an inclusive economic

recovery. These include building an accountable partnership with our Nations faith-basedcommunities and neighborhood organizations focused on the goal of reducing poverty inhalf by 2015 and continuing to seek an end to poverty in America; reexamining how thepoverty level is measured; and common sense proposals to help strengthen the effectivenessof social service nonpro its during the economic recovery.

Second, we recommend a series of changes that would increa e acce to income-enhancing bene it for those most in need. Faith- and community-based organizationsare on the frontlines, striving to not only ill emergency gaps in income, food, and shelter,but also support families in their efforts to adapt to the realities and opportunities of apost-recession economy. Our organizations work in partnership with government to helplow-income people access income-enhancing government bene its, such as the Earned

Income Tax Credit; SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps);and various child nutrition programs. Yet, far too many eligible families and individuals donot receive the bene its to which they are entitled, 2 reducing the potential economic bene itsfor low-income communities, deepening the negative impacts of poverty on families, andmaking the work of faith and community-based organizations all the more dif icult.

Finally, we turn to job and education , two of the most important ingredients for pullingfamilies and communities out of poverty and giving people the tools for success. TheEconomic Recovery will depend on the ability of people, especially our Nations youth, tohave access to post-secondary education and job training opportunities in order to preparefor a new economy. Faith- and community-based organizations have unique positionsas trusted partners to the community, to local businesses, but most important, to theindividuals they assist and support every day. Therefore, we can play a key role in providinga bridge, especially for disconnected and disadvantaged job seekers, to education, training,and ultimately jobs with dignity.

2 Jennifer Miller, Frieda Molina, Lisa Matus-Grossman, and Susan Golonka, Building Bridges to Self-Su ciency: Improving Services for Low-IncomeWorking Families (MDRC and the Na onal Governors Associa on (NGA) Center for Best Prac ces: March 2004), at 14-15. See also Sheila Zedlewski,Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Genevieve Kennedy, Is There a System Suppor ng Low-Income Working Families? Low-Income Working Families, Paper 4(The Urban Ins tute: February 2006); Food and Nutri on Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutri on Assistance Program Par cipa on Rates in 2007 , November 2008; Food Research and Ac on Center, Food Stamp Access in Urban America: A City-by-City Snapshot, October 2008 ; Sandra Jamet with Laura Seidell, Ben Seigel, and Rebecca Ross, Bene ts and Low Wage Work (Seedco: September 2003).


18/176


Overview of RecommendationPrinciples of Partnership for an Inclusive Economic Recovery:

Recommendation 1: Build accountable partnerships between the Obama administrationand faith- and community-based organizations directed toward the explicit and shared goal

of signi icantly reducing and inally putting an end to poverty in America.Recommendation 2: Utilize the knowledge, expertise, and on-the-ground experience of local faith- and community-based organizations to rede ine the Federal poverty guideline sothat it more accurately measures and responds to the needs of low-income people.

Recommendation 3: Provide greater lexibility for the coordination and integration of government funds designated for speci ic program activities.

Recommendation 4: Support faith- and community-based partnerships as a means to illthe gaps in providing essential services like transportation, housing, food assistance, jobtraining, education, and health care for low-income families and individuals.

Recommendation 5: Ease the burden on nonpro it social service agencies by removing

barriers to service provision such as matching fund requirements, burdensome reportingand regulations, and slow payments and reimbursements.

Strengthen Access to Bene its:

Recommendation 6: Create an interdepartmental taskforce to explore and overseestreamlining and consolidating the public bene its, eligibility, and application processes.

Recommendation 7: Expand single-site, multiple-bene it access programs, including thoserun through faith- and community-based organizations.

Recommendation 8: Invest in the development and distribution of software applicationsto facilitate access to multiple bene its through online applications.

Recommendation 9: Create incentives for State and local governments to maximizeparticipation by eligible low-income families and individuals in income-enhancing bene itsand to promote multiple-bene it access through faith- and community-based organizations.

Focus on Jobs and Education:

Recommendation 10: Incorporate supportive services with education and trainingopportunities, and ensure nonpro it accessibility and eligibility for Federal grant funding.

Recommendation 11: Focus partnerships between education and training institutions andfaith- and community-based organizations to better serve disadvantaged, displaced, anddisconnected job seekers and to align worker skills with employer needs.

Recommendation 12: Utilize faith- and community-based organizations to bridge the gap

from secondary education to post-secondary institutions and job training programs with aparticular focus on disconnected youth.

Recommendation 13: Encourage collaboration between faith- and community-basedorganizations, community colleges, and the private sector.


19/176


Principle of Partner hip foran Inclu ive Economic RecoverySustained economic recovery depends on the participation and prosperity of all citizensand the development of communities of opportunity. Low-income people and communitiesof color continue to be at the frontlines of the economic crisis. The Recovery Act presentsa tremendous opportunity to maximize gains for those hit irst and worst by the economicdownturn and to put equity at the forefront of policy and resource decisions. This moment of unparalleled investment is also an opportunity to build stronger partnerships betweenthe Federal Government and faith- and community-based organizations, to help speedeconomic recovery and set a new standard for the future.

Recommendation 1: Build accountable partner hip between the Obamaadmini tration and faith- and community-ba ed organization directed toward thee plicit and hared goal of igni icantly reducing and inally putting an end to povertyin America

Faith- and community-based organizations have for more than a century worked in successfulpartnerships with the Government to deliver social services and care to millions in needthroughout our Nation.

We have partnered with government by providing high-quality care, services, and support tothe most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society with a proven track recordof success. However, our partnership with the Federal Government has not always beenaccountable to a long-term goal of permanent poverty reduction.

Our community is ready for a new accountable partnership with the Federal Government withthe goal of not only providing high-quality services and care, but also toward the measurableoutcome of signi icantly reducing poverty rates and inally putting an end to poverty inAmerica.

Many in our community are committed to the goal, af irmed by President Obama, of cutting thepoverty rate in half in 10 years. At the Compassion Forum on April 13, 2008, then candidateBarack Obama was asked whether, as President, he would commit to the goal of cuttingpoverty in half in 10 years. The President answered: I absolutely will make that commitment.Understand that when I make that commitment, I do so with great humility because it is a very ambitious goal. And were going to have to mobilize our society, not just to cut poverty, but to prevent more people from slipping into poverty.

We understand that government cannotand should nottake up this task alone.

Our communities are committed to bringing our moral authority, inancial resources, andnetworks of hundreds of thousands of experienced social service providers across Americato this task. We seek to build a long-term and accountable partnership with the Obama

administration to work togetherand hold each other accountablein taking steps to makepoverty reduction a reality.

We invite the President and his Administration to work with our communities in establishinga new era of partnerships with faith- and community-based organizations dedicated to themeasurable goal of reducing poverty by half in 10 years and ending childhood hunger by 2015.


20/176


Recommendation 2: Utilize the knowledge, e perti e, and on-the-ground e perience of local faith- and community-ba ed organization to rede ine the Federal poverty guideline

o that it more accurately mea ure and re pond to the need of low-income people

Federal poverty measures shape our basic understanding of who lives in poverty in America.They compare an individuals or familys income with the amount believed necessary to

meet a minimum standard of living. The of icial poverty measures, virtually unchanged sincethe 1960s, are deeply lawed. The standard is based on the cost of food and the assumptionthat individuals or families will spend one-third of all available income on food.

However, living costs and expenditures have changed dramatically since 1965. The modernAmerican family spends just one-seventh of household income on food, whereas manyother expenses, such as transportation, medical expenses, housing and childcare costs, haveincreased dramatically.

The inaccuracies of the Federal poverty levels have two major areas of impact on the work of faith- and community-based social service providers:

1. First, the Federal poverty guidelines impact the eligibility of those who can receivethe social services our organizations provide. Poverty statistics directly affect thedistribution of at least $22 billion a year in Federal money, and over 50 federallyassisted programs, for education, community development, basic nutrition andother purposes. 3

We see the impact of the inaccuracies of these measures at our doorsteps, as ourorganizations are required to ill the gap to make up for the discrepancies of whois deemed eligible for bene its and who is in need of help. This is especially true inparts of the country where the cost of food, rent, and other basics are especially high,because the Federal poverty measures do not take these factors into consideration.For example, rents in Manhattan and in California are more than twice as high asrents in Southern and Plains States. But neither poverty index makes the distinction.

2. Second, the current poverty measures do not take into account the impacts of noncash bene its, like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, known asSNAP (food stamps), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and childcare supports.Such noncash bene its encompass many of the services and bene its to which wehelp provide access. The current measures do not show a reduction in poverty whensuccessful policies are expanded or an increase in poverty when they are contracted.Therefore, it is very dif icult to measure the impact our programs and services arehaving on alleviating poverty in our communities. Without accurate understandingof the impact of policy and programmatic interventions, the social service sector isleft without an accurate landscape to evaluate the effectiveness of our work and ourpartnership with the U.S. Government.

This second point takes on a new importance in the context of the Economic Recovery. Newinitiatives in the Recovery Act designed to help those most hurt by the recession, such asexpansion of the EITC, child tax credits, or SNAP bene its, cannot be measured for theirimpact on poverty rates.

3 According to the Congressional Research Services 2007 analysis, at least 57 federally assisted programs used poverty levels, typically determined underthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines, in some way to determine program eligibility.


21/176


Changing the current poverty measures could be done through a new directive from theWhite House Of ice of Management and Budget (OMB).

Considering the direct impact the Federal poverty measures have on the work of nonpro it social service providers, the Council recommends that the President direct OMB tomeet with leading faith- and community-based social service leaders to discuss how toimplement a more realistic measure of poverty utilizing the knowledge and expertise those

organizations bring to the table.Background and Explanation:

There are two main Federal poverty measures, both of which are seriously outdated anddo not allow for an effective measurement of peoples basic needs. The poverty guidelinesissued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are used to determineeligibility for most Federal income-tested programs. The Census Bureau also issuespoverty thresholds, which are primarily used for statistical purposes. Both are basedon the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds, which were irst utilized in 1964 and adopted bythe Bureau of the Budget (now OMB) for use in all Executive Departments in 1965. TheOrshansky model is based on data on the cost of the economy food plan and the indingthat families and individuals spend one-third of their after-tax income on food.

Living costs and expenditures have changed dramatically since 1965. Expenses such astransportation, medical expenses, housing, and childcare costs have increased dramatically.There are several ways to reevaluate the measurement of poverty. One would be to updatethe Orshansky model to account for more recent living costs. Another would be to look at relative poverty, as is the case in some European countries that measure poverty by settingit as a percentage of median income that re lects income inequality. Other approaches that adjust for geographical, in-kind bene its and other variations are part of the debate.

There have been a number of attempts to revise the de inition (1969, 1972, 1976, and early1990s) but without suf icient impact. Poverty measurement continues to be inaccurate.Reluctance to make the needed changes may, too often, have been based on political ratherthan policy considerations. There may be concern that the adoption of a new and moreaccurate measurement would show many more people in poverty than are found by theuse of current measurements. These are not legitimate reasons for leaving this problemunaddressed. The current de inition of poverty leaves true needs unanswered and leavesour Nation without the best policies to end poverty.

We hope the Administration will utilize the on-the-ground knowledge of faith- andcommunity-based organizations to revise the inadequate current set of poverty guidelines.


22/176


Recommendation 3: Provide greater le ibilityfor the coordination and integration of government fund de ignated for peci icprogram activitie

Federal agencies should develop rules and

regulations to encourage and facilitate coordinationand integration of programs and services. Agenciesalso should be mandated to be receptive to waiverrequests or petitions for rulemaking changes that areaimed at facilitating coordination and integration.

A prime example of this integration of government funds designated for speci ic program activities isthe resources available to community nonpro itsand faith organizations to address the foreclosurecrisis. The Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) has encouraged partnership

with faith- and community-based organizationsthrough homeownership strategies, because they areoften the best early warning system when familiesare facing inancial dif iculty. A number of Federaland State agencies and nonpro it organizationshave developed foreclosure prevention programsto help homeowners who are having trouble withtheir home loans. Through this Federal funding,many families facing foreclosure get free housingcounseling services by HUD-approved counselors,who have helped homeowners understand thelaw and their options, organize their inances, andrepresent borrowers in negotiations with theirlenders. State Housing Finance Agencies havepartnered with nonpro it counseling agencies,local governments, State housing departments,and lenders to provide comprehensive foreclosureprevention and mitigation strategies, such asMassHousing partnering with NeighborWorks.

Part of the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program(NSP), was established to stabilize communities that have suffered from foreclosures and abandonment.The NSP2 program includes $1.93 billion authorizedunder the Recovery Act, to expand eligibilityand provide grants to States, local governments,nonpro its, and a consortium of nonpro it entitieson a competitive basis. This has been an important investment in positive steps to stanch the enormityof the impacts and challenges of the foreclosurecrisis in communities across the country.


23/176

1A New Era of Partnerships: Report of Recommenda ons to the President - March 2010

Background and Explanation:

In their efforts to improve the lives of low-income people and people of color, many faith-based organizations and community-based nonpro its take a comprehensive approach,offering an array of services and programs. This approach can include leveraging diverseresources from HUD, HHS, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Education,

the Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and others.It can improve access, and frequently also improve outcomes as people are better ableto access the services and programs they and their families need. However, rather thanfacilitating ef icient coordination, Federal programs tend to include restrictive rules, eitherprohibiting integration of funds or erecting signi icant barriers to effective coordination.

The Administrations development of comprehensive and crosscutting programs in thecommunity, such as Promise Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods, is a step in theright direction. They offer a comprehensive solution to the issue of concentrated povertyin Americawith revitalized housing, high-performing schools, robust social services, andemployment opportunities. These programs are based on the realities of individual andcommunity life and all their complexities. People do not live their lives in individual silos of

housing, transportation, or health care.Faith- and community-based partnerships place-based efforts seek to re lect thisreality. Instilling openness to needed adjustments for comprehensive efforts, to grantingwaiver requests, and to seeking to foster the engagement of faith- and community-basedpartnerships in comprehensive initiatives, holds the promise of decreasing poverty andadvancing equity.

Recommendation 4: support faith- and community-ba ed organization a a mean toill the gap in providing e ential ervice like tran portation, hou ing, food a i tance,

job training, education, and health care for low-income familie and individual

Faith- and community-based organizations provide critical supports and services for

low-income families and individuals. Drawing on their knowledge of local communityneeds and cultures, faith- and community-based organizations provide a range of servicesincluding transportation, housing, health care, job assistance and job training. In orderto provide these services, public (local, State, and Federal) resources are leveraged withadditional funds from private, individual, and philanthropic sources. Despite their best efforts, particularly in the current economic climate, many faith- and community-basedorganizations cannot meet all the needs of low-income families and individuals, nor provideenough assistance to help change life circumstances.

Federal funding allows these organizations to provide essential services to those in need.For instance, faith- and community-based organizations rely on government support to run several important transportation programs, including Job Access and ReverseCommute (JARC) program 4 and Ways to Work that connect people to jobs outside transit services. These programs seek to ill the gap when public transit is not available. Without

4 JARC is a $750 million program that was established to address the unique transporta on challenges faced by welfare recipients and low-incomepersons seeking to obtain and maintain employment. Many new entry-level jobs are located in suburban areas, and low-income individuals have di cultyaccessing these jobs from their inner city, urban, or rural neighborhoods. In addi on, many entry level-jobs require working late at night or on weekendswhen conven onal transit services are either reduced or do not exist. Many employment-related trips are complex and involve mul ple des na onsincluding reaching childcare facili es or other services. While States and public bodies are eligible designated recipients, subrecipients include nonpro torganiza ons. JARC provides capital planning and opera ng expenses for projects that transport low-income individuals to and from jobs and ac vi esrelated to employment, and for reverse commute projects. See h p://www. a.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_ nancing_3550.html and h p://www. a.dot.gov/documents/FTA_JARC_Fact_Sheet_Sept05.pdf for more informa on.


24/176


public transit or the services provided by faith- and community-based organizations(with government support) low-income individuals and families will lose a critical link toconnect them to jobs, job training, educational opportunities, and needed medical services.Additional Federal resources are needed to ill the gap for these and other essential servicesto ensure that the basic needs of low-income families and individuals can be met.


Low-income families and individuals face a range of challenges in this economy. There is fargreater need for essential services to meet basic needs and provide the tools to make longer-term improvements to lifes outcomes. Although faith- and community-based organizationswork diligently to combine and leverage resources from public, private, and philanthropicsources, more is needed. Resources are needed to provide essential services, create newjobs, and better connect low-income families and individuals to opportunity.

For instance, faith- and community-based organizations that offer specialized transportationservices (e.g., vanpools and reverse commute programs) that help low-income people andpeople of color get to work, ind new jobs, and receive services are being cut or severelyscaled back. Resources are needed to mitigate these service cuts. By increasing operatingfunds for programs provided by many faith- and community-based nonpro its, such as JARCand the Ways to Work programs, 5 we can create and save thousands of jobs and connect low-income families, welfare recipients, and residents to jobs, services, and economic opportunity.

Recommendation 5: Ea e the burden on nonpro it ocial ervice agencie byremoving barrier to ervice provi ion uch a matching fund requirement ,burden ome reporting and regulation , and low payment and reimbur ement

Nonpro it social service agencies that are serving those most in need during the recessionare also themselves under tremendous pressures as demand for their services rise and their

income and fundraising decline.

5 The Ways to Work program began in the mid-1980s as a program to help single mothers in Minnesota move o and stay o welfare. It has evolvedinto the Na ons largest and most successful alterna ve to predatory auto loans for working poor families. Since the mid-1980s, Ways to Work hashelped more than 26,000 families stabilize or improve their nancial situa on through over $45 million in loan funds used for a variety of work-relatedpurposes. About 95 percent of all Ways to Work loans are made for the purchase of used vehicles. For many low-income and poor families, a car is anearning asset, a cri cal piece of their familys opera ng equipment. The program and loan o ce is hosted by community-based human service nonpro tsthat are members of the Alliance for Children and Families. The local nonpro t plays an important role in informing and connec ng with local residents,providing the sta , o ce space, and supervision, as well as opera onal and loss reserve funding. See h p://www.waystowork.org/pages/Print%20Pages/pr_p_home.html for more informa on.


25/176


The economic recession has had a dramatic impact on our Nations nonpro it serviceproviders, forcing them to lay off thousands of staff and shutter entire programs the veryprograms that the most vulnerable members of our society need more than ever.

Therefore, we recommend a series of measures to ease the burdens on nonpro it socialservice agencies:

A.) Where allowable, temporarily suspend matching funds for certain government grants.

The nonpro it sector employs over 9.4 million workers and 4.7 million full-time volunteersnationally, which constitutes roughly 11 percent of the American workforce. With thismany employees, it is critical that the Federal Government provide an adequate responseto keep these entities inancially secure and functioning. In recent years, nonpro it agencieshave had to raise more and more unrestricted private dollars to meet match requirements,administrative fees, and licensing and permit fees. Another way to characterize this situationis that while nonpro its are tax exempt, they are paying a tax to accept and administergovernment funds.

Nonpro it agencies that operate programs in partnership with Federal and State

governments continue to experience dramatic cost increases to run these partnerships.In the wake of the current economic downturn, these escalating costs make it dif icult to continue current services and extremely challenging to take advantage of fundingopportunities. Many government contracts are structured with the assumption that smallnonpro its will be able to identify local resources to cover and support the administration of these partnerships in an increasingly unstable economic climate.


The non-pro it sector employs over 9.4 million workers and 4.7 million full-time volunteersnationally. This constitutes roughly 11 percent of the American workforce. With this manyemployees, it is critical that the federal government provide an adequate response to keepthese entities inancially secure and functioning. In recent years, non-pro it agencies havehad to raise more and more unrestricted private dollars to meet match requirements,administrative fees, and licensing and permit fees. Another way to characterize this isthat while non-pro its are tax exempt, they are paying a tax to accept and administergovernment funds.

Non-pro it agencies that operate programs in partnership with federal and stategovernments continue to experience dramatic cost increases to run these partnerships.In the wake of the current economic downturn, these escalating costs make it dif icult to continue current services and extremely challenging to take advantage of fundingopportunities. Many government contracts are structured with the assumption that smallnon-pro its will be able to identify local resources to cover and support the administrationof these partnerships in an increasingly unstable economic climate.

B.) Eliminate burdensome reporting requirements.

The Federal Government should work to consolidate and simplify reporting requirementsfor funding under the Recovery Act. Recovery Act funds are urgently needed in localcommunities. However, nonpro its already managing multiple funding streams withcompeting requirements and multiple audits on different schedules are being requiredto produce additional documentation for the expenditure of these funds without anyrecognition of the increase in the administrative costs that are largely unfunded.


26/176



With shrinking resources, too many nonpro its are being forced to cut staff and reduceprograms all while attempting to satisfy burdensome reporting requirements. Nonpro itsthat do business with the Government have an exemplary track record of ensuring that

funds go to people in need. However, government funding streams that do not recognizethe cost to administer and deliver the services while simultaneously imposing signi icant requirements have placed agencies in a situation in which they are laying off staff in order tosustain the delivery of certain services.

The Government at all levels relies more and more on the good will of nonpro its in acontinuing cost shift at a time when nonpro its are unable to raise suf icient funds to meet the demand.

C.) Ensure prompt payment to non-pro its.

Federal funds, particularly Recovery Act funds, should include a prompt pay requirement from the States to their subcontractors. The Federal Government recognizes this requirement in its Federal contracting, and it is unreasonable that any organization should have to wait up to 9 months without payment. When payments are made, no interest is included. Many of these agencies use lines of credit that carry interest while waiting for payment. This interest then becomes an additional cost of doing business with the Government.


As states continue to experience a budget crisis, more and more non-pro its are bearing thebrunt of the crisis. The effect on the non-pro it community continues to be two-fold:

1. States and local municipalities are not paying current or recently ended contractsbecause of their own funding challenges, resulting in many nonpro its being owedsubstantial funds for services provided

2. Many nonpro its are experiencing signi icant reductions in State contracts forservices that often result in the complete elimination of programs, especiallyprevention programs.


27/176


sTRENGTHENING ACCEssTO BENEFITsFaith- and community-based organizations are onthe frontline striving to not only ill emergencygaps in income, food, and shelter, but also support families in their efforts to adapt to the realities andopportunities of a post-recession economy. Muchof this work is undertaken in partnership withgovernment including helping low-income peopleaccess income-enhancing government bene its, suchas the EITC, SNAP (food stamps), veterans bene its,and various child nutrition programs.

Yet, far too many eligible families and individuals donot receive the bene its to which they are entitled, 6 reducing the potential economic bene its for low-income communities, deepening the negative

impacts of poverty on families, and making thework of faith- and community based organizationseven more dif icult. There are numerous barriers toaccess, 7 including:

Lack of information about who is eligible, theinancial stakes, and how to apply;

Complex and often inef icient applicationand enrollment procedures that are different for each bene it and require multiple visitsto different government of ices, long waits,

and confusing eligibility documentationrequirements;

Stigma against public bene its as vestiges of welfare dependency; and

Language and cultural barriers.

There is inadequate funding and capacity to meet the need for bene its, such as housing and child caresubsidies outside of the three major entitlement programs (SNAP bene its, Medicaid, Medicare, and

the State Childrens Health Insurance Program(SCHIP); and the EITC).

6 Jennifer Miller, Frieda Molina, Lisa Grossman, and Susan Golonka, Building Bridges to Self-Su ciency: Improving Services for Low-Income Families (MDRC and the NGA Center for Best Prac ces: March 2004), at 14-15. See also Sheila Zedlewski, Gina Adams, Lisa Dubay, and Genevieve Kennedy,Is There a System Suppor ng Low-Income Working Families? Low-Income Working Families, Paper 4 (The Urban Ins tute: February 2006); Food andNutri on Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutri on Assistance Program Par cipa on Rates in 2007 ,November 2008; Food Research and Ac on Center, Food Stamp Access in Urban America: A City-by-City Snapshot , October 2008; Sandra Jamet with LauraSeidell, Ben Seigel, and Rebecca Ross, Bene ts and Low Wage Work (Seedco: September 2003).7 Jamet, et al., 2003.


28/176


We urge the Administration to look to promisingpractices involving faith- and community-basedorganizations that are providing multiple-bene it access, and access to income support programs,through single-platform data collection, application,and bene it management technology, such as TheBene it Bank, EarnBene its, eApp, and Single StopUSA programs.

The following recommendations are designedto enhance and facilitate the work of faith- andcommunity-based organizations by increasing levelsof access to existing income-enhancing government bene its for low-income families and individuals andcapturing administrative ef iciencies through thecreation of a streamlined, people-centered multiple-bene it access system based in the community.

Recommendation 6: Create aninterdepartmental ta kforce to e plore andover ee treamlining and con olidating thepublic bene it , eligibility, and applicationproce e

The overall structure of the bene its access systemcontributes to inadequate access and duplicativeadministrative costs. It is diffuse and generallydesigned to meet the short-term administrativeneeds of government bureaucracies agency-centricrather than people-centric. The result is an overly

complex system that is dif icult to navigate for thosemost in need and on-the-ground faith and communityorganizations who serve them. In addition, manybene it eligibility rules exclude or severely limit theeligibility of non-custodial parents and single adultsincluding legal immigrants, ex-offenders, returningveterans, and disconnected young adults.

We recommend the President establish an Inter-Departmental Task Force, including all the keyagencies administering low income bene it programssuch as Health and Human Services, Agriculture,

Veterans Affairs, Treasury, and others, to exploreopportunities for consolidating and simplifyingbene its access. This could involve, for example,universal applications, multi-bene it access, andaccess to income support programs, through singleplatform data collection, application and bene itsmanagement technology, or administration throughthe income tax system.

Earn Bene ithttp://www.earnbene its.org

Earn Bene ts uses a state-of-the-art technology tool,

Earn Bene ts Online, and facilitated enrollment servicesto connect low-income families and individuals to arange of income-enhancing public and private bene ts,such as tax credits, food stamps, health insurance, andno-fee bank accounts. The program was ini ally launchedin New York City in 2003 in partnership with the UnitedWay of New York City and a network of over 20 faith- andcommunity-based organiza ons.

Earn Bene ts is now o ered not only through localnetworks of community partners but through privateemployers, community colleges, local governmentagencies, and na onal intermediaries such as Catholic

Chari es USA.In addi on to New York, Earn Bene ts is available inConnec cut, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma,and Tennessee, with addi onal States scheduled forlaunch in 2010 and 2011. Since its incep on, Earn Bene tshas screened and connected low-income families to over63,000 documented bene ts totaling over $69 million invalue. Earn Bene ts was developed and implemented bySeedco, a na onal nonpro t organiza on dedicated topromo ng economic opportunity for low-income peopleand communi es.

The primary objec ve of Earn Bene ts is to:

Provide an online guide to both governmentand nongovernment programs that can helplow-wage workers make ends meet and stayemployed by connec ng individuals andfamilies to income-enhancing bene ts.

Earn Bene ts is speci cally designed to work with clientsin three stages:

Marke ng and educa on through user-friendly materials and a public Website,h p://www.earnbene ts.org

Eligibility screening and facilitated access Bene ts management and coaching once

clients access work supports.


29/176


30/176


Recommendation 8: Inve t in the development and di tribution of oftwareapplication to facilitate acce to multiple bene it through online application

We recommend that the President encourage investment in the further development,evaluation, enhancement, and distribution of multiple-bene it and service access softwaretechnology appropriate for use by faith- and community-based counselors and the peoplethey serve. Investment could be through the proposed Social Innovation Fund and othervehicles and should involve providing easier access to Federal, State, local, and private

bene its.8

Innovation and improvements in technology are crucial for expanding bene it access. The current bene it access system is characterized by:

Limited capacity for electronic submission of applications;

Often duplicative collection of eligibility information;

Single-bene it focus. (While impressive efforts have been made by Federal agenciesto support outreach and enrollment efforts and to create incentives for State andlocal governmentssuch as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)contingency fundmany of these are designed for single bene its and do not encourage multiple-bene it access initiatives);

Limited auto-enrollment for individuals and families clearly eligible for bene its andservices; and

Limited funding for technology support for faith and community-basedorganizations prepared to help low income families and individuals navigate thesecomplex systems.

Examples of existing software technology include The Bene it Bank, EarnBene its,RealBene its, and eAPP.

We also recommend that Federal agencies build and strengthen the capacity of and createincentives for State agencies administering Federal entitlement bene its to accept electronicand online applications, both directly from individuals and families as well as through faith-and community-based organizations and other entities on behalf of families and individuals.Examples of existing Web-based portals are found in New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Inorder to maximize the receipt of applications, we further recommend that these Web-basedportals allow for transfer of data from other bene it access software systems that meet certain technical speci ications, similar to the Internal Revenue Service speci ications forreceipt of online tax returns.

8 Examples of private bene ts are u lity and pharmaceu cal discounts.


31/176


Recommendation 9: Create incentive for state and local government to ma imizeparticipation by eligible low-income familie and individual in income-enhancingbene it and to promote multiple-bene it acce through faith- and community-ba edorganization

Although it is appropriate for all levels of government to take necessary steps to avoid

fraudulent receipt of bene its, it is equally appropriate, but far less prevalent, for government to proactively pursue enrollment in multiple bene its among those who are eligible.

We recommend that Federal agencies reexamine existing regulations and eligibility rulesand, where appropriate, enact regulatory changes that create lexibility for States to simplifythe application and eligibility process for Federal entitlement bene its. For example, Arkansasnow uses information it captures in SNAP applications to process applications for Medicaid.Wisconsin automatically transfers information from online applications into a State databasethat allows agencies to expedite additional bene its. We further recommend creation of incentives, similar to TANF Contingency Fund, and provision of technical support to Statesfor engaging faith- and community-based organizations in the work of achieving increasedlevels of bene it participation as well as multiple-bene it access.


32/176


FOCUs ON JOBs AND EDUCATIONIn the area of Education and Job Preparedness, employment training and secondaryeducation are key and largely carried out by community colleges, training institutions, andunions. However, nonpro it partners like faith- and community-based organizations alsoserve signi icant roles in providing education and training of hard skills like those vital in

providing case management and soft skills (also called people skills). Soft skills trainingis often the element that ensures the individual successfully completes a related programand sustains employment after placement.

Recommendation 10: Incorporate upportive ervice with education and trainingopportunitie , and en ure nonpro it acce ibility and eligibility for Federal grant funding

The United States is currently experiencing the most severe and pervasive economicdownturn since the Great Depression. Todays students will have 10 to 14 different jobs byage 38. One in four workers have been at their place of employment less than a year and onein two have been at their job less than 5 years. Through 2014, more than half of all new jobswill require more than a high school diploma and 22 of the 30 fastest growing career ieldswill require some post-secondary education. The top ten in-demand jobs of 2010 did not exist in 2004.

These igures, coupled with national high school graduation rates that see only one infour entering freshmen graduating with a diploma, are of high concern for the future U.S.workforce. Now, more than ever, the key to attaining jobs, moving people out of poverty, andcompeting in a rapidly changing global market is post-secondary education and specializedjob training. In 2005, before the recession, the National Association of Manufacturersreported that 90 percent of manufacturers were experiencing a shortage of quali ied skilledproduction employees, but only 53 percent of Americans earn some degree or credentialafter high school and for low-income people that number drops to 25.

Supportive services are not only critical to an individual learning a new skill, but alsoto sustaining employment. Nonpro its offer a continuum of services, including casemanagement, which increases the stability of the individual to sustain employment. Faith-and community-based organizations have existing relationships with low-income workingindividuals and families.

Therefore, the Council makes the following recommendations:

1. Federal grants should include funding for education and training opportunities that mandate the provision of supportive services and explicitly specify the eligibility of faith- and community-based organizations in grant guidelines, particularly thoserelated to DOL One-Stop Career Centers.

2. Support for faith- and community-based organizations should be increased to servespeci ic populations, such as the disabled and disconnected youth and young adults,that are not typically engaged in technical or vocational training, post-secondaryeducation, or the job market.


33/176


Recommendation 11: Focu partner hipbetween education and training in titutionand faith- and community-ba ed organizationto better erve di advantaged, di placed, anddi connected job eeker and to align worker

kill with employer need

The Federal Government should mandate thealignment of resources and partnerships between:

1. Faith and community nonpro its (who areclosest to those who need job training andaccess to work opportunities);

2. Education and training institutions; and

3. Public and private employers.

These local collaborations can help to create jobsand connect and prepare workers, especiallydisadvantaged workers, with training and available jobopportunities in both the public and private sectors.

At the same time that the Federal Government istesting a more comprehensive approach to reachingthe disadvantaged with education and training forjob readiness, it should strengthen partnershipsbetween employers, community colleges, unions, andfaith- and community-based organizations to createan accessible, integrated continuum of services andavailable opportunities. A comprehensive approachis far more likely to be successful because it canprovide the myriad of services and supports that will best serve the disadvantaged throughout theireducation and training. To ensure an inclusiveEconomic Recovery, Federal programs that createjobs and support training must ensure that the most disadvantaged and disconnected are prepared forand placed in available workforce opportunities,particularly any new green jobs created and/orincentivized by economic stimulus funding.

We also recommend that the Administrationdirect DOL to increase the number of faith- andcommunity-based organizations that are consideredeligible training providers under Title I of theWorkforce Investment Act of 1998. We furtherrecommend that the Administration direct DOL toensure that eligibility extends to the provision of training and support services for green jobs.

Pathway Out Of Poverty:A Department of Labor Grant Programhttp://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ eta20100039.htm

The Pathways Out of Poverty program administeredby the Department of Labor integrates training andsuppor ve services into cohesive programs that helptarget popula ons nd pathways out of poverty and intoeconomic self-su ciency through employment in theenergy e ciency and renewable energy industries.

The program was appropriated a 2-year Recovery Actalloca on of approximately $150 million. Through the 38grants awards, targeted popula ons receive recruitmentand referral services; basic skills, work-readiness, andoccupa onal skills training; suppor ve services to help

overcome barriers to employment; and other services atmes and loca ons that are easily accessible. Throughthese programs, unemployed individuals, high schooldropouts, and other disadvantaged individuals receivecer ca ons and on-the-job training that lead toemployment.

In order to serve the speci c popula ons targetedby these grants e ec vely, the Department of Laborencouraged applicants to focus project e orts incommuni es located within one or more con guousPublic Micro Data Areas (PUMAs) where poverty rateswere 15 percent or higher. PUMAs are geographicareas designated by the Census Bureau. All applicantswere required to have experience serving economicallydisadvantaged popula ons.

The purpose of the Pathways Out of Poverty grants is to:

Support programs that help disadvantagedpopula ons nd ways out of poverty andinto economic self-su ciency throughemployment in energy e ciency andrenewable energy industries.

There are two types of award recipients for these grants:

Na onal nonpro t en es with networks of

local a liates, coali on members, or otherestablished partners; and

Local en es including nonpro torganiza ons, such as faith- and community-based organiza ons, the public workforceinvestment system, the educa on andtraining community, labor organiza ons, andemployer- and industry-related organiza ons.


34/176


Recommendation 12: Utilize faith- and community-ba ed organization to bridgethe gap from econdary education to po t- econdary in titution and job trainingprogram with a particular focu on di connected youth

The Federal Government should encourage and utilize faith- and community-basedorganizations to build bridges between secondary education and youth employment

programs, post-secondary institutions, and vocational training programs, with a particularfocus on disconnected youth who need targeted support, services, and opportunities.Interventions should be designed to increase their options and access to post-secondaryeducation, to ensure their completion in tailored programs, and to equip them to bothconnect to the job market and successfully pursue long-term career pathways.

Therefore, the Council makes the following recommendations:

1. Support the development or expansion of educational bridge programs fordisconnected youth and low-literacy high school graduates, to be operated byqualifying faith- and community-based organizations, and designed to directly deliverthe remedial education necessary for success in post-secondary institutions, including

traditional degree-bearing institutions and specialized vocational training programs.Identify the faith- and community- based organizations that operate existing,successful educational programs such as primary, secondary, or post-secondaryinstitutions, and/or remedial education programs, and determine measures of support that would allow expansion of these services.

2. Pilot a mentoring program for disconnected youth and young adults modeled afterthe successful Mentoring Children of Prisoners program. In this program, youngpeople who often age-out of a majority of federally funded supportive programsand services can obtain vouchers to participate in mentoring relationships that encourage post-secondary education through community colleges or 4-year collegesand universities or selected apprenticeships with skilled tradesmen.

These local collaborations can help to create jobs and connect and prepare workers,especially disadvantaged workers, with training and available job opportunities in both thepublic and private sector.

At the same time that the federal government is testing a more comprehensive approachto reaching the disadvantaged with education and training for job readiness, it shouldstrengthen partnerships between employers, community colleges, unions, and faithand community based organizations to create an accessible, integrated continuum of services and available opportunities. A comprehensive approach is far more likely to besuccessful since it can provide the myriad of services and supports that will best serve thedisadvantaged throughout their education and training. To ensure an inclusive economicrecovery, federal programs that create jobs and support training must ensure that themost disadvantaged and disconnected are prepared for and placed in available workforceopportunities, particularly any new green jobs created and/or incentivized by economicstimulus funding.

We also recommend that the Administration direct the Department of Labor to increase thenumber of faith and community-based organizations that are considered eligible trainingproviders under Title 1 of the Workforce Investment Act and ensure that eligibility extendsto the provision of training and support services for green jobs.


35/176


E peranza Academy Charter High school: Mentoring At-Ri k Youthhttp://www.esperanza.us

Esperanza Academy Charter High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was established in 2000, and serves 700 students peryear through high-quality educa on that empowers them for success in post-secondary educa on and long-term careers.

Esperanza Academy serves 100% minority students, 18% of whom have limited English pro ciency and 81% of whom are lowincome. Despite these factors, Esperanza Academy boasts an a endance rate of 90%, a gradua on rate of 95%, and a collegeacceptance rate of 93%.

Esperanza Academys success is due in large part to its unique, individualized approach to each students educa on. Curricula aredesigned with career-oriented tracks in entrepreneurship, technology, teacher educa on, journalism, and the arts. Addi onally,to promote early connec on to post-secondary educa on, Esperanza Academy students can be dually enrolled at EasternUniversity or Esperanza College. Also, intensive tutoring services and mentoring are targeted to youth at risk of dropping out.

Esperanza Academy began its Student Mentoring Program in 2006 to pair at-risk students with an adult mentor who providessupport, resources, and guidance. At the beginning of each school year, students are iden ed for par cipa on in theprogram based on low grades and demonstrated social and behavior issues. Adult mentors serve onsite within the schoolbuilding to provide con nuous one-on-one support and to help these students get back on track academically and socially.Based on the last exit survey conducted by the guidance department at the end of the 2007 to 2008 year, the mentoring

program was deemed a success. Nearly all students believed the mentoring program added to their success as a student andhelped them improve their grades. Students were also unanimous in responding that the mentoring program helped themmake improvements behaviorally or socially and that they enjoyed the me spent with their mentors.

The primary objec ves of Esperanza Academys Student Mentoring Program are to:

Ensure at-risk students successfully complete secondary school;

Improve students achievement in social, behavioral, and academic areas; and

Help at-risk students explore career opportuni es and successfully transi on to post-secondary educa on.

The Student Mentoring Program achieves these goals through:

Early iden ca on of at-risk students for program par cipa on; Individualized, one-on-one mentor support; and

Con nuous onsite mentor presence.

E peranza College

Esperanza College is a 2-year, associate of arts degree-awarding ins tu on, credited by the Middle States Associa on of Colleges and Schools, and the only federally recognized Hispanic-serving ins tu on in Pennsylvania. Since its founding,Esperanza College has awarded over 200 graduates with an associate of arts degree in Business Administra on, EarlyChildhood Educa on, or Community and Human Services.

The student body at Esperanza College is 100% rst-genera on college students, 96% low income, over 90% Hispanic, andover half are working single parents. Addi onally, a signi cant por on of Esperanza College students have limited Englishpro ciency. Despite these challenges, Esperanza College has a 92.7% reten on rate and a 64.1% gradua on rate, which isalmost double the na onal gradua on rate for 2-year college programs and far exceeds es mates for other Hispanic-servingins tu ons in the United States. Of its graduates, 60% transi on to 4-year ins tu ons.

The success of Esperanza College can be credited in part to intensive remedial educa on services provided concurrently withcredit-bearing courses. A majority of Esperanza College students enroll at a 9th-grade reading level. To ensure their success,all students are required to take intensive academic English courses throughout their tenure, in addi on to their regularcoursework. All students must take math and computer literacy courses appropriate to their level of func oning. Tutors areonsite to provide addi onal individualized a en on.


36/176


Recommendation 13: Encourage collaborationbetween faith- and community-ba edorganization , community college , and theprivate ector

Collaboration between the Federal Government,

faith- and community-based organizations, andlocal community colleges is necessary for increasedenrollment rates, successful completion rates, and jobplacement. Faith- and community-based organizationsbring the community and cultural knowledge, thecredibility, and the relationships that can support thedisadvantaged throughout the education and trainingprocess. Additionally, many organizations in theprivate sector, such as banks and corporations, havefoundations and other programs that can be effectivelyleveraged for relevant job training and mentoring. TheFederal Government can play a key role by conveningrelevant stakeholders and prioritizing collaborativeprojects in their funding sources.

Therefore, the Council makes the followingrecommendations:

1. Consider faith- and community-basedorganizations as truly equitable partnersin all aspects of the Federal Governmentsstrategy to increase the number of graduatesfrom 2-year associates degree programs,beyond the role of serving as communityliaisons. Considering faith- and community-based organizations as partners is especiallytrue as it relates to the Presidents AmericanGraduation Initiative and Community CollegeChallenge funding. Private nonpro its that have established successful 2-year associatesdegree colleges should be included asequitable education providers and fullpartners, particularly when institutionsestablished by private faith-based nonpro itsand other private nonpro its are meeting

all of the Administrations goals forstrengthening post-secondary education.These organizations should be allowed toboth participate in the arenas generallylimited to community colleges and competefor funding opportunities made availableto community colleges, despite the fact that they are not State entities.


37/176


9 The Na onal Business Incuba on Associa on at h p://www.nbia.org for more informa on.

2. Provi

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	catherine-snow
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Ofbnp Council Final Report

Documents