On November 13th, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) released a response to some of our findings entitled “FOR THE RECORD The Truth about CCHD Funding.” We appreciate the effort on the part of the CCHD to offer an explanation about their funding decisions. We have carefully read the CCHD’s response with an open mind and hope they will read our response in the same spirit.
The first several allegations covered in “For the Record” deal primarily with statements made by others. We do have some thoughts on these responses and hope to cover them later this week in a second part of this report. Since the latter portion of “For the Record” is a direct response to our research, we will respond to that first.
The CCHD began in its response to our report on Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV) as follows:
With reference to the seven California groups that were listed as members of Mobilize the Immigrant Vote (MIV), only six are currently funded by CCHD. (Source: For the Record)
The CCHD grantee in question is Time for Change (which controls the San Bernardino chapter of All of Us or None). The San Diego chapter of All of Us or None was listed on the MIV 2008 members list, and we accept this point of clarification from the CCHD. However, please note that Time for Change was in fact an MIV campaign partner as this 2006 archived web-page proves.
Also, Time For Change is a member of the California Partnership (not a CCHD grantee), which serves on the steering committee of MIV (source) and gives its members access to MIV’s pro-abortion voter’s guide and training programs (source). In 2005, Time for Change participated in a MIV Voter Education Forum along with Planned Parenthood:
As part of our civic engagement work, members from our San Bernardino chapter held a Voter Education Forum to highlight the initiatives by providing voter education materials, register new voters and educate and mobilize the community to get out to the polls. Members and allies including Liberia del Pueblo, Time for Change, and staff from Planned Parenthood and CAP, presented on the issues and engaged a audience of community leaders and residents making this event a huge success. (Source: California Partnership Fall/Winter 2005 Newsletter)
Incidentally, the California Partnership took pro-abortion and pro-ho
mosexual marriage positions in the 2008 election. (Source)
Other CCHD grantees which are California Partnership members:
- Coalition LA (which is on the California Partnership steering commitee)
- Justice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB)
- Parents Organized for Westside Renewal (POWER)
Continuing on with the CCHD’s “For the Record” :
For each of the six funded groups, CCHD received specific approval from the bishop of each local diocese in which the organizations are located to fund them. All six groups confirmed to CCHD they were never consulted about MIV taking positions on ballot initiatives contrary to Catholic social teaching. (Source: “For the Record“)
This contradicts the statements we posted from Nancy Berlin, Executive Committee Chair of MIV, which stated that the voter’s guide was produced in consultation with MIV’s coalition partners. Furthermore, several of the CCHD grantees listed were not only general campaign members of MIV, but more closely related to MIV through its MOVE program. The MOVE program according to MIV provides a “higher level of support to approximately thirty grassroots groups.” (source pg 12)
Also:
MOVE partners come together in five local tables throughout California to learn together and discuss the specific needs of their regions. MOVE partners have underscored the value of these convenings and feel they hold potential for increased collaboration on civic engagement and policy campaigns. (Source: An Evaluation of Mobilize the Immigrant Vote California Collaborative, pg 14)
The CCHD grantees involved in the MIV MOVE program are: Justice Overcoming Boundaries (JOB), Coalition LA and Faith in Community. (source) Due to their higher level of involvement, we find it difficult to believe that these grantees were in the dark about the MIV ballot initiatives, and simply taking these grantees’ word that they were not consulted about the MIV platform does not constitute a proper investigation.
MIV publicly posted the dates, times and locations of their Issue Analysis Forums, and invited all members to attend. (source) Based on photos we have obtained from these forums, we know they were well attended and both Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 were discussed: 
Continuing on with CCHD’s “For the Record” :
Additionally, the Mobilize the Immigrant Vote Web site includes this statement: “The partner organizations listed above do not necessarily endorse MIV’s formal positions on ballot measures or policy proposals.” (Source:For the Record)
Yes, MIV’s member page now includes that disclaimer. However, this disclaimer was added only after our report was published. The following is a screen shot taken October 9, 2009: 
Finally, in regards to MIV, the CCHD offers the following:
In fact, Coalition LA, one of the six groups, produces its own voter guide which is approved by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles prior to publication. (Source: For the Record)
We thank the CCHD for that information. However, we still question why Coalition LA is highly involved with MIV and also with the California Partnership. We request that LA Coalition remove itself from both coalitions due to their pro-abortion positions.
The CCHD next examines LA CAN:
The Archdiocese of Los Angeles has reviewed the activity of LA CAN and determined the organization does not engage in any activity contrary to Church teaching, and has recommended continued funding for the organization. (Source: For the Record)
Notice that this does nothing to explain either of the following statements found in LA CAN’s newsletters:
Many LA CAN members also worked with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force campaign to defeat Proposition 8, which repealed the right to marry for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, this proposition also narrowly passed – a civil rights defeat for all Californians. (Source: Dec 08 – Jan 09 LA CAN newsletter)
For these reasons, Downtown Women’s Center (DWC) has partnered with JWCH Institute to offer a new monthly women’s health clinic. The clinic occurs at the Downtown Women’s Center (325 S. Los Angeles St., between 3rd and 4th St.) every third Wednesday of the month. If you are reading the Community Connection right now, chances are you’re not far from DWC!
This clinic aims to help women access healthcare in a setting that is comfortable and private, with as much individualized attention as possible. The clinic focuses on women’s health needs by providing well-woman exams, along with basic primary care services.
What’s a well-woman exam, you ask? This exam includes a Pap smear and breast exam, and, depending on your needs, can include contraceptive/family planning counseling and prescriptions, menopausal counseling, STD, HIV and pregnancy testing. (Source: Sept. Oct. 06 LA CAN newsletter)
We still await explanation of how promotion of homosexual marriage and contraceptive services meets the CCHD’s guidelines.
In regards to our report on the San Francisco Organizing Project, the CCHD offers:
Archdiocese of San Francisco strongly supports the work of the San Francisco Organizing Project (SFOP) to expand access to health care to children. Both Archbishop Levada and Archbishop Niederauer have spoken at SFOP events; SFOP has met regularly with Archdiocesan staff to coordinate work on health care access and other issues that affect the poor and immigrant families. (Source: For the Record)
Again, this does not address the information we discovered concerning the SFOP. We would like to see a specific response to the charges we made in our report concerning SFOP.
“For the Record” continues with an explanation that both the Chinese Progressive Association and Young Workers United were defunded for producing pro-abortion voter’s guides. One statement by the CCHD does raise some questions, “CCHD immediately cancelled both
grants, and both organizations returned all of the funding they received from CCHD.” Is the funding returned only from this year, or were all the grants returned by the Chinese Progressive Association? If the Chinese Progressive Association did not return all funding from previous years, perhaps the CCHD statement should be stated more accurately.
The final section of “For the Record” states:
The Diocese of Portland and the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, along with CCHD, continue to gather the facts involving these organizations [Preble Street and Womens Community Revitalization Project]. Both grants have been placed on hold during this process. Once all pertinent information has been reviewed, a final determination will be made regarding these two organizations. (Source: For the Record)
We are pleased to see that the CCHD is re-opening its investigation into the Women’s Community Revitalization Project, especially after Bishop Morin’s memo had stated our initial report was flawed in this regard. We hope this third screening of WCRP will be more successful, and look forward to learning the results of the investigation.
Our response to the CCHD will continue in part 2, due later this week. In the meantime please visit the Reform CCHD Coalition web-site to keep up to date with the actions of all our coalition partners as we enter this crucial last week before the national CCHD collection.
