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
289844670
label
[Loose Material – Reauthorization Group] [4]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
289844670
contentType
document
title
[Loose Material – Reauthorization Group] [4]
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
289844670
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-014-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
365f998c8a346679
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:
[Loose Material - Reauthorization Group] [4]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
9
1
Memo to Reauthorization Group
From:
Stu Loeser
Date:
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
Attached please find a copy of the first "longer" reauthorization memo
as given to Harris.
Memorandum to Harris Wofford
From:
The Reauthorization Group
(Debbie Jospin, Myung Lee, Stu Loeser, Terry Russell, Shirley Sagawa, Jim
Scheibel, Gene Sofer, Barry Stevens, Steve Waldman)
Date:
November 27, 1996
As you may recall, the Reauthorization Group met for most of the day last Tuesday to begin to
resolve the issues surrounding reauthorization of the national service acts. On Friday, we sent
you a memo outlining the "big picture" considerations - streamlining some or all of our funding
pools. (The text of that memo is included at the end of this document.)
This memo reviews the other topics the Group discussed last Tuesday, highlighting decisions
that were made and outlining options for issues that remain undecided.
The Reauthorization Group met again yesterday. Shortly after the Thanksgiving holiday, we will
present you with a memo outlining the results of this second day-long meeting.
Table of Contents:
ISSUES WHICH THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP IS PUTTING FORWARD
Page 2
OPTIONS FOR YOUR DECISION
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP IS
Page 5
PUTTING FORWARD TO YOU FOR APPROVAL
FOR YOUR REFERENCE, THE "BIG PICTURE" MEMO ALREADY GIVEN
Page 14
TO YOU ABOUT STREAMLINING FUNDING POOLS
1
ISSUES ON WHICH THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP IS PUTTING
FORWARD OPTIONS FOR YOUR DECISION
INCOME DISREGARD
THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP HAS NOT COME TO AGREEMENT ON THIS
ISSUE.
DISCUSSION:
The Domestic Volunteer Service Act has an "income disregard" provision
which allows the VISTA living allowance to be disregarded when
calculating eligibility for public benefits. Under the National and
Community Service Act, a Member's living allowance is calculated as
"earned income" for purposes of determining eligibility for any assistance
provided under the Social Security Act (ex. Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, Social Security Income, Social Security Disability
Income).
AmeriCorps State and National programs have repeatedly asked that we
amend the National and Community Service Act to allow for an income
disregard. They argue that the calculation of the living allowance as
income discourages or prohibits "welfare" recipients from participating in
AmeriCorps programs and thereby hinders the programs from recruiting a
diverse pool of Members. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly,
Aid to Families with Dependent Children is provided to families and if an
individual is deemed ineligible to receive that assistance, she may also
lose child care and health insurance for her children. While AmeriCorps
programs would pick up the child care costs, health care would not be
provided to the Members' children.
Some of the Group argue vociferously that AmeriCorps Members
should not receive public assistance. However, we agree that if we raise
this issue with Congress to ask for a change for the AmeriCorps State and
National programs, Congress may do the opposite of what the field is
seeking and eliminate the income disregard provision for the VISTA
Members. Because jurisdictional issues would make any change
politically unlikely, most members of the Reauthorization Group are
leaning towards recommending to leave the current system as is.
2
TERMS OF SERVICE
THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP HAS NOT COME TO AGREEMENT ON THIS
ISSUE.
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the two statutes dictate different lengths of time that an
individual may serve as a participant in a particular stream of AmeriCorps
service while receiving Federal benefits - living allowance, health care,
child care. For example, the Domestic Volunteer Service Act permits an
individual to serve as a VISTA for a total of 5 years. The National and
Community Service Act, however, restricts individuals to only 2 terms of
service as an AmeriCorps State/National Member. A term of service can
be part-time, full-time or reduced part-time (ex. Summer programs).
Similarly, the statute also restricts individuals who wish to serve with
NCCC to two terms.
In all cases, an AmeriCorps Member - whether VISTA, State/National, or
NCCC - may only receive education awards for the first two terms of
service.
Several issues arise with regard to a Member's "term of service" and
Federal benefits, including education awards.
Because a "term of service" is defined in the statute as being full-time,
part-time or reduced-part time, a Member that has served in a summer
program (reduced part-time) has "used up" one term of service for the
purposes of Federal benefits and education award.
Specifically regarding education awards, some staff argue that
corpsmembers should be allowed to serve up to a total of two full-
time-equivalent programs to eliminate our all-too-common "parity
programs." This would allow for (for instance) two years of part-time
service in a school with a full-time summer program for the students in
between. More important, it would address the inequality of the
"expanded opportunity" for a corpsmember who serves in a summer
program and then a year in a part-time program. She would then be
nudged out of the national service program having earned less than one
full-time education award. This seems inconsistent with our mission of
expanding educational opportunity, particularly because many feel the full
education award is already too low.
Other staff argue against this, pointing out that (for instance) this
would allow an individual to serve in a summer program every year
between her sixteenth and twenty-fourth birthdays. In such a situation,
3
it would be difficult not to develop a "jobs" mentality about national
service. In addition, it would be inconsistent with the Corporation's
mission of expanding educational opportunity if the same individual were
permitted to serve for an extended period of time (while taking
opportunities that would otherwise go to various individuals). Moreover,
staff who hold this opinion argue that while we have had significant
complaints from corpsmembers who were not aware of the limitations on
benefits, most stem from poor communication in the early days of
AmeriCorps that have now improved.
As a whole, the Group advocates a review of this issue, including
administrative burdens on programs (e.g. record keeping) and Corporation
staff (e.g. the National Service Trust).
AMERICORPS FIXED GRANTS AND MATCH
ISSUES:
The Group recommends that the Corporation codify it current "fixed
average/fixed grant" approach. The Group is undecided whether
match requirements should be eliminated.
DISCUSSION:
For the next grant cycle, AmeriCorps State programs are required to meet
a fixed average cost per Member with a cap on the maximum cost per
Member for any individual program. National Direct programs have a
fixed cap on cost per Member rather than a fixed average. The Group
notes that this system may need adjustment when any newly-streamlined
State Commission structure is implemented.
Eliminating the match requirement may cause some to argue that we are
retreating on our commitment to private sector support or keeping track of
where the program funds are coming from. In reality, we are simplifying
the system and reducing Washington-based micromanagement
significantly. The set Corporation average cost-per-member, even at the
current level, is low enough that grantees have to find other resources to
operate the programs.
Liberalization of the structure would greatly enhance programs' fund
raising potential, particularly if we were to make the Corporation's grant
approximately the size of the AmeriCorps Members' stipend and benefits,
without requiring that Corporation dollars be used for those purposes.
Grantees could have private sources fund what they (the private sources)
are most likely to want to support - corpsmembers' stipends - than what
they often have to now (administrative assistance and overhead).
4
The Group agrees that if we do keep the match requirements, the statute
should be amended to require programs to match a percentage of our grant
rather than a percentage of the program cost. This would bring us towards
more accurate accounting and away from "total available resources"
considerations.
The Group suggests Senior programs and VISTA should have a
"challenge" grant to encourage a "match."
RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE REAUTHORIZATION GROUP IS
PUTTING FORWARD TO YOU FOR APPROVAL
EDUCATION AWARDS
WE ADVISE:
The Group recommends we keep the education award amount at
$4,725 but endeavor to make it "non-taxable"; amend the statute to
expand the definition of "qualified student loans"; eliminate the cash
stipend option for both AmeriCorps*NCCC and AmeriCorps*VISTA
members; and continue to prohibit transferability of education
awards for AmeriCorps members. If education awards become
available for RSVPs, these and only these awards could be
transferable.
DISCUSSION:
Retaining the current education award amount would prevent strong
opposition from Veteran's groups and criticism that we're raising the cost
per member.
At the same time, treating the education award like other non-taxable
federal "awards" (e.g. Peace Corps readjustment stipend and Veteran's
benefits) would represent a significant increase in the real amount awarded
to national service participants without any increase in our cost-per-
member calculations.
Because of the current statute's definition of "qualified student loans",
some AmeriCorps Members were unable to use their education awards to
repay loans that were clearly part of their approved financial aid package
but were not made, insured, or guaranteed by the federal government. For
example, a student loan made by the State of Alaska to a resident of
Alaska is not a "qualified student loan" under the current definition. The
5
Group agreed that the definition of student loans eligible for repayment
should be slightly expanded, and has asked staff to research how to do so.
Currently, cash post-service benefit is available as an alternative to the
education award for AmeriCorps*VISTA Members but not for participants
in AmeriCorps grants programs. (The NCCC has authorization for cash
awards but has opted not to offer them). Although the cash alternative
benefits some who might otherwise not utilize an education award, staff is
concerned about equity and consistency across programs.
The Group believes that responsibility and opportunity for one's self are
fundamental tenets of the President's vision of national service, and the
education awards should only be used by the individual who earned them.
However, if service as an RSVP is to qualify as an "approved national
service position" (perhaps in certain demonstration programs), RSVPs
who serve enough hours should earn education awards. Because all
RSVPs are necessarily 55 or older, as a group they should be allowed to
transfer the education award in relatives' (children, grandchildren, etc.,)
names. (Payment directly to schools, approved lending institutions, etc.
would be retained.)
MINIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
WE ADVISE:
The Group feels strongly that the current requirements for
AmeriCorps State/National and NCCC Members to serve at least
1700 hours for a full-time education award and at least 900 hours for
a part-time education award be retained. The Group advises against
changing the minimum hours required, and for bringing
AmeriCorps*VISTA members under the same standard.
DISCUSSION:
The "1700 hours minimum" requirement was derived at in order to ensure
that Members serve at least 35-40 hours per week during the 9 - 12 months
of their program year. (Ex. In a 12 month program, a Member will
provide an average of 38 hours per week with some "cushion" of
approximately one month built in for illness, personal leave, etc.)
Programs at the local levels require this degree of flexibility in design to
determine the length of their program year because certain - e.g.
environmental - programs are better suited to complete their program year
in 9 months rather than 12 months. Requiring a number of hours greater
than the 1700 hours would increase Member attrition and limit local
control in program design.
6
Corporation regulations currently require programs to ensure that at least
80 percent of the aggregate number of service hours performed by
Members (at least 1360 hours per Member) are on direct service activities.
To increase the number of direct service hours performed without
decreasing the essential training and education provided to Members,
the Group recommends that the 80/20 rule be changed to 85/15 (at
least 1445 hours per Member) when our Regulations are re-written.
The Group considered an alternative fix - to eliminate the reference to
hours and replace with VISTA-type language about being on-call 24
hours a day. This would get the programs out of the business of counting
hours. However, without the minimum number of required service hours,
programs might get more lax. Programs funded under the Commission on
National and Community Service did not have minimum number of
required service hours. Our experience shows that in situations where
minimum number of service hours aren't required, programs often serve
much less than 1700 hours. The 24 hours a day rule would also prohibit
AmeriCorps members who need to take part-time jobs to help their
families afford basic necessities from doing so. Experience shows that
many will take extra jobs anyway. In fact, the Group recommends that for
the reasons stated above (as well as for consistency), the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act should be amended to require AmeriCorps*VISTA
members to serve at least 1700 hours of service.
The statute should be amended to ensure that AmeriCorps Members are
exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar State laws. Some
programs are currently required, under State law, to treat Members as
"employees" and to pay overtime, comp time and minimum wage.
COUNTING LIVING ALLOWANCE MONTHLY
WE ADVISE:
The Group agrees that the statute should be amended to designate an
amount of living allowance distributed to an AmeriCorps State or
*National Member is based on a monthly basis rather than an annual
basis in order to eliminate the disparities between different programs.
AmeriCorps VISTA Members' living allowance should remain as is.
DISCUSSION:
Under the current statute, all full-time Members receive a statutorily
determined minimum amount of living allowance per year. Because
programs are permitted to determine the length of the program year and to
distribute the total yearly amount over that length of time, Members may
receive different amounts per month depending on the program design.
(Ex. Based on the full-time living allowance provided to Members this
7
year - $7,945 - a Member serving in a 10 month program will receive
$794.50 per month while a Member serving in a 12 month program will
receive only $662 per month.) For the sake of retaining parity among
programs, the Group recommends moving to a monthly scale.
DIRECT BENEFIT FOR FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
WE ADVISE:
The Group suggests allowing AmeriCorps programs and Members to
provide direct benefit to for-profit organizations under certain
circumstances as described by the Corporation.
DISCUSSION:
The statute prohibits AmeriCorps State and National programs and
Members from providing direct benefit to for-profit organizations. This
prohibition becomes an issue with programs that work with partner
organizations or host sites that are technically "for-profit" but are not
really making any profit, such as home-based child care agencies, small
family-owned farms, and micro-enterprise communities. Because staff
believes the direct benefit in those situations go not to the "entity" but to
those being actually served by the entity - the child being cared for is
receiving the direct benefit from the AmeriCorps Member/program rather
than the child care agency itself - we do not believe our programs are
currently violating this prohibition. However, some may disagree with our
interpretation of the law. Thus, we believe it would be beneficial to have
specific statutory authority that allows the Corporation to permit programs
to provide benefit to certain for-profit organizations. The Corporation, of
course, would limit this as it sees fit.
FUND RAISING
WE ADVISE:
Allow grantees' staff to spend a certain amount of "AmeriCorps time"
to raise funds from the private sector.
DISCUSSION:
Office of Management and Budget regulations do not permit federal funds
to be used in raising funds for the grantee organization. This issue is a
problem as we expect our programs to raise more private sector dollars.
Staff recommends that we seek an exemption from this OMB regulation to
allow program staff to raise funds. The restrictions on Members raising
funds should be maintained.
8
DISABILITY FUNDS
WE ADVISE:
Broaden language in statute to include AmeriCorps State formula
grantees and AmeriCorps VISTA projects and to ensure that
programs make reasonable accommodations for leveraged volunteers
as well as Members.
DISCUSSION:
The statute currently requires the Corporation to make disability funds
available only to AmeriCorps State and AmeriCorps National Direct
programs. The statute should be amended to include AmeriCorps State
formula programs and AmeriCorps VISTA projects. Additionally, the
language should be broadened to include volunteers generated by
Members as well as the Members.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
WE ADVISE:
Amend the statute to reflect that the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act do not apply for the purposes of collecting statutorily
required evaluation information from those who receive assistance
from the Corporation.
DISCUSSION:
The timelines set forth in the Paper Work Reduction Act makes it difficult,
if not impossible, for the Corporation to carry out certain evaluation
requirements set forth by Congress (ex. Survey on Member
demographics). Staff recommends that we seek an exemption from the
Paper Work Reduction Act for the limited purposes of gathering
information from grantees in order to meet Congressional requirements.
SENIORS PROGRAMS
WE ADVISE:
All Seniors programs should be required to re-compete every six
years. We should lower the age of eligibility for participation in
Senior Companions and Foster Grandparents from 60 to 55 years of
age to match the eligibility requirements of Retired Senior Volunteers
Program. General language which authorizes the Corporation to
expand the different models of senior programs should be
incorporated into the statute. The Trust should be amended to permit
the Corporation to allow for limited transferability of education
awards in cases where the recipients of the education award are older
Americans serving in "approved national service positions" as
RSVPs. We should delete statutory language that requires the
Corporation to adjust any stipend or allowance provided to Foster
9
Grand Parents and Senior Companions. We should also delete the
provision maintaining a cap on evaluation funds at two and a half
percent of all program administration funds. In addition, we should
delete language giving State Units on Aging preferential treatment
with regard to Retired Senior Volunteer Program projects.
DISCUSSION:
To further infuse the Senior programs with outcome-based goals and
overall quality - particularly in times of limited resources - we
recommend having all Senior Programs re-compete for funds every six
years.
In 1993, the age requirement for participation in RSVP was lowered from
60 to 55, with a preference given to the placement of volunteers aged 60
and over. The purpose of the change was to expand opportunities for
volunteer service to younger retirees, to meet the growing interest of this
age group in participation, and to enable projects to respond to needs in
communities that could benefit by a younger cohort of seniors. A similar
change is now needed for Senior Companions and Foster Grandparents.
Regarding the Education Awards, some staff are concerned that this may
be seen by the Veterans community as being more than what is being
offered under the GI Bill, because educational benefits provided under the
GI Bill are not transferable. Other staff feel Veterans are much less likely
to challenge Senior programs than AmeriCorps.
The Domestic Volunteer Service Act requires the Corporation to pay no
less than $2.45 an hour to Foster Grand Parents and Senior Companions,
and to adjust that amount, accounting for inflation, once prior to December
31, 1997. We recommend that this language be deleted.
Since Administrative funds for Senior programs are capped at 18% of total
DVSA funding, we feel that with the 2 ½ percent cap, there are not enough
funds to properly evaluate Senior Corps programs. There is some concern
that some would oppose dropping this language because in times of
program cutbacks, program money should not be diverted to evaluation.
This could be somewhat mitigated by stating more clearly that the
Evaluation funds authorized under a separate subtitle of the National and
Community Service Trust Act can be performed on all national service
programs, not just AmeriCorps* National and State.
Under current law, State Units on Aging are (1) given preference for
sponsorship of RSVP projects and (2) are afforded a 45 day review and
recommendation period for RSVP grants. The Group feels that this
section should be deleted because, as sponsors of Senior Corps programs,
10
State Units on Aging could potentially face conflict of interest problems in
having this kind of review and recommendation authority. There is a
concern that this amendment may pose problems on the Hill. However,
OMB (implicitly, HHS)-approval may give us more leverage.
AMERICORPS*NCCC
WE ADVISE:
The Group suggests allowing the Corporation to limit the lower-
boundary-age of AmeriCorps*NCCC members, eliminating the cash-
out option, and empowering the Corporation CEO to make
appointments to the NCCC Advisory Board while adding flexibility
for more relevant board members. The Group also suggests cleaning
up irrelevant and unnecessary language.
DISCUSSION:
Unlike AmeriCorps* State and National, the NCCC's age limits are
statutorily set at 16-24. Based on experience - particularly with labor laws
and minors - we recommend giving the Corporation the discretion to limit
participation to individuals 18 and above.
The Group agrees that it should be the Corporation CEO, not the NCCC
National Director, who should make the appointments to the Advisory
Board. We also recommend adding individuals representative of "non-
profit organizations and organizations with expertise in disaster relief" as
recommended (but not required) Board Members to highlight the NCCC's
disaster relief efforts and increasing public-private partnerships.
As discussed in the Education Awards section, the Group recommends
eliminating the NCCC cash-out option, which it no longer offers in
practice anyway.
The Group recommends exempting NCCC staff from the Fair Labor
Standards Act relating to overtime. By treating the NCCC as an
"organized camp" as defined in 29 U.SC. §213(a)(3), the NCCC would be
allowed to operate a 10-month program and still qualify as an organized
camp. We recommend replacing inexplicable NCCC language with
Division C (AmeriCorps grants) language requiring that applicant "has
received a high school diploma or its equivalent, agrees to obtain a high
school diploma or its equivalent, and the individual has not dropped out of
an elementary or secondary school to enroll in the program." We would
delete the section specifying creation of a liaison office at Defense that
was already eliminated in the FY 1996 DoD Authorization Act.
11
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA: HIGHER EDUCATION
WE ADVISE:
The Group recommends mentioning both community-service and the
service learning as the purposes of the program. The Group also
recommends clarifying that some projects operate in several
communities across the country as well as the communities
immediately around colleges and universities. In addition, the Group
recommends clarifying that grants can be used to strengthen the
service and service-learning infrastructure and build capacity within
and across institutions of higher education as well as for direct service
and service learning projects.
DISCUSSION:
As mentioned in the Modified Block Grant section at the end of this memo
(and in the Group's November 22 memo to you), we recommend
consideration of a plan in which most Learn and Serve America Higher
Education functions are placed under individual State Commissions. This
section addresses considerations about Higher Education that should be
addressed no matter how the program is revised.
The Group recommends all of the above to address a debates about the
goals and focus of Learn and Serve America: Higher Education. The
Group feels that issues such as focus on community service versus service
learning should be addressed in the Corporation's regulations, not its
legislation. The above adjustments allow us to focus (or re-focus) the
program as we see fit.
The Group also recommends eliminating over-prescriptive requirements
about prioritizing applications, and proposes to make administrative caps
consistent throughout Learn and Serve. The Group advises the
Corporation to address concerns about funding allocation within L&S
(between K-12 and HE) by encouraging cross-program collaboration,
including with AmeriCorps and Seniors, but, again, feels this need not be
codified.
LANGUAGE CHANGES
WE ADVISE:
The official names for all Corporation streams of service should be
codified in the statutes.
DISCUSSION:
Universal changes should be made throughout the two statutes to ensure
that the word "AmeriCorps" is codified. Other relevant changes to match
language with practice (e.g. NCCC camps to campuses) should be made
12
throughout. All of these changes should be made in light of the Board's
recent instruction to develop one name for national service.
TRUST FUND
WE ADVISE:
Amend statute to add language that would allow the Corporation to
use Trust money to operate the National Service Scholars program.
PART-TIME MEMBERS
WE ADVISE:
Eliminate the three-year part-time term of service.
DISCUSSION:
Based on experience, the Group feels that the statute should be amended to
eliminate the three-year part-time option. However, the amendment
should include a grandfather clause for existing three-year part-time
Members.
AGE REQUIREMENT
WE ADVISE:
Lower the eligible age limit from 17 to 16 for all AmeriCorps State
and National programs while giving programs the option to limit
participation to individuals 17 or older.
DISCUSSION:
We recommend that the age limit be lowered to 16 so that the grantees
may have the discretion to design programs that include 16 year old
individuals as Members.
GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION
WE ADVISE:
Delete statutory section that outlines in detail the specific types of
information required in the grant applications for AmeriCorps State
and National programs.
DISCUSSION:
The statute currently delineates the specific types of information that the
Corporation may require in an application submitted for AmeriCorps State
and National grants. To give the Corporation and the programs as much
flexibility as possible, and to eliminate any unnecessary burdens upon the
programs, staff recommends that we delete this section.
13
WORK STUDY
WE ADVISE:
The Group recommends codifying Corporation policy that individuals
cannot "double-dip" by counting service for which they earn Work-
Study stipends toward their 1700 hour AmeriCorps requirement.
TIME LIMITS ON VISTA PROJECTS
WE ADVISE:
Repeal the statutory provision stipulating that assistance cannot be
denied to any project solely on the basis of the number of years the
project has already received DVSA funding for its VISTA project.
DISCUSSION:
Current lack of a time limit on VISTA funding to projects makes it
difficult for new projects to receive VISTA assistance, especially during
times of reduced budgets.
UNIVERSITY YEAR FOR VISTA
WE ADVISE:
Repeal the authorization of University Year for VISTA, a full-time
stipended program for students enrolled in higher education
institutions.
DISCUSSION:
This program has not been funded since FY 1994. We recommend that
this section be repealed because (1) Learn and Serve authorization
contains similar provisions and (2) all higher education activity should be
under the same umbrella.
THE "BIG PICTURE" MEMO ALREADY GIVEN TO YOU ABOUT
STREAMLINING FUNDING POOLS
WHERE WE ARE NOW
Since 1994, the Corporation has been supporting regular national service programs through 11
distinct administrative mechanisms.
Arguments for the current system include:
14
It works - we see the proof in quality service everywhere;
Because the Congress holds the Corporation - not the State Commissions - accountable for
its programs, through one way or another we need to have some authority to demand quality;
and
The Corporation is the only entity that has access to information about all the programs it
supports;
On the other hand, the current system:
Engenders duplication;
Prevents grantees from spending their money in the best possible manner - or from getting
enough; and
Hinders cross program coordination.
Thus, any significant revisions should be considered in light of the following questions:
Can quality be retained?
Is there sufficient accountability?
Do the changes make the set-up administratively more efficient?
Do the changes promote inter-program coordination?
In this paper, we address two possible reform scenarios: restructuring of the AmeriCorps Grants
programs and restructuring of all Corporation-funded national service programs.
SCENARIO I - REFORMING AMERICORPS GRANTS
The Corporation could combine the State "competitive" and "formula" into one pool of funds
and eliminate the "competitive" pool. Because the quality of programs may decline if States are
not required to compete for funds, quality standards would be included in the formula. The
quality criteria could be defined by the Corporation with input from State Commissions, while
application of the standard might be judged by an outside entity. National Direct programs
would maintain status quo.
Relevant considerations include:
Could states handle the additional responsibility? How could they be helped to improve their
capacities?
Should additional authority be given only to State Commissions that demonstrate quality
(e.g. they "earn" it)? What would happen if a great state turns bad?
When we define quality, do we focus on Commission quality? Program quality? Both?
How long would it take to make a transition?
Would an outside evaluator add value to the process? Who would evaluate the evaluator?
What would we do if the outside evaluator said all of a state's programs are of low quality?
Would we not fund any?
What would we do if the outside evaluator said a State Commission was of low quality?
Would we not give it money to put into the otherwise okay programs?
15
During this restructuring, we could also consider adjusting the AmeriCorps* State:
AmeriCorps National funding ratio (currently 2/3:1/3), allowing more funds for the National
programs. Relevant considerations include:
If the Corporation wants to increase our focus on building partnerships with national
nonprofit organizations such as Habitat, Boys and Girls Clubs, Big Brothers / Big Sisters,
faith-based groups and the like, we might desire proportionally larger amounts of funding for
these groups.
Expanding National Directs keeps the Corporation in the business of setting national
priorities.
National Direct makes it easier for large groups to apply for national service support, because
they do it once, not 50 times.
Expanding National Directs keep the Federal Role clear but well-defined.
State responsibilities shouldn't outpace available resources. Expanding National Direct
minimizes added burdens on states.
SCENARIO II - "MOST DEVOLVED"
Most Corporation program funds (AmeriCorps Grants, AmeriCorps Learn and Serve
America K-12', RSVP, FGP and SCP) would be distributed to State Commissions under a
formula grant based on population, quality, capacity, and other criteria. Only the responsibility
for funding AmeriCorps National Direct, AmeriCorps* NCCC, AmeriCorps* VISTA
Demonstrations, and at least some of Learn and Serve America Higher Education would be
retained by the Corporation, although consultation with states would increase. The statute would
specify that a certain percentage of funds would be for Senior Corps, Learn and Serve K-12, and
full-time stipended programs (AmeriCorps State, and AmeriCorps There would be a
phase-in period to assure that capacity grows with increased responsibility. At the same time,
there would be a phase-out of State Offices. At the conclusion of the phase-in period, the State
Commissions would be free to administer the DVSA programs in a manner determined by each
State Commission as long as the set amount of funds are distributed to each stream of service.
Considerations include all of those stated above for Scenario I, and:
How do we ensure greater coordination between the different streams of service within a
state? Would it reduce the potential for "best practice" sharing or other inter-state
enrichment?
How do we handle program identity?
What new resources would the State Commissions need for this? Would the resources come
from the closing state offices? From the Corporation? Both? How do we ensure that Senior
Corps administrative funds wouldn't be raided?
.
(In states where the state Constitution requires a separation between the governor's office and the State Education Agency, the
statutory language will provide for an "opt out" provision that recognizes the state's constitutional proscriptions.)
16
What would the Corporation do if a Commission were to fail in performing its duties? For
example, who would take over?
How should Learn and Service America Higher Education be funded? Does cross-program
collaboration argue for devolution? Could both be done - single-state programs to states
while multi-state programs to build the field stay at the Corporation?
Would the Corporation have less ability to shape programs around national initiatives like
America Reads?
17
Memorandum to Reauthorization Group
From:
Stu Loeser
Date:
January 2, 1997
Attached is the latest draft of our decisions memo to Harris, which
was given to him today.
Please note, however, that the primary purpose of tomorrow's
reauthorization meeting with Harris is to review the issues we have
discussed within the Group but not yet gone over with him -
particularly those in "Reauthorization Memo #3" dated December
16, 1996.
Also attached is a refinement of the previously-written-up
evaluation options.
Memorandum to Harris Wofford
From: The Reauthorization Group
(Debbie Jospin, Gary Kowalczyk, Myung Lee, Stu Loeser, Terry Russell, Shirley
Sagawa, Jim Scheibel, Gene Sofer, Barry Stevens, Steve Waldman)
Date: January 2, 1997
Re:
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions
Below is a summary of the decisions which require changes to the national service acts
that we reached when the Reauthorization Group met with you to review the options it
had identified in its own meetings and research papers.
These decisions are arranged in (generally) decending order of priority and significance.
ISSUE
PAGE
FUNDING STREAMS
2
AMERICORPS FIXED GRANTS AND MATCH
3
EDUCATION AWARDS
3
TERMS OF SERVICE
3
SENIOR PROGRAMS
4
AMERICORPS*]
NCCC
4
AMERICORPS* LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA: HIGHER EDUCATION
5
AMERICORPS
VISTA
5
TRUST FUND
5
AGE REQUIREMENT FOR AMERICORPS GRANTS PROGRAMS
5
WORK STUDY
5
DIRECT BENEFIT FOR FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
5
COUNTING LIVING ALLOWANCE MONTHLY
6
DISABILITY FUNDS
6
INCOME DISREGARD
6
MINIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
6
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
6
UNIVERSITY YEAR FOR VISTA
6
LANGUAGE CHANGES
6
GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION
7
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 1
FUNDING STREAMS
CHANGES: Distribute most program funds for the AmeriCorps grants,
AmeriCorps VISTA, and the Learn and Serve America K-12 and Higher
Ed programs to State Commissions under a formula grant based on
population, quality, capacity, and other criteria. The quality, capacity, and
other criteria will be defined by the Corporation with input from State
Commissions and other partners. Standards of State Commission and
program quality will be judged by an outside entity yet to be identified.
Senior Corps funds will go directly to current grantees, who will be held
harmless, for as many years as necessary until projects are re-competed
(see below). Senior Corps projects will then be administered through the
State Commissions.
Base the percentage of total available funds in each state for Senior Corps
and Learn and Serve America K-12 and Higher Ed on current proportions
so that individual programs are held harmless.
The Corporation will have responsibility for administering multi-state
national direct projects for AmeriCorps grants as well as
AmeriCorps VISTA, Learn and Serve America K-12 and Higher Ed,
Senior Programs, and Tribes and Territories through a (tentatively-named)
National Leadership Pool. Each of the components of this pool will be
authorized in the individual programs' (e.g. Learn and Serve K-12)
sections of the Acts rather than a separate subtitle. The size of this pool
will be set to reflect national priorities, such as increased partnerships with
national non-profits for AmeriCorps grants and greater focus on capacity-
building for Learn and Serve America.
There will be a phase-in period to ensure that the increased responsibility
of state commissions will be matched by an increased capacity to handle
new demands. At the same time, there will be a redirection and
downsizing of the Corporation's field presence to assist in the transition
and to assure that the Corporation funds are well spent. Money saved
from the administration of the Corporation's field structure will be
directed to State Commissions to enable them to handle their enhanced
responsibilities.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 2
AMERICORPS FIXED GRANTS AND MATCH
CHANGES: Codify the current "fixed average/fixed grant" approach. AmeriCorps
State programs will be required to meet a fixed average cost per member
with a cap on the maximum cost per Member for any individual program.
National Direct programs will have a fixed cap on cost per member.
Specify that the Corporation should set the average and maximum by
regulation. The Corporation should report what the average and maximum
are to Congress.
Eliminate the match requirement. Because the Corporation will be
required to report the average and maximum grant amounts to Congress,
it will be clear that the Corporation is not retreating on its commitment to
private sector support - with reduced grant amounts, programs will have
to find other resources to operate.
EDUCATION AWARDS
CHANGES: The education award of $4,725 should be "non-taxable" income like Peace
Corps end-of-service stipends and GI Bill benefits.
Expand the definition of "qualified student loans" to include loans that
were clearly part of an approved financial aid package but were not made,
insured, or guaranteed by the federal government (e.g. a student loan
made by the State of Alaska to a resident of Alaska). Expand the
definition of "approved higher education institutions" to allow post-
secondary education at certain schools that may not have received federal
aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act.
Eliminate the cash stipend option for both AmeriCorps* NCCC and
AmeriCorps' VISTA members.
TERMS OF SERVICE
CHANGE:
Allow AmeriCorps members to use no more than any two education
awards earned, though these will no longer have to be the first two earned.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 3
SENIOR PROGRAMS
CHANGES: All Senior programs will be required to re-compete at least every six
years.
Lower the age of eligibility for participation in Senior Companions and
Foster Grandparents from 60 to 55 years of age to match the eligibility
requirements of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program.
Delete statutory language mandating when and how the Corporation will
adjust any stipend or allowance provided to Foster Grand Parents and
Senior Companions.
Remove cap on evaluation funds for Seniors under the Domestic and
Volunteer Service Act. Evaluation funds authorized under a separate
subtitle of the National and Community Service Trust Act can also be used
to evaluate Corporation programs.
Eliminate preference for State Units on Aging with regard to Retired
Senior Volunteer Program projects.
AMERICORPS*NCCC
CHANGES: Give the Corporation discretion to limit the lower-boundary-age of
AmeriCorps* NCCC members to 18.
The Corporation CEO, not the NCCC National Director, will make the
appointments to the NCCC Advisory Board.
Add individuals representative of non-profit organizations and of
organizations with expertise in disaster relief as recommended (but not
required) NCCC Advisory Board Members to highlight the NCCC's
disaster relief efforts and increasing public-private partnerships.
Eliminate the NCCC cash-out option.
Exempt NCCC staff from the Fair Labor Standards Act relating to
overtime.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 4
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA: HIGHER EDUCATION
CHANGE:
Refer to both community-service and the service learning as the purposes
of the program.
AMERICORPS*VISTA
CHANGE:
Delete the provision stipulating that assistance cannot be denied to any
project solely on the basis of the number of years the project has already
received DVSA funding for its VISTA project.
TRUST FUND
CHANGE:
Allow the Corporation to use Trust money to operate the National Service
Scholars program.
AGE REQUIREMENT FOR AMERICORPS GRANTS PROGRAMS
CHANGE:
Lower the eligible age limit from 17 to 16 for all AmeriCorps State and
National programs while giving programs the option to limit participation
to individuals 17 or older or 18 or older.
WORK STUDY
CHANGE:
Codify Corporation policy that individuals cannot "double-dip" by earning
work-study stipends and AmeriCorps living allowances for the same hours
of service. AmeriCorps members are allowed to count work-study service
performed in AmeriCorps programs toward their 1700 hour requirement.
DIRECT BENEFIT FOR FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
CHANGE:
AmeriCorps members will be allowed to provide direct benefit to for-
profit organizations in those limited circumstances in which the
Corporation determines the direct benefit goes to those being actually
served by the organization rather than the organization itself.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 5
COUNTING LIVING ALLOWANCE MONTHLY
CHANGE: Base the amount of living allowance distributed to an AmeriCorps* State
or *National member based on months served.
DISABILITY FUNDS
CHANGE: Broaden availability of disability funds to include AmeriCorps State
formula grantees, AmeriCorps VISTA projects, and AmeriCorps projects
that need to make reasonable accommodations for leveraged volunteers.
INCOME DISREGARD
CHANGE:
Require a report to Congress about how national service can be a strategy
to effectuate welfare reform.
MINIMUM HOURS OF SERVICE
CHANGE: Exempt AmeriCorps members from the Fair Labor Standards Act and
similar State laws.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
CHANGE:
Amend the statute to reflect that the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act do not apply for the purposes of collecting statutorily
required evaluation information from those who receive assistance from
the Corporation.
UNIVERSITY YEAR FOR VISTA
CHANGE: Repeal authorization of University Year for VISTA.
LANGUAGE CHANGES
CHANGE: Codify actual names for all Corporation streams of service in the statutes.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 6
GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION
CHANGE:
Delete section that outlines in detail the specific types of information
required in the grant applications for AmeriCorps State and National
programs.
Summary of Reauthorization Decisions - January 2, 1997 - Page 7
Loeser, Stu
From:
Waldman, Steven
Sent:
Monday, December 30, 1996 10:44 AM
To:
Loeser, Stu: Lee, Myung
Subject:
reauth
your doing a very good job on the reauth stuff.
one addition: there was one important recommendation in my earned autonomy memo that we didn't get to talk
about and which hasnt been reflected in any of the memos to harris. it's very important we get this on the table
and a decision from harris. it is: a statutory requirement that no les than 5% (or whatever percent we choose) of
the corporation's budget be spent on evaluation.
here is the text i had from that earned autonomy memo:
How will all of this be financed?
Under this system, evaluation would become a core function of the Corporation for National Service.
Formula ratings would have quality elements and the basic autonomy of the commissions would be
determined by rigorous evaluations and assessments. Consequently, the Corporation would have to be
reconstituted to reflect the primacy of this function.
This reauthorization would state that the Corporation must spend an amount equivalent five percent of its
total budget on evaluation in any given year. This would pay for not only the systemic evaluation's
currently financed by the Corporation, but this entire costly system of commission and program grading.
This amount is more than that dedicated to evaluation by most government agencies - but less than that
spent by most leading foundations. It would position the Corporation on the cutting edge.
It should be a legislatively stated minimum because over time the pressure at every agency is to cut
evaluation spending. This would provide a statutory protection against that pressure. It's particularly
important that evaluation remain central to the Corporation because that becomes our only quality
assurance tool.
Should programs or commissions be required to contribute to the cost of the peer review and
accreditation system? This is the model that colleges and universities use. The downside might be that the
commissions could complain that they are having to pay money to pay for "our" bureaucracy. That
perception problem might be alleviated if the contribution went to an independent "accreditation body" or
"accreditation process" instead of the coffers of the Corporation.
Page 1
"PRIVATIZATION"
A Privatized Accreditation Body - The act would create a non-profit accreditation body
to do the quality grades for the formula and to do the accreditation of the state
commissions. It would be established by Congress, with a board of governors nominated
by the President and confirmed by Congress. It would get regular appropriations from
Congress but could also become financed by fees paid by the commissions.
A Voucherized Training System - The Corporation would stop funding most training.
Instead, we would send all the training money to the states. We would then enter into
contracts with training entities that could become eligible for state training money if they
are chosen by those states. (Sort of like the federal health insurance system). This way we
could help play a quality-control role but would largely leave it up to the states how to
spend their money.
A Full-voucher Pilot Program - The Corporation would have the authority to set up
national service along a voucher model. States would have to apply to the Corporation for
this waiver, demonstrating, among other things, that there is an adequate system whereby
an individual AmeriCorps member could find out about the quality of individual
programs. In this state, the state, not the program, would choose AmeriCorps members
and then give them each a voucher worth $15,000 for stipend, scholarship and some
program money. The individual would then choose the program based on ratings
provided by some local assessment service or Zagats-style guide.
Greater Independence of the Corporation - You could establish the Corporation as a
non-profit entity making it a more likely recipient of private and individual contributions.
The President would appoint the board of directors and the Senate would confirm - and
the Board would appoint the CEO. The Corporation would get regular appropriations
from Congress but would work towards establishing it's own self-sustaining endowment.
The Endowment Model - Congress would set aside in an interest-bearing account $500
million per year for five years on the condition that at the end of five years, the
Corporation would cease to exist as a federal agency. Federal spending on service would
be limited to stipends and scholarships. A privatized non-profit corporation would make
"venture capital" grants to state commissions or individual programs.
Incentives for Private Contributions to Corporation - As part of a privatization plan
(Endowment Model and Greater Independence), you could stipulate that taxpayers could
get charitable deductions for giving to the corporation. In addition, if the Coats charitable
tax credit proposal moved, we could have the Corporation be an eligible recipient of such
donations.
Incentives for Private Contributions to National Service Programs - As part of a
phase-out of program money, we could provide a tax credit to anyone who contributed to
an AmeriCorps program. We could also provide tax credits for people who contributed to
non-profit state commissions.
Privatized Various Particular Functions - The Corporation could simply contract out a
list of discreet functions including, evaluation, training, accounting, etc.
Combined Federal Campaign - We could require that any program of the Corporation
be included in the Combined Federal Campaign.
Shinley - Can you give me any Thanks. comments?
DRAFT
AMERICORPS STATE/NATIONAL FUNDS
-Myong
1. A portion (33%?) National Leadership Pool - selection, monitoring, etc.
by the Corporation
2. Remainder (67%?) through State Commissions - selection,
monitoring, etc. by the State Commissions
TWO-THIRDS THROUGH STATE COMMISSIONS
1. A portion of the funds (50%?) distributed through population based formula (with
minimum amount set to protect the interests of small states) - similar or identical
to system we have in place now.
2. Remaining (50%?) funds distributed through a formula based on quality -
While the Corporation doesn't select or approve the quality of the individual
programs that a State proposes to fund, the Corporation will determine whether or
not a State is "of such quality" that "deserves" any of the "quality" money.
FORMULA BASED ON QUALITY
I. Criteria
A.
Overall quality of programs in the State
1. What is quality and who sets those standards? The Corporation, with input from the
Commissions and the programs, would set the standard for "quality." The "input" process
should be fairly open. Federal register notice for comments, focus groups (?), town
meetings, etc. The entire process could be facilitated by an outside entity to give it more
of an "independent" feel.
2. Who would evaluate the programs to determine whether they meet the "quality" standards? An
outside entity - contracted by the Corporation - would evaluate the quality of the
programs and give a rating to each State based on the overall quality of the programs (1
being the lowest and 5 being the highest).
3. How many programs in a State should be evaluated? Do we evaluate the quality of every
single program in the State or a do random sampling? A random sampling is
recommended since evaluating every single program would be costly and time-consuming.
However, how many programs per State constitutes "random sampling"? - What to do for
those small States with a small number of programs?
4. How often should programs be evaluated? Every year? Two years? Three years?
DRAFT
B.
Commission Capacity
1. What do we mean by "Commission Capacity?" A good starting point for this discussion
would be the Corporation document entitled, "The Role of the State Commission." The
Corporation would determine, with input from the State Commissions and programs,
what a State Commission is responsible for. Then, the Corporation, with input from the
field, would determine a method for evaluating the systems and procedures that State
Commissions have in place to accomplish these specific responsibilities. The entire
process could be facilitated by an outside entity to give it more of an "independent" feel.
2. Who would evaluate the Commissions? Panels of reviewers would evaluate the capacity of
each State Commission to carry out its duties and give it a rating - 1 being the lowest and
5 being the highest. Each panel would be composed of State Commission representatives
(State Commissioners rather than staff?), Corporation staff, and outside entity. The
outside entity could be a facilitator rather than an evaluator. One panel for each cluster
could be established and the review system could be set up so that no two panels can
evaluate each others' states. For example, the Atlantic Cluster and North Central Cluster
panels will not evaluate each other's states.
3. How often would State Commission capacity be measured? Every State Commission can be
evaluated once every set number of years. Or, those that rate higher get evaluated less
frequently than the ones that rate lower.
C.
Size of the State
The size of the state should be taken into account because the capacity to absorb the money
effectively, is in part, a function of size. On a straight calculation, the Corporation may give
more money to a particular state than they may want or know what to do with. For example,
a small State may get more money than the number of programs the State actually has to fund.
The states should be grouped and ranked into 5 size groups - 1 being the smallest and 5 being
the largest.
II.
Weight
The above criteria should be weighted according to their "importance". For example, "quality
of programs" could be weighted at 60% and "commission capacity" could be at 30% and
population could be at 10%.
DRAFT
III.
Quality Formulas
A. [Program Quality Ranking x ---%] + [Commission Capacity Ranking x %] + [State
Population Ranking x ---%] = Percentage of Total Quality Funds.
This formula distributes the funds based on relative quality. The amount of money that a
certain State will get depends on how all of the other States rate. If all 50 States get the same
ranking, they'll each get an equal amount of money. Those that score high will get a greater
portion of money.
Because each state gets a portion of money, some may argue that this formula assumes
everyone is 'of quality.' No matter how "bad" you are, you get something.
B. In order to get portion of "quality formula" money, a State must have a certain rating (ex.
2 out of 5) for program quality and a certain rating (ex. 3 out of 5) for Commission
capacity. Once a State passes that threshold test for "quality", then the formula in Option
A is applied to those states that "passed" and only they get their share of quality funds.
This option deals with the problem of everyone getting something regardless of the quality
rating. However, certain States will fall out of the equation and not get anything.
C. Combination of Option A and Option B. Every State gets percentage calculated using
the formula in option A. Then, those that fall below the "quality" threshold (as set out in
option 2), get their share of the money for TA rather than for funding programs.
D. Go with Option B but set aside a portion of the quality funds to use as TA money for
those States that don't make the cut.
This is slightly different that Option C. Option C gives each State a formulaic "share" of
the "quality" pot of money but the share of money is to be used for TA or program funds
based on the rating. Under Option D, only the "quality" states get a "share" of the quality
pot. Those that don't make the cut get TA with money set aside from the quality pot. It's
mostly a matter of perception. Option D also gives the Corporation more flexibility in
determining the amount of TA money a "non-quality" State should receive.
RELATED ISSUES
Quality of Programs: Do we evaluate the quality of AmeriCorps State programs only or
do we look at the other programs selected/monitored by the State (seniors, VISTA, L &
S)?
Would the ratings be used for any other purposes?
Fifty State Ratings
DRAFT
OPTION A
0.6
0.3
0.1
70000000
STATE
qual
cap
pop
score
% of total Quality Funds
Quality Pool
A
5
5
5
5
0.028201
1974055
B
5
5
1
4.6
0.025945
1816131
C
5
5
2
4.7
0.026509
1855612
D
5
5
3
4.8
0.027073
1895093
E
5
5
4
4.9
0.027637
1934574
F
5
5
5
5
0.028201
1974055
G
5
5
3
4.8
0.027073
1895093
H
5
5
3
4.8
0.027073
1895093
I
5
5
5
5
0.028201
1974055
J
5
4
3
4.5
0.025381
1776650
K
5
4
4
4.6
0.025945
1816131
O
5
4
3
4.5
0.025381
1776650
P
5
4
3
4.5
0.025381
1776650
L
5
3
3
4.2
0.023689
1658206
M
5
3
4
4.3
0.024253
1697688
N
5
3
3
4.2
0.023689
1658206
Q
4
5
3
4.2
0.023689
1658206
R
4
5
1
4
0.022561
1579244
S
4
4
4
4
0.022561
1579244
W
4
4
1
3.7
0.020869
1460801
Y
4
4
5
4.1
0.023125
1618725
T
4
3
4
3.7
0.020869
1460801
U
4
3
5
3.8
0.021433
1500282
V
4
3
2
3.5
0.019741
1381839
X
4
3
4
3.7
0.020869
1460801
Z
3
5
3
3.6
0.020305
1421320
AA
3
5
3
3.6
0.020305
1421320
PP
3
5
3
3.6
0.020305
1421320
BB
3
4
2
3.2
0.018049
1263395
CC
3
4
4
3.4
0.019177
1342358
RR
3
4
4
3.4
0.019177
1342358
DD
3
3
3
3
0.01692
1184433
EE
3
3
4
3.1
0.017484
1223914
VV
3
3
1
2.8
0.015792
1105471
FF
3
2
1
2.5
0.0141
987027.6
GG
3
2
4
2.8
0.015792
1105471
HH
2
2
3
2.1
0.011844
829103.2
II
2
5
3
3
0.01692
1184433
JJ
2
5
2
2.9
0.016356
1144952
KK
2
4
2
2.6
0.014664
1026509
LL
2
3
2
2.3
0.012972
908065.4
MM
2
3
2
2.3
0.012972
908065.4
NN
2
3
2
2.3
0.012972
908065.4
00
2
3
1
2.2
0.012408
868584.3
SS
2
3
5
2.6
0.014664
1026509
TT
2
3
4
2.5
0.0141
987027.6
UU
2
3
5
2.6
0.014664
1026509
WW
2
3
5
2.6
0.014664
1026509
QQ
1
4
1
1.9
0.010716
750141
XX
1
1
4
1.3
0.007332
513254.4
177.3
70000000
Rank
Qual
Cap
Pop
1
7
2
12
8
Denied Quality Funds
3
11
18
15
4
9
12
12
5
16
16
8
50
50
50
Page 1
DRAFT
45 States' Funding
Weights
Quality Pool
0.6
0.3
0.1
70000000
STATE qual
cap
pop
score
A
5
5
5
5
0.029994
$2,099,580
OPTION B
B
5
5
1
4.6
0.027594
$1,931,614
C
5
5
2
4.7
0.028194
$1,973,605
D
5
5
3
4.8
0.028794
$2,015,597
E
5
5
4
4,9
0.029394
$2,057,588
F
5
5
5
5
0.029994
$2,099,580
G
5
5
3
4.8
0.028794
$2,015,597
H
5
5
3
4.8
0.028794
$2,015,597
I
5
5
5
5
0.029994
$2,099,580
J
5
4
3
4.5
0.026995
$1,889,622
K
5
4
4
4.6
0.027594
$1,931,614
O
5
4
3
4.5
0.026995
$1,889,622
P
5
4
3
4.5
0.026995
$1,889,622
L
5
3
3
4.2
0.025195
$1,763,647
M
5
3
4
4.3
0.025795
$1,805,639
N
5
3
3
4.2
0.025195
$1,763,647
Q
4
5
3
4.2
0.025195
$1,763,647
R
4
5
1
4
0.023995
$1,679,664
S
4
4
4
4
0.023995
$1,679,664
W
4
4
1
3.7
0.022196
$1,553,689
Y
4
4
5
4.1
0.024595
$1,721,656
T
4
3
4
3.7
0.022196
$1,553,689
U
4
3
5
3.8
0.022795
$1,595,681
V
4
3
2
3.5
0.020996
$1,469,706
X
4
3
4
3.7
0.022196
$1,553,689
Z
3
5
3
3.6
0.021596
$1,511,698
AA
3
5
3
3.6
0.021596
$1,511,698
PP
3
5
3
3.6
0.021596
$1,511,698
BB
3
4
2
3.2
0.019196
$1,343,731
CC
3
4
4
3.4
0.020396
$1,427,714
RR
3
4
4
3.4
0.020396
$1,427,714
DD
3
3
3
3
0.017996
$1,259,748
EE
3
3
4
3.1
0.018596
$1,301,740
W
3
3
1
2.8
0.016797
$1,175,765
II
2
5
3
3
0.017996
$1,259,748
JJ
2
5
2
2.9
0.017397
$1,217,756
KK
2
4
2
2.6
0.015597
$1,091,782
LL
2
3
2
2.3
0.013797
$965,807
MM
2
3
2
2.3
0.013797
$965,807
NN
2
3
2
2.3
0.013797
$965,807
00
2
3
1
2.2
0.013197
$923,815
SS
2
3
5
2.6
0.015597
$1,091,782
TT
2
3
4
2.5
0.014997
$1,049,790
UU
2
3
5
2.6
0.015597
$1,091,782
WW
2
3
5
2.6
0.015597
$1,091,782
166.7
1
$70,000,000
FF
3
2
1
2.5
0.014997
GG
3
2
4
2.8
0.016797
"DROPPED" STATES
HH
2
2
3
2.1
0.012597
QQ
1
4
1
1.9
0.011398
XX
1
1
4
1.3
0.007798
Rank
Qual
Cap
Pop
1
5
2
11
8
Denied Quality Funds
3
9
18
14
4
9
11
10
5
16
16
8
55
56
45
Page 1
1997-1998 GRANT TARGETS
KEY OBJECTIVE
The 1997-98 grant target is $17,000 per AmeriCorps Member, defined as
budgeted cost per grant plus education award plus
overhead/administration/other costs directly attributable to AmeriCorps.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
Setting a target requires assumptions primarily about the number of education award only
programs and whether the current program mix of State and Direct programs will
continue into the future.
The attached sheet¹ summarizes the current cost per Member and displays alternative
1997-98 grant targets to meet the $17,000 amount under alternative levels of education
award only programs. The analysis assumes that federal agencies do not count in the
calculation, and that the current mix of programs and related costs (e.g., current education
award only programs) will continue. (Note explanatory footnotes.)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendation is that the State average be reduced by about $500, and be set at
$11,775 (excludes child care, education award, and $2,000 in other costs). National
directs would be told that about a 3-4% reduction in the cost per Member is expected.
This is based on 2,000 new education award only grants. Alternatively, if this amount is
increased to 3,000, there would be no need for any decrease in average State grants for
1997-98 or a 3-4% reduction in national direct costs.
KEY ISSUES
Should the average target apply equally to all States for the State grant program or should
there be greater flexibility? [see attached materials from David Rymph]
What should we say, if anything, about the next two program years? The goal is $16,000
per Member in 1998-99 and $15,000 per Member in 1999-2000. [A rough rule of thumb
is that you need 1,000-1,250 new education award only Members for every $500
reduction in the overall cost per Member. Since the other costs (ed. award/$2,000/child
care) are fairly fixed, then the only other alternative is to reduce the program grants.
How should we treat inflation in setting these targets?
1 This sheet has detailed calculations supporting the conclusions, all of which are stated in
terms of cost per Member. Note the footnotes carefully.
Alternative Ceilings for 1997-98 Grant Competition
Analysis of Amounts Needed to Meet $17,000 Average
Average Budgeted Amount Per FTE Member
Amts. to Meet Sen. Grassley Targets
1997 With
1997 With
1997 With
1995
1997
No New
2,000 New
3,000 New
Base
Base
Ed Awards
Ed Awards
Ed Awards
Do not count Fed Agencies:
State Grants
$12,509
$12,509
$11,108
$12,025
$12,570
National Direct Grants
$9,498
$10,500 1/
$9,041
$10,168
$10,630
New Ed Award Only
$1,000
$1,000
All Grants
$11,575
$11,692
$10,319
$10,275
$10,275
All Grants + $6,725
$18,300
$18,417
$17,044
$17,000
$17,000
Count Federal Agencies:
State Grants
$12,509
$12,509
$11,700
$12,600
$12,890
National Direct Grants
$8,771
$8,771
$8,200
$8,760
$8,960
New Ed Award Only
$1,000
$1,000
All Grants
$10,993
$10,993
$10,275
$10,275
$10,275
All Grants + $6,725
$17,718
$17,718
$17,000
$17,000
$17,000
1/ Assumes that Federal agency grants will be replaced by non-federal programs with average
Corporation cost of $12,000, resulting in a baseline average of $10,250.
2/ The amounts include $250 per Member for child care, which is often not included by States in their
calculations of amounts per Member per grant. We may need to deduct when giving levels to States.
MEMO
TO:
Gary Dan't Kowalczyk
FROM:
David Rymph
DATE:
July 2, 1996
SUBJ:
CNS Cost per FTE by State
Stimulated by our conversation this morning, I came back to my office and ran the State averages.
They are shown in the attached table where I include total FTE for each state and the estimated
average CNS cost per FTE in 1995. Some summary findings are:
*
The average costs range from a low of $ 8,156 in Minnesota to $ 15,300 in Alaska. This
is a range of $ 7,144.
*
The average of the State averages is $ 12,300.
*
The five highest States are
AK 15314.32
RI 14623.27
NH 14410.96
NM 14308.89
LA 14285.32.
*
The five lowest States are
MN 8151.57
NE 9092.22
OR 9351.01
MT 9359.83
MA 10171.58
Attachment
cc:
Shirley Sagawa
Terry Russell
Tracy Gray
Gene Sofer
Steven Waldman
Estimated Avg. CNS Cost per FTE by State, 1995
AmeriCorps*State Programs ( N=325)
FTE
CNS Share
of Total
Cost per
FTE
Sum
Mean
STATE
4320.25
13713.43
AK
89.50
15314.32
AL
147.00
10804.98
AR
47.50
13055.68
AZ
98.50
12610.25
CA
1174.25
14107.27
CO
96.00
11805.35
CT
247.00
13262.46
DC
17.50
13545.43
DE
40.00
12951.73
FL
258.00
14040.18
GA
295.00
12908.76
HI
46.50
12497.03
IA
101.50
11912.67
ID
23.00
12471.22
IL
286.00
12431.26
IN
158.50
11733.56
KS
119.00
13366.77
KY
192.50
12765.04
LA
152.50
14285.32
MA
557.50
10171.58
MD
442.50
13538.44
ME
42.00
14098.86
MI
262.00
11740.03
MN
371.00
8151.57
MO
189.25
13166.46
MS
55.50
12262.77
MT
146.50
9359.83
NC
264.33
10614.67
NE
40.00
9092.22
NH
75.50
14410.96
NJ
413.42
11718.72
NM
41.50
14308.89
NV
27.50
13111.26
NY
811.50
11821.88
OH
234.50
14041.00
OK
66.00
11984.14
OR
125.75
9351.01
PA
316.00
12785.72
PR
91.00
12921.75
RI
145.50
14623.27
SC
88.00
12184.99
SD
12.00
13090.51
TN
244.83
12149.17
TX
898.50
11168.00
UT
59.50
11362.62
VA
95.00
10561.73
VT
22.50
13067.42
WA
627.75
10707.95
WI
150.50
11933.34
WV
55.33
11622.78
WY
51.75
10723.39
Office of Policy Research, 07/0
Page 1
Message for Algra, Diana
From:
Sagawa, Shirley
Date:
Fri, Jun 28, 1996 6:42 PM
To:
Russell, Terry; Algra, Diana; Rosenberry, Peg
This is my understanding of Harris's decision on the '97 priorities:
The new priority for "children and youth, especially education"
supercedes the eight '94 and five '95 priorities. However, he expects
to see examples that fit into many of the previous priority categories
included in the applications (ie immunization; lead based paint; etc.).
The children and youth priority can be achieved in any of the four issue
areas (education, public safety, environment, and other human needs --
this is how he wants them stated), and unlike previous priorities, not
every program is expected to meet the priorities. A program that merely
involves young AmeriCorps members would not be considered to meet the
priority; however, if the AmeriCorps Members recruit high school (or
younger) volunteers to assist them, then the priority would be met.
Having a strong children/youth component (as opposed to having a single
focus) would allow the program to claim the priority. He also wants to
ask states to consider the natioanl lpriority even for formula, although
we would certainly stop short of requiring it. He would like to review
examples we develop.
Memo to Reauthorization Group
From: Stu Loeser
Date:
January 14, 1997
Attached is a copy of yesterday's memo to the Board, as
placed in the Board books.
Also attached is Gary's chart of how funds would work out
for each state under AmeriCorps grants, A*VISTA, and
Learn and Serve formulas.
See you at tomorrow's meeting (2-4PM), at which we'll
take up Steve's privatization memo.
Memorandum to the Board of Directors
From:
The Reauthorization Group
(Frank Beal, Debbie Jospin, Gary Kowalczyk, Myung Lee,
CORPORATION
Stu Loeser, Shirley Sagawa, Jim Scheibel, Gene Sofer,
Barry Stevens, Steve Waldman)
FOR NATIONAL
SERVICE
Re:
Major Issues for the Reauthorization of the National Service Acts.
Date:
Monday, January 13, 1997
The following are the most important aspects of national service that could be changed through
the reauthorization of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1990, as amended, and
the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended.
These issues were identified and addressed by the Chief Executive Officer and our inter-
departmental working group after discussions with the field and staff. Broadly speaking, the
major issues are: coordinating how funds are distributed; devolving authority to the states;
simplifying the Corporation's financial relationships with its grantees; reforming other program
streams and resolving language difficulties with education awards and age limits. Our strategy is
based on the Corporation's Strategic Plan and will support the achievement of the mission and
three-year goals.
Further, in-depth consultations will take place over the next several months after the Chief
Executive Officer approves the proposed policy changes. Among these consultations will be a
wider review by the staff, review by the Office of Management and Budget, and conferences
with national direct and other grantees, State Commission Executive Directors, State
Commission Chairs, the Grantmakers' Forum, and Congressional staff.
Please note that the following is not an exhaustive list of proposed changes. Minor and/or
uncontroversial changes to the Acts and proposed changes to regulations as part of the overall
reauthorization process are not detailed.
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
1
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
FUNDING STREAMS
BACKGROUND:
Current complex program administrative structures don't encourage
collaboration between programs. Current structures cause confusion
among prospective program applicants and partners about how to access
national service resources.
CHANGES:
Except for the funds reserved for "national direct-style" programming
within each program area (except the Senior Corps), administer programs
through the State Commissions.
Distribute AmeriCorps grants, Learn and Serve America K-12 and
Higher Education, and AmeriCorps*VISTA funds based on the 1/3
national direct, 2/3 state-commission formula.
The Corporation will have responsibility for administering the multi-state
national direct projects for AmeriCorps* National as well as 1/3 of
AmeriCorps*VISTA, Learn and Serve America K-12 and Higher Ed,
and all of Tribes and Territories through a national direct pool.
The Corporation will retain responsibility for operation of the
AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps.
Adjust AmeriCorps* State (not AmeriCorps*National) so that 2/3 of the
AmeriCorps* State dollars are distributed by population formula and 1/3 in
the form of a "bonus pool."
Place administration of AmeriCorps*VISTA members (except proposed
"national direct" members) under State Commissions using the current
VISTA formula to determine available slots per state.
Learn and Serve America: K-12 grants (except proposed "national
direct" grants) will be awarded to by State Education Agencies through
State Commissions using the current Learn and Serve America K-12
formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Learn and Serve America: Higher Education grants (except
proposed "national direct" grants) through State Commissions using the
current Learn and Serve America: Higher Ed formula to determine
available slots per state.
Administer National Senior Service Corps programs through the State
Commissions. All current programs will be held harmless until they are
recompeted (within 6 years). No funds from local grantees will be
diverted to State Commissions to administer Senior Corps programs.
There will be a phase-in period to ensure that the increased responsibility
of state commissions will be matched by an increased capacity to handle
new demands. At the same time, there will be a redirection and
2
downsizing of the Corporation's field presence to assist in the transition
and to assure that the Corporation funds are well spent. Money saved
from the administration of the Corporation's field structure will be
directed to State Commissions to enable them to handle their enhanced
responsibilities.
BACKGROUND:
The current process for selecting individual programs for funding from the
AmeriCorps* State competitive pool is time- and labor-intensive and is
sometimes construed as the Corporation second-guessing states.
"Objective third parties" are under-utilized and the field's expertise and
knowledge of current programs and conditions are not integral parts of the
current decision-making process. The needs for fairness and effectiveness
in the competitive process and the degree of resources it consumes hinders
the Corporation's ability to engage in aggressive efforts to assist programs
in improving their quality.
CHANGE:
The AmeriCorps* State competitive funds will be made into a "bonus
pool" to be awarded to states for competitive distribution to programs.
The share of the bonus pool awarded to each state will be based on State
Commission and program quality, capacity, and other criteria as defined
by the Corporation with input from State Commissions and other partners,
and implemented by an outside entity funded by the Corporation through a
competitive process.
AMERICORPS FIXED GRANTS
BACKGROUND:
The process for negotiating detailed grant amounts with potential grantees
is time-intensive, subjective, and results in significant differences between
similar programs.
CHANGES:
Codify the Grassley agreement and the current practice of asking states to
achieve a specific average cost-per-member. No individual cost per
member will be allowed to exceed a set cap. National Direct programs
will have a fixed cap on cost per member to be calculated based on the
average cost per member amount for all members in the program.
The legislation will specify that the Corporation should set the average and
maximum by regulation. The Corporation should report the average and
maximum to the appropriate committees of the Congress.
MATCHES FOR AMERICORPS, LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA K-12 AND HIGHER
EDUCATION, AND STATE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION
BACKGROUND:
The Corporation spends a significant amount of resources monitoring
3
compliance with matching requirements. Match requirements are overly
prescriptive and inconsistent across program streams. The way the match
is now structured has lead to criticism about "total available resources"
available to programs and confuses people about the amount of taxpayer
funds dedicated to the program.
CHANGE:
Eliminate the match requirements in conjunction with establishing
standard grant amounts. The Corporation will be required to report the
average and maximum grant amounts to Congress. It will be clear that the
Corporation is not retreating on its commitment to private sector support.
With standardized grant amounts, programs will have to find additional
resources to operate.
SENIOR CORPS PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND:
The Senior Corps needs to ensure that programs receiving funds are of the
highest quality and no grantee feels entitled to funding regardless of
quality.
CHANGE:
All Senior Corps programs will be required to re-compete at least every
six years. One criteria will be the impact of the program on the
community.
BACKGROUND:
The statute does not authorize enough funds to evaluate Senior Corps
programs. The legislation should increase funds available to evaluate
Senior Corps programs without taking program funds from Seniors.
CHANGE:
Remove the cap on evaluation funds for Seniors under the Domestic and
Volunteer Service Act. Evaluation funds authorized under a separate
subtitle of the National and Community Service Trust Act will also be
used to evaluate all Corporation programs.
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA: K-12 AND HIGHER ED
BACKGROUND:
There is confusion about the focus of these programs.
CHANGE:
Refer to both student community-service and the service learning as the
purposes of the program. Expand emphasis on capacity building and
strengthening the service-learning infrastructure within and across
education institutions.
EDUCATION AWARDS
BACKGROUND:
Because the Education Award counts as taxable income in the year(s) it is
used, the actual value to AmeriCorps members may be reduced.
4
CHANGE:
The education award of $4,725 should be "non-taxable" income like Peace
Corps end-of-service stipends and GI Bill benefits.
BACKGROUND:
AmeriCorps members accrue legitimate educational debt through
institutions that are not covered under the current Act, which is tied to the
Higher Education Act.
CHANGE:
Expand the definition of "qualified student loans" to include loans that
were clearly part of an approved financial aid package but were not made,
insured, or guaranteed by the federal government (e.g. a student loan
made by the State of Alaska to a resident of Alaska).
Expand the definition of "approved higher education institutions" to allow
post-secondary education at certain schools that may not have received
federal aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act.
LOWER-AGE LIMITS OF AMERICORPS*NCCC AND AMERICORPS* STATE AND
NATIONAL MEMBERS
BACKGROUND:
Age limits across these programs are inconsistent. Programs need greater
flexibility to recruit individuals appropriate for the programs.
CHANGES:
Allow the AmeriCorps NCCC to limit participation, which is now set at
individuals ages 16-24, at 18. Retain the flexibility to recruit 16- and 17-
year olds for appropriate projects, such as summer programs. Lower the
eligible age limit from 17 to 16 for all AmeriCorps* State and National
programs, but maintain programs' option to limit participation to
individuals 17 or older or 18 or older.
5
Comparison of Funding via AmeriCorps Grants, VISTA, and Learn and Serve Allocations
Hypothetical Distribution of $100 Million in Funding
--AMERICORPS GRANTS 1/
VISTA 2/
L&S 3/
Percentage Differences
State
Distribution of
Distribution of
Distribution of
Grants
Grants
VISTA
Population
$100 MILLION
$100 MILLION
$100 MILLION
vs.
vs.
vs.
State
Estimates
($ 000)
($ 000)
($ 000)
VISTA
L&S
L&S
Alabama
4,252,982
$1,597
$2,337
$1,695
-31.67%
-5.81%
37.85%
Alaska
603,617
227
162
250
39.56%
-9.43%
-35.10%
Arizona
4,217,940
1,583
1,186
1,550
33.46%
2.17%
-23.44%
Arkansas
2,483,769
932
1,430
1,025
-34.79%
-9.07%
39.45%
California
31,589,153
11,859
10,251
11,312
15.68%
4.84%
-9.37%
Colorado
3,746,585
1,406
962
1,213
46.24%
15.91%
-20.74%
Connecticut
3,274,662
1,229
793
975
55.10%
26.04%
-18.74%
Delaware
717,197
269
223
246
20.60%
9.61%
-9.11%
District of Columbia
554,256
208
368
218
-43.43%
-4.59%
68.65%
Florida
14,165,570
5,318
4,177
4,462
27.31%
19.19%
-6.38%
Georgia
7,200,882
2,703
2,870
2,613
-5.82%
3.44%
9.83%
Hawaii
1,186,815
446
357
359
24.63%
24.05%
-0.46%
Idaho
1,163,261
437
456
425
-4.18%
2.87%
7.36%
Illinois
11,829,940
4,441
4,290
4,595
3.52%
-3.34%
-6.63%
Indiana
5,803,471
2,179
1,800
1,914
21.07%
13.81%
-5.99%
lowa
2,841,764
1,067
998
941
6.93%
13.35%
6.00%
Kansas
2,565,328
963
782
914
23.11%
5.32%
-14.45%
Kentucky
3,860,219
1,449
2,032
1,625
-28.70%
-10.80%
25.11%
Louisiana
4,342,334
1,630
2,583
2,278
-36.88%
-28.43%
13.39%
Maine
1,241,382
466
460
428
1.22%
8.99%
7.67%
Maryland
5,042,438
1,893
1,321
1,564
43.26%
21.03%
-15.51%
Massachusetts
6,073,550
2,280
1,739
1,937
31.11%
17.72%
-10.21%
Michigan
9,549,353
3,585
3,298
4,110
8.71%
-12.78%
-19.77%
Minnesota
4,609,548
1,730
1,307
1,554
32.39%
11.35%
-15.89%
Mississippi
2,697,243
1,013
1,907
1,458
-46.90%
-30.56%
30.76%
Missouri
5,323,523
1,998
1,966
1,867
1.66%
7.04%
5.29%
Montana
870,281
327
368
365
-11.18%
-10.54%
0.72%
Nebraska
1,637,112
615
569
542
7.94%
13.30%
4.97%
Nevada
1,530,108
574
268
419
114.24%
37.13%
-35.99%
New Hampshire
1,148,253
431
246
343
75.20%
25.81%
-28.19%
New Jersey
7,945,298
2,983
2,252
2,449
32.46%
21.78%
-8.06%
New Mexico
1,685,401
633
761
791
-16.89%
-20.01%
-3.75%
New York
18,136,081
6,808
7,507
7,701
-9.31%
-11.59%
-2.52%
North Carolina
7,195,138
2,701
2,726
2,279
-0.92%
18.52%
19.61%
North Dakota
643,539
242
277
254
-12.68%
-4.89%
8.92%
Ohio
11,150,506
4,186
3,796
4,318
10.27%
-3.05%
-12.08%
Oklahoma
3,277,687
1,230
1,330
1,261
-7.48%
-2.40%
5.49%
Oregon
3,140,585
1,179
1,070
1,096
10.19%
7.58%
-2.36%
Pennsylvania
12,071,842
4,532
3,951
4,418
14.69%
2.58%
-10.56%
Puerto Rico (1993)
3,622,063
1,360
6,477
2,687
-79.01%
-49.40%
141.01%
Rhode Island
989,794
372
307
327
21.06%
13.64%
-6.13%
South Carolina
3,673,287
1,379
1,624
1,365
-15.09%
1.03%
18.98%
South Dakota
729,034
274
393
296
-30.38%
-7.42%
32.97%
Tennessee
5,256,051
1,973
2,390
1,838
-17.45%
7.37%
30.06%
Texas
18,723,991
7,029
6,874
8,047
2.26%
-12.65%
-14.58%
Utah
1,951,408
733
578
744
26.84%
-1.54%
-22.37%
Vermont
584,771
220
193
225
13.75%
-2.38%
-14.18%
Virginia
6,618,358
2,485
1,984
1,910
25.23%
30.05%
3.85%
Washington
5,430,940
2,039
1,544
1,788
32.05%
14.06%
-13.63%
West Virginia
1,828,140
686
931
825
-26.32%
-16.80%
12.92%
Wisconsin
5,122,871
1,923
1,387
1,961
38.67%
-1.91%
-29.26%
Wyoming
480,184
180
142
224
27.20%
-19.62%
-36.81%
TOTAL
266,379,505
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1/ Formula only (pop. based) ; no adjustments for small state minimum as included in the regulations.
2/ Formula only; no adjustments for prior year experience or other items as included in practice.
3/ Formula only (school age plus pov. based); no adjustments for actual competitive grants, which represents 25% of the total.
01/10/9702:45 PM
DRAFT
Memo to Shirley and Gene
From:
Stu
Re:
Memo to Board
Date:
January 10, 1997
Attached is the draft memo to the Board explaining major decisions for
reauthorization of the Trust Acts.
DRAFT
1
DRAFT
Memorandum to the Board of Directors
From:
??
Re:
Major Issues for the Reauthorization of the National Service
Acts.
Date:
The following are the most important aspects of national service that could be improved
through the reauthorization of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973.
These issues were identified and addressed by the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer
and an inter-departmental working group after extensive consultation with the field -
national service projects and programs, State Commissions and State Program Offices,
private- and independent-sector partners, and other interested parties.
Please note that the following is not an exhaustive list of proposed improvements. Minor
and/or uncontroversial changes to the Acts and proposed changes to regulations as part of
the overall reauthorization process are not detailed.
DRAFT
2
DRAFT
FUNDING STREAMS
PROBLEM: Current program structures create disconnects between programs. (For
instance, they do not encourage Learn and Serve America: Higher
Education programs to work closely with AmeriCorps* State projects.)
Current program structures are duplicative.
The Corporation puts too much focus on judgment of grant application
quality at the expense of other activities.
CHANGES: Distribute AmeriCorps* State and National, Learn and Serve America K-
12 and Higher Education, and AmeriCorps* VISTA funds based on the 1/3
national direct, 2/3 state-commission formula.
The Corporation will have responsibility for administering multi-state
national direct projects for AmeriCorps grants as well as
AmeriCorps VISTA, Learn and Serve America K-12 and Higher Ed, and
Tribes and Territories through a national direct pool.
Adjust AmeriCorps* State (not AmeriCorps* National) so that 2/3 of the
AmeriCorps* State dollars are distributed by population formula and 1/3 in
the form of a "bonus pool." Make "bonus pool" pool based on quality,
capacity, and other criteria as defined by the Corporation with input from
State Commissions and other partners, and judged by an outside entity yet
to be identified.
Place administration of AmeriCorps* VISTA members (except proposed
AmeriCorps* VISTA "national direct" members) under State Commissions
using the current VISTA formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Learn and Serve America:K-12 grants (except proposed Learn
and Serve America: K-12 "national direct" grants) by State Education
Agencies through State Commissions using the current Learn and Serve
America K-12 formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Learn and Serve America: Higher Education grants (except
proposed Learn and Serve America: Higher Education "national direct"
grants) through State Commissions using the current Learn and Serve
America: Higher Ed formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Senior Corps programs through the State Commissions. All
current programs will be held harmless until they are recompeted (within 6
years). Senior Programs will not lose administration money.
There will be a phase-in period to ensure that the increased responsibility
DRAFT
3
DRAFT
of state commissions will be matched by an increased capacity to handle
new demands. At the same time, there will be a redirection and
downsizing of the Corporation's field presence to assist in the transition
and to assure that the Corporation funds are well spent. Money saved
from the administration of the Corporation's field structure will be
directed to State Commissions to enable them to handle their enhanced
responsibilities.
AMERICORPS FIXED GRANTS
PROBLEM: The Corporation spends too much in resources negotiating grant amounts
with projects.
CHANGES: Codify the current practice of awarding a state "$###,000 to be used to
support ### AmeriCorps members, at an average cost per member of
$##,000. No individual cost per member may exceed $##,000." National
Direct programs will have a fixed cap on cost per member.
Specify that the Corporation should set the average and maximum by
regulation. The Corporation should report what the average and maximum
are to Congress.
MATCHES FOR AMERICORPS, LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA K-12 AND
HIGHER EDUCATION, AND STATE COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION
PROBLEM: The Corporation spends too much in resources monitoring grantee
matches. Match requirements are overly prescriptive and inconsistent
across programs. Match structure leads to unfair confusion of "total
available resources" and "cost to the federal taxpayer."
CHANGES: Eliminate the match requirements. Because the Corporation will be
required to report the average and maximum grant amounts to Congress,
it will be clear that the Corporation is not retreating on its commitment to
private sector support - with reduced grant amounts, programs will have
to find other resources to operate.
EDUCATION AWARDS
PROBLEM: Because the Education Award counts as taxable income in the year(s) it is
used, the value to AmeriCorps members is reduced significantly.
AmeriCorps members accrue legitimate educational debt through
institutions that are not covered under the current Act.
DRAFT
4
DRAFT
CHANGES: The education award of $4,725 should be "non-taxable" income like Peace
Corps end-of-service stipends and GI Bill benefits.
Expand the definition of "qualified student loans" to include loans that
were clearly part of an approved financial aid package but were not made,
insured, or guaranteed by the federal government (e.g. a student loan
made by the State of Alaska to a resident of Alaska). Expand the
definition of "approved higher education institutions" to allow post-
secondary education at certain schools that may not have received federal
aid under title IV of the Higher Education Act.
SENIOR PROGRAMS
PROBLEM:
CHANGES: All Senior programs will be required to re-compete at least every six
years.
Lower the age of eligibility for participation in Senior Companions and
Foster Grandparents from 60 to 55 years of age to match the eligibility
requirements of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program.
Delete statutory language mandating when and how the Corporation will
adjust any stipend or allowance provided to Foster Grand Parents and
Senior Companions.
Remove cap on evaluation funds for Seniors under the Domestic and
Volunteer Service Act. Evaluation funds authorized under a separate
subtitle of the National and Community Service Trust Act can also be used
to evaluate Corporation programs.
Eliminate preference for State Units on Aging with regard to Retired
Senior Volunteer Program projects.
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA: K-12 AND HIGHER ED
PROBLEM: There is confusion over the focus of these programs.
CHANGE: Refer to both community-service and the service learning as the purposes
of the program.
DRAFT
5
DRAFT
Decision Memo, Part II
To:
The Reauthorization Group
(Frank Beal, Debbie Jospin, Gary Kowlaczyk, Myung Lee, Shirley
Sagawa, Jim Scheibel, Gene Sofer, Barry Stevens, Steve Waldman)
From:
Stu Loeser
Date:
January 10, 1997
Following are summaries of the decisions reached at the Friday's and Monday's
reauthorization meetings with Harris. The following will be added to the decision memo
we gave to Harris last week to form a cumulative decision memo.
Please note that like the decision memo we gave to Harris last week, the text below is not
designed as an option paper. Versions of this memo may be used to put the Corporation's
intentions for reauthorization on record.
If you are so inclined, please review this document carefully and forward your comments
back to me.
DRAFT
1
DRAFT
FUNDING STREAMS / COMPETITIVE POOLS
CHANGES: Distribute AmeriCorps* State and National, Learn and Serve America K-
12 and Higher Education, and AmeriCorps* VISTA funds based on the 1/3
national direct, 2/3 state-commission formula.
Adjust AmeriCorps* State (not AmeriCorps National) so that 2/3 of the
AmeriCorps* State dollars are distributed by population formula and 1/3 in
the form of a "bonus pool." Make "bonus pool" pool based on quality,
capacity, and other criteria as defined by the Corporation with input from
State Commissions and other partners, and judged by an outside entity yet
to be identified..
Place administration of AmeriCorps* VISTA members (except proposed
AmeriCorps VISTA "national direct" members) under State Commissions
using the current VISTA formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Learn and Serve America:K-12 grants (except proposed Learn
and Serve America: K-12 "national direct" grants) by State Education
Agencies through State Commissions using the current Learn and Serve
America K-12 formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Learn and Serve America: Higher Education grants (except
proposed Learn and Serve America: Higher Education "national direct"
grants) through State Commissions using the current Learn and Serve
America: Higher Ed formula to determine available slots per state.
Administer Senior Corps programs the State Commissions. All current
programs will be held harmless until they are recompeted (within 6 years).
Senior Programs will not lose administration money.
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
CHANGE: Strengthen prohibitions on lobbying and political activity.
2
DRAFT
STATE COMMISSIONS AND THE CORPORATION BOARD
CHANGES: Extend "to the maximum extent practicable" caveat to State Commission
bi-partisanship requirements.
Require ex oficio Corporation for National Service representative to State
Commissions to be a non-voting member.
MANAGING DIRECTORS
CHANGE: Eliminate one Managing Director slot and provisions for Assistant
Directors.
EMPLOYEES AND PERSONNEL ISSUES
CHANGES: Extend flexibility of the Alternative Personnel System beyond hiring and
promotion to include removal for cause.
Allow the Corporation to enter personal service contracts to hire and
oversee "temps" individually.
EVALUATION FUNDS
CHANGE: Allow Evaluation funds currently authorized under Subtitle F of the
NCSTA to be used for all Corporation sponsored national service
programs including those authorized by the DVSA.
Allow evaluation activities to be an acceptable use of funds authorized
under individual program sections.
STATE ADMIN MATCH
3
DRAFT
CHANGE: Eliminate the match to reduce micromanagement. As earlier discussed,
this would be done with a reduction in overall Corporation dollars per
grant.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
CHANGES: Eliminate all one-time studies.
Centralize all Reporting requirements in one Division.
Eliminate the requirement that the Corporation evaluate the impact of
national service on recruitment of VISTAs and Peace Corps members.
Require the Corporation to evaluate national service's effect on the
recruitment efforts of the Armed Forces only if the Secretary of Defense
does not do so.
NOTICE, HEARING, AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
CHANGES: Eliminate (costly) binding artbitration for grievances.
Differentiate between AmeriCorps members and outside parties
TRIBES AND TERRITORIES
CHANGE: Establish a single, unified tribe application directly to the Corporation for
all AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, and Senior Corps programs for a
particular Tribe or Territory.
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
CHANGE: Make all AmeriCorps and Senior Corps members eligible for Family and
Medical Leave.
4
DRAFT
Memo to Reauthorization Group
From: Stu
Attached please find a draft of a memo to Harris outlining
everything we've discussed at reauthorization meetings
that we have not yet presented to him.
If we get through the rest of our first memo to him, we may
begin to address these issues in our meeting with Harris on
Tuesday.
DRAFT
11
DRAFT
Reauthorization Memo #3 to Harris Wofford
From:
The Reauthorization Group
(Debbie Jospin, Gary Kowlaczyk, Myung Lee, Stu Loeser, Terry Russell,
Shirley Sagawa, Jim Scheibel, Gene Sofer, Barry Stevens, Steve
Waldman)
Date:
Following are the issues we discussed at our second and third out-of-the-office
reauthorization meetings. The Group has now covered every significant issue for
reauthorization except privatization.
EARNED AUTONOMY
The Group sees three options for "earned autonomy":
A two- or three-tiered system, in which good performing Commissions get more
money and poor performing Commissions lose money in fixed dollar cuts -
perhaps Learn and Serve, Seniors, and/or admin money, some of which may be
directed towards improving the Commissions
A system in which 50% of the money to go to State Commissions is distributed
by population formula, and 50% is distributed through a formula based on
quality.
An OSHA-like model, in which states are held harmless regarding money, but
the degree to which the Corporation acts paternalistically is affected by quality.
(The better the quality, the less Washington is in your face.) Those of the Group
who disagree with eliminating the competitive pool feel that if we must do so,
this scenario is most likely to encourage quality.
Most of the Group agreed that while it is difficult to increase paternalism once it has been
lessened, it is impossible to take back chunks of money once they have been
devolved/granted. Therefore, most of the Group feels autonomy, not money, should be
the carrot.
The Group agrees that the Corporation must retain authority to approve the State Plans
and ought to have some veto authority over programs.
The Group agrees that the quality of AmeriCorps programs should not affect how many
Senior Corps positions exist in a state.
Most important, the Group agrees that quality standards will take into account both the
quality of the Commission and the programs in the state. The standards will be objective
and will weigh clearly measurable factors.
DRAFT
1
DRAFT
The Group has carefully prepared very detailed models of quality formulas but has not
yet reviewed them together. We will report to you once we do so.
RETENTION OF SEPARATE AUTHORIZATIONS (NCSTA AND DVSA)
Some members of the group feel that a single authorization would integrate and
encourage cooperation among programs; simplify a currently cumbersome system
likely to get even more so through reauthorization; and reduce duplication.
The Group disagrees whether there is much symbolic value to be gained from combining
the Acts.
Some of the Group feels that all the consolidation and cooperation we hope to see in
practice could still be implemented through dual authorizations. Moreover,
retention of a separate DVSA affords us significant cover against charges that we
are trying to eliminate VISTA and might inadvertently hurt the Senior Corps.
VISTA STRUCTURE
The Group envisions three options of ways in which the AmeriCorps*VISTA
program could operate under the proposed revised structures:
All positions are determined and distributed from headquarters as part of the
National Leadership Pool.
Some proportion of positions are determined and distributed from headquarters
as part of the National Leadership Pool. The rest go to states as block grants
Some proportion of positions are determined and distributed from headquarters
as part of the National Leadership Pool. The rest go to states earmarked as
VISTAs.
The portions which would go to states could be determined as the currently are - based
on population.
NATIONAL LEADERSHIP POOL
The Group agrees that we should not codify the proposed National Leadership Pool in a
centralized section or subtitle, because that would make it easier to kill. Rather,
DRAFT
2
DRAFT
centralized authority should be authorized under each relevant place (Learn and Serve,
AmeriCorps grants, etc.) that we could later operate as a coordinated system.
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA K-12
The Group several issues related to Learn and Serve America K-12 under the proposed
devolution/streamlining plan.
The group imagines that most of the money will go to State Commission based on
formula, with some retained as part of the National Leadership Pool. The Group agrees
that Learn and Serve K-12 should therefore be analogous to AmeriCorps grants and other
programs regarding "earning keys to the kingdom" and match.
The Group sees two options for the Learn and Serve America K-12 formula:
the current formula of poverty and population, (with a small state minimum), or
straight population with a small state minimum
Members of the Group who support the poverty and population formula do so because
Learn and Serve was originally sold as a method of teaching at-risk youth, and practically
all federal education aid is based on this formula.
Members of the Group who support the straight population formula do so for reasons of
consistency between AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve grants - particularly because both
will be administered by State Commissions - and because all students should be taught
the ethic of service, not just those in poorer communities.
The Group also sees two options in how much guidance the Corporation should have
regarding the ratio of which types of organizations can get grants:
We (by law or regulation) set guidelines on the proportion of grants that should
go to SEAs and community-based groups, or
We do not provide guidelines on the proportion of grants to different types of
organizations.
The Group agrees that Learn and Serve K-12 should focus more of its resources on
infrastructure building. This could be done either as a proportion of each State's funds
(which might verge on too much Washington micromanagement) or through the National
Leadership Pool.
If State Commissions were to receive the bulk of the L&SA K-12 money, then SEAs
DRAFT
3
DRAFT
would have to apply to States to get it. The Group feels that this scenario makes it much
more likely that the funds will be used to support learning related to service; because the
grant sizes are small by SEA standards, they never really focused on our intentions.
The Group also wants to authorize the Corporation to set a minimum grant amount by
regulation, to ensure that grants are large enough to ensure that they are not lost in a mix.
STATE COMMISSIONS AND THE CORPORATION BOARD
The Group disagreed whether:
The State Commission Boards should be made more like the Corporation's
Board,
The Corporation's Board Should be more like the State Commissions,
Both should be liberalized, or
Maintaining the status quo is the best option.
Some members of the Group argued that the current State Commission structure:
prevents State Commissions from becoming government or being subsumed by
government,
prevents Governors from stacking the Commissions with cronies and/or donors, and
has flaws that have become obvious over the last three years - but any replacement
would be likely to have new flaws.
Others feel that not only can the current structure be fairly characterized as
micromanagement, the fact that the statute is far less prescriptive regarding the
Corporation's Board smacks of Washington arrogance.
Some of the Group responded that it's more-or-less the Corporation's own fault that we
have been less than successful in fulfilling our one requirement for the Board - bi-
partisanship, and asked 'why we would want to add more requirements?' In fact, neither
the (Bush-era) Commission nor the Corporation has even come close to filling the Board.
Furthermore, some argued that requiring us to have certain positions filled leaves us at
the mercy of the Senate for approval. The Senate could theoretically put us in violation
of the law and inflict punitive oversight activity.
In response, some posited that such a scenario could exist under some states' laws, too -
and we might be the ones doing critical oversight.
DRAFT
4
DRAFT
On related issues, the Group agreed that:
While we may like as many State Commissions as possible to incorporate as non-profits,
we should not require them to in the statute. The Group is investigating further how to
mention this option in the Act, as a means of encouragement to individual states.
The Group feels strongly that State Commissions not ought not be controlled by any
other State entity. However, the Group also feels we shouldn't make prohibitions in the
statute that we would not like to enforce, particularly in our largest states. Ultimately, if a
governor doesn't want to play, we can't force them to do so.
The Group also feels that Corporation State Directors should not continue to serve as ex
officio members of the State Commissions, because the State Directors have vested
interests in the streamlining of state apparatuses. In addition, leaving the Directors as ex
officio members rewards them if their states do not streamline - because if the state did
streamline, the individuals would cease to be State Directors, and would therefore no
longer sit on the Commission that may - or may not - employ them. The Group noted,
however, that it would be willing to give this provision back if necessary during
consideration of the bill.
The Group agrees we should eliminate the ex officio Corporation Board slots for the
relevant Cabinet Secretaries. This makes sense because we are no longer making
AmeriCorps grants to other federal agencies - and because doing so might have
significant symbolic value.
The Group agrees that we shouldn't propose touching the Board Duties - both because
they reflect hundreds of hours of painful 1993 negotiations, and because we might not
like any changes that are made.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
The Group agrees that:
All one-time studies should be eliminated.
The relationship with the Board should remain the same.
The evaluation requirements should be moved to Division F.
MANAGING DIRECTORS
The Group disagreed as to what should be done with the five PAS slots that are
DRAFT
5
DRAFT
outlined in the Act. The Group sees four options:
Eliminating the Managing Directors,
Eliminating one of the Managing Directors,
Making one Managing Director slots have more authority than the other
(perhaps an Executive Director and a Managing Director), or
No changes.
At no time have we had a full complement. Three - CEO, CFO, and IG - must remain
as PAS. (The Group was unsure at the time of the meeting if the CFOs Act and the IG
Act technically covered the Corporation, but we agreed that either way, they should
remain as PAS for political and policy reasons.)
Some members of the Group argue that the Managing Directors (MD) positions are
overly constrictive, because they do not allow the Corporation to adjust to differing needs
at different times.
Others argue that the prestige (and associated support by the White House Office of
Personnel) of PAS assists the Corporation in recruiting highly qualified individuals for
these Senior Staff positions. Besides, they argue, the OMB is unlikely to reduce the
White House's potential opportunities to place individuals in the Administration.
Still others argued that having two (apparently) coequal MDs may have made sense when
Congress was thinking of merging ACTION with the new national service programs, but
is not as logical for the Corporation's current structure. These individuals argued we
should explore other options, such as one Executive Director and one Managing Director
- a change with which OMB may have less trouble.
A final option is to eliminate just one of the MD slots.
EMPLOYEES AND PERSONNEL ISSUES
The Group agrees we should try to amend the Act to allow us to enter personal service
contracts, so we can hire and oversee "temps" individually. We would no longer have to
support the administrative overhead of a temp service.
The Group would also like to make the alternative personal system what the
Administration thought it was getting in 1993 (a fully flexible system) rather than what it
got (a system that allows flexibility in hiring and promotion, but is traditional in other
ways - e.g. bumping rights.
DRAFT
6
DRAFT
Some members of the Group feel that we should attempt to do more by requiring all
Corporation employees, including those under the older, traditional service rules, to serve
under five year renewable contracts. The Group disagrees over whether it is possible to
amend personnel contracts unilaterally; we all agree that the union and others would be
strongly opposed to this.
EVALUATION
The Group agrees that all one-time studies should be deleted. We also agree that the
section that the Corporation should not have to evaluate the impact of its programs on
recruitment of VISTAs and Peace Corps members. We also agree that the Corporation
should only have to evaluate our effect on the recruitment efforts of the Armed Forces if
the Secretary of Defense does not do so. (He has for the last two years).
The Group agrees that all evaluation requirements should be placed under Division F.
EVALUATION FUNDS FOR STATE COMMISSIONS
The Group is in disagreement over how to establish the proper emphasis on
evaluation.
Some members of the Group feel that as budgets get tighten, evaluation is always the first
thing to be cut. To prevent a situation in which too little money is spent on
evaluation, we should codify a high floor for evaluation - which doesn't mean more
money couldn't be spent.
Others respond that it is more likely that Congress will write in a low floor and, over
time, programs tend to end up getting the floor. Therefore, these members of the
Group propose we say that the Corporation may authorize up to x% of a total grant
to be used on evaluation.
ADMINISTRATION FUNDS FOR STATE COMMISSIONS
The Group agrees that the current admin language - that no less than 40 percent of the
admin appropriation can go to state commissions - will continue to work as more
authority is devolved to them. The group agrees we should oppose any cap on admin
proportions.
DRAFT
7
DRAFT
The group also notes that particularly in the short term, though state commissions will be
doing more admin, the Corporation will not necessarily be doing less. The logical
solution to the problems this presents is to obtain more admin money, particularly if it
doesn't have to be in a single budget line item. We can also transfer monetary savings
from Corporation State Offices to State Commission admin, particularly if the saving can
stay within the state. Establishing Legislative History on this transfer might be extremely
helpful.
STATE ADMIN MATCH
The Group disagrees on how to treat the state commission admin match for AmeriCorps
grants. As you know, current law set the match at 25%, though we have moved it to
33%. The Group envisions three options:
Eliminate the match to reduce micromanagement. As earlier discussed, this would
be done with a reduction in overall Corporation dollars per grant.
Increase it (perhaps to 50%) because matches are politically "good" as they
demonstrate non-governmental support
Codify it at 33%.
The Group agrees that if a match is retained, it should be clearly a match as a percent of
the Corporation grant to move away from "total available resources" arguments.
NOTICE, HEARING, AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
The Group agrees that the current grievance system is ineffective, expensive, and leaves
most parties dissatisfied. We propose to require every state and local grantee to have
grievance procedure providing for a full and fair hearing. (We propose being silent on
the examination of witnesses.) If the grievance procedure is done at a program level,
parties would bring their appeals to State Commissions, leaving the Corporation largely
out of it. (National directs and extreme cases will still be brought to the Corporation, the
IG or EO.)
The General Counsel's Office is preparing more detailed options on this topic.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Group agrees that all reporting requirements should be moved to Subtitle G for the
DRAFT
8
DRAFT
sake of consistency.
PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
Some members of the Group feel that the prohibitions on lobbying and political
activity should be strengthened. Others feel that the language is as tough as could
be. (In 1993, Senator Bond's staff tried to tighten it and found they could do no more
than had already been done). Besides, some argue, all of our limits are really set in
regulations.
Some members of the Group voiced concerns about inconsistencies in lobbying
restrictions between VISTA and grants program members, and advocated
extending the codified restrictions to VISTAs. Others responded that in light of how
proposed changes may affect VISTA, we should be careful not to be seen as "piling
on." Besides, they argue, if we retain separate acts, we can have what Congress sees as
restrictions without further enraging VISTA supporters. The first group responded that it
is precisely our proposed changes - which will lead to VISTAs and grants programs
participants working more closely together - that argue for standardization.
TRIBES AND TERRITORIES
The Group suggests establishing a unified tribe application directly to the National
Leadership Pool for all AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, and Senior Corps programs for a
particular Tribe or Territory. The Group agrees that in addition to encouraging
cooperation across the programs, this would be a significantly easier option that the status
quo both for the Tribes/Territories and for the Corporation.
The Group also agrees that nonprofits should be able to apply for funds out of the
Tribes/Territories pool, if they can demonstrate that the service will benefit tribes. The
Group agrees that requirements should be developed in regulations or application
guidelines.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Group agrees that all reporting requirements which do not make sense in light of
proposed structural reforms be revised or eliminated. The Group also agrees that all
reporting requirements be centralized in Subtitle G.
The Group also agrees that the annual report should be incorporated into the Unified State
Plan.
DRAFT
9
DRAFT
FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE
The Group agrees that Family and Medical Leave is among the President's proudest
accomplishments, and we should not seek waivers for any of our programs.
TEAM-BASED SERVICE
Some members of the Group feel we have still not resolved the degree to which
AmeriCorps is to remain a team-based service program - and what the legislative
implications of this decision may be.
DRAFT
10