Role of State Faith Community Liaisons in Charitable Choice Implementation. Organizational Resources


The sites varied significantly in the resources available to the FCL. As Table III.4 illustrates, they varied in whether they had staff dedicated to a formal and explicit faith-based and community initiative or whether they merged their FCL work with other community-focused efforts. They also varied markedly in the amount of staff and funding they had for the FCL function and in what these resources could be used for (see Table III.5).

Table III.4.
Staff Resources for FCL Function
State Nature of FCL Position Staff Resources
AL FT (but FBCI integrated into other duties) 9 full-time staff and 4 AmeriCorps volunteers, but not dedicated only to FBCI
DC FT 5 full-time OPGS staff, but only FCL dedicated to FBCI
FL FT FCL is only staff within VFF dedicated to FBCI
IL FT (but FBCI integrated into other duties) FCL only
NJ FT 4 full-time staff dedicated to OFBI
NM FT FCL only
TX FT(but FBCI integrated into other duties) 30 full-time and 2 part-time staff, but not dedicated to FBCI. Site estimates that the equivalent of 9 full-time staff dedicated to it.
VA FT (but FBCI integrated into other duties) 4 full-time staff, but not dedicated to FBCI

Staff Resources. Staff resources for the FCL function ranged considerably among the sites. Several sites had FCLs whose position was dedicated exclusively to the FBCI (Florida, New Jersey, and New Mexico). Others (Alabama, the District of Columbia, Texas, and Virginia) focused strongly on FBCI partnerships and activities, but did so in a way that integrated the FBCI with other related functions, such as AmeriCorps and volunteerism, broad nonprofit organizational development, mentoring initiatives, and/or emergency management. Finally, in one site (Illinois), the development of FBO-public partnerships was embedded in the work of the informal FCL. Similarly, the sites varied in the size of their staffs and in whether they were dedicated to the FBCI. In New Jersey, the staff of four full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) worked for the states Office of Faith Based Initiatives without competing responsibilities. In Texas, the staff of 32 worked on the foundations broad mission of forging effective partnerships and cultivating the states nonprofit sector, including its FBCOs. OneStar leadership had made a deliberate strategic decision to blend or de-silo its initiatives and the associated staff, but it estimated that the equivalent of nine FTEs could be considered as doing the work of the FBCI. In Virginia, a staff of four full-time VDSS employees worked on a wide range of purposes as part of the Division of Community and Volunteer Services; this work includes developing partnerships and the capacity of the states FBCOs. New Mexico had a clear FBCI, but it was staffed only by the FCL, who was full-time. In at least one case (Alabama), another public agency acted as the FCL offices fiduciary agent.

Funding.  The FCLs across the sites also differed in their access to funding, although comparisons are difficult (see Table III.5). While the Texas OneStar Foundations budget of $14.1 million (for 2007) seems very large, the foundations work includes management of AmeriCorps (with $11 million in pass-through grant funds), volunteerism and mentoring, emergency management, and research, as well as the FBCI. The New Mexico FCLs budget consisted only of funding for her position and associated administration. The Virginia FCL had no dedicated funding, nor did the FCL in Illinois.

Table III.5.
Funding for FCL Function
State Budget for Function Independent Grant-Making Authority Main Funding Sources
AL $750,000 for GFBCI in FY 2008, limited administrative funding from other grant programs (funds not dedicated to FBCI) Yes, for AmeriCorps state grants and Citizen Corps Councils (CCC), but not for FBCI specifically. AmeriCorps, state general funds, state Education Trust Fund, AL Department of Homeland Security (CCC), AL Department of Education, some private funds.
DC $500,000 FY 2008 budget for Strengthening Partners Initiative No District general funds
FL $500,000/year from 3-year CCF grant. FCL position funded through VFF administrative funds. Yes, for Compassion Florida (CCF grant) CCF Demonstration Program grant
VFF administrative funds (private)
IL No No IDHS funding for Team Illinois
NJ $2.5 million in FY 2008 for OFBI-administered grants to FBCOs, staff funded through other sources. Yes, dedicated funds for capacity building, direct service, intermediary grants. State general revenues, NJ Department of Human Services (TANF), NJ Department of Corrections (US Departments of Justice and Labor funds)
NM $100,000 for staff and administration No Department of Aging and Long-term Services
TX $14.1 million in 2007 for OneStar (including $11 million in AmeriCorps pass-through funds). An estimated 42% of remaining $3.1 million budget (about $1.3 million) estimated as dedicated to FBCIs work. Yes, for Texas Workforce Commission-funded capacity-building grants and TA program for FBCOs,  state AmeriCorps grants, 2006-2007 Texas Demonstration Project (CCF grant). Texas Workforce Commission (Wagner-Peyser and TANF), Corporation for National and Community Service (AmeriCorps), Governors Criminal Justice Division (US Education Department funds). CCF Demonstration Program Grant (2006-2007).
VA No dedicated funding. FBCI function integrated into staff and administrative functions of VDSS. No, not for FBCI Administrative and staff support through state general funds, cost allocation from multiple federal funding streams.

Several states have had the ability to make direct grants or issue contracts tototo FBCOs, but this was not the norm. Only one, New Jersey, had dedicated state funds for capacity building and other direct grants to FBCOs under the initiative. New Jerseys OFBI grant-making budget has varied from $5 million per year for the first several years, to a low of $1.5 million in FY 2007 (it was back up to $2.5 million in FY 2008). Two other sites (Texas and Florida) have had federal Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) demonstration grants to award capacity-building sub-grants directly to FBCOs. Other FCLs and their offices drew on a range of federal, state, and private funds to make programmatic grants to FBCOs, but they typically partnered with state agencies to do so. Several FCLs with overlapping duties played an administrative role in grant-making but for purposes not explicitly linked to the FBCI. In three cases (DC, Illinois, and New Mexico), the FCL did not play any direct role in making grants to FBCOs. 

View full report


"report.pdf" (pdf, 837.11Kb)

Note: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader®