Being There:  Faith on the Frontlines

Successful Models of Faith-Based, Cross-Sector Collaboration from the 2006 Partners in Transformation Awards Program

by Amy L. Sherman, FASTEN Editorial Director, 2006

Summary:

Hurricane Katrina brought America’s attention not only to the immense destruction of such a disaster but also to the astounding men, women, and organizations that moved in to care for the victims and rebuild families, homes, and whole cities.  In 2006, FASTEN  investigated the programs in which the faith community and organizations outside the faith community joined together to help communities through either natural or man-made disasters.   

Therefore, the 2006 Partners in Transformation Awards Program was open to ten states that have recently faced such a disaster:  Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. 

Winners were chosen for their innovative and effective multi-sector collaborations in one of three disaster-related categories:  Short-Term Emergency Disaster Response, Long-Term Community Recovery and Rebuilding Efforts, and Services Addressing Deep Pockets of Poverty.  This report offers descriptions of the award winners and semifinalists as well as best practices learned from the contest applicants. 

Charitable Choice: Top 10 Tips for Public Officials

(Written by Stanley W. Carlson-Thies (The Center for Public Justice, 1999). Used with permission. Obtain copies of the complete guide)

• Inform Recipients. When a provider is faith-based, make sure recipients know about its religious character, their freedom not to engage in religious activities, and their right to receive services from an alternative provider.
  
  
• Alternatives. Be prepared to offer an accessible, high quality alternative service to any recipient who objects to a faith-based provider. Make advance arrangements with a different provider in the same location, plan access and transportation to a nearby provider, or maintain a residual government capacity to provide services.
  
  
• Religion is Not Toxic. Ensure the religious liberty of recipients without presuming that faith is toxic. A recipient troubled by a faith-based provider may want another religious provider, not a secular service. Many of the needy are people of faith and desire assistance that acknowledges their convictions.
  
  
• Allies. Collaboration means working together to achieve the common aim of assisting the needy while also respecting the differences between government and faith-based organizations. Allied providers are more than vendors; they retain their freedom, their right to advocate on behalf of clients, and their responsibility to speak to policy.
  
  
• Employment Rights. The biggest barrier to greater cooperation between the faith community and public welfare is not allowing faith-based providers to hire and fire on the basis of religion. Some religious organizations choose to hire without regard to faith, but many insist on religious criteria in order to retain their distinctive missions. Contract language forbidding them to use religion in hiring is illegal under Charitable Choice and must be eliminated.
• Vouchers. Voucher arrangements are better than contracting for preserving the independence of faith-based organizations and giving recipients choice. Where possible, redesign services and procurement policies so that a range of organizations can provide services and each recipient has the chance to select the most effective and compatible provider.