WFF 1997 Report to the USCCB on the CHD
A Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development Prepared for the Catholic Bishops of the United States
Prepared by the Wanderer Forum Foundation
I. Introduction: This commentary is submitted to the Catholic Bishops of the United States with respect to their possible consideration of changes in the organization, funding, and structure of the Campaign for Human Development (CHD). It is essential to note, however, the limited purpose and scope of this commentary:
1. This commentary is intended for the use of the Catholic Bishops of the United States in their consideration of the issues discussed. However, it will also be made available to other persons interested in these issues.
2. This commentary endeavors only to set forth facts with supporting documentation. It does not call into question the good faith or integrity of anyone involved in any way with the CHD. Nor does it infer in any way that any recipient of CHD funds has engaged in any misrepresentation or intentional misuse of funds in any way contrary to the stated purpose of CHD. This commentary does not in any way infer that any persons or organizations involved in these matters have engaged in conduct that is illegal in any way.
3. This commentary is entirely directed to issues of prudence and judgment rather than legality and good faith. The discussion herein is intended merely to raise legitimate questions about the advisability of changes in the structure, activities, and funding of the CHD.
II. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING:
During the funding period of 1992-1995, CHD gave significant grants to community organizing efforts that implement many of the organizational techniques recommended by Saul Alinsky. Many community organizations patterned after Alinsky’s recommendations recruit their membership either entirely or partially by institution. Included among this class of grantees are four national organizations: the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), Gamaliel, Pacific Institute for Community Organizing (PICO), and Direct Action and Research Training Center (DART). The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which is also patterned on Alinsky’s organizational recommendations, recruits individual members. These five national organizations alone account for approximately 33% of current CHD expenditures annually. For purposes of illustration, it will be useful to note here some aspects of the operation of ACORN and the IAF.
- ACORN received approximately 5% of the national CHD annual budget between 1992-1995. Between the years of 1992-1995, ACORN received $1,493,000 in national CHD grants.
- ACORN’s People’s Platform was written in 1978 and ratified in 1979 at ACORN’s national convention in St. Louis. The document was revised and re-approved in 1990 at ACORN’s national 20th Anniversary Convention in Chicago and is in effect at present. Among other things, the ACORN People’s Platform specifies that ACORN demands that the United States :
- “create a national health-care system” in which “all medical costs are covered” and in which doctors are provided a medical “education subsidized by the federal government.” [section on Health Care, # I & II]
- “create more housing” by setting a “goal of a million new units of federally subsidized housing per year.” [section on Housing, #I]
- “charge government and big business with the final responsibility for full employment.” [section on Work and Workers’ Rights, #II]
- “guarantee a minimum annual family income…” [section on Work and Workers’ Rights, #III]
- develop schools that are “available for community needs, like adult education” and “job training that is linked to specific employment,” and which “can provide all support and services that a child cannot receive at home.” [section on Education, #II & IV]
- To accomplish its goals, as outlined in the People’s Platform, ACORN has developed a political alliance with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Together with others, ACORN and the DSA have formed a political party, the New Party.
a. National ACORN president, Maud Hurd, along with Dr. Cornel West (honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America) and a representative from the Reproductive Rights Coalition Fund, are listed as New Party supporters.
b. Bronx ACORN operates a New Party chapter out of its headquarters.
c. In a drive to identify political allies, the New Party held “extensive discussions” in 1994 with “high ranking officials in labor (teamsters, electrical workers, oil workers, bus drivers, etc.); grassroots environmentalists with Greenpeace, Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous Waste and Friends of the Earth; community organizations like ACORN and the Industrial Areas Foundation; DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] and Sane/Freeze, and scores of important local organizations.”
d. By 1996, New Party alliances with ACORN, the IAF, Sustainable America, and others, promoted “living wage” campaigns around the country. ACORN has also promoted the Income Equity Act of 1997 (H.R. 687, 105th Congress), which would place federal control over executive earnings by “denying tax deductions for executive compensation that exceeds 25 times the company’s lowest paid full-time employee.”
4. ACORN’s political activity is viewpoint-oriented: “…[O]rganizing needs to happen more than ever to counter Right-wing assault.” Member groups are able to “have a voice in setting a national agenda for organizing to fight the right.” To this end, ACORN endorsed the pro-abortion Fight the Right March in 1996.
ACORN’s political activities have extended beyond mere “Get Out the Vote” drives: “In 1972, ACORN made its first entry into electoral politics. ACORN’s first effort was a ‘Save the City Rally,’ which all the candidates for Little Rock [AK] Board of Directors were invited to attend. Next, ACORN’s Political Action Committee decided to back two candidates for Little Rock School Board….Buoyed by their success, ACORN members decided to go one step further and run for office themselves. In 1974, ACORN members, joined by a group of International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union members, ran for seats on the Pulaski County Quorum Court [IL]….The great expansion of the organization [by 1975], led to multi-state campaign…ACORN national conventions and actions in 1978, 1979, and 1980 led to an entry into national politics through participation in the 1980 Presidential campaign. ACORN used the campaign to apply pressure to presidential candidates during the nomination campaign when they were most in need of grassroots support – a specialty of ACORN’s. They also created the opportunity for the members and leaders to develop their ideas on a national agenda for the organization.”
ACORN received $132,000 from the CHD in 1978, $159,000 from the CHD in 1979, and $157,000 from the CHD in 1980.
In 1988, ACORN backed Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition. “ACORN had thirty Jackson delegates on the floor of the Democratic Convention….Electoral politics…became a powerful weapon in the ACORN arsenal…[T]hey were refined and institutionalized within ACORN. The work with the Rainbow Lobby was clear proof of ACORN’s electoral abilities. ACORN Political Action Committee work in local and national electoral politics paid off…”
During the 1990s, ACORN has been openly active in Congressional lobbying. Its leadership operates, “…from inside positions of power. ACORN’s work on the savings and loan bailout provided effective means of developing and applying power…ACORN members won appointment to the Resolution Trust Corporation to help determine the management of the billions of dollars of assets the government seized.
5. ACORN’s educational activism was described by Jennifer Anderson from the CHD-funded NY-ACORN at the 1995 25th CHD Anniversary Conference in Chicago. NY-ACORN is establishing alternative “New Visions Schools” within the New York public school system. During her workshop: “School Reform Sweeping the Nation,” Ms. Anderson identified the reform model which NY-ACORN schools are emulating as the Debbie Meier experimental public school model (the Networks for School Renewal).
The experimental schools designed by NY-ACORN on the Debbie Meier model have many attractive features — small teacher-pupil ratios and small student bodies, for example. However, each ACORN “New Visions School” has one full-time, paid ACORN organizer associated with it, whose duties include organizing parents, class by class. Anderson described ACORN’s efforts to see that “progressively-minded” teachers and principals were hired in the New Visions Schools.
Academically, the Debbie Meier educational model includes substantive restructuring. Standardized testing is eliminated: “For instance, to put the sort of intense emphasis on standardized testing…meant, in practice, the gearing of curricula specifically to prepare students to pass narrowly focused tests-with little attention to the broader array of skills and critical capacities essential in a real world environment…In contrast…an alternative began to emerge.” Parents and educators must be re-educated to accept this restructuring: “But for democratic school approaches [such as the Deborah Meier model] to work necessitated not only changes in the formal structure of education but also effective, skillful training and some clear public commitment to an alternative understanding of educational purposes themselves.” These “educational purposes” can facilitate the training of new community organizers. In ACORN’s New Visions School in New York, Local 1199 School for Social Change, “…students analyze public health issues, the organization of community groups, the development of public policy and the international labor movement. Students are involved in hands-on activities in order to relate classroom learning to community service. These activities range from participation in labor and community organization movements to service as interns at local health care facilities.”
NY-ACORN received $170,000 in CHD grants between 1992-1995. As there is no specific project specified in the reporting of these CHD grants to ACORN, it would seem fair to assume that CHD money has been used by NY-ACORN in ways that would provide at least indirect support to its educational reform agenda.
6. ACORN’s People’s Platform is unexceptionable about what it terms “women’s rights,” demanding only equal pay for equal work, swift intervention in instances of workplace sexual harassment, and maternity leave benefits. However, Maud Hurd, ACORN’s national president, was a speaker at Expo ’96 for Woman’s Empowerment.
The purpose of the exposition was to develop a response to “the conservative use of ballot initiatives to attack women’s rights and to galvanize a right-wing vote…” The Expo promotional material stated that: “The attack on women’s rights and sex discrimination law has galvanized our coming together….Never before has the woman’s movement been under so much attack…” This network of feminists seeks to “…ignite the women’s movement on the fight to save affirmative action and sex discrimination law; will develop a feminist national budget for the United States; and will envision a feminist future.”
7. Conclusion: The CHD asserts that it “has become the largest funder of self-help groups for the poor in the nation. More than $250 million in grants has been awarded by the CHD to help at least 3000 self-help projects that work to create new opportunities for the poor in housing, education, health care, jobs, and civil rights….To be eligible to receive CHD funds, a program must be run by the poor, benefit the poor, and change social structures that harm the poor.” However, in light of the politically oriented thrust of ACORN’s activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to ACORN are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.
B. THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS FOUNDATION:
1. The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) has received approximately 16% of the national CHD annual budget between 1992-1995.
2. The IAF has pursued a national agenda of educational restructuring through its local affiliates. This would appear to be inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity and with the constant teaching of the Church on the position of parents as primary educators of their children, with responsibility to conduct effective oversight of the education of those children in schools.
a. The IAF is recommended as a “change agent” for educational restructuring by the National Center for Education and the Economy [NCEE]. The NCEE felt the use of a “change agent was necessary for its plans of educational restructuring because the United States does not yet have a national system of education. To transform the American system of education would therefore “require thoughtful and sustained communication with the citizens of these states to build the public consensus needed to support these revolutionary changes” One change agent identified by the NCEE for this task was the IAF. “The Industrial Areas Foundation, perhaps the most experienced agency in the United States in the arena of community organizing, will help us think through parent engagement and organizing issues.”
b. The IAF has received funding from a variety of sources for educational restructuring projects. For example, the 1994 Rockefeller Foundation made grants to support the IAF “Texas Interfaith Education Fund in its efforts to accelerate the pace of local school reform in Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico by encouraging parents and community organizations to act as catalysts for change.” The grants included generous sums to several local cities, including Albuquerque, for a three-phase “professional development,” including support of the Comer School Development Program – the Learning Communities Network. While these grants purport to support local school reform, programs such as the Learning Communities Network are national in scope.
c. Various IAF local affiliates around the country have prepared “vision papers” in support of local education restructuring projects. These local vision papers are strikingly similar in their content and in their goals. The Texas IAF Vision for Public Schools and the Albuquerque Interfaith Vision Paper for Education Reform both claim, for example, to produce a “collective vision” for public education. Both develop a market analysis of the 21st century as the basis for education reform. Both attempt to expand the notion of “school” to include a wide range of services beyond provision of academic training. Both define schools as “communities of learners.” Both support similar pedagogical methods.
d. The IAF locals engage in actions designed to move people in IAF-organized communities to accept projects of educational restructuring which are national in scope, despite the appearance of local control. For example, Albuquerque Interfaith held an “accountability” session with local school board candidates in January 1997 IAF. The candidates were given 30 seconds to respond to the three-part question: “Will you actively support the Albuquerque Learning Communities Network? Will you support increased professional development opportunities for Albuquerque Public School employees? Albuquerque Interfaith is working to get $100,000 from the state legislature to further parent/school/community involvement. If the legislation is passed and elected, will you accept the money and guarantee its use as legislated?” The churches, which are the primary institutional members of the IAF, and the CHD, which is a substantial funder of the IAF, are participating in this organization for educational restructuring. They are supporting IAF goals for education. The IAF is only one change agent in this arena, but is an important one, having local affiliates in about 50 different locations around the Unites States. CHD-funded ACORN, DART, PICO, and Gamaliel are promoting similar, national education reforms.
It would be appropriate for the Catholic bishops of the United States to consider whether it is advisable for the CHD to fund these positions and activities of the IAF.
3. The CHD-funded IAF has shown partisanship in its Get-Out-the-Vote Drives.
a. In 1996, the CHD-funded California IAF local, VOICE (Valley Organized in Community Efforts), set its membership to work in a get-out-the-vote drive. The drive was called Active Citizenship Campaign. As part of its effort in February 1996, California IAF organizer, Father Miguel Vega, S.V.D., wrote to Vice President Al Gore: “Through the creation of a permanent precinct organization, 5000 precinct captains will turn out 966,000 voters for the November 1996 elections.”
Vega continued, “Essential to the permanent precinct organization is the naturalization of 180,000 New Americans.” The IAF proposal presented to Gore stated that its Active Citizenship Campaign was “willing to work with the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] to increase the efficiency” of the naturalization process. “Failure to deliver on promises made by the INS,” wrote Father Vega, “could create the impression that the Clinton administration is anti-Latino.”
Gore met with Father Vega and the IAF on March 8. The Talking Points Gore provided the IAF at this meeting state: “As you may know, I have been working on reinventing the federal government for the past three years. Because of that assignment the President has asked me to take a look at INS’s naturalization process and see if, using some of the techniques we have used to reform other government agencies, we can help take care of that backlog.”
The naturalization process was speeded up as requested. As an apparent result, the 1996 elections experienced the largest Latino turnout in California history.
Arguably, however, one other result was the election of Loretta Sanchez, an IAF-backed candidate favorable to legalized abortion, in an election that gave rise to serious allegations of voter fraud. The Wall Street Journal reported, “…Orange County District Attorney Michael Capizzi has determined that one immigrant rights group alone registered 590 non-citizens in the county and 547 of them voted…California’s Secretary of State has also found at least 300 illegal voters in the Dornan race…[I]ndependent observers have agreed that irregularities in both California and Louisiana are worth a closer look.”
4. Conclusion: In light of the political nature of such activities of the IAF, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to the IAF are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of the CHD.
III. WELFARE REFORM:
CHD-funded organizations promoting welfare reform tend to focus on the preservation and increase of federal welfare funding.
The first 1997 CHD grants, totaling a half million dollars, were awarded to 13 organizations which promote what a CHD press release calls “innovative welfare reform initiatives.”
One grant went to the Arizona Interfaith Network, which is a coalition of three IAF locals that are already individually funded by the CHD. The money is earmarked for a research project to assess the impact of welfare reform on church members. “This information will be collected and combined with the research of other Arizona social policy advocates such as the Children’s Action Alliance, the Arizona Justice Institute and the Arizona Catholic Conference in order to impact the welfare reform legislative agenda at the statewide level.”
The Arizona Interfaith Network has had an impact among those who are most concerned about welfare. However, a coalition of over 30 community-based human services organizations called the Arizona Human Services Rural Network, including food banks and health care facilities, has been fighting the IAF over control of public welfare funds. This Human Services coalition argues that the IAF is attempting to overrun “existing organizations with demonstrated track records and accountability for working with the poor…” so that the IAF will have control of that money for its own organizational efforts. The Human Services coalition claims that “Any diversion of funds to create another layer of providers would detract from the present effort and be disastrous.”
One significant effect of the current half million dollar CHD welfare reform effort is the development of “educational” mechanisms designed to persuade people that any changes in the welfare system which cut or curtail services would be undesirable. “Father Robert Vitillo, CHD executive director, announced new grants in Washington. ‘We are pleased that CHD is able to support groups and coalitions working to diminish the punitive effects of federal reform laws on the nation’s poor and needy citizens.'” [emphasis added] Greater Birmingham Ministries has been funded by CHD “to respond to the potentially punitive elements of welfare reform legislation. Clergy and Laity United For Economic Justice (CLUE), in California, has been funded to “address concerns raised by the new welfare work requirements.” [emphasis added]
The 1997 CHD grant to Catholic Charities of California (CCC) is significant: Catholic Charities provides funds to “conduct a short-term organizing project [along with the Fair Share Network (FSN) of California] to involve low-income persons, service providers, and the larger Catholic community in the state’s welfare restructuring. CCC and FSN will organize grassroots advocates to 1) educate and influence state and federal policy makers 2)document and publicize representative stories of persons to be negatively impacted by the new welfare laws, 3) build awareness and linkages within the Catholic community about the implications of specific welfare measures.” This sort of activity goes well beyond the moral education of the Catholic people.
Saint Paul Ecumenical Alliance of Congregations and Interfaith Action has been funded to work along with the Archdiocese of St. Paul- Minneapolis and the Interfaith Campaign for Welfare Reform, to “advocate for continued or increased welfare benefits.” [emphasis added]
The opinions of Catholics who do not support increased federal welfare expenditures have been publicly criticized by CHD supporters. At the 1996 Catholic Social Justice Ministry Gathering, co-sponsored by CHD and convened — at least in part — as a Catholic lobbying action, Sharon Daly of Catholic Charities, told participants, “You are the official Catholic Church. You’re not representing some fringe group. You’re not like Father Sirico who just talks for himself. You’re not some self-appointed person. You work for the official Catholic Church of the United States, and you are there [speaking to your legislators] to present the Catholic position, the position of your diocese, and your lived-experience, serving the poor, working within the Catholic community.”
2. The CHD-funded welfare reform agenda tends to promote the passage of federal funds into the hands of “mediating institutions.” Welfare benefits, under CHD-funded welfare reform, would be distributed by those “mediating institutions.”
The Texas IAF locals, Valley Interfaith and Triangle Interfaith, are among the 1997 first round CHD grant recipients. The Texas IAF locals are being funded to initiate a “welfare reform” strategy “mobilizing its congregation members statewide to push for a $52 million reallocation of resources for long-term job training.”
The job training program being promoted by the CHD-funded Texas IAF locals (the Texas IAF Network) is Project QUEST. Valley Interfaith has already been the conduit for substantial federal Empowerment Zone money for Project QUEST operations in its local region. The program supports job trainees at a living wage level for up to two years and then guarantees a well-paying job at the end of the training.
The QUEST program operates primarily through the IAF. COPS and Metro, two Texas IAF locals, have membership on the QUEST board of directors. “COPS and Metro also controlled the recruitment of trainees to QUEST. They advertised training opportunities through their churches (at services and in bulletins). One hundred and forty volunteers held interviews at churches two to three times per week. The IAF leaders interviewed 3000 applicants resulting in 650 trainees….By controlling recruitment, COPS could help build its organization, reinforce the social networks of the community, and vouch for the character of trainees to future employees.”
The IAF, operating through the churches, becomes a “mediating institution,” a conduit, for federal money into the local community, and a primary distributor of federal benefits. The practical advantages of cooperating with the IAF arrangement are obvious. Paul Osterman’s 1996 study of QUEST shows that 41% of the QUEST participants definitely plan to become involved with the IAF or think there is a “good chance” for future involvement. QUEST is under consideration as a model for national replication. “In early 1994, representatives of QUEST attended a forum on job-training reform, sponsored by the US Department of Labor….If QUEST proves successful in San Antonio, it could become a model for the national job training strategy that Clinton has pledged to initiate.”
3. Conclusion: The IAF activity in Texas is an example of the nature of the welfare reform agenda funded by the CHD. Involving the federal government in comprehensive services provided through the church-based “mediating institution” of the IAF, the government, aided by the CHD-supported community organization, takes on a dimension which is hardly consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
In light of the ideologically oriented thrust of the CHD-funded welfare reform activities, it is fair to ask whether the CHD subsidies to welfare reform are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.
IV. CHD LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
1. The CHD, along with other official Catholic bodies, itself directly lobbies federal legislators. This was the purpose of the 1996 Catholic Social Justice Ministry Gathering in Washington, DC. Representatives from CHD, Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and eight other Catholic agencies prepared state delegations to meet with members of the U.S. Congress. The first Plenary Session set the 1996 Agenda “Context, Priorities, and Strategies,” and participants were provided a variety of resources: “Hill Notes,” “Backgrounders” and “Talking Points” with information on a wide range of issues, and a “Domestic Issues Handbook.” The Plenary Session speakers provided the participants not only with tips on how to speak with their representatives, but with policy positions which they were told were reflective of the “official Catholic Church.”
Sharon Daly, Deputy to the President for Social Policy, Catholic Charities USA, speaking at the 1996 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering, said: “You are the official Catholic Church….You work for the official Catholic Church of the United States, and you are there [speaking to your legislators] to present the Catholic position, the position of your diocese, and of your lived experience, serving the poor, working within the Catholic community.”
Daly also stated: “We can’t trust states on abused and neglected children…The federal government has good laws if we can enforce them. We need to intervene before children are neglected. Clearly the state governments have not cared as much as the federal government. These children deserve the protection of the federal government.”
2. CHD-funded community organizations, such as the IAF, recruit and train people — often through Catholic parishes — to lobby and campaign for specific issues. John Carr told the 1996 Catholic Social Ministry Gathering that “We need to welcome the new interest in the role of religious and other communities. We must shape that discussion and not resist it. We know better than most the limitations and possibilities. We will increasingly have to demonstrate that we have not just principles and experiences, but also a constituency that shares our values and supports our priorities. That is why your legislative networks and other vehicles are so important. Information and analysis is [sic] not a substitute for relationships and constituency. Paper cannot take the place of pressure.”
3. It is fair to ask whether the CHD lobbying activities are advisable and commensurate with the purposes of CHD.
V. A NOTE ON FUNGIBLE CHD GRANTS:
1. On September 19, 1997, Bishop Cardinal Ramirez, Chairman of the USCC CHD Committee issued a series of fact sheets to all American diocesan bishops, “For the Record…The Truth about CHD Funding.”
One fact sheet attempts to deal with the allegation that CHD projects are “fungible”: that is, they free up monies for organizations to spend on other activities at variance with Catholic teaching. To refute that criticism, the CHD assures the bishops that it “maintains strict financial control of project funds. Organizations must deposit grant monies in a separate bank account which includes CHD in its title. Expenditures authorized by the approved CHD budget must be met with funds drawn directly from the CHD account and separate ledgers must be kept for CHD funds.”
While it is commendable that such care has been taken to assure financial control of project funds, there is nothing in the CHD’s explanation which answers the problem of CHD grants being “fungible,” that is, releasing other resources for organizations to spend on activities that may be at variance with Catholic teaching.
This unanswered criticism is related to a second fact sheet which attempts to address the allegations that “CHD has a persistent habit of funding organizations closely associated with the pro-abortion movement.” The fact sheet simply assures the bishops that the CHD itself is pro-life, and that all CHD projects are given careful scrutiny. While CHD grants do not go to organizations which directly provide abortion or contraceptives, CHD money allocated between 1992-1995 has gone to grantees which have supported organizations that promote legalized abortion. Some CHD-funded groups, for example, have aligned themselves with the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Feminist Expo ’96 and/or the Fight the Right Network
A. McAuley Institute: $28,000/1992; $20,000/1993. The McAuley Institute co-sponsored the Feminist Expo ’96 for Women’s Empowerment.
B. 9 to 5 Working Women: $35,000/1993; $35,000/1994 — Ellen Bravo, Director of 9 to 5, was a speaker at the Feminist Expo ’96. 9 to 5 National Association for Working Women also endorsed the Fight the Right march.
C. Justice, Economic Dignity, and Independence for Women (JEDI Women): $20,000/1994, $20,000/1995 – One of the “For the Record…The Truth about CHD Funding” fact sheets states “JEDI Women did not endorse NOW’s “Fight the Right 1996 March in San Francisco. No one associated with JEDI Women traveled to San Francisco at that time.” Nevertheless, JEDI Women is listed as an organization endorsing the Fight the Right march. JEDI Women is also part of the Utah Progressive Network, which includes Planned Parenthood, Utahns [sic] for Choice, and Utah NOW. The CHD fact sheet does not deny this, but states that “JEDI Women works in coalition with other local organizations that share its goals of eliminating economic deprivation and violence toward women” and notes that the CHD “did not fund NOW or UPNET.”
D. Chinese Progressive Association: $35,000/1992; $25,000/1995 — Part of the Fight the Right Network.
E. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP): $40,000/1992; The NCRP was given a special acknowledgment at the Feminist Expo ’96: “And we salute all of our co-sponsors who work to fund feminism, such as the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.” NCRP has a long history of attacking the pro-life movement and of directing charitable giving to abortion groups. “Consider NCRP’s efforts in workplace giving drives, specifically its attempt to make political advocacy groups eligible for inclusion in the federal government’s Combined Federal Campaign. According to NCRP literature, the following pro-abortion groups benefited from its work: the NARAL Foundation, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Planned Parenthood-World Population, Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights Education Fund…”
F. Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC): Between 1992-1995, CHD gave at least $600,000 to various Farm Labor associations and subsidiaries. FLOC participated at the Beijing, China UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. Reporting on the experience in the FLOC newsletter, the UN Platform for Action was described as an accomplishment: “There are significant advances for the women’s movement in the Platform for Action…[it] made significant advances on several concepts such as: those that promote sexual and reproductive rights.”
2. Conclusion: There is reason for concern that CHD funding of some organizations for unobjectionable projects releases the funds of such organizations to support activities and other groups that are inconsistent with the purposes of CHD.
VI. A NOTE ON CHD’S RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CRITICISM:
This article, WFF 1997 Report to the USCCB on the CHD is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.