The Future for Religious Charities

Tuesday, April 29, at 12 noon, Eastern time

Willliam O'Keefe is the senior director of advocacy for Catholic Relief Services, in Baltimore, an organization that receives federal money to provide overseas development aid.

Paul Lichterman is an associate professor of sociology and religion at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, and co-editor of the book Civic Life in American Religion.

Joshua Hale is executive director of the Big Shoulders Fund, in Chicago. The fund has raised more than $155-million to help defray tuition and operating costs for 93 of Chicago's most-needy inner-city Catholic schools.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Hello, and welcome to today's online discussion about the future of religious charities. Religious groups make up a significant portion of the nonprofit landscape -- and they have been getting increased attention in recent years with the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Some have seen this new entity as the genesis of a new era for religious charities. Others have been critical of the effort.

Now, as the Bush presidency enters its final months, a whole host of new questions has arisen. Will a new president continue the effort? Will he or she change its course?

More importantly, we are also discussing the role of religious charities in helping to improve the communities in which they serve -- and how they can spread their missions to those who don't necessary share the same faiths.

We'll discuss these and many other issues during the next hour. So, without further ado, let's get started.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    We have three expert guests on hand today to answer your questions. Willliam O'Keefe is the senior director of advocacy for Catholic Relief Services, in Baltimore, an organization that receives federal money to provide overseas development aid.

Paul Lichterman is an associate professor of sociology and religion at the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, and co-editor of the book Civic Life in American Religion.

Joshua Hale is executive director of the Big Shoulders Fund, in Chicago. The fund has raised more than $155-million to help defray tuition and operating costs for 93 of Chicago's most-needy inner-city Catholic schools.

Please click on the "ask a question" link to hear their thoughts on your questions.

Paul Lichterman:
    Good afternoon! I'm happy to be part of this discussion. It may help participants to know a bit about what I do: I'm Associate Professor of Sociology and Religion at USC, and I study the role of local religious groups in civic life. Can religious community service groups really build strong ties with a variety of public and private organizations? Do they inject religious values into the public square in ways useful, divisive, both? These are the kinds of questions I have researched. I don't write as an advocate of, or detractor from, religion in public life. My questions go beyond the immediate policy questions surrounding the Bush administrations "faith-based initiative," much as those are interesting and important. I think we need to ask those broader questions.

Question from Ian Wilhelm, Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    Hello and thanks for the discussion. Aside from government grants, part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative" sought to encourage corporations and foundations to give more to churches and small religious groups. Do you see signs that these private grant makers are more willing to work with religious organizations? Thanks.

Willliam O'Keefe:
    President Bush has indeed encouraged corporations and foundations to give more to faith-based groups. From our perspective, the best example was his appeal to Fortune 500 companies to assist the Pakistan relief effort. Catholic Relief Services benefitted from that appeal. In general, though, we do not see a pattern of increased willingness of corporations and foundations to give to religious organizations. Corporations, in our anecdotal experience, if anything are more likely to have criteria preventing donations to religious groups. Thanks for the question.

Question from Ian Wilhelm, Chronicle of Philanthropy:
    Hello, what effect has the president's "faith-based initiative" had on states? We've reported on the growing number of states with faith-based office's similar to the White House's. What have these offices done and are they likely to stay around through different governors? Thank you.

Paul Lichterman:
     Interesting question- I think the power and prominence of these offices varies quite a lot by state. For instance, Mississippi's version of such an office was frustrated in its attempts to get churches to "adopt" ex-welfare recipient families; that program seemed to be an important one earlier in this decade and I think it has folded. Other states have other experiences. On the larger question about their staying power: Withdrawing support for a state's faith-based initiatives office probably would risk sounding like a 'vote against religious compassion,' in a country where many still assume that religious groups' efforts to help their communities are both good and efficient. So I think it is unlikely that governors will quickly disband these offices once the federal administration changes; they may "re-orient" or re-package them quietly. Important to keep in mind that relatively FEW congregations have actually signed up for faith-based initiative money, and they tend not to be the conservative, evangelical ones you might guess. Yet many Americans think religiously based community service or social service in general is a good idea, whether or not they support the current presidential administration, because they assume congregations are good at being compassionate and humane.

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Good afternoon. Catholic Relief Services has received Federal grants for its overseas work in 100 countries since the Marshall Plan. During the last 8 years, our most significant Federally-supported expansion has been in the care, treatment, and prevention of HIV, thanks to the PEPFAR program. While there are challenges with receiving Federal funds, the good we feel we have done with them, far outweighs those challenges. We also work hard in Washington to try to shape the legislation governing these funds to make them as effective as possible. I am happy to share our experience. Thanks for joining the conversation.

Question from Small, one-year-old, Christian non-profit:
    Our mission is to make the faith of our nation's teenagers come alive through the experience of sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with others at home and around the world. We're just over a year old. Do we have any hope of obtaining grants, from the government or private foundations, for a program so focused on evangelism?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Excellent question. If the expressed purpose of the activities you would seek funding for is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than say meeting a range of social needs in a faith context or with faith inspiration, then I think it very unlikely that the government would support those activities. There are foundations, though, that do support expressly religious activities. Your challenge, and one worth pursuing, is to find a foundation--a family foundation that shares your values and approach for example--to engage in discussion about your work. Hope this is helpful. Bill.

Question from Don Plaster, CBN:
    How do you see the economic downturn impacting the role of religious charities and/or the ability of religious charities to raise funds and provide services? What advice would you give such charities in addressing these changes?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    The economic downturn is only beginning to ripple through the non-profit world. On the one hand, religious charities have an advantage: many of their donors are connected to the core mission of the organization as a matter of faith, not wealth. On the other hand, all of our donors face the same economic realities. In terms of advice, I think several thoughts stick out: (1) due to the nature of our economy, so far the wealthy have been less effected by the downturn. Focusing on major donors might be wise, (2) messaging your appeals in say that demonstrates a sensitivity to the needs throughout the community, while focusing on those of the least able to adjust seems wise, (3) diversifying sources of funding where possible. Bill.

Question from Bernice Sanders Smoot, Saint Wall Street:
    Given that faith-based initiatives is the smallest and most controversial source of revenue for FBOs, and given that Catholic Charities has succeeded for years at securing tremendous government support, what advice can you offer to help FBOs secure greater support?

Joshua Hale:
    Great question, we have recieved modest support from faith based intiatives and I think that has to do mostly with our mission of being schools. This has and continues to be a contraversial topic. There seems to be building momentum as pressure builds for more answers to the woes of inner-city education.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    We've had a great conversation so far. Thanks to everyone who is taking part. We'd love to hear more of your voices. To share an opinion or a question, please feel free to click on the "ask a question" link and join the conversation.

Question from Karen Woods, Empowerment Resource Network:
    Please comment on the impact to religious charities of IRS Exempt Organization Director Miller's recent declaration that the IRS should enforce the effectiveness of 501c3 organizations.

Paul Lichterman:
    It's possible I'm not getting your question as you intended it- but we always have to ask what "effectiveness" means and what talk of effectiveness does to organizations themselves. There are tremendous ironies: Many Americans say they would rather be helped (if in need) by a congregation, or a religious charity, than by a government agency--even though research suggests that government agencies are no less effective than congregations or religious charities, and often can do things that the other two cannot do. It makes sense that we would want to have some clear measures of effectiveness. Yet, if "effectiveness" is measured by how many people received how much service, or how many volunteers did it recruit to do how much service, then you get organizations that spend a lot of time showing on paper that they produce lots of care (how do you measure that!) or recruit lots of volunteers (yet do those volunteers really "build community" as we so often hear, when the plug in for one hour a week to help individuals they will never see again?) I doubt the IRS would be better than an external funder or anyone else at coming up with a meaningful, useful definition of what is "effective," for whom.

Joshua Hale:
    Big Shoulders Fund, a leading Chicago non-profit that works with Chicago's most needy inner-city Catholic schools, has been around for 22 years, spanning four administrations – President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President William Clinton, and President George W. Bush – and we plan to be around for many more!

About 25 years ago, the neighborhoods of Chicago were experiencing significant change and many of Chicago’s Catholic population were moving to the suburbs. At the same time, there was a decreasing number of religious – priest and nuns – available to teach in the schools. It became increasingly clear to the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, at the time the Archbishop of Chicago, that the Archdiocese of Chicago was unable to financially support all of its schools, especially the inner-city schools, on their own.

In 1986, he turned to four business leaders and asked for their help in engaging the support of the corporate and civic community in Chicago. From this initial group, Big Shoulders Fund was founded as an independent, non-profit organization to support the inner-city, Catholic schools of Chicago – those serving the populations with high a high percentage of students living at/below the federal poverty line. Over its 22 year history, Big Shoulders Fund has been able to raise more than $165M for this mission in the form of scholarships, capital grants, professional development, and health/wellness programs, and general operating grants. Today Big Shoulders has endowment of $40M, supports 93 inner-city Catholic schools with more than 25,000 children. Nearly 50% of Big Shoulders’ support comes from corporations and foundations.

So while we've seen administrations come and go with varying focuses on supporting faith-affiliated organizations, our success lies in galvanizing support regardless of religious affiliation. We work with the best, most dedicated people to ensure Chicago's inner-city Catholic schools remain open, which we are now having success. In partnership with the Archdiocese, Big Shoulders has been able to help keep all the schools it supports open for two years in a row now which bucks national trends.

Question from Bernice Sanders Smoot, Saint Wall Street:
    Research reveals that some of the best-funded Christian ministries in America, including The Salvation Army, have a boldly professed mission to serve in the name of Jesus Christ. These ministries receive significant government funding. Are you suggesting ministries downplay their Jesus focus?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    I hope I didn't suggest that!!!!! I certainly did not mean to. CRS' mission for example is similarly motivated by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I do think that activities that only serve a strictly religious purpose independent of a social purpose seem to me unlikely to receive support. The Salvation Army--of which I am no expert--helps people with a range of social needs, but does so in a very clear religious context. As you point out, they have been very successful raising government funds. Bill.

Question from Faith-based school:
    As a faith-based school, how do you make the case outside of your particular faith about the value of the education you provide?

Joshua Hale:
    Actually, we are unique in that we support only Catholic schools, however, over a third the students that attend the schools we serve are not Catholic. Even more, nearly 70% are living at/below poverty. So making the case for our schools which are educating in some of Chicago's most underserved communities and realizing great success is not very difficult. I believe focusing on the need and the results is key when talking to businesses and donors who are not Catholic or may be less interested in the faith-based nature of the schools.

Question from Peter Panepento:
    What are some effective instances in which religious charities have been able to build effective partnerships with local government entities and non-religious charities to create change on a local level? Are such instances common or rare?

Paul Lichterman:
    If we are talking about relatively large, institutionalized religious charities--Catholic Charities, for instance--then I think you find long-standing partnerships with local government and non-religious charities. But if we mean smaller religious groups-- congregation-based community service organizations, or congregations themselves, which are the moral ideal of the faith-based initiative--I think there's a different story. In a recent study (*Elusive Togetherness*, Princeton, 2005) I found that across liberal and conservative Protestant denominations, local communty service attenpts were filled with people of genuine good will who were frustrated, over and over again, when they tried to create enduring partnerships. Part of the reason is that they had very static, customary ideas about what it means to help or what it means to do community service. Instead of talking openly about how do we relate to "the needy," and just what kind of partnerships do we want to build, they assumed that if we just get more and more volunteers doing more and more stuff, somehow those partnership ties will develop themselves-- an invisible hand will bring them into being. It didn't happen often.

--There was one group that did consider its own efforts successful. It was an alliance of liberal, mostly white congregations that built partnerships with county social service agencies, and more notably, with the African-American led community center in a low-income neighborhood. Together they raised money for a public health nurse and other public goods for the neighborhood as a whole. They worked with county agents to staff a summer kids' program. What made them different is that they dared to learn from their mistakes, and they dared to talk about how to relate to people unlike them (instead of assuming they knew aleady). They took the neighborhood as a social reality in itself, rather than seeing it as a collection of needy individuals who happened ot live in one place. They took responsibility alongside county agents, instead of assuming county agents always knew the neighborhood's best interest- but in no way tried to supplant the county.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    We have a half hour to go -- which gives us plenty of time to get to your questions. Please feel free to get your query on the record by clicking the "ask a question" link.

Question from Karen, copywriter:
    It isn't unusual for some faith-based organizations to have many donors who are "outside" the faith. Nonetheless, when the very name of the organization clearly labels it as faith-based do you think the organization should worry about having a faith-based message in its fundraising copy? Doesn't it make sense they can weave faith messages into the copy which will cultivate the relationship with their faith-based donors; and yet, how could someone outside the faith be "offended" when they clearly choose to give knowing who the organization is? I see this more with mission-based nonprofits, and international. Thoughts?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Lot's to consider here. Basically, the starting point needs to be the identity and mission of the organization. Using Catholic Relief Services--which obviously has a name with a religious label--as an example, we do use a faith-based message in our fundraising copy because that is who we are. Because of who we are, we have a natural constituency of people who I think appreciate faith-based language because it connects with their values. We do have lots of non-Catholic donors, though, and they I suspect find that our language connects with their values in one way or another and they see us as effective, whether or not we use religious language.

Every organization needs to talk the language that communicates what it is and what its values are and how those values allow it to accomplish its purpose. The proportion of or reliance on religious language, then depends on the nature of the organization.

Bill.

Question from Peter Panepento -- Moderator:
    Joshua: It is clear that you have been bucking a trend in terms of Catholic education. So many other cities have had to close schools, especially in their urban core. Is the key to your success the fund-raising model you have created? Is this something that is being emulated elsewhere?

Joshua Hale:
    Great question and I am a firm believer that it is not just the fundraising that is helping to keep our schools open. First and foremost, we have a great partnership with the Archdiocese who also is very interested in keeping all of its schols open and viabile. While we have been able to attract great financial support from many different sources, we have been increasingly focused on building partnerships and seeking out individuals, foundations, and corporaetions to provide hands-on support with individual schools. The best expample is our Patrons Program in which someone adopts a school and commits to funding the school at $100,000 a year and, equally important, they agree to help form a Patrons Advisory Board. The Patron works with the school leadership to build the Board, develop a five year plan, and then use the funds and the resources of the Board (time, talent, and expertise) to implement. We have seen tremendous success with this model and great improvements - better operating efficiencies, stronger marketing, better enrollment, etc. - at schools with Patrons. Funds alone could not accomplish this - it is about forming strong partnerships that we believe is helping our schools to get stronger.

Question from Rachel, non-profit university:
    Good afternoon. I am curious to see how you feel the public perceives the idea of Religious giving, and what Religious donors are doing, versus what actually occurs. What I mean to say is, do you think the general public is informed about the various approaches of giving?

Paul Lichterman:
    Well that's an interesting one to think with-- I actually don't think the general public has a clear idea of different forms of religious giving. My sense is that if you say religious giving, most Americans would have in mind that individual out there who commits $40 of her money every year to a mission in Ukraine that she feels strongly about, or a hospital for the blind in South Korea (these are examples from conversations I've heard when I study congregational social outreach). We picture an individual, motivated by altruistic or compassionate values. Not that this doesn't happen. But religious organizations--congregations for instance--are donors too. Many congregations have to figure out which of the myriad charity causes or social action projects they learn about should get that part of the congregation's budget set aside for outreach. I've heard pastors say (more than once) "we use the buckshot approach," meaning they throw a little money at a lot of projects, because individuals in the congregation have their favorite charities and the pastor doesn't want to offend them. Yet it's possible, and happens occasionally, that congregation decides that it means to support one or two big projects, over time, in order to create more enduring relationships between the congregation and--- a particular neighborhood, or a particular institution, or population. The congregation as a whole is the "donor," but being a donor means being a partner, and maybe learning something deeper about what that neighborhood or institution or population is like. I think this is different from the image of the values-driven or piety-driven donor out there. But if more people included this in their vision of religious giving, it would increase the chances for religious people to build real social ties and "empower" others, rather than hoping the buckshot approach does a little good.

Question from Felicia, church day camp:
    Do you have any suggestions to legitimize arguments that religious organizations deserve funding to support programs that are not inherently religious in content?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Very good question. I think religious organizations have a very strong case to make (in general) as supporters of a variety of social and human needs programs. Of course, like all organizations, we need to be accountable, efficient, and effective. Our particular legitamacy, it seems to me, is in our view of the whole human person that relates one's faith and spiritual life with one's ability to address and overcome life's challenges. And, to do so in the context of a community of love and support. These are not simple cause and effect relationships, and there are many effective secular responses. Nonetheless, we can uniquely help many people overcome the challenges of life and find their unique path. I should add that I do think President Bush has articulated this view well. Bill.

Question from Bernice Sanders Smoot:
    Do you think it's feasible, given growing declines in worship and support for Protestant and Catholic faiths that the two could unite in the name of Christian philanthropy to collectively forge ways to strengthen individual churches and ministries?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Without getting into theology or ecclesiology, I think from a purely strategic perspective, Churches that share broad values should indeed work together for the common good. There are effective vehicles to do so already in some areas: Bread for the World for example is an effective ecumenical body that brings different Christian organizations together on global hunger issues. I am also aware of other efforts to provide support ecumenically to parishes and congregations. I think the challenge, and this is the out-of-the-box implication of your question, would be a conversation at the denomination leadership level about strengthening together local ministries. I like the idea, but it is way over my pay grade!

Question from Bernice Sanders Smoot, Saint Wall Street:
    Proving the socio-economic value of a ministry requires assigning worth not only to services, but to the transformed lives those services produce. Few ministries know how to assess these values. Does your program do this? And, if so, how?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    That is indeed the $64,000 question. We have lots of evaluation experience, but I am not completely up on all our work in this area. I do know this: the key is defining indicators that are broader and timeframes that are longer than those of a 1 year focused grant. These indicators need to be tied to programs that are not so narrowly focused that their activities seem disconnected from transformation of lives.

Willliam O'Keefe:
    I wanted to comment on Rachel's question about public perceptions of religious charities. Many people in the United States do not understand the reality that a very substantial percentage of the functioning institutions in the developing world are parts of religious institutions or are otherwise faith-based. We have a lot of education to do. In conversations with Congressional staff, for example, I point out that in Baltimore alone most of the hospitals have names like Mercy, Sinai, St. Joseph's, etc...and it is really not that much different in some ways in other countries.

Question from Peter Panepento -- Moderator:
    I'm asking this question to all three of you. What do you think the net impact has been of the Bush administration's acknowledgment of religious groups? Was this a nominal effort, or will it lead to long-term change?

Paul Lichterman:
    Neat question- I think the biggest impacts of this are the symbolic ones. In terms of generating new, religion-based social service programs or expanding ones already existing, I don't think the faith-based initiative has done very much. A small minority of congregations have tried to get support from the initiative, and unless things changed very recently, I think this has tended to be large (and often more politically liberal) congregations that already were serving, for instance, inner-city people.

The initiative has, however, ramped up the symbolic politics of religion in our country: It has intensified an already growing, public use of religion to draw boundaries between acceptable and not-acceptable political candidates, for instance. It's another playing-chip in electoral politics. Beyond that, it has probably done quite a lot to promote the image that religious groups are partisan and divisive, even when they rarely are at the local community level. It has equated the many decades-old fact of religious-based social service with a political project--the "faith-based initiative."

And beyond that, it probably has increased the hesitance that *liberal* religious people have to speak with a religious voice at all in public life. As some people I've studied have said: "Support this cause with religious arguments? But that's what the fundamentalists do!" Ironically, acknowledging religious groups may have diminished the public acceptance of religious discussion, for at least those who don't identify with the administration's take on religion.

Joshua Hale:
    Quick tag on my answer to Joshua Hale's important question: I think the symbolic effects of the Bush administration's faith-based initiative are going to be long-lasting, compared with its relatively small material contribution to social service.

Question from Peter Panepento:
    I'm asking this question to all three of you. What do you think the net impact has been of the Bush administration's acknowledgment of religious groups? Was this a nominal effort, or will it lead to long-term change?

Willliam O'Keefe:
    I think President Bush contributed to amplifying the role of religious groups and reminding the population that we are part of the backbone of society. Unfair and unproductive bias against religious groups has become less acceptable in those cases where it had found a home in the bureaucracies that administer funds. I think there has been long-term change, but not a sea change. We will continue to face challenges, we may face a backlash, and we will need to define our relevance.

Question from Bernice Sanders Smoot, Saint Wall Street:
    Proving the socio-economic value of a ministry requires assigning worth not only to services, but to the transformed lives those services produce. Few ministries know how to assess these values. Does your program do this? And, if so, how?

Joshua Hale:
    Sorry for the delay - my computer timed out!

This is indeed an important issue and one we struggle with all of the time. For manh of our donors, they are interested in in the success of or Catholic schools in their mission of education. Generally speaking, they will always ask for test scores and graduation rates. Both good idicators, but we believe only part of the equation. We have continually tried to broaden the list of indicators - i.e., attendence rate, parental/guardian involvement, enrichment program involvement, success in college, service involvment, behavior, grade point averages, etc.

We are embarknig on building a new database that will help us to identify even more indicators . . not just for funders but to help us inform our decisions.

Willliam O'Keefe:
    Further to Peter's question: religious organizations need to be able to define their value as effective at their task (including making the case for their religiosity) and not rest on their laurels as "faith-based". If there is a backlash, it will be against perceived bias towards groups that only benfitted because of religious orientation as opposed to accomplishment.

Question from Peter Panepento -- Moderator:
    I'm asking this question to all three of you. What do you think the net impact has been of the Bush administration's acknowledgment of religious groups? Was this a nominal effort, or will it lead to long-term change?

Joshua Hale:
    I am not sure who wrote the message below under my name but here is my thougths. Much like No Child Left Behind -- whether you agree or disagree with it -- it has got people talking. I think the same can be said with faith based initiatives. Globally, it has stirred a national conversation about what merits government support and what does not. WHere is the line? Locally, it has forced non-profit organizations,in particular faith-based organizations -- to think differnetly about the government as a partner and funder. I am sure that not mch will happen in the coming year or so given the election, but this initiative has certainly moved the ball forward and it does not seen like there is any turning back. I think that it is important for some clarification between the government's long support for faith-based social service agencies but not for faith-based schools.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Our time is up. Thank you to everyone who joined us this week. And a special thanks to our three guests -- Joshua Hale, Paul Lichterman, and William O'Keefe -- for their time and expertise.

Peter Panepento (Moderator):
    Please join us next Tuesday at noon when we travel to the Council on Foundations annual meeting to convene a panel of some of the top leaders in the foundation world for a discussion about foundations and diversity. Robert Ross, the president of the California Endowment, headlines our list of experts for a discussion that promises to be very interesting. We'll see you then.