Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants rule (2004)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education effective July 6, 2004, that amended department regulations concerning religious organization participation in department programs. The rule was issued to align department policies with two executive orders issued by President George W. Bush (R).[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR Parts 74, 75, 76, 80
  • Agency: Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Office of the Secretary, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Other significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    • July 6, 2004: The final rule took effect.[1]
    • June 4, 2004: The Department of Education published a final rule.[1]
    • December 1, 2003: The Department of Education closed the comment period.[2]
    • September 30, 2003: The Department of Education published a notice of proposed rulemaking and opened the comment period.[2]
    • December 12, 2002: President George W. Bush (R) issued an executive order in an effort to direct agencies to amend policies that affect faith-based and community organizations. The order directed executive agencies to evaluate policies "to assess the consistency of those policies with certain fundamental principles and policymaking criteria designed to ensure a level playing field for religious and nonreligious organizations."[3][1]
    • January 29, 2001: President George W. Bush (R) issued an executive order in an effort to direct executive agencies to remove regulatory obstacles preventing faith-based organizations from contributing to department programs.[4]

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    President George W. Bush (R) issued an executive order on January 29, 2001, directing executive agencies to remove regulatory obstacles preventing faith-based organizations from contributing to department programs. The order aimed to "expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America's communities."[4] Bush issued another executive order on December 12, 2002, in an effort to direct agencies to amend policies that affect faith-based and community organizations. The order directed executive agencies to evaluate and amend policies "to ensure equal protection of the laws for faith-based and community organizations, to further the national effort to expand opportunities for, and strengthen the capacity of, faith-based and other community organizations so that they may better meet social needs in America's communities."[3]

    In response to the directives outlined in the executive orders, the Department of Education issued a proposed rule on September 30, 2003, to revise department policies to eliminate barriers to faith-based organizations participating in department programs.[2]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ These final regulations implement Executive branch policy that, within the framework of constitutional church-state guidelines, religiously affiliated (or “faith-based”) organizations should be able to compete on an equal footing with other organizations for funding by the U.S. Department of Education (Department). We are revising Department regulations to remove barriers to the participation of faith-based organizations in Department programs and to ensure that these programs are implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution, including the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.[1][5] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the final rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “
    1. Participation by faith-based organizations in Education Department programs. The proposed regulations specifically provided that faith-based organizations are eligible to apply for and to receive funding under Department programs on the same basis as any other private organization, with respect to programs for which such other organizations are eligible. If a faith-based organization meets the statutory and regulatory tests for eligibility, the Department considers it eligible. The proposed regulations additionally provided that the Department and the States shall not discriminate against a private organization on the basis of the organization's religious character or affiliation.
    2. Inherently religious activities. The NPRM sought to clarify that a faith-based organization that receives a grant under a program of the Department or a subgrant from a State under a State-administered program of the Department is subject to the existing regulatory provisions that prohibit grantees and States and subgrantees from using their grants and subgrants to pay for inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. In addition, the NPRM sought to clarify that such an organization is subject to the existing regulatory provisions that prohibit grantees and States and subgrantees from using their grants and subgrants to pay for equipment or supplies used for religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. If an organization engages in these religious activities, then it must offer those services separately in time or location from any programs or services supported by grants from the Department or subgrants from a State under a State-administered program of the Department. Additionally, participation in any inherently religious activities by beneficiaries of the programs supported by the grants or subgrants must be voluntary.
    3. Independence of faith-based organizations. The proposed regulations also clarified that a religious organization that participated in Department programs would retain its independence and could continue to carry out its mission, including the definition, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs. Among other things, a faith-based organization could use space in its facilities to provide Department-funded services without removing religious art, icons, scriptures, or other religious symbols. In addition, a Department-funded religious organization could retain religious terms in its organization's name, select its board members and otherwise govern itself on a religious basis, and include religious references in its organization's mission statements and other governing documents.
    4. Nondiscrimination in providing assistance. The NPRM provided that an organization that received a grant from the Department or that received a subgrant from a State under a State-administered program of the Department would not be allowed to discriminate against a beneficiary or prospective beneficiary of that program on the basis of religion or religious belief.
    5. Removal of prohibition on use of grants and subgrants to pay for an activity of a school or department of divinity. The proposed regulations clarified that the most qualified applicants will receive funding under the Department's programs, and that the religious character or affiliation of the private organizations that apply will not be taken into account. For that reason, we proposed to remove the regulation prohibiting grantees and subgrantees from using their grants and subgrants to pay for an activity of a school or department of divinity.
    6. Technical amendment relating to the prohibition on use of grants to pay for equipment or supplies to be used for religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. In the NPRM, we proposed a technical amendment to the Department's regulations, clarifying that grantees cannot use their grants to pay for equipment or supplies used for religious worship, instruction, or proselytization.
    7. Removal of prohibition on use of grants and subgrants to pay for construction, remodeling, repair, operation, or maintenance of any facility or part of a facility to be used for religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. We proposed to remove §§ 75.532(a)(3) and 76.532(a)(3), which prohibit the use of Department funds to pay for construction, remodeling, repair, operation, or maintenance of any private educational facility (or part of a private educational facility). This regulation is not necessary because there is no statutory authority for this use of Department funds. Accordingly, the Department has no programs that fund such capital improvements.
    8. Eligibility of faith-based organizations to contract with or otherwise receive assistance from grantees and subgrantees, including States, on the same basis as other private organizations, with respect to contracts or assistance for which such organizations are eligible. The NPRM proposed to clarify that faith-based organizations are eligible to contract with or otherwise receive assistance from grantees and subgrantees, including States, on the same basis as other private organizations, with respect to contracts or assistance for which such organizations are eligible. These faith-based organizations are subject to the same limitations to which grantees and subgrantees are subject regarding the use of funds for inherently religious activities, unless the organization is selected as a result of the genuine and independent private choices of individual beneficiaries of the program and provided the organization otherwise satisfies the requirements of the program.[5]
    		 ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Federal Register, "Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants," June 4, 2004
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Federal Register, "Direct Grant Programs; State-Administered Programs; Administration of Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; and Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," September 30, 2003
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Federal Register, "Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-Based and Community Organizations," December 16, 2002
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Federal Register, "Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives," January 31, 2001
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Participation_in_Education_Department_Programs_by_Religious_Organizations;_Providing_for_Equal_Treatment_of_All_Education_Program_Participants_rule_(2004)&oldid=9169558"