Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
289844655
label
Cost/FTE and Match Reports – 1995 [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
289844655
contentType
document
title
Cost/FTE and Match Reports – 1995 [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
Shirley Sagawa's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
289844655
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
99905611-20130661F-Seg2-026-014-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
04fdc69ad8486553
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Service
Series/Staff Member:
Shirley Sagawa
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24265
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Cost/FTE and Match Reports - 1995 [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
9
1
A16 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1996
CAPITAL JOURNAL
BY GERALD F. SEIB
I
N FACT, THE CONCEPT was bipar-
A
MERICORPS'S NEW HEAD,
tisan. Democrats and Republicans
Harris Wofford, is a former sen-
in Congress had launched a similar
ator, and he decided to capitalize
pilot program before Mr. Clinton's arri-
on the bonds he made in the Senate. He
val. So when the president pushed
and Sen. Grassley negotiated a series of
National Service,
through his grander AmeriCorps pro-
changes in AmeriCorps operations.
gram in 1993, it won the support of
Overhead and administrative costs
25 Republicans in the House and six in
would be cut. Programs benefiting from
Like Its Creator,
the Senate. AmeriCorps became a real-
AmeriCorps workers would have to raise
ity, and soon it was funding the work
more private financing on their own. No
of 25,000 young Americans laboring in
AmeriCorps grants would go to other
Falls and Rises
projects run by 438 different organiza-
federal social programs. More Ameri-
tions around the country.
Corps money would go to private chari-
But when Republicans seized control
ties, not to pay wages to workers
of Congress in 1994, GOP revolution-
but strictly to give scholarships to young
I
F YOU WANT a metaphor for Presi-
dent Clinton's political revival,
aries turned their sights on Ameri-
people who had truly volunteered.
study the saga of his beloved na-
Corps. Intellectually, some hated the
Mr. Wofford also wisely played up
tional service program, AmeriCorps.
idea of sending government money to
AmeriCorps's support among moderate
Like the president himself, it looked
middle-class kids for doing what was
Republicans and, crucially, local lead-
politically dead a year ago, skewered by
nominally "volunteer" work. Others
ers. One rousing early fund-raising let-
a fiery Republican
frankly admitted they were after the
ter came from one Elizabeth Dole, head
Congress and ready
president's signature program.
of the Red Cross and wife of a certain
to be cooked. To-
But most significantly, Republicans
GOP senator. "My whole focus," Mr.
day, AmeriCorps is
thought they saw signs of another
Wofford says, "is to reclaim the biparti-
alive, singed by the
well-intentioned social program's costs
san tradition of national service."
experience but
running out of hand. The Senate's top
Eventually, Sen. Grassley decided
probably stronger
skinflint, Iowa's Chuck Grassley, began
the program was on track. So this
for it.
breathing down AmeriCorps's neck. He
spring he supported its continuation,
National serv-
commissioned a report from the General
and even backed a Democratic amend-
ice's survival is
Accounting Office, Congress's investi-
ment restoring some funding. Ameri-
both a sign and a
gative arm, that showed total fed-
Corps's budget still will be cut this year
product of a health-
eral costs per volunteer running at al-
by 14% to $402.5 million. But officials
ier and savvier Clin-
most $20,806, well over the $13,000 esti-
think that, thanks to the cost savings,
ton administration.
mate once offered by the administra-
they can keep the number of partici-
But more than that, AmeriCorps's saga
tion. About 15% of AmeriCorps's grants
pants level at about 25,000.
shows that, occasionally, the system
were going to help fund workers in other
When President Clinton gives a com-
actually works. A Democratic presi-
federal programs, some with much
mencement speech in Pennsylvania Fri-
dent launched a program. Republicans
higher per-worker costs.
day, he's expected to cite AmeriCorps as
saw legitimate problems. Changes were
Sen. Grassley fired off a nasty let-
a pleasant example of political coopera-
made, spending was cut, the program
ter to the president. "Unfortunately,"
tion this year. National service hasn't
was saved. In an intensely partisan
he wrote, "as designed, AmeriCorps is
seized America's imagination the way
atmosphere, bipartisanship prevailed.
another Great Society-style boondog-
proponents once hoped. But, like the
The idea of AmeriCorps is relatively
gle." Lawmakers cut funding in 1995,
president himself, it's at least sur-
simple. Young Americans agree to work
and some set out to kill it this year.
vived to get another chance.
for a year or two in programs attacking
But Sen. Grassley offered compro-
such social problems as drug abuse, low
mise. He would work with the Clin-
literacy rates or homelessness. While
ton administration to "reinvent" Ameri-
doing that, they get an allowance.
Corps. At that crucial juncture, the
At the end of their stint, they get a
administration decided to get out of
bigger reward: education stipends to
its defensive bunker, and to adapt.
help pay for college.
Perhaps no idea was more identi-
fied with candidate Bill Clinton in 1992.
AmeriCorps was to be the ultimate New
Democrat program, one in which Uncle
Sam didn't just hand out checks but
used government funds as a catalyst to
get young people to accept responsibility
for solving problems in their communi-
ties.
EDITORIAL
BY DAVID GERGEN
EDITOR AT LARGE
RENEWING THE CALL TO SERVICE
ust when it seemed that a long, chilling winter of
al service. With one hand, they negotiated changes in
cynicism and partisan bickering had descended
AmeriCorps demanded by Republicans, led by Sen.
upon American public life, a few sprigs of green
Charles Grassley of Iowa. In successful budget talks,
have popped up. A single flower doth not a springtime
Wofford even insisted on more spending for Points of
make, but the emerging story of what is occurring in
Light as he was accepting fewer funds for AmeriCorps.
the field of national service gives hope that perhaps
With the other hand, Wofford reached out to Bush
one after this election season?-we may find our
and Petersmeyer, enlisting their help in seeking new
way back to civility.
ways to expand volunteerism and full-time service.
The story has its roots in the time of George Bush.
Watch for more cooperation in coming months.
Disillusioned with the welfare state, the former presi-
If the presidential campaigns will now resist the temp-
dent came to believe that a vibrant spirit of volunteer-
tation to play politics with national service, this coming
ism might serve as a worthy replacement, so he
together could serve as a springboard for a dramatic,
launched his thousand Points of
much-needed breakthrough. Across
Light. Under the direction of an able
the country, one finds a huge, growing
assistant, Gregg Petersmeyer, the
hunger among Americans to find more
program could soon claim a string of
Answering the call,
meaning in life-through spirituality,
modest but inspiring successes across
as more and more
service or both. Many different groups
the country. As he was leaving office,
tap into that desire for service, from
Bush told his successor, Bill Clinton,
Americans are
federally run efforts such as VISTA
that he had only one personal re-
doing, could one
and the Retired and Senior Volunteer
quest: the preservation and strength-
Program (RSVP) to religiously in-
ening of Points of Light.
day bring the
spired ones such as the Jesuit and Lu-
Sadly, the Clinton team couldn't
national family
theran corps. On campuses, far more
have cared less. Instead, the new presi-
dent proposed his own, more expen-
closer together.
students are working in mental hospi-
tals, schools and soup kitchens than in
sive project a domestic Peace
the activist '60s, while older Americans
Corps-and his Democratic allies on
are also lining up as volunteers.
Capitol Hill began mocking the Bush
The problem is that the country
approach with a thousand points of
doesn't offer enough good opportuni-
ridicule. Silly, meaningless, a thinly disguised retreat
ties for those who want to serve full time for a year or
from government responsibility, they said of the Bush
more. The Peace Corps accepts only 1 out of 3 who
initiative. Not surprisingly, many Republicans took um-
apply, and Teach for America turns away 5 applicants
brage. And sure enough, by the time the Clinton initia-
for every 1 it accepts. Nor does our culture celebrate
tive called AmeriCorps-was up and running, the
service the way we should. In too many graduate ad-
GOP pummeled it with criticism. A thinly disguised
missions offices, a two-year stint on Wall Street counts
extension of the welfare state, sniffed Newt Gingrich.
far more than two years on an urban Main Street.
For a time this year, it appeared that both AmeriCorps
Wofford believes that America could "crack the
and the Points of Light Foundation might collapse.
atom" if we could link national service to a national
Enter Harris Wofford. A civil rights adviser to Presi-
strategy for addressing deep-seated social needs such as
dent Kennedy, an early leader of the Peace Corps and
better schools, curbing crime and drugs, and reducing
a former president of Bryn Mawr, Wofford was recov-
homelessness. "The trends of government downsizing
ering from a Senate election defeat when Clinton
and growing social problems make the work of volunteer
asked him to run the umbrella organization for all fed-
engagement more important than ever before," says
erally funded volunteer and service programs.
Wofford. He's right-just as George Bush was. If we
In past months, Wofford and his team set out to
elevate service to a more exalted place in our national
rescue AmeriCorps as well as Points of Light by re-
life, those answering the call could one day make Ameri-
building a foundation of bipartisan support for nation-
cans feel we all belong to the same family
again.
76
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT, MAY 20, 1996
THE NATION'S NEWSPAPER
USA
TODAY
R
NO. 1 IN THE USA
FIRST IN DAILY READERS
FRI./SAT./SUN.,
MAY 10-12, 1996
Clinton: Let's reward community
service
By Susan Page
community service programs.
gram funnels taxpayer money
munity service scholars."
USA TODAY
The proposal is a center-
to middle-class volunteers.
AmeriCorps would provide the
piece of an address on values,
Still, the initiative shows
money, which could total up to
President Clinton today will
the first of four speeches over
Clinton using the bully pulpit to
$10 million a year.
offer cash and prizes to get
the next month designed to out-
deliver on an idea without fac-
Urge every middle and
more high school and college
line Clinton's priorities in a sec-
ing filibuster by Congress.
high school to make communi-
students in community service.
ond term.
"We need a smaller govern-
ty service part of its curricu-
In a commencement ad-
The White House acknowl-
ment, but we also need a larger
lum. AmeriCorps will honor
dress at Penn State University,
edges that critics may label the
national spirit," he plans to say.
outstanding programs.
Clinton will challenge schools
plan an election-year gimmick,
In the speech, he will:
Call on colleges to place
and communities to expand,
and some Republicans already
Offer to match $500
work-study students in commu-
recognize and even require
complain the AmeriCorps pro-
awards for high school "com-
nity service jobs.
MetropolitanTimes
MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1996
The Washington Times
IF I HAD A HAMMER
Photo by Ross D Franklin The Washington Times
AmeriCorps volunteer Yolanda Courtney (right) talks with resident Blanche Easley at a news conference marking the renovations of the Arthur Capper Apartments.
AmeriCorps' kids rescue run-down housing / 4
OF THE NEWS
MARYLAND
LIFE TIMES
For some,
Home-schooling numbers
rise dramatically / 5
Reviving
no funds for
an artist's
a funeral / 3
Divisive Senate race
won't cool down / 6
acclaim/ 8
Carol Broderson with her husband's art
Cover Story
AmeriCorps to the rescue
Workers
spruce up
seniors
complex
By Lisa Nevans
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
rom her wheel-
F
chair in her L-
shaped studio
apartm ent,
Blanche Easley
points out a hole
the size of a folded
newspaper at the base of the
wall, partially covered by a patch
of dinosaur-bedecked wallpaper.
"There's holes in the closet
door, and in the kitchen by the
stove," Miss Easley, 77, says as a
cockroach ambles along one
dingy, gray wall. "I've been here
15 years, and it's been about
seven years since it was last
fixed up."
Even as she speaks, three
young women dressed in navy
blue paint-stained overalls and
Photos by Ross D Franklin The Washington Times
gray T-shirts spread a plastic
drop cloth over the coffee table,
Sjana Venson, an AmeriCorps volunteer, paints a hallway in the Arthur Capper Apartments as resident John F. Brown walks by.
which they've moved to the mid-
dle of the room.
They are AmeriCorps mem-
The national
bers, part of a team of young peo-
ple who have been working since
January to renovate the decrepit
service program has
Arthur Capper Apartments in
Southeast, a public housing com-
been at the center of
plex for low-income seniors and
handicapped people that is now
in receivership.
a storm in Congress.
The corps members, ages 18
to 24, will drywall, spackle, paint
ment bureaucracy that spends
and exterminate roaches in Miss
some $18,000 or more in tax-
Easley's third-floor apartment,
payer money per "volunteer"
as they have done at some 210
each year, for work that could be
others in the 297-unit building.
done by private charities. They
Beyond renovating the building
also have criticized poor ac-
and cleaning up from decades of
counting practices at the pro-
government neglect, corps
gram's parent agency.
members from across the coun-
Mr. Wofford, chief executive
try and the elderly residents say
officer of the agency that over-
they are building trust and learn-
sees the program, likens it to the
ing from one another.
Peace Corps. He says corps
"The residents are fun to talk
members earn $7,800 for a year
to, 'cause they've lived whole
of service, as well as a $4,725
lives. They don't have any epic
stipend at the end that can only
stories, but it's just life, you know,
be applied to education ex-
real life," said Chris Fox, 18, a
penses. The $18,000 figure in-
recent high school graduate who
cludes supplies, equipment and
grew up on a farm in upstate
New York.
other support expenses.
So far, the GOP has failed to
But they are concerned that
their hard work will be for
do more than slice AmeriCorps
by 15 percent for fiscal 1996.
naught, if the building is allowed
to fall into disrepair again after
At a news conference on the renovations at Capper are (from left) Melinda Blois of Boston, Tara King
Meanwhile, 73 corps mem-
they help bring it back up to
and Amy Mowatt of Lafayette. Ind., Bridget Thuente of St. Paul, Minn., and Debbie Bassen of Seattle.
bers - who include high school
code.
and college graduates, college
cratic Sen. Harris Wofford de-
dent Clinton's national service
AmeriCorps has been at the
Some Republicans have
students and high school drop-
scribes as a "storm" in Congress,
center of what former Demo-
program for elimination and the
vowed to gut the program, which
outs - have spearheaded a top-
as Republicans targeted Presi-
president fought to save it.
they see as another big-govern-
to-bottom renovation at the
C4
MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1996
METROPOLITAN TIMES
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Cover Story
"
The residents are fun to talk to, cause
they've lived whole lives. They don't
have any epic stories, but it's just life,
you know, real life."
Chris Fox, 18
eight-story brick apartments
just blocks from the Capitol. Five
of their colleagues, who are as-
signed to do landscaping at the
National Arboretum, have spent
two weeks weeding, planting
trees and flowers, and otherwise
sprucing up the outside.
Residents rave about the
corps members and the work
they've done to transform grimy,
water-spotted hallways and
apartment walls to bright and
sparkling. But the relationship
wasn't always so friendly.
At first, residents were skep-
tical and felt having a group of
young people they knew nothing
about come into their homes was
an invasion of privacy, said Wal-
ter Oliphant, 66, president of the
resident council.
"They thought, "These kids,
they're not goil.g to do it right,
they ain't been trained right,'
Mr. Oliphant said.
So the corps members started
work on the common areas on
the first floor, instead of in apart-
ments. Residents saw that, de-
spite their lack of expertise as
professional painters, the youths
did a thorough - and enthusias-
tic job.
"They come to work and they
work, they don't sit on their butts
and play," said resident Joan
Buie. "You can count on them. If
they say they're going to do the
third floor and be done at 12
o'clock, they'll be done at 12
o'clock."
The youths may be part of a
government program, but what
they've experienced so far has
not necessarily made them fans
of government. Because the
buildings were allowed to fall
Photo by Ross D. Franklin The Washington Times
into dramatic disrepair in the
Melinda Blois sands down spackling in one of the apartments.
past, they wonder what will hap-
pen after they leave.
"These apartments need
to renovate every crumbling
paint have found apartments
more than just paint," said Shan-
public housing complex in the
without working ovens or sinks.
non Wuitschick, 23, a University
District.
For more than a month, they
of Oregon graduate who ma-
Mr. Gilmore has initiated a
have pushed city housing offi-
jored in political science. "They
six-month maintenance plan for
cials to install a sink in one apart-
need exterminating, there are
every public housing building
ment that was left essentially
plumbing problems, they need
once it has been renovated, as
without running water.
new screens on the air condition-
part of his report to the court on
Kate Becker, coordinator of
ing. And it's not happening till
how he will turn around the trou-
education and training for Amer-
Secretary Cisneros comes."
bled agency.
iCorps' National Civilian Com-
Henry Cisneros, secretary of
By January, Housing Author-
munity Corps, said she learned
housing and urban development,
ity workers should perform the
of the issue Tuesday and called
toured the complex last week
first of the twice-yearly main-
the Housing Authority the next
with Mr. Wofford and D.C. Hous-
tenance checkups at Arthur Cap-
day. They were hoping to install
ing Authority Receiver David
per Apartments to ensure the
a sink by the end of the week, she
Gilmore, who took over the
building stays up to code, said
said.
agency last July.
Arthur Jones, the authority's
"Their supervisors have been
A spokesman for the D.C.
spokesman.
told when they are in the units
Housing Authority said the
"It's easy for me to say we're
and see things of that nature to
building would have been ren-
going to do that, but that's part of
let us know," Mr. Jones said. "If
ovated within about eight
our commitment: We have to be
someone needed a new sink,
months even without Ameri-
the judge," Mr. Jones said.
we'd certainly have a new sink
Corps under Mr. Gilmore's plan
Students who have gone in to
for her."
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
METROPOLITAN TIMES MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1996 C5
Commentary
THE PROVIDENCE
JOURNAL-BULLETIN
B4
TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 1996
- Editorials -
Alleluia, AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps lives on. That Is good news
Corps members educate children on the haz-
for southern New England. The central pro-
ards of drugs. But there are environmental
gram administered by the Corporation for
and human service activities as well. For in-
National Service, AmeriCorps organizes
stance, volunteers renovated a Salvation
thousands of volunteers to work in their
Army day care center in South Providence.
communities in return for modest pay and
Other states are copying Rhode Island's
help with their college tuition.
earlier decision to register the state commis-
Massachusetts has nearly 900 Ameri-
sion as a nonprofit organization. This shel-
Corps members. Rhode Island has 250.
ters the commission, now directed by David
Earlier slated for destruction by con-
Karoff, from some of the pressures of local
gressional budget cutters, AmeriCorps re-
politics.
ceived a reprieve: It was included in the om-
Set up two years ago at the urging of Bill
nibus spending bill that Congress has just
Clinton, AmeriCorps was regarded as the
President's pride and joy. That close associa-
tion had made the program a target for elim-
In its third year, it will be
ination in the more partisan Republican
able to establish deeper roots.
quarters. Yet the program enjoys bipartisan
support. Governors William Weld, of Massa-
passed. And its budget next year has been
chusetts, John Engler, of Michigan, and Pete
cut only 15 percent, to $401 million.
Wilson, of California - Republicans all -
are strong backers of the program.
AmeriCorps serves as a kind of a domes-
In any event, AmeriCorps's style of solv-
tic Peace Corps at a time when the idea of
ing problems really should appeal to conser-
community service by young people has
vatives. Its volunteers do not work for a
grown quaint and government programs
growing federal bureaucracy but go directly
purporting to do good have become suspect.
to local institutions needing their labor. In-
It would be somewhat misleading to call it a
deed, AmeriCorps has received lukewarm
program - rather it participates in hun-
support from the liberal left, which favors
dreds of programs, ranging from the well-
known City Year to Parents Making a Dif-
direct cash grants to the needy.
ference, a consortlum that enhances paren-
Critics question whether any people
tal participation in Providence public
who are paid for their work can truly be
schools.
called public service volunteers. However,
note that pay in AmeriCorps is meager. In
Rhode Island received more than $4 mil-
return for two years of effort, the volunteers
lion in federal money this year, evidently the
receive $125 a week plus a $4,625 college
highest per-capita grant of any state. Massa-
scholarship. (Every college in Rhode Island
chusetts also did well in those terms, with a
has agreed to match the government grant.)
$13 million federal grant.
AmeriCorps activities tend to have a
Harris Wofford, a former Democratic
multipller effect, by attracting volunteers
senator from Pennsylvania who now heads
from the community who contribute addi-
the Corporation for National Service, visited
tional time, sweat - and sometimes even
our area recently to tout the program. How-
money - to various projects. And the pro-
ever, he was preaching to the converted.
gram has managed to match the federal con-
Grants awarded by Rhode Island's Com-
tributions with money from private founda.
mission for National and Community Ser-
tions and corporations.
vice focus on education. Its participants
As AmeriCorps enters its third year, it
serve as teachers' assistants in public
will be able to establish deeper roots. Our re-
schools. They tutor students after school. In
gion should be pleased indeed to have this
Pawtucket and Central Falls, 22 Ameri-
worthy program continue.
BusinessWeek
Government
COMMUNITY SERVICE
submit proposals-with goals and con-
crete ways to measure success-and
state boards pick the winners.
Besides, business is already intimate-
ly involved in the program. By law, non-
A SOCIAL PROGRAM
government sources-usually businesses
-must pay at least 25% of operational
costs and 15% of the $7,200 stipend each
AmeriCorps member gets for a year of
CEOs WANT TO SAVE
service. Participants also get a $4,725
education grant at the end of service.
Says Eli J. Segal. the former exec who
AmeriCorps has the passionate support of even GOP execs
heads AmeriCorps: "This translates into
the kind of business buy-in that other
t's not like Erie
federal programs have
Chapman to defend
not had."
a federal do-gooder
MORE BANG. CEOS par-
program. After all.
ticularly like the way
he's a CEO, a loyal Re-
AmeriCorps pool of
publican. and a fund-
full-time. community-
raiser for House Budget
service workers allows
Committee Chairman
them to leverage their
John Kasich (R-Ohio),
own charitable efforts.
leader of the GOP bud-
Timberland Co., for ex-
get-cutting effort. Yet
ample, says AmeriCorps
the head of Columbus-
participation was key to
based U.S. Health Corp.
its five-year pledge of
says Kasich is wrong to
$5 million in cash and
target President Clin-
equipment to City Year;
ton's national service
whose youths nation-
program, AmeriCorps,
wide are dressed in
for extinction.
Timberland outfits. "As
U.S. Health has
the program gets big-
pledged $150,000 over
ger, our investment
three years to City
TUTORING IN NEWTLAND: Atlanta's Home Depot is giving $125,000
goes further." explains
Year, a nonprofit that
Ken Freitas, vice-presi-
sends AmeriCorps members to work at
rate America: BellSouth, Microsoft.
dent for community enterprise.
community projects in Columbus and
NationsBank. Procter & Gamble. and
To save AmeriCorps from the GOP
five other cities nationwide. Chapman
American Express-to name a few.
budget scalpel. corporate chiefs rang-
argues that AmeriCorps will recoup
It's no accident that execs find the
ing from Shell Oil's Philip J. Carroll to
more than its $376 million cost this year
project appealing. Unlike most bureau-
Anheuser-Busch's August A. Busch III
by giving youths skills to become pro-
cratic social programs. AmeriCorps tries
have written letters to Capitol Hill law-
ductive adults. He has even protested
to operate like a business. It's run by a
makers. Tenneco Gas's Steve Chesebro
the planned cuts at a Washington press
nonprofit company-the Corporation for
not only sent letters to his two Repub-
conference and congressional hearing.
National Service-rather than a federal
lican senators-Texans Phil Gramm and
"It's tragic to cut these programs," he
agency. Moreover, the process of choos-
Kay Bailey Hutchison-but lobbied oth-
says. "Why shoot a bunch of innocent
ing the 350 service programs that are
er Houston CEOS to kick in money for
kids just to get at the President?"
assigned to AmeriCorps participants is
the local AmeriCorps program. "We
CALLS AND LETTERS. Chapman has plen-
competitive. Thousands of local groups
didn't say that we liked big government
ty of company among
or that government
execs lobbying their Re-
AMERICORPS' CORPORATE FRIENDS
should take care of this
publican pols to save
through handouts." he
Clinton's pet program.
Corporate America has been a big backer of programs using
says. "We have seen
Since AmeriCorps' crea-
AmeriCorps members. Among the supporters:
that this is productive
tion by Congress in
GENERAL ELECTRIC Contributed $250,000 to 11 United Way
and proven."
1993, corporations have
chapters for projects, including literacy training and food pantries.
Home Depot CEO
ponied up cash, equip-
Bernard Marcus has
ment, and employee vol-
TENNECO GAS Has given $35,000, plus printing and accounting
written to two dozen
unteers to help 20,000
services, to Serve Houston Youth Corps, an AmeriCorps affiliate.
lawmakers. including
young adults aged 18 to
NIKE Promised $150,000 for programs in six cities to set up fitness-
House Speaker Newt
25 perform services that
Gingrich. who repre-
range from rehabbing
oriented projects, such as sports leagues and renovating playgrounds.
sents a district in the
low-income housing to
FANNIE MAE Gave $100,000 to three housing groups to train Ameri-
company's home state
ANN STATES/SABA
cleaning up rivers. A
Corps members to counsel low-income renters on homeownership.
of Georgia. One of
list of donors reads like
Home Depot's favorite
DATA: AMERICORPS
a who's who of Corpo-
programs is Hands-On
120 BUSINESS WEEK / JUNE 19 1995
Atlanta, a clearinghouse for volunteers.
The company had already given $10,000
a year to the group, but with Ameri-
Corps involvement, Home Depot has
expanded its support by $125,000 over
three years. Now, 65 AmeriCorps mem-
bers are aides in three urban schools—
a program not possible with the non-
profit group's part-time volunteers. Why
is Home Depot so interested? "We need
people to hire," says Suzanne Apple, di-
rector of community affairs. "This pro-
gram will help build self-sufficiency, self-
esteem, and the leaders of tomorrow."
One of those future leaders may be
27-year-old Paul P. Promadhat, a com-
puter aide in a Harlem elementary
school. As part of his AmeriCorps-
backed training, he works at Project
First, a program designed by IBM and
the nonprofit Public Education Fund
Network. Big Blue gives $100,000 in
computers and cash and provides retir-
ees to train aides. When his Ameri-
Corps stint ends in July, Promadhat
hopes the school system will hire him
full time as a computer troubleshooter.
"This gave me an opportunity to do
something I believe in," he says.
OUT FOR BLOOD? So far, such testimoni-
als haven't moved Republicans, who
seem bent on destroying the Clinton pro-
gram. There may be more than money at
stake: Killing AmeriCorps would yield
under 1% of the more than $1 trillion
in savings the GOP needs to balance the
budget by 2002, but it would be a big
slap at the President. Budget Chairman
Kasich denies that the GOP attacks are
aimed at Clinton. "It's a matter of policy,
not politics," he says. "The AmeriCorps
program is expensive, inefficient, and
top-heavy with bureaucracy."
AmeriCorps' opponents argue that
young people should volunteer for com-
munity service without getting stipends
and that the program's per-member cost
is an inefficient $30,000. "When we're
cutting basic welfare to the poor, Medi-
care, and Head Start, you can't sustain
the argument for funding AmeriCorps,"
says John P. Walters, president of the
New Citizenship Project, a conserva-
tive policy group.
AmeriCorps officials say the program
costs closer to $18,000 per member-
about 33,000 youths are expected to
take part next year at a federal cost of
$575 million. And a new study by pro-
fessors at the universities of Michigan
and Iowa finds that each dollar spent on
the program reaps $2.60 in reduced wel-
fare costs, increased earnings, and other
benefits. With returns like that, many
CEOS aren't ready to throw in the towel.
So this may yet be one do-gooder pro-
gram the Republicans spare.
By Susan B. Garland in Washing-
ton, with Mary Beth Regan
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997
(dollars in thousands)
1994
1995
1995 Revised
1996
1997
Difference:
% Difference:
Activity
Enacted
Enacted
Due to Rescission
Conference
Request
1997-1996
1997-1996
National and Community Service Act (NCSA):
National Service Trust
$93,250
$145,900
$115,070
$59,000
$129,096
$70,096
118.81%
AmeriCorps Grants
155,500
250,000
219,000
215,000
260,963
45,963
21.38%
Innovation, Assistance, and Other Activities
31,900
60,200
30,000
30,000
37,375
7,375
24.58%
Audits and Evaluations
4,600
7,000
5,500
5,000
6,644
1,644
32.88%
National Civilian Community Corps
10,000
26,000
18,000
18,000
22,300
4,300
23.89%
Learn and Serve America: K-12 and Higher Ed
40,000
50,000
46,000
43,000
52,725
9,725
22.62%
Program Administration/State Commissions
24,750
29,400
28,712
25,000
28,446
3,446
13.78%
Points of Light Foundation
5,000
6,500
5,830
5,500
6,000
500
9.09%
=====
=====
=====
=====
=====
Subtotal, NCSA
$365,000
$575,000
$468,112
$400,500
$543,549
$143,049
35.72%
Inspector General
944
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,125
125
6.25%
TOTAL, NCSA
$365,944
$577,000
$470,112
$402,500
$545,674
$143,174
35.57%
Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA):
Volunteers in Service to America
VISTA
$37,715
$42,676
$42,676
$41,385
$46,500
$5,115
12.36%
VISTA Literacy Corps
5,009
5,024
5,024
0
5,100
5,100
na
=====
Subtotal, VISTA
42,724
47,700
47,700
41,385
51,600
10,215
24,68%
National Senior Service Corps
Retired and Senior Volunteer Program
34,388
35,708
35,708
34,949
37,708
2,759
7.89%
Foster Grandparent Program
66,117
67,812
67,812
62,237
72,812
10,575
16.99%
Senior Companion Program
29,773
31,244
31,244
31,155
34,244
3,089
9.91%
Senior Demonstration Program
0
1,000
1,000
0
0
0
na
=====
=====
Subtotal, Senior Programs
130,278
135,764
135,764
128,341
144,764
16,423
12.80%
Program Administration
31,151
31,160
31,160
28,667
29,745
1,078
3.76%
Subtotal, DVSA
$204,153
$214,624
$214,624
$198,393
$226,109
$27,716
13.97%
TOTAL, CORPORATION
$570,097
$791,624
$684,736
$600,893
$771,783
$170,890
28.44%
Note: 1996 excludes Corporation portion of governmentwide reduction of $500 million.:pg
05/01/96 08:09 AM
MEMORANDUM
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
To:
National Service Colleagues
SERVICE
From:
Harris Wofford
RE:
AmeriCorps Plan
Date:
May 6, 1996
We have placed a high priority on strengthening the bipartisan base for national service. This includes
responding effectively to issues raised by Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. It has been clear for
months that the cost per AmeriCorps Member is a key concern for many in Congress. It is equally clear that
if we are to expand national service successfully, we will have to find a way to deliver AmeriCorps for less
money, while maintaining the high quality that has marked AmeriCorps from the start.
We were delighted when, last week, Congress voted to fund AmeriCorps for the 1996-97 program year at a level
that will support 25,000 Members. In our struggle to secure funding, many of our best friends and allies played key roles.
And, due to the progress we made already in improving AmeriCorps, as well as our commitment to put forward goals and
timetables for reducing the costs of the AmeriCorps*State/National programs, Senator Grassley- a tough critic- publicly
stated his support for the continuation of the program and joined in supporting the $400 million level of funding approved
by Congress.
We now face the challenge of setting and meeting those goals and timetables. This memo lays out the
goals and timetables to get the job done, as well as proposed policy changes that are intended to help programs
lower their costs while maintaining quality. We are eager to get your thoughts on these proposed policy
changes, information on how your program has reduced costs and any additional suggestions you may wish to
offer.
Goals and Timetables
For program year 1997-1998: Reduce AmeriCorps budgeted average cost to $17,000 per Member
For program year 1998-1999: Reduce AmeriCorps budgeted average cost to $16,000 per Member
For program year 1999-2000: Reduce AmeriCorps budgeted average cost to $15,000 per Member
These figures would be indexed for inflation and include all Corporation (but not necessarily all federal) costs:
- the education award ($4,725 fixed cost);
- Corporation share of living allowance and benefits (in FY '95, $6,900 for state programs);
- grant for program support (in FY '95, $5,500 for state programs); and
- state commission and Corporation administration, training, recruitment, etc. That is directly attributable to
AmeriCorps' State / National (in FY '95, approx. $2,000).
These numbers also assume that there will be funds appropriated to support no fewer than
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
25,000 AmeriCorps Members; if that number drops, the cost per Member will increase.
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
Memorandum from Harris Wofford - May 6, 1996
AmeriCorps Plan
Page 2
Policy Changes
The goals will require significant changes in some AmeriCorps programs. Programs will need to
find additional sources of funding. However, it is also possible to achieve savings through restructuring. We
are currently developing a technical assistance plan to help programs identify ways to make cost-effective
improvements, and we will look to each State Commission to provide leadership for their programs to meet
the goals.
This change could be implemented by changing the system of providing AmeriCorps grants from one
in which each program negotiates each line item with Corporation staff to a fixed grant system. Through this
system, each program would receive, for each full-time equivalent Member, a grant in a set amount (for
example, in program year 1997-1998, the grant might equal $10,000). The grant would cover a share of the
Member support and program support costs of the program, with the remainder to be raised by the program.
This system could be implemented without statutory amendment, but the current matching requirements
would then still apply; ultimately, the statute could be amended to eliminate the match in order to provide
programs maximum flexibility in obtaining additional sources of funding. A single fixed grant amount could
either apply to all programs or different levels could be set to apply to different types of programs. Alterna-
tively, a "hardship" fund could be established to provide modest additional resources to programs that would
be hardest hit by the changes.
Another way State Commissions may choose to meet these goals is to introduce or expand the
offering of education awards— without funds for living allowances and with or without modest funds for
program support- to those sponsoring organizations with the means to provide such support without Corpo-
ration funding. We will soon send you a working paper on some of these approaches.
Additional policy changes might include:
Making multiple year grants to programs that have successfully operated for at least a year.
Clarification of rules regarding fundraising.
Waiving the minimum living allowance (on a case-by-case basis as provided by statute) for
programs that provide at least $150 a week living allowance but operate less than 52 weeks
per year.
Reviewing and streamlining reporting requirements.
Please forward your comments and suggestions to Terry Russell, General Counsel, by May 15, 1996.
March 12, 1996
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
SERVICE
135 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510-1501
Dear
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1996, and for the special concern for
AmeriCorps you have shown during the last year. I have appreciated our talks and the
constructive spirit with which you have worked with me, as you say, not to terminate but to
improve AmeriCorps. Working together with you and your colleagues in Congress, I'm
convinced we can make it a program in which all Americans - Republicans as well as
Democrats -- take pride. I look forward to your being a partner in that effort, just as you are
with the senior programs of the National Senior Service Corps which the Corporation also
administers.
I also appreciate the emphasis you put on fulfilling President Clinton's original vision of
helping young people to pay for college by serving their communities. I would add my own
emphasis that this principle of reciprocity, like the G.I. bill's investment in veterans' education
after their national military service, is a longstanding ground for bipartisan agreement. As one
who paid for college through the G.I. bill after World War II service in the Air Force, I was
a beneficiary of that bipartisanship.
Though the Peace Corps was President Kennedy's favorite program and is his special
legacy, it earned -- and has maintained -- strong bipartisan support. The same is true of the
Points of Light initiative of President Bush, which is retained as part of our national service
legislation. As you well know, the National Service Trust Act of 1993, through which
AmeriCorps was created, built on the first National Service Act signed by President Bush in
1990. Under that Act's Commission on National and Community Service, the same kind of
grants to support full-time and part-time national service were made, albeit on a smaller scale.
And the National Civilian Community Corps (now a branch of AmeriCorps) was created in 1992
with support from both sides of the aisle and was also signed by President Bush. That
bipartisanship in Congress and nonpartisanship in the country is the key to the success of
national service and community volunteering, and it is my goal to reclaim that tradition, even
in this inevitably partisan political year. I welcome your help in doing this.
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page two
March 12, 1996
Turning to the particular points and proposals of your letter to me of February 9, 1996,
and your letter to President Clinton of August 29, 1995, I want to assure you again that I am
committed to achieve the cost and performance goals set by the President and Congress.
Specifically, I am committed to reducing costs per full-time AmeriCorps member. This will
enable more corpsmembers to serve and to get help to pay for college or job training. We will
also take steps to increase substantially the contributions to the programs by the private sector
and by all nonfederal sources. This will enable us to decrease the proportion of federal dollars
going into program support and administrative overhead.
And, as you know, I am especially interested in your proposal that AmeriCorps increase
the number of programs where the Corporation provides only educational awards. I believe that
approach can be undertaken in a way that will benefit many nonprofit service organizations,
enabling them to increase the numbers serving in their programs and enabling more of those
serving in their programs to go to college, pay off their student loans, or receive approved job
training through the educational awards.
I am immensely proud of what AmeriCorps members have accomplished throughout the
country -- from hauling garbage out of rivers to dramatically raising reading scores in
disadvantaged communities. Indeed, all Americans can be proud that so many young people
have committed themselves to improving their communities and serving their nation. Since
AmeriCorps began in the Fall of 1993, we have learned a great deal from experience and the
advice of friends and critics. We believe we now know how to make the program even better.
Let me report some of the steps we have been taking in recent months, which I think you
will find move AmeriCorps in the direction you favor. While I very much appreciate the
contributions made by your criticisms and proposals, I also want to underscore that these are
directions that I supported when I took this job. These directions, as you have noted, are also
consistent with President Clinton's original vision; and I am happy to report they are directions
that the Corporation, by its own trial and error process, has been quietly and diligently pursuing.
1. Reduce Member Costs
The Corporation has held itself out as a new kind of entity -- sensitive to the bottom line,
actively involved with our partners in the private and independent sectors, aggressively
promoting competition to achieve quality and economy. We are committed to producing the best
possible program at the lowest possible cost.
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page three
March 12, 1996
As you know, most start-up enterprises have high costs as investments are made in
infrastructure and system-building. Those costs come down as the investments pay off. The
Corporation for National Service has already reduced costs from our first year to now. Our
second year awards in the AmeriCorps state grant program represented an average real reduction
of about 7 percent per member when compared to first year costs, when accounting for inflation.
In the renewal process this third year, we are asking grantees whose grant costs exceed the
average to reduce their per full-time equivalent cost by 10 percent. We are also eliminating
funding for planning grants and for relocation costs for AmeriCorps members. Our goal is to
focus Corporation resources directly on corpsmember support, not on program overhead and
administrative costs. In addition, we have cut $7 million out of the Corporation's 1996
administrative budget -- $2 million in personnel and the rest in travel and other expenses.
Regarding the National Civilian Community Corps (AmeriCorps NCCC), our residential
CCC program, we have taken significant steps to reduce our first year per member start up cost.
We closed the Aberdeen, Maryland, Campus for a savings of $1 million. We reduced members'
living allowance from $8,000 to $6,000 this year, and plan to reduce it further to $4,000 in FY
1997. By consolidating functions and making other structural changes, we cut headquarters staff
by 25 percent, and plan additional cuts in campus staff of 30 percent next year.
2. Eliminate Grants to Federal Agencies
In response to concerns raised by Senator Bond and others, we have notified our federal
agency grantees that we will no longer provide grants to federal agencies. Local nonprofits who
had been affiliated with the federal agency programs will be free to apply for funding on their
own to support AmeriCorps members utilized by those nonprofits.
3. Continue to Enforce Prohibitions Against Lobbying
We have also addressed concerns raised by Senator Bond and Representative Hoekstra
by again requesting that state commissions and national direct grantees firmly remind
AmeriCorps sponsors of all prohibited service activities, including lobbying and partisan political
activities. In their renewal requests, programs must now delineate specific actions they will take
to ensure that members do not engage in improper political activities. Such actions could
include programs signing a certification, highlighting prohibitions in a member training manual,
and adding a clause to the member contract. The Corporation will continue to investigate, on
a priority basis, every allegation brought to our attention. It is important to note, however, that
fewer than two percent of AmeriCorps programs have been accused of such activities. The
Corporation has investigated every case brought to its attention and, in the case of ACORN
Housing, acted quickly to terminate the grantee for improper activities.
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page four
March 12, 1996
4. Decrease Reliance on Corporation Funding
As a group AmeriCorps programs exceeded goals for private sector fundraising, raising
more than $41 million last year. To further encourage such private sector partnerships, in the
1996-97 renewal documents the Corporation makes it clear that all AmeriCorps programs should
secure some funding from nongovernmental sources. We are also increasing the matching
requirement for program support for which grantees are responsible from 25 to 33 percent.
5. Increase "Education Award Only" Programs
As you have urged, we are developing a plan to expand substantially the number of
sponsors who receive no direct funding from the Corporation, but whose members receive
education awards from the National Service Trust. This arrangement may have special appeal
for religious organizations, higher education institutions, and other organizations with alternative
sources of funding. The Act authorizes such awards, and we have piloted a program providing
such awards on a competitive basis to the nation's governors. Expanding this program will
increase the Corporation's cooperation with the larger world of nonprofit service organizations.
6. Increased Collaboration with National Nonprofit Organizations
We are strengthening and increasing our collaboration with national nonprofit service
organizations. Working with such groups as Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
the American Red Cross, and with a growing number of religious service organizations such as
the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur and the National Council of Churches, members of
AmeriCorps and of other programs of the Corporation such as Learn and Serve America and
the Senior Corps are contributing directly to the strengthening and expansion of the independent
civic and service sector of our society. Our special partnership with the American Red Cross,
for instance, is enabling hundreds of Red Cross trained AmeriCorps members to respond on call
by the Red Cross to serve as team leaders in natural disasters such as the recent floods along the
Susquehanna River.
When I recently visited AmeriCorps teams working to help the 10,000 families hit by the
flood in Pennsylvania, Red Cross officers emphasized the vital role they were playing in helping
to utilize effectively more than 2,000 local volunteers. Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for
Humanity, turned from skeptic to enthusiast for the work of AmeriCorps members by seeing
how their dedicated service in Habitat projects multiplied the number of unpaid volunteers
effectively used and the number of houses built. We intend greater emphasis on such
partnerships.
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page five
March 12, 1996
7. Increase State Autonomy
From the beginning, the Corporation has been a partnership between the Federal
Government and the states. Consistent with this outlook, we have informed the governor-
appointed national service commissions in each state that if they have instituted appropriate peer
review processes, the Corporation will no longer review their formula grant selections. As the
states enhance their capacity, further devolution will occur.
8. Improve the Grant Review Process
As you know, Senator Bond has expressed interest in the Corporation's grant review
process. Our Inspector General has recently completed an examination of that process. While
concluding that the Corporation acted within its discretion in those few instances when it
awarded grants to lower ranked applicants at the expense of higher ranked applications, the
Inspector General also finds some areas where we could strengthen grant competitions. We are
currently reviewing the Inspector General's draft recommendations regarding the improvement
of the peer review process and plan to implement quickly those that are workable. We will keep
you informed of the steps we take. We have identified other ways to improve this critical
process as well, and will pilot test them during our next review of new grant proposals.
9. Expand Efforts in Evaluation
The Corporation has taken seriously its commitment to make evaluation a central
component of the management of AmeriCorps. The evaluation system we have in place provides
valuable information about the impact of the program and encourages individual sponsors to
track their efforts. As AmeriCorps matures, however, our evaluation needs will change, and
as it becomes larger and more decentralized, we will be increasingly constrained in our capacity
to monitor and evaluate. Among our goals are to develop evaluation systems that make
increasing use of our network of service programs and their expertise, and to encourage and
work in close coordination with private and independent sector efforts to evaluate service
programs.
10. Increase and Strengthen Unpaid Volunteers
George Romney called full-time national service and traditional unpaid community
volunteering "the twin engines" for civic action that pulling together could solve some of our
critical educational, environmental, and social problems. A few days before he died George
proposed that the Act itself, when reauthorized, should be named the "National Service and
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page six
March 12, 1996
Community Volunteering Act of 1996". I agreed with him to propose that change and other
changes emphasizing the role of AmeriCorps members as recruiters, organizers, and leaders of
part-time, unpaid volunteers. I assured him I would do everything in my power within the
present law to see that in AmeriCorps projects, high priority is given to such assignments.
Many of the best programs in which AmeriCorps members work already do just that,
multiplying the number of community volunteers and the things that get done by the two forces
working together. In addition to the examples already noted of volunteer generation in our work
with such large nonprofits as Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross, we are increasing the
number of projects in which AmeriCorps members organize and lead secondary school or
college volunteers in unpaid community service. We have now made this volunteer-generation
factor a priority in the 1997 competition for project renewals.
I should note that the AmeriCorps record in volunteer generation in its first year was
quite remarkable. In the fourth quarter, over three additional community volunteers were
recruited for every AmeriCorps member serving. From July 1, 1995, through September 30,
1995, it is estimated AmeriCorps members recruited at least 73,000 volunteers who contributed
over 700,000 hours of service to their communities, or an average of about ten hours for every
volunteer recruited. By further emphasizing this role we will increase the value added by each
AmeriCorps member and by each federal dollar invested in national service.
*
*
The President and the Congress intended that the Corporation for National Service evolve
to face changing situations with creativity, agility, and lack of bureaucracy. From the
beginning, we have been engaged in a process of continuous improvement to lower our costs,
to improve the ability of our partners to increase the share of costs they bear through
fundraising, to devolve responsibility to the states, to root ourselves squarely in the continuum
of service that runs from traditional volunteering to full-time service with living allowances and
education awards, and from school-based service to Senior Corps programs, to be nonpartisan
and firm in our policies against political advocacy, and to make our internal systems more
effective.
The items I have outlined above are some of the steps we are taking to achieve these
goals. These are steps we can take under the existing statute. These changes significantly
address concerns raised by our critics.
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page seven
March 12, 1996
You have proposed increasing the private sector or nonfederal match, and have suggested
a specific cap on costs per AmeriCorps member. As you know, this is a complex matter and
we want to consider carefully any unintended consequences that would adversely affect rural
areas and economically disadvantaged urban communities whose access to the private sector may
be limited, or affect the autonomy of local nonprofit organizations and youth service corps
supported in part by state or local governments. Nevertheless, I believe a further increase
in the match can be phased in, and per member Corporation costs can be further reduced and
limited, whether through a cap or other measures. I am committed to establishing measurable
goals for private sector and nonfederal match as well as per capita costs within the next 60 days.
In my Senate confirmation hearing, I said that I would put to leaders of major
corporations, foundations, and educational and nonprofit organizations the question: To what
extent can the private and independent institutions, including colleges and universities, and also
units of state and local government such as schools and police forces contribute more of the
resources and assume even more of the responsibility? I am pursuing that possibility actively
and will keep you up-to-date.
I am ready to sit down with you and other Members of Congress to consider all the
above and other -- ways to improve and strengthen the program. I look forward to such
discussions with you about legislative or administrative changes that can be accomplished to
move us further along the lines you and I and the President favor.
Sincerely,
Hami
Harris Wofford
Chief Executive Officer
REPLY To:
REPLY To:
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
103 FEDERAL COURTHOUSE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501
320 6TH STREET
(202) 224-3744
Sioux CITY, IA 51101-1244
TTY: (202) 224-4479
(712) 233-1860
e-mail:[email protected]
United States Senate
210 WATERLOO BUILDING
721 FEDERAL BUILDING
531 COMMERCIAL STREET
210 WALNUT STREET
WATERLOO, IA 50701-5497
DES MOINES. IA 50309-2140
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
(319) 232-6657
(515) 284-4890
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501
116 FEDERAL BUILDING
206 FEDERAL BUILDING
131 E. 4TH STREET
101 1ST STREET SE.
DAVENPORT, IA 52801-1513
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA 52401-1227
(319) 322-4331
(319) 363-6832
307 FEDERAL BUILDING
8 SOUTH 6TH STREET
February 9, 1996
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA 51501-4204
(712) 322-7103
The Honorable Harris Wofford
Chief Executive Officer
Corporation for National and
Community Service
1201 New York Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20525
Dear Mr. Wolford:
Harres
I am writing to follow-up on our recent meeting. I
appreciated the opportunity to have a frank discussion with you
about the Corporation for National and Community Service's (CNCS)
AmeriCorps program.
As I testified before the House Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities last year, I believe that AmeriCorps
must implement several reforms if the program is going to meet
the administration's own cost and performance goals. I stated
that if CNCS implemented such reforms, AmeriCorps would be on the
road to earning my support and that of other responsible critics.
I'm pleased that in public statements and in our private
discussions you have agreed that reforms must be brought to the
AmeriCorps program.
My August 29, 1995 letter to President Clinton outlined the
specific cost reforms that I believe should be put in place to
ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent effectively. They
include provisions which would ensure:
- Average total costs per full-time AmeriCorps participant
$17,000;
- 50% funding match from the private sector; and,
- Federal taxpayer dollars targeted to students rather than
federal, state and grantee administrative overhead and
support.
As I stated in my earlier testimony, I do not consider these
reforms definitive. For example, I appreciate the argument that
costs for extraordinary expenditures for supplies and equipment,
such as a Habitat for Humanity program, should be exempted from a
dollar cap. However, while there may be a need to sharpen
pencils on the specifics of these reforms, there should be no
Committee Assignments:
FINANCE
JUDICIARY
BUDGET
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
AGRICULTURE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING
question about the principles these reforms establish: lower
overall costs, a greater private sector investment, and
taxpayers' dollars directed at students.
Along with these cost-reduction reforms, my letter to the
President suggested two additional program changes:
- Eliminating funding to other federal agencies.
- Targeting AmeriCorps dollars to young people who are
attending college or accredited vocational programs.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) report stated that while
the average program cost was $26,654 per participant for 10
months of service, the average cost per federal AmeriCorps
program was over $31,000. Clearly, elimination of grants to
federal agencies would lower costs substantially.
In addition, the elimination of grants to federal agencies
has broad bipartisan support -- it was proposed in the amendment
offered by Senator Mikulski to restore funding for AmeriCorps.
It is clear that Congress does not view funding to other federal
agencies as an appropriate use of limited funds by CNCS.
President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that AmeriCorps
is about helping young people pay for college. Notwithstanding
these statements, AmeriCorps provides significant numbers of jobs
to individuals who will not be attending college or who graduated
from college several years ago. I would recommend that CNCS
consider careful targeting of scarce education dollars to assist
young people who will use the funds to attend college or
accredited vocational programs. For example, the program might
increase the number of grants that provide only educational
awards.
While I did not address this issue in my letter to President
Clinton, I would also encourage you to take immediate steps to
reform the CNCS grant-making process.
The Inspector General (IG) for CNCS will soon complete a
report on the grant-making process at CNCS that was done at the
request of Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) and myself. It is my
understanding that the IG report will suggest several reforms in
the grant-making process at CNCS. I would strongly recommend
that CNCS at a minimum implement all appropriate reforms
suggested by the IG.
In addition, I would ask that you consider having the IG
perform a continual audit of the CNCS grant-making process --
similar to that currently performed by the IG at the National
Science Foundation. These actions would go far in addressing the
concerns about the grants-making process at CNCS.
Lastly, I would ask that you give serious review to cost-
cutting in the National Civilian Community Corp (NCCC) program.
I have been told that the total costs of this program per
participant for CNCS and the Department of Defense are
excessively high.
I believe the reforms outlined in this letter would help
CNCS meet the goals intended by the administration when this
program was first proposed. These reforms are very much in
keeping with the spirit of Vice President Al Gore's National
Performance Review - - which I have strongly supported.
I am confident that we can work together during the coming
weeks to craft a meaningful and substantial reform package that
contains measurable performance goals. It is my strong desire to
see such a comprehensive reform package implemented because it
would both benefit students and ensure the taxpayers' money is
spent wisely.
If we could achieve agreement on which reforms should be
implemented, on a plan for implementation, and on measurable
performance goals, I would be pleased to voice my support for FY
1996 funding for AmeriCorps. In addition, I would support FY
1997 funding for AmeriCorps if progress is made in implementing
these reforms.
However, in order to determine what AmeriCorps funding might
be, I would encourage you to work with the administration to
provide Senator Bond, Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations
subcommittee, with recommendations of where program funding
within the subcommittee could be reduced to pay for CNCS
programs.
Sincerely,
Charles E.
Chuck Grassley Grassley
United States Senate
CC: President Bill Clinton
Senator Kit Bond
Senator Nancy Kassebaum
761
sive
remal
PHOTOCOPY
DRAFT
DRAFT (2:00 p.m.)
February 28, 1996
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
135 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510-1501
Dear Senator Grassley,
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1996, and for the special concern for
AmeriCorps you have shown during the last year. I have appreciated our talks and the
constructive spirit with which you have worked with me, as you say, not to terminate but to
improve AmeriCorps. Working together with you and your colleagues in Congress, I'm
convinced we can make it a program in which all Americans Republicans as well as
Democrats -- take pride. I look forward to your being a partner in that effort, just as you are
with the senior programs of the National Senior Service Corps which the Corporation also
administers.
I also appreciate the emphasis you put on fulfilling President Clinton's original vision of
helping young people to pay for college by serving their communities. I would add my own
emphasis that this principle of reciprocity, like the G.I. bill's investment in veterans' education
after their national military service, is a longstanding ground for bipartisan agreement. As one
who paid for college through the G.I. bill after World War II service in the Air Force, I was
a beneficiary of that bipartisanship.
Though the Peace Corps was President Kennedy's favorite program and is his special
legacy, it earned -- and has maintained - strong bipartisan support. The same is true of the
Points of Light initiative of President Bush, which is retained as part of our national service
legislation. As you well know, the National Service Trust Act of 1993, through which
AmeriCorps was created, built on the first National Service Act signed by President Bush in
1990. Under that Act's Commission on National and Community Service, the same kind of
grants to support full-time and part-time national service were made, albeit on a smaller scale.
And the National Civilian Community Corps (now a branch of AmeriCorps) was created in 1992
with support from both sides of the aisle and was also signed by President Bush. That
bipartisanship in Congress and nonpartisanship in the country is the key to the success of
national service and community volunteering, and it is my goal to reclaim that tradition, even
in this inevitably partisan political year. I welcome your help in doing this.
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page two
February 28, 1996
Turning to the particular points and proposals of your letter to me of February 9, 1996,
and your letter to President Clinton of August 29, 1995, I want to assure you again that I am
committed to achieve the cost and performance goals set by the President and Congress.
Specifically, I am committed to reducing costs per full-time AmeriCorps member. This will
enable more corpsmembers to serve and to get help to pay for college or job training. We will
also take steps to increase substantially the contributions to the programs by the private sector
and by all nonfederal sources. This will enable us to decrease the proportion of federal dollars
going into program support and administrative overhead.
And, as you know, I am especially interested in your proposal that AmeriCorps increase
the number of programs where the Corporation provides only educational awards. I believe that
approach can be undertaken in a way that will benefit many nonprofit service organizations,
enabling them to increase the numbers serving in their programs and enabling more of those
serving in their programs to go to college, pay off their student loans, or receive approved job
training through the educational awards.
Let me report some of the steps we have been taking in recent months, which I think you
will find move AmeriCorps in the direction you favor. While I very much appreciate the
contributions made by your criticisms and proposals, I also want to underscore that these are
directions that I supported when I took this job. These directions, as you have noted, are also
consistent with President Clinton's original vision; and I am happy to report they are directions
that the Corporation, by its own trial and error process, has been quietly and diligently pursuing.
1. Reduce Member Costs
The Corporation has held itself out as a new kind of entity -- sensitive to the bottom line,
actively involved with our partners in the private and independent sectors, aggressively
promoting competition to achieve quality and economy. We are committed to producing the best
possible program at the lowest possible cost.
As you know, most start-up enterprises have high costs as investments are made in
infrastructure and system-building. Those costs come down as the investments pay off. The
Corporation for National Service has already reduced costs from our first year to now. Our
second year awards in the AmeriCorps state grant program represented an average real reduction
of about 7 percent per member when compared to first year costs, when accounting for inflation.
In the renewal process this third year, we are asking grantees whose grant costs exceed the
average to reduce their per full-time equivalent cost by 10 percent. We are also eliminating
funding for planning grants and for relocation costs for AmeriCorps members. Our goal is to
focus Corporation resources directly on corpsmember support, not on program overhead and
administrative costs. In addition, we have cut $7 million out of the Corporation's 1996
administrative budget -- $2 million in personnel and the rest in travel and other expenses.
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page three
February 28, 1996
Regarding the National Civilian Community Corps (AmeriCorps*NCCC), our residential
CCC program, we have taken significant steps to reduce our first year per member start up cost.
We closed the Aberdeen, Maryland, Campus for a savings of $1 million. We reduced members'
living allowance from $8,000 to $6,000 this year, and plan to reduce it further to $4,000 in FY
1997. By consolidating functions and making other structural changes, we cut headquarters staff
by 25 percent, and plan additional cuts in campus staff of 30 percent next year.
2. Eliminate Grants to Federal Agencies
In response to concerns raised by Senator Bond and others, we have notified our federal
agency grantees that we will no longer provide grants to federal agencies. Local nonprofits who
had been affiliated with the federal agency programs will be free to apply for funding on their
own to support AmeriCorps members utilized by those nonprofits.
3. Continue to Enforce Prohibitions Against Lobbying
We have also addressed concerns raised by Senator Bond and Representative Hoekstra
by again requesting that state commissions and national direct grantees firmly remind
AmeriCorps sponsors of all prohibited service activities, including lobbying and partisan political
activities. In their renewal requests, programs must now delineate specific actions they will take
to ensure that members do not engage in improper political activities. Such actions could
include programs signing a certification, highlighting prohibitions in a member training manual,
and adding a clause to the member contract. The Corporation will continue to investigate, on
a priority basis, every allegation brought to our attention. It is important to note, however, that
fewer than two percent of AmeriCorps programs have been accused of such activities. The
Corporation has investigated every case brought to its attention and, in the case of ACORN
Housing, acted quickly to terminate the grantee for improper activities.
4. Decrease Reliance on Corporation Funding
As a group AmeriCorps programs exceeded goals for private sector fundraising, raising
more than $41 million last year. To further encourage such private sector partnerships, in the
1996-97 renewal documents the Corporation makes it clear that all AmeriCorps programs should
secure some funding from nongovernmental sources. We are also increasing the matching
requirement for program support for which grantees are responsible from 25 to 33 percent.
5. Increase "Education Award Only" Programs
As you have urged, we are developing a plan to expand substantially the number of
sponsors who receive no direct funding from the Corporation, but whose members receive
education awards from the National Service Trust. This arrangement may have special appeal
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page four
February 28, 1996
for religious organizations, higher education institutions, and other organizations with alternative
sources of funding. The Act authorizes such awards, and we have piloted a program providing
such awards on a competitive basis to the nation's governors. Expanding this program will
increase the Corporation's cooperation with the larger world of nonprofit service organizations.
6. Increased Collaboration with National Nonprofit Organizations
We are strengthening and increasing our collaboration with national nonprofit service
organizations. Working with such groups as Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
the American Red Cross, and with a growing number of religious service organizations such as
the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur and the National Council of Churches, members of
AmeriCorps and of other programs of the Corporation such as Learn and Serve America and
the Senior Corps are contributing directly to the strengthening and expansion of the independent
civic and service sector of our society. Our special partnership with the American Red Cross,
for instance, is enabling hundreds of Red Cross trained AmeriCorps members to respond on call
by the Red Cross to serve as team leaders in natural disasters such as the recent floods along the
Susquehanna River.
When I recently visited AmeriCorps teams working to help the 10,000 families hit by the
flood in Pennsylvania, Red Cross officers emphasized the vital role they were playing in helping
to utilize effectively more than 2,000 local volunteers. Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for
Humanity, turned from skeptic to enthusiast for the work of AmeriCorps members by seeing
how their dedicated service in Habitat projects multiplied the number of unpaid volunteers
effectively used and the number of houses built. We intend greater emphasis on such
partnerships.
7. Increase State Autonomy
From the beginning, the Corporation has been a partnership between the Federal
Government and the states. Consistent with this outlook, we have informed the governor-
appointed national service commissions in each state that if they have instituted appropriate peer
review processes, the Corporation will no longer review their formula grant selections. As the
states enhance their capacity, further devolution will occur.
8. Improve the Grant Review Process
As you know, Senator Bond has expressed interest in the Corporation's grant review
process. Our Inspector General has recently completed an examination of that process. While
concluding that the Corporation acted within its discretion in those few instances when it
awarded grants to lower ranked applicants at the expense of higher ranked applications, the
Inspector General also finds some areas where we could strengthen grant competitions. We are
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page five
February 28, 1996
currently reviewing the Inspector General's draft recommendations regarding the improvement
of the peer review process and plan to implement quickly those that are workable. We will keep
you informed of the steps we take. We have identified other ways to improve this critical
process as well, and will pilot test them during our next review of new grant proposals.
9. Expand Efforts in Evaluation
The Corporation has taken seriously its commitment to make evaluation a central
component of the management of AmeriCorps. The evaluation system we have in place provides
valuable information about the impact of the program and encourages individual sponsors to
track their efforts. As AmeriCorps matures, however, our evaluation needs will change, and
as it becomes larger and more decentralized, we will be increasingly constrained in our capacity
to monitor and evaluate. Among our goals are to develop evaluation systems that make
increasing use of our network of service programs and their expertise, and to encourage and
work in close coordination with private and independent sector efforts to evaluate service
programs.
10. Increase and Strengthen Unpaid Volunteers
George Romney called full-time national service and traditional unpaid community
volunteering "the twin engines" for civic action that pulling together could solve some of our
critical educational, environmental, and social problems. A few days before he died George
proposed that the Act itself, when reauthorized, should be named the "National Service and
Community Volunteering Act of 1996". I agreed with him to propose that change and other
changes emphasizing the role of AmeriCorps members as recruiters, organizers, and leaders of
part-time, unpaid volunteers. I assured him I would do everything in my power within the
present law to see that in AmeriCorps projects, high priority is given to such assignments.
Many of the best programs in which AmeriCorps members work already do just that,
multiplying the number of community volunteers and the things that get done by the two forces
working together. In addition to the examples already noted of volunteer generation in our work
with such large nonprofits as Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross, we are increasing the
number of projects in which AmeriCorps members organize and lead secondary school or
college volunteers in unpaid community service. We have now made this volunteer-generation
factor a priority in the 1997 competition for project renewals.
I should note that the AmeriCorps record in volunteer generation in its first year was
quite remarkable. In the fourth quarter, over three additional community volunteers were
recruited for every AmeriCorps member serving. From July 1, 1995, through September 30,
1995, it is estimated AmeriCorps members recruited at least 73,000 volunteers who contributed
over 700,000 hours of service to their communities, or an average of about ten hours for every
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page six
February 28, 1996
volunteer recruited. By further emphasizing this role we will increase the value added by each
AmeriCorps member and by each federal dollar invested in national service.
* * *
The President and the Congress intended that the Corporation for National Service evolve
to face changing situations with creativity, agility, and lack of bureaucracy. From the
beginning, we have been engaged in a process of continuous improvement to lower our costs,
to improve the ability of our partners to increase the share of costs they bear through
fundraising, to devolve responsibility to the states, to root ourselves squarely in the continuum
of service that runs from traditional volunteering to full-time service with living allowances and
education awards, and from school-based service to Senior Corps programs, to be nonpartisan
and firm in our policies against political advocacy, and to make our internal systems more
effective.
The items I have outlined above are some of the steps we are taking to achieve these
goals. These are steps we can take under the existing statute. These changes significantly
address concerns raised by our critics. Further reform can occur during the reauthorization
process this spring and summer. That process, which I hope will begin soon, will be the
appropriate venue to determine other significant changes.
You have proposed increasing the private sector or nonfederal match, and have suggested
a specific cap on costs per AmeriCorps member. As you know, this is a complex matter and
we want to consider carefully any unintended consequences that would adversely affect rural
areas and economically disadvantaged urban communities whose access to the private sector may
be limited, or affect the autonomy of local nonprofit organizations and youth service corps
supported in part by state or local governments. Nevertheless, I believe an increase in the match
can be phased in, and per member Corporation costs can be further reduced and limited, whether
through a cap or other measures.
In my Senate confirmation hearing, I said that I would put to leaders of major
corporations, foundations, and educational and nonprofit organizations the question: To what
extent can the private and independent institutions, including colleges and universities, and also
units of state and local government such as schools and police forces contribute more of the
resources and assume even more of the responsibility? I am pursuing that possibility actively
and will keep you up-to-date.
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page seven
February 28, 1996
I am ready to sit down with you and other Members of Congress to consider all the
above -- and other -- ways to improve and strengthen the program.
I look forward to such
discussions with you about legislative or administrative changes that can be accomplished to
move us further along the lines you and I and the President favor.
So I hope very much you will work with Senator Bond and Senator Specter in the 1996
and 1997 appropriations process for AmeriCorps and other Corporation programs, and with
Senator Kassebaum and the Committee on Labor and Human Resources to reauthorize the
Corporation. Together I believe we can create a national service program in which we can all
be proud partners.
Sincerely,
Harris Wofford
Chief Executive Officer
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Shirley Sagawa
RE:
AmeriCorps Proposals
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
DATE:
February 28, 1996
SERVICE
Attached, for your consideration, are three documents:
1) Draft response to Senator Grassley's letter to the Corporation. We believe that Senator Grassley, our
most vocal critic, may be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we can work out a package of "reforms."
The letter is designed to lay out steps the Corporation has already taken that address his concerns. A
second round of letters might work to formalize a deal.
2) Memorandum outlining proposed long-term "reforms." Although we are very satisfied with the
quality and cost-effectiveness of AmeriCorps, we believe that steps should be taken to further reduce
costs, increase private sector involvement, simplify the program, and expand the number of
AmeriCorps Members. This memo suggests legislative reforms that move in these directions which
might be negotiated in the reauthorization bill or 1997 appropriations agreement.
3) Analysis of reform proposal. I prepared this analysis of the reform proposal for Harris. It may be
helpful to you in understanding the effects that the proposal, if implemented, would have on our
existing portfolio of programs.
Finally, not included in this package are a series of more minor and technical amendments that we would
like to propose. These will be provided to our OMB contact as soon as they are available, within the next
two weeks. Please note that several authorizing and appropriations committee hearings have been
scheduled for the Corporation over the next two months. We hope to be able to talk about the long-term
direction of the Corporation in our testimony, and therefore would like to reach consensus with you and
the President as soon as possible.
Distribution:
Alice Rivlin
Jack Lew
Ken Apfel
Melanne Verveer
Gene Sperling
CC:
Eli Segal
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) Reauthorization Issues
What should be the Administration's reauthorization strategy?
Preparc a formal reauthorization bill to send to the Hill.
Propose no changes.
Prepare broad principles for Hill negotiations.
"Inoculate" against Congressional opponents by proposing administrative reforms and
revisions based on experience over past two years and results of successful programs.
Regardless of the strategy, the goal is to preserve National Service while addressing major
criticisms (primarily cost per participant). Discussed below arc some cost-saving measures soine
of which can bc accomplished administratively, some of which require legislation.
Cap Participant Living Allowances at $100/weck,
Reduce the current CNCS portion of the weekly stipend of between $130-160 to $100.
Sponsoring programs may match up to that amount for a total of $200/week or more. Consider
exception an for up to 10-20% of programs, providing more than $100 per weck for unusual
circumstances. Legislation required.
Pros:
- Combats perception that compensation is too generous; adds an element of sacrifice.
- Similar to other programs (City Year, Catholic lay ministry) which provide stipends of
$100 pcr weck or less.
- Would greatly simplify and streamline CNCS grant negotiations.
Cons:
- Probably will lose middle class participants altering demographic mix in program.
- Requires additional funds from locals if they want to pay minimum wage. (Paying the
minimum wage is an organized labor concern and sometimes a State requirement.)
- Programs with highly skilled participants (Legal Corps, Public Allics) that provide
between $10K and $14K stipends must raisc morc money or drop out of the program.
Cap Federal Program Support (overhead) to $5,000 Per l'articipant.
Program support includes: travcl, uniforms, project materials, materials, training,
program staffing costs, overhead, and evaluation. Local programs could match dollar-for-dollar
up to an additional $5,000. Consider an exception for up to 10-20% of programs for unusual
situations. Can bc donc administratively.
Pros:
- Require more local buy-in by enlisting inore private sector, local, and state support
- Would greatly simplify and streamline CNCS grant negotiations.
Cons:
- Require a larger match and could lead to some programs dropping out.
- Problems in auditing match funds and in determining types of funds allowed for match.
- Support needs vary widcly based on program design, location, size, and demographics.
MHK U4'96 11:31 NO.004 P.U3
Increase to 25% the Proportion of Participants Receiving Only Education Awards.
The CNCS currently provides: 1) education awards only to nearly 700 participants, and 2)
some program support and the education award to an additional 2,800 participants. Most are
through the "Teach for America" program, with the rest through VISTA projects where local
sponsors provide the VISTA stipend and program support costs. Can be done administratively.
Pros:
- Large increase in participants with modest increase in costs ($4,725 vs $19,000).
- Infinite number of opportunities for creating education award only programs.
Cons:
- May be rewarding persons already engaged in "volunteer" service rather than
expanding the number of participants engaged in national service.
- Difficult to monitor and maintain CNCS high quality standards for its programs.
- Limited near-term cost savings; resource intensive to market to higher ed institutions,
States, and municipalities; will take several years to reach the 25% level.
- Greater potential for inequitable treatment among volunteers.
Eliminate the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC).
The NCCC was created as demonstration to assess: 1) whether residential service
programs administered by the Federal Government can increase support for national service and
2) whether former members of the military can provide guidance and training in such programs.
There have been approximately 865 participants in each of the past two years. Participants are
18-24 years old and serve full-time for 10-11 months. Change can be done administratively.
Pros:
- Eliminates an extremely costly program: 1996 NCCC participant costs arc estimated to
bc $25,428 without the educational award; 1997 will bc cut to $19,800 (without award).
- No clear federal role; many States already operating similar programs.
Cons:
- Losc ability for a Federal rapid volunteer response to disaster situations.
- High visibility, especially in disaster situations, brings good local press for the CNCS.
- Ties to military cnable the NCCC lo have access to DOD facilities and resources.
Eliminate the Federal Agency AmeriCords Programs.
The CNCS already has taken steps to climinate this program by notifying federal agency
grantees that the CNCS will no longer provide grants to federal agencies. This cutback was
initiated in response to cost and related concerns raised by Senator Bond and Senator Grassley.
In a letter sent to the President last fall, Senator Grassley suggested climinating the Federal
agency program. High cost programs have been a lightning rod for critics.
Make the CNCS Я Non-Governmental Entity.
In his confirmation testimony, Harris Wofford stated that it would be worthwhile to
consider making the CNCS more of a "trust of the American people, chartered by Congress, like
the American Red Cross, but not controlled by the government." Further work needed to
examine viability and legal ramifications. Legislation required.
Sondy
Juck Lew 2520EOB
Jack
Meloxne Usr keer 1000EOB
Brece Reed
Law 6 & The
Ken appel
395- 4742
Horris w
Shreey
2520EA
Corne
2:00 pm
Horris 6am
Verver
FPER
Melanne Verweer
gene
456-2620
Ken
Eli Segal
alice Rivlin
2520E013 want
Jach Lew
2520EOB Voeo
Memo
grandey
"Don't HEIDENTIAL have anyThing on
MEMORANDUM
mtg w/ Ponetts
Cal me if you have questions
TO:
Shirley Sagawa
Dan't
FROM:
David Rymph
(h) ) 703/758-9753
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
DATE:
March 8, 1996
Sec. 3.2(C) Initials: JGP Date: 1/16/20
2013-0661-F(2)
SUBJ:
Cost Analysis of AmeriCorps* State Programs
This memo reports on my analysis of AmeriCorps* States programs and their costs. Some
of the limitations and assumptions of the analysis are:
1.
The data come from combining the GARP data base (Jim Deloso) and the Grants
Office Budget data base, with some additional elements added from lists complied
by program officers (programs with individual placements, for example).
2.
There are some errors in these data that are the results of low maintenance of the
data bases. I have not had time to clean them up, but it should be done if any real
fine conclusions are needed.
3.
In general, the data are sound, however, and I use medians (the 50th percentile)
wherever possible to avoid the contamination of extremely and possibly erroneous
pull of outlyiers.
4.
I have not had a chance to check my own work, but I have talked it over with
others (Chuck and Lance) and have shown them some of the findings.
5.
This memo is being thrown together quickly and I apologize for any lack of
coherence and the many speeling errors.
RESULTS
Total Program Costs
The first set of findings come from an analysis of all AmeriCorps* State programs for
which there were data in the two data bases. There were 365 records or programs entered in the
data bases, but not all the data were available on any one variable. In the findings that follow, I
am reporting on median costs per FTE using the basic budget categories maintained in the Grants
Office data base. These are: total costs, member support costs (living allowance and benefits),
other member support (training and uniforms), staff costs, operating costs (travel, transportation,
supplies, equipment), internal evaluation, and administration. I also calculated the grantee and
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
corporation share of each cost component. The following findings are displayed in a series of pie
charts that are attached.
*
The median, total cost per FTE in AmeriCorps* State programs is 18,419. The
Corporation share is 64.5 percent and the grantee share is 35.5 percent.
*
The biggest components of this cost are member support, staff, and operating
costs.
--
Median FTE cost for member support is $ 9,842, with the Corporation
paying 72.5 percent and the grantees 27.5 percent.
--
Median FTE cost for staff is $ 4,675 with the Corporation paying 61.9
percent and the grantees 38.1 percent.
:
Median FTE cost for operating expenses is $ 1,852, Corporatin share at
46.9 percent and grantees 53.1 percent.
*
Minor components of cost are Other Member Support (training and uniforms)
median FTE cost 796, internal evaluation -- median FTE cost 213, and
administration.
*
These FTE median costs were plotted using a Tukey Box Analysis, shown on next
two pages, that show the following for total cost and each budget component:
--
The shaded box contains 50 percent of the programs.
--
The solid line inside the box is the median.
:
The top and bottom lines above each component mark the normative range
of costs for that component.
--
There are some cases that lie outside the range, but they are considered
outliers and extremes.
Interpreting the box analysis for the budget components provides these findings:
--
Fifty percent of all programs fall between $ 17,000 and $ 23,000 total
program costs per FTE. Almost all cases occur between $ 11,000 and
$31,000.
--
The greatest range, or variation in costs, is found in Staff and Operating
Costs. Their shaded boxes are taller and there is a greater distance
between the top and bottom lines of the range.
--
Very little variation is found in member support, other member costs,
evaluation, and administration.
Conclusion: These patterns suggest that the best opportunites to effect cost savings are in
the Staff and Operating budgets of our State programs.
CONFIDENTIAL
Distribution of Total Program Costs per FTE
AmeriCorps*State Programs
40000
35000
O B6
© 298
52
30000
25000
Cost per FTE
20000
15000
10000
8 200
5000
O 247
O 297
O 311
O 269
0
263
-5000
Total Cost
Office of Policy Research, 3/8/96
Distribution of FTE Costs within Budget Components
AmeriCorps*State Programs
15000
10000
Cost per FTE
5000
0
-5000
Member support
Staff-costs
Evaluation costs
Other Member Costs
Operating costs
Administration Costs
Office of Policy Research, 3/8/96
COMPLENTIAL
Relationship of Costs to Program Types
I next looked for differences in costs that derive from variations in the type of program. I
considered these issues: level of full-time members, individual placements, enrollment of at-risk
youth as members, geographic dispersion in local operating sites, and the four priority areas
education, environment, human needs, and public safety. These were the noticeable results:
*
There is no difference in cost between programs that have a majority full-time
members compared to a majority part-time members.
*
Programs with individual placements are approximately $ 400 per member
cheaper than programs without individual placements.
*
Programs that enroll at-risk youth cost $ 800 per member more than programs that
do not.
*
Geographic dispersion of programs has no impact on cost.
*
Environmental programs cost $ 1,600 more per member than programs not
working in that priortiy area. Those programs that only do environment and
nothing else cost $ 2,600 more per member than the median total fte cost for all
programs.
*
Education programs are $ 1,300 per member less than programs not in education.
*
Public safety programs are approx. $ 500 per member cheaper than those not in
public safety.
*
Those programs that exist primarily to do national service are $ 900 per member
more costly than programs with sponsors that have other, additional agendas.
Conclusion: There are major differences in the budgeted cost of programs depending on
the type of member (art-risk youth cost more), the programming approach (individual
placements cost less), and the subject matter (environmental programs are more costly,
while education and public safety programs are cheaper).
Costs in a Typical State Program
To look at what a "typical program" might cost, I selected a sub-set of the programs using
these criteria: a majority of members are full-time, the living allowance falls between the 10th and
90th percentile of all living allowances paid (these eliminates ed award only and high paying
programs), and they are not residential. These gave me a set of 189 programs with these results:
CONFIE
CONFIDENCE
CONFIDENTIAL
*
The median total FTE cost in the typical program is $ 18,410 compared to $ 18,
919 for all programs.
*
Median FTE Member support cost is $ 9,911, less than $ 100 more than that for
all programs.
*
The biggest difference in costs between the typical program and all programs are
found in Staff Costs -- $ 4,432 in the "typical" program and $ $ 4,675, or 243 per
member more, in all programs.
*
Comparisons between types of programming revealed these findings:
--
Education programs are $ 650 per member less expensive than those not
in education. Public safety programs are $ 800 per member cheaper than
programs with no public safety component.
--
Environmental programs are $ 1,200 per member more costly than those
programs with no environmental component.
--
Human needs programs are $ 600 per member more costly than those with
no human needs component.
:
Individual placements are $ 1,000 per member cheaper than not using
individual placements.
I
No difference in total cost per member is found between those programs
primarily existing to offer national service and those who have other.
additional missions.
--
Programs enrolling at-risk youth cost $ 700 more per member than those
that do not.
Conclusion: These findings mirror and reinforce the conclusions derived from the larger
universe of all State programs. There are major differences in the budgeted cost of
programs depending on the type of member (art-risk youth cost more), the programming
approach (individual placements cost less), and the subject matter (environmental
programs and human needs programs are more costly, while education and public safety
programs are cheaper).
Attachment
CC: Tracy Gray
CONFIDENTIAL
Gary Kowalczyk
-
TOTAL COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 18,919
Corporation share
64.5%
CC
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
35.5%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
A. MEMBER SUPPORT COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 9,842
Corporation Share
72.5%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee Share
27.5%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
B. OTHER MEMBER SUPPORT
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 796
Grantee Share
44.3%
CONFIDENTIAL
Corpation Share
55.7%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
C. STAFF
AmeriCorps State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 4,675
Grantee Share
38.1%
II
Corporation Share
61.9%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
D. OPERATING COST
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 1,852
CONFIDENTIAL
Corporation share
46.9%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
53.1%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
E. EVALUATION COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 213
Corporation share
56.1%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
THAT
43.9%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
CONFIDENTIAL
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
Shirley:
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Some words of encouragement on the notion of reducing the number of weeks in which Members finish
Sec. 3.2(C) Initials: JGP J Date: 1/16/20 2013-
the program. I got a run of the average actual weeks Members took to complete in 94-95, program by
program: For full timers, it was 47, and although the range was 21-60 weeks (yes, 21 weeks...), the
0661-F(2)
programs were generally clustered pretty tightly around 47-48 weeks.
We need to keep in mind that the Members will spend two to three weeks of their service year on
vacations and sick time, for which they will receive their "fellowship," but will not earn hours.
Thus, I think that the typical program now goes: Members serve for 47 weeks, and are paid therefore
about 170./wk, but earn hours during about 44 weeks, which requires them to work about 39 hours/week.
To reduce the overall service period to 44 weeks, Members would have to do earn their hours in probably
41 or 42 weeks, which would require them to work 41-42 hours/week. That part is, it seems, all good.
In fact, the only touchy part is that if programs are finishing in 47 weeks, most are not going to try to cap
pay at $150, which would mean reducing members' pay quite a bit, but rather, would want to keep it nearer
to where they currently are, about $170. That could eat into our savings.
To see how fast the Member weekly pay eats up our savings, consider these:
Member pay:
Over (wks):
CNS/wk
CNS/YR
CNS SAVINGS
Member
hrs/week¹
$150
44
$128
$5,610
$1,143
41
$160
44
$136
$5,984
$769
41
$170
44
$145
$6,358
$395
41
$180
44
$153
$6,732
$21
41
So we need to be very sensitive to the relationship between the weeks they serve and their pay, or we could
end up saving a lot less money than we hope.
Losing $20./week for the full-timers is a pretty significant chunk of change, it seems to me. Here are some
other models in which they'd lose a little less, work a little more:
Member pay:
Over (wks):
CNS/wk
CNS/YR
CNS SAVINGS
Member
hrs/week
$150
44
$128
$5,610
$1,143
41
$170
44
$145
$6,358
$395
41
$170
40
$145
$5,780
$973
45
$160
42
$136
$5,712
$1,041
43
The last example seems to be a nice compromise. At 43 hrs/wk they'd be working about 4 hours/wk more
than they did in 94-95, and earning $10. less. On the other hand, their service year would be done more
than a month sooner than it was in 94-95.
It seems like this is one of the best ways to reduce cost; we'll have to pay careful attention to the
implementation in order to achieve the savings and not demoralize the Members.
I'm at 202/966-7598.
I Calculated at 2.5 weeks less than the total service year, to account for vacation and sick leave.
CONFIDENTIAL
Shirley Sagawa
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
Date:
March 6, 1996
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Reauthorization Strategy
2013-0661-FCa) Sec. 3.2(C) Initials: JGP Date: 1/16/20
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
GANEIDENTIME
oom
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
CONFIDENTIAL
CONFIDENTIAL
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
CONFIDENTIAL
have anything on
mtg w/ Ponetts
MEMORANDUM
Calme if you have questions
TO:
Shirley Sagawa
FROM:
David Dan't Rymph
(h) 703/758-9753
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
DATE:
March 8, 1996
Sec. 3.2(C) Initials: JGP Date: 1/16/20
SUBJ:
Cost Analysis of AmeriCorps* State Programs
This memo reports on my analysis of AmeriCorps* States programs and their costs. Some
of the limitations and assumptions of the analysis are:
1.
The data come from combining the GARP data base (Jim Deloso) and the Grants
Office Budget data base, with some additional elements added from lists complied
by program officers (programs with individual placements, for example).
2.
There are some errors in these data that are the results of low maintenance of the
data bases. I have not had time to clean them up, but it should be done if any real
fine conclusions are needed.
3.
In general, the data are sound, however, and I use medians (the 50th percentile)
wherever possible to avoid the contamination of extremely and possibly erroneous
pull of outlyiers.
4.
I have not had a chance to check my own work, but I have talked it over with
others (Chuck and Lance) and have shown them some of the findings.
5.
This memo is being thrown together quickly and I apologize for any lack of
coherence and the many speeling errors.
RESULTS
Total Program Costs
The first set of findings come from an analysis of all AmeriCorps* State programs for
which there were data in the two data bases. There were 365 records or programs entered in the
data bases, but not all the data were available on any one variable. In the findings that follow, I
am reporting on median costs per FTE using the basic budget categories maintained in the Grants
Office data base. These are: total costs, member support costs (living allowance and benefits),
other member support (training and uniforms), staff costs, operating costs (travel, transportation,
supplies, equipment), internal evaluation, and administration. I also calculated the grantee and
CONFIDENTING
CONFIDENTIAL
corporation share of each cost component. The following findings are displayed in a series of pie
charts that are attached.
*
The median, total cost per FTE in AmeriCorps* State programs is $ 18,419. The
Corporation share is 64.5 percent and the grantee share is 35.5 percent.
*
The biggest components of this cost are member support, staff, and operating
costs.
--
Median FTE cost for member support is $ 9,842, with the Corporation
paying 72.5 percent and the grantees 27.5 percent.
--
Median FTE cost for staff is $ 4,675 with the Corporation paying 61.9
percent and the grantees 38.1 percent.
--
Median FTE cost for operating expenses is 1,852, Corporatin share at
46.9 percent and grantees 53.1 percent.
*
Minor components of cost are Other Member Support (training and uniforms)
median FTE cost $ 796, internal evaluation - median FTE cost 213, and
administration.
*
These FTE median costs were plotted using a Tukey Box Analysis, shown on next
two pages, that show the following for total cost and each budget component:
--
The shaded box contains 50 percent of the programs.
--
The solid line inside the box is the median.
---
The top and bottom lines above each component mark the normative range
of costs for that component.
--
There are some cases that lie outside the range, but they are considered
outliers and extremes.
Interpreting the box analysis for the budget components provides these findings:
--
Fifty percent of all programs fall between $ 17,000 and $ 23,000 total
program costs per FTE. Almost all cases occur between $ 11,000 and
$31,000.
--
The greatest range, or variation in costs, is found in Staff and Operating
Costs. Their shaded boxes are taller and there is a greater distance
between the top and bottom lines of the range.
--
Very little variation is found in member support, other member costs,
evaluation, and administration.
Conclusion: These patterns suggest that the best opportunites to effect cost savings are in
the Staff and Operating budgets of our State programs.
CONFIDENTIAL
Distribution of Total Program Costs per FTE
AmeriCorps*State Programs
40000
35000
O B6
@ 298
52
30000
25000
Cost per FTE
20000
15000
10000
8300
5000
247
297
311
269
0
263
-5000
Total Cost
Office of Policy Research, 3/8/96
Distribution of FTE Costs within Budget Components
AmeriCorps*State Programs
15000
10000
Cost per FTE
5000
CONFIDENTIAL
0
-5000
Member support
Staff costs
Evaluation costs
Other Member Costs
Operating costs
Administration Costs
Office of Policy Research, 3/8/96
COMPIDENTIAL
Relationship of Costs to Program Types
I next looked for differences in costs that derive from variations in the type of program. I
considered these issues: level of full-time members, individual placements, enrollment of at-risk
youth as members, geographic dispersion in local operating sites, and the four priority areas --
education, environment, human needs, and public safety. These were the noticeable results:
*
There is no difference in cost between programs that have a majority full-time
members compared to a majority part-time members.
*
Programs with individual placements are approximately $ 400 per member
cheaper than programs without individual placements.
*
Programs that enroll at-risk youth cost $ 800 per member more than programs that
do not.
*
Geographic dispersion of programs has no impact on cost.
*
Environmental programs cost $ 1,600 more per member than programs not
working in that priortiy area. Those programs that only do environment and
nothing else cost $ 2,600 more per member than the median total fte cost for all
programs.
*
Education programs are $ 1,300 per member less than programs not in education.
*
Public safety programs are approx. $ 500 per member cheaper than those not in
public safety.
*
Those programs that exist primarily to do national service are $ 900 per member
more costly than programs with sponsors that have other, additional agendas.
Conclusion: There are major differences in the budgeted cost of programs depending on
the type of member (art-risk youth cost more), the programming approach (individual
placements cost less), and the subject matter (environmental programs are more costly,
while education and public safety programs are cheaper).
Costs in a Typical State Program
To look at what a "typical program" might cost, I selected a sub-set of the programs using
these criteria: a majority of members are full-time, the living allowance falls between the 10th and
90th percentile of all living allowances paid (these eliminates ed award only and high paying
programs), and they are not residential. These gave me a set of 189 programs with these results:
CONFIDENCE
CONFIDENTIAL
*
The median total FTE cost in the typical program is $ 18,410 compared to $ 18,
919 for all programs.
*
Median FTE Member support cost is 19,911, less than $ 100 more than that for
all programs.
*
The biggest difference in costs between the typical program and all programs are
found in Staff Costs -- 4,432 in the "typical" program and $ $ 4,675, or 243 per
member more, in all programs.
*
Comparisons between types of programming revealed these findings:
--
Education programs are $ 650 per member less expensive than those not
in education. Public safety programs are $ 800 per member cheaper than
programs with no public safety component.
--
Environmental programs are $ 1,200 per member more costly than those
programs with no environmental component.
:
Human needs programs are $ 600 per member more costly than those with
no human needs component.
:
Individual placements are $ 1,000 per member cheaper than not using
individual placements.
:
No difference in total cost per member is found between those programs
primarily existing to offer national service and those who have other.
additional missions.
:
Programs enrolling at-risk youth cost $ 700 more per member than those
that do not.
Conclusion: These findings mirror and reinforce the conclusions derived from the larger
universe of all State programs. There are major differences in the budgeted cost of
programs depending on the type of member (art-risk youth cost more), the programming
approach (individual placements cost less), and the subject matter (environmental
programs and human needs programs are more costly, while education and public safety
programs are cheaper).
Attachment
cc:
Tracy Gray
CON
CONFIDENTIAL
Gary Kowalczyk
-
TOTAL COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 18,919
Corporation share
64.5%
El
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
35.5%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
A. MEMBER SUPPORT COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 9,842
Corporation Share
72.5%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee Share
27.5%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
B. OTHER MEMBER SUPPORT
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 796
Grantee Share
44.3%
CONFIDENTIAL
Corpation Share
55.7%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
C. STAFF
AmeriCorps* State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 4,675
Grantee Share
38.1%
\
GONFIDENTIAL
Corporation Share
61.9%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
D. OPERATING COST
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 1,852
CONFIDENTIAL
Corporation share
46.9%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
53.1%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
E. EVALUATION COSTS
AmeriCorps*State Programs
Median FTE Cost $ 213
Corporation share
56.1%
CONFIDENTIAL
Grantee share
43.9%
Office of Policy Research
March 8, 1996
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Sec.
3.2(C)
Initials:
JEP
Date:
2013-0661-F(2)
1/10/20
CONFIDENTIAL
Shirley:
Some words of encouragement on the notion of reducing the number of weeks in which Members finish
the program. I got a run of the average actual weeks Members took to complete in 94-95, program by
program. For full timers, it was 47, and although the range was 21-60 weeks (yes, 21 weeks...), the
programs were generally clustered pretty tightly around 47-48 weeks.
We need to keep in mind that the Members will spend two to three weeks of their service year on
vacations and sick time, for which they will receive their "fellowship," but will not earn hours.
Thus, I think that the typical program now goes: Members serve for 47 weeks, and are paid therefore
about 170./wk, but earn hours during about 44 weeks, which requires them to work about 39 hours/week.
To reduce the overall service period to 44 weeks, Members would have to do earn their hours in probably
41 or 42 weeks, which would require them to work 41-42 hours/week. That part is, it seems, all good.
In fact, the only touchy part is that if programs are finishing in 47 weeks, most are not going to try to cap
pay at $150, which would mean reducing members' pay quite a bit, but rather, would want to keep it nearer
to where they currently are, about $170. That could eat into our savings.
To see how fast the Member weekly pay eats up our savings, consider these:
Member pay:
Over (wks):
CNS/wk
CNS/YR
CNS SAVINGS
Member
hrs/week¹
$150
44
$128
$5,610
$1,143
41
$160
44
$136
$5,984
$769
41
$170
44
$145
$6,358
$395
41
$180
44
$153
$6,732
$21
41
So we need to be very sensitive to the relationship between the weeks they serve and their pay, or we could
end up saving a lot less money than we hope.
Losing $20./week for the full-timers is a pretty significant chunk of change, it seems to me. Here are some
other models in which they'd lose a little less, work a little more:
Member pay:
Over (wks):
CNS/wk
CNS/YR
CNS SAVINGS
Member
hrs/week
$150
44
$128
$5,610
$1,143
41
$170
44
$145
$6,358
$395
41
$170
40
$145
$5,780
$973
45
$160
42
$136
$5,712
$1,041
43
The last example seems to be a nice compromise. At 43 hrs/wk they'd be working about 4 hours/wk more
than they did in 94-95, and earning $10. less. On the other hand, their service year would be done more
than a month sooner than it was in 94-95.
It seems like this is one of the best ways to reduce cost; we'll have to pay careful attention to the
implementation in order to achieve the savings and not demoralize the Members.
I'm at 202/966-7598.
I Calculated at 2.5 weeks less than the total service year, to account for vacation and sick leave.
CONFIDENTIAL