OMB Watch responded to HHS request for public comments on guidelines for the new $30 million Compassion Capital Fund. Here is the content of our comments. OMB Watch March 29, 2002 Mr. Bobby Polito Administration for Children and Families, 6th Floor-West 370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW Washington, D.C. 20447 Re: Comments on Guildelines for Compassion Capital Fund 67 Fed. Reg. 8816 (February 26, 2002) Dear Mr. Polito, We appreciate this opportunity to comment on guidelines to award funds under the new Compassion Capital Fund (CCF). OMB Watch is a national nonprofit organization that seeks to increase government accountability and civic participation. Our interest in the Compassion Capital Fund stems from our support for building capacity for small community based nonprofits, whether or not they are faith-based organizations. We are also interested in the CCF in that it was initially associated with a proposal to give preferential treatment faith-based organizations in awarding federal funds, which would have resulted in discrimination against secular groups. We opposed that approach, and caution HHS to avoid in its decisions on how to distribute funds. The $30 million appropriation for the Compassion Capital Fund in FY 2002 is for two broad purposes: replicate or expand model social service programs and support rigorous evaluation of best practices. Because resources are limited, we believe the program guidelines should focus on expanding the capacity of existing community and faith-based organizations, as opposed to starting new ones. Moreover, Congress may soon be debating a more thoughtful framework for the CCF as envisioned in the CARE Act (S. 1924), sponsored by Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA). HHS would be well advised to look to that debate in establishing its guidelines and making grants for capacity building. ACF has asked for comments on six specific topics addressing the types of activities the CCF might funds. Our responses are as follows: 1. Technical Assistance In order to maximize recourses, assistance with grant writing should be provided through the federal agencies sponsoring grant programs, rather than the CCF. This is especially true of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and five cabinet centers in the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education. In his January 2001 Executive Order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives President Bush empowered these centers provide this kind of assistance. They have staff and other resources available to them. As a result, it would be a duplication of effort for the CCF to use its limited resources in this way. Legal assistance with incorporation and obtaining recognition of tax-exempt status should not be a high priority if the focus of the program is on existing organizations, as opposed to starting new groups. To the extent these kinds of services are needed, they should be provided by legal organizations that have experience in representing the unique needs of small, community-based nonprofits. CCF should place a priority on providing information, including but not limited to referrals, on organizational development matters such as accounting, governance, communications and management. 2. Information on Capacity Building We asked visitors to our website to give us ideas on how the CCF resources should be used. One commentator said, “Perhaps the greatest gift you can give non-profits is information. I don’t mean the kind of program in which you gather a group together and tell them what to do. I mean by gathering local groups of non-profits, allowing them to tell their stories, asking them about their struggles and then determining how you can assist.” We suggest that the CCF guidelines reflect this very important concept by requiring potential CCF grantees to show a real demand among community and faith-based organizations for the service they propose to provide. The benefits to these groups should be concrete and measurable. 3. Identifying and Using Best Practices Community and faith-based organizations should be involved in determining what criteria are used to measure and identify best practices, so that the models that are promoted and replicated are realistic and appropriate. Training and assistance on best practices should focus on principles that can be adapted to the particular needs and traits of the organization, rather than proscribing a generic list of standards. The best practice for any organization is one that reflects its unique character and has buy-in from leadership. Externally imposed standards are not as likely to produce positive results as those that are adapted to each individual group. 4. Providing Information on Regional Intermediary Organizations Where regional and statewide organizations can provide specialized assistance, it makes sense for CCF to provide access to them. This could include scholarships to cover the cost of training, purchase of publications and payment for professional services. The focus of this assistance could be on either building organizational capacity or on building expertise to provide services to individuals, families and the community as a whole. Regional intermediary organizations should be required to show a real demand among community and faith-based organizations for any services they propose to provide, and the benefits to these groups should be concrete and measurable. 5. Assistance in Replicating Effective Programs The scope of practices that benefit “persons, families, and communities in need” should be broad enough to include efforts that have community-wide impact. By doing so, CCF can encourage long term solutions to community problems, rather than activities that only respond to a crisis. Frequently the most effective community and faith-based organizations are those than integrate delivery of services to individuals and families with efforts to promote public policies that improve the entire community. CCF should encourage this whenever possible. Peer exchanges facilitated by knowledgeable sponsors should be encouraged so that leaders of groups interested in improving their effectiveness can learn from each other. 6. Research on Best Practices Research projects undertaken with CCF funds should be objective and aimed at producing concrete information that can be used to build organizational capacity and effectiveness. The questions posed by ACF did not cover two important areas: the distinction between religious congregations and faith-based organizations that provide social services, and public accountability. The program guidelines should clearly state that: · When training, information or other resources are offered to the general public, religious congregations have an equal opportunity to participate. · No funds or assistance can go directly to religious congregations or to programs that integrate worship activities with social services. · No preferences will be given to any group based on its religious or non-religious character. · Grantees and assisted groups should be 501(c)(3) organizations, and grantees should be required to file IRS Form 990 and comply with all terms of OMB Circular A-122. These guidelines are necessary to establish appropriate separation of government programs from pervasively religious institutions. They also reflect the intent of Congress is appropriating funds for the CCF. See 147 Cong. Rec., S11, 546 (daily ed. Nov. 7, 2001). In addition, such guidelines would prevent unconstitutional set-asides and preferences for faith-based organizations over secular community based organizations. It is necessary for the guidelines to be specific on this issue, since several federal programs have attempted to establish faith-based set-asides during the past year. These include a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration program that was open only to faith-based applicants, two similar Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Funds Program announcements and a set aside under the Community Services Block Grant for community action agencies to partner with faith-based groups. Three of these four set-asides were withdrawn after protest from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The guidelines we have suggested would prevent confusion and inconsistency that results when these set asides are proposed and withdrawn. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions relating to these comments. Yours truly, Kay Guinane Counsel and Manager, Community Education Center