Over the last two decades, there has been a renewed commitment to strong partnerships between faith communities and government programs.

• In the 1990s, the limitations of a government-supported social safety net led to the “Charitable Choice” legislation, which sought to level the playing field to include faith-based organizations as recipients of government funding and as providers of social services.
• In 1997, CDC, under the leadership of David Satcher, MD, PhD collaborated with the Interfaith Health Program to sponsor a day-long forum on “Engaging Faith Communities as Partners in Improving Community Health.”
• The Bush administration created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which continues in a reconfigured form in the Obama administration as the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
• There are now 13 federal departments with faith-based offices, and many states have created similar offices, linking health and human service agencies to engage the faith community.

Per the 2010 Executive Order, the 13 federal department offices have the responsibility to promote “compliance with constitutional and other applicable legal principles, and to strengthen the capacity of faith-based and other neighborhood organizations to deliver services effectively to those in need . . .”.  Government agency participation and support of faith-based programming must follow three legal obligations set forth by the Supreme Court:

First, the program must have a valid public health purpose that meets public health priorities that are addressed using strong public health intervention methods.

Second, the impact should neither foster nor hinder religion. Its primary impact should be achieving public health goals. Opportunities to participate in public health programming and access to government resources must be made equally available to different religions and nonreligious groups, whichever is best equipped to assist in meeting public health goals.  For example, public health agencies may target religious groups that are best equipped to reach populations most impacted by health disparities. As resources become available and health priorities change, they can be extended to other faith community partners.  Resources or funds should not be used for religious activities such as prayer, worship, or religious teaching, and these activities should be separated in time or location from programs that receive direct federal support.

Third, the program should not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. Government resources should be kept separate from those used for religious purposes and be managed in a way that requires minimum oversight and administrative involvement across sectors.

The Minnesota Immunization Networking Initiative (MINI) project collaborates closely with the Minnesota State Department of Health and implements vaccination events that are “faith-placed” versus “faith-based.” The flu clinic settings may be in congregations, but health funds are used for vaccine, supplies, promotional materials, vaccine administration personnel, and the like. This is all clearly delineated in the grant application.

The faith community has been and can be a very important partner in achieving public health goals. This may require use of government public health funds or may be limited to partnerships with governmental public health agencies. Either way, these guidelines should not discourage collaboration but give helpful direction to ensure that the relationships are in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s Three-Part Test:

1. The statute or other government action must have a secular purpose.
2. The principal effect of the action or statute must neither inhibit nor advance religion.
3. The statute or government action cannot foster excessive government entanglement with religions.

Source:  Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)