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
289844685
label
Reauthorization Desk File [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
289844685
contentType
document
title
Reauthorization Desk File [2]
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
289844685
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
99905611-20130661F-Seg2-028-014-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a45c5453d1147b17
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:
Reuthorization Desk File [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
9
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Shirley Sagawa
Realth
FROM:
David Darl Rymph
DATE:
October 25, 1995
SUBJECT: Reauthorization Cost Issues
When considering the issue of costs, it may be worth your time to review some results of the
Summer of Safety (SOS) analysis we did with Harry Hatry of the Urban Institute. That study
is the only one to date that tries to identify all of the Corporation's costs by program with any
degree of accuracy or thoroughness. I am attaching a copy of the report and below is a list of
some findings relevant to the reauthorization issues:
1.
CNS staff costs for the Summer of Safety were 4.6 percent of the total,
approximately $ 550,000 out of a total cost of $ 12 million. In many ways the
SOS program was a mini-version of what CNS is today. All three program types
-- NSSC, Learn and Serve, and AmeriCorps -- took part. The grant award
process was essentially a smaller scale version of each program type's method now.
It may not be unreasonable to believe that the 4.6 percent staff costs are close to
our current staff costs.
2.
The costs per participant (excluding the $ 1,000 educational benefit) in the four,
stipended programs were: NCCC - $ 7,914; Youth Corps - $5,139; National
Service Grants - $ 4,048; and VISTA- $ 2,489. The structure of the 1994 SOS
programs was much like that of these programs today. We can assume that
NCCC, as our only 24-hour a day, seven-day a week, residential program, will be
the most expensive. In AmeriCorps* National and State, most likely the traditional
youth service corps are among the more costly programs. Finally,
AmeriCorps* VISTA is the least expensive of the AmeriCorps components.
3.
CNS staff cost per SOS participant varied greatly across the programs, from $ 328
CNS staff cost per participant in NCCC to $ 82 in VISTA. The NCCC summer
program cost included $ 328 CNS staff cost per participant. National Service
Grants had a CNS staff cost of $ 284, while the Youth Corps cost was 181.
VISTA's CNS staff cost per participant was $82. The staff cost per participant in
NCCC is four times higher than VISTA. National Service Grants' staff costs were
more than three times that of VISTA. Thus, it is not just the structure of the
programs in the field that contribute to cost differentially. How programs are
staffed and administered in headquarters is a factor as well.
cc: Tracy Gray
Attachment
May 30. 1995
The Urban Institute
Notes on Cost Estimates
1994 Summer of Safety Program
1.
Cost estimates are for the program as a whole and for each of the six 1994 SOS programs
(K-12, NCCC Summer Camp. National Service Grants, Senior Corps, VISTA, and
Youth Corps).
2.
We have not included in these costs some items that. while they represent time spent on
the 1994 SOS program, appear to be quite small and in any case do not represent real
added financial cost to the government or its taxpayers. While this time presumably took
away from time available to do other work, it does not appear likely to us that any
meaningful amount of additional real dollars were involved. (Another possibility is that
these personnel put more of their own time in without affecting the quality or coverage
of their other tasks.) These excluded items include:
Time spent by state office personnel on 1994 SOS;
Time spent by a variety of "overhead" CNS personnel, such as personnel.
procurement, and high level CNS management officials who did not put in a
significant amount of time specifically on SOS and did not incur any added
financial costs to the government because of 1994 SOS.
3.
We have not included any additional time and costs that local projects may have
"donated" to the projects, nor attempted to identify the added time or costs that CNS
programs in the field may have contributed to the SOS efforts (such as by VISTA or
Senior Corps). These do not appear relevant to an analysis of the federal government's
added costs for SOS.
4.
We have provided separate cost estimates, depending on whether the compensation costs
of CNS personnel are included or not. One estimate includes the salary and fringe
benefit costs of full-time CNS personnel who spent substantial time on 1994 SOS but
would very likely have received salary and fringe benefits even if they had not worked
on SOS. This cost includes the time of both program personnel and program evaluation
personnel. Table 4 shows the estimated costs of CNS personnel for the FY 1994 SOS
program.
The other estimate excludes the costs of such time on the assumption that this time did
not actually result in any added cost to the federal government and its taxpayers. It
would be very difficult to estimate the "opportunity cost," if any, of the time spent by
these employees. However, probably, the principal opportunity cost was reduced quality
1
or coverage of other activities and not an actual financial cost. (To the extent that these
personnel put in more of their own time without hurting their other duties, this "cost"
would not be relevant to this cost analysis.)
5.
We have not in any way "audited" these cost or time figures. They are based on the data
reported to us by CNS personnel in the budget and program offices.
6.
The cost estimates are also reported both with and without the $1,000 educational benefit
for participants who completed the required number of hours of work. A problem here is
that participants have seven years to claim benefits. We have assumed that this
educational benefit is obligated and therefore have included a $1,000 benefit for each
person that is eligible. It may be that some of the eligible participants may never claim
the benefit; to the extent that these educational benefits are not used, the costs presented
here will be somewhat overstated.
Note that participants in K-12 and the Senior Corps did not receive the educational
benefit.
7.
CNS salary costs are based on estimates of the number of days applied to the 1994 SOS
program provided to us by CNS (based on figures provided by the persons themselves).
These numbers are estimates; CNS staff did not keep time sheets on SOS. These
estimated number of days have been multiplied by the individual's salary and a fringe
benefit rate. The data on which persons are included, each's number of days, and the
total dollars for each person are provided as an attachment to these tables. The salary
figures were based on the U.S. General Schedule effective for FY 1994.
8.
CNS personnel costs include fringe benefits of 28%. This figure was provided by David
Spevacek. This rate includes only "cash" fringes, not time off work such as vacation,
holidays, sick leave, etc. To consider these other fringe benefits (and their inevitable cost
to the federal government and taxpayers), we calculated daily rates for CNS by dividing
the appropriate annual salary for each CNS employee by 228 rather than 260. (The 228
figure assumes that Federal employees spend an average of 19 days per month at work).
This adds approximately 14% to employee compensation costs per day.
9.
Costs of consultants include a fringe benefit rate of 7.65% for FICA and medical
insurance costs that the federal government pays for consultants.
10.
The added costs for educational benefits are based on figures provided by CNS on
February 26, 1995; the number of 1994 SOS participants completing the 1994 SOS
program were: NCCC = 91; NSG = 688; VISTA = 934; and Youth Corps = 486. As
noted earlier, the estimates included here assume that each person will ultimately (within
the seven-year allowable period) use the $1,000 educational benefit.
2
As noted earlier, participants in the K-12 and Senior Corps program were not eligible for
the educational benefits.
11.
To estimate the costs for each of the six 1994 SOS programs, we identified the costs that
clearly were applicable to particular programs. These direct costs include the grant cost
(or grant plus educational benefit) and some other costs, such as the cost of the
ethnographic studies and cost of direct program staff time that are clearly attributable to
one and only one of the six programs. These costs are summarized in Table 1.
However, allocating costs to each program that simultaneously relate to more than one of
the six programs (such as the program evaluation and public information costs)
inevitably is somewhat arbitrary and judgmental (i.e., on what basis should individual
cost elements be allocated among the six programs). The procedures we used are
identified below.
12.
For estimating the full costs of each of the six SOS programs (shown in Table 3), those
CNS costs that were not specifically associated with one of the specific six programs but
appeared to be jointly applicable to all six programs (see Table 2) have been allocated to
the individual programs as follows:
One-half of these (Table 2) costs have been allocated to each program on the
assumption that approximately half of these costs are equally and jointly related
to the six programs.
The other half of these (Table 2) costs have been allocated in proportion to each
program's "direct program costs" (from Table 3).
As the tables indicate, the inclusion, or exclusion of these allocated costs does not make
much difference.
13.
As Table 4 indicates, the total amount of dollars for CNS staff time is approximately
$550,000 out of a total cost of about $12 million (about 4.6%).
14.
Neither the costs nor number of participants (about 62 participants) in VISTA's Texas
immunization project have been included in the numbers presented here. This project
was not actually part of the SOS program.
15.
Adding the number of participants from each of the six programs into one total number
of participants and calculating an overall SOS aggregate cost-per-participant would be
like adding apples and oranges. We have not done this. The counts of participants in K-
12 and Senior Corps are substantially higher than for other programs. Individual
participants, in most cases, probably spent substantially less time on the SOS program
than participants in other programs. In addition, the NCCC program is a residential
program, the only one of the six programs. The participants were on-site 24 hours each
3
day, seven days a week, and, thus, had to be more expensive per participant than other
programs.
16.
Table 5 presents the overall estimated total costs of the 1994 Summer of Safety program.
It presents figures with and without the educational benefits cost. It also presents figures
with and without the estimated costs of CNS personnel (since, as noted above, these
latter costs may not have led to any actual additional cost to the Federal government or
the public.)
17.
Determining "cost per participant-hour (or day)" seems to be infeasible, at least for most
of the programs. The number of participant hours was not requested for K-12. Senior
Corps participants were asked to provide their total hours upon completion of the
program, but about half apparently did not provide this information. As noted above,
NCCC is a residential program. Should the number of hours be counted as 24 hours for
each day, just the number of hours doing community service, eight hours per day
counting training and community service time, or using some other formula? VISTA
hours were not collected by the national office; the hours used for VISTA participants
are based on CNS figures as to the number of days the participants were reported to have
worked. VISTA employees are paid directly by CNS at 40 hours per week, eight hours
per day, regardless of the number of hours actually worked (whether more or less than
these numbers). Estimates could be provided for the number of hours "worked" by
Youth Corps and NSG program based on the numbers provided by the projects.
Given the availability of reasonably sound participant-hour data, calculations of the cost
per participant-hour seem of highly limited value and appear to be infeasible to obtain in
any practical and reliable way.
18.
We have calculated "cost per participant" figures. These are presented in an Appendix.
These figures have quite limited application. They do not appear to give any meaningful
indication of the efficiency, productivity, or effectiveness of the programs. The number
of participants is not an adequate measure of the product (i.e., the outcomes) of the SOS
program. To measure true efficiency and productivity, information on the amount of
product (e.g., outcomes) would be needed. Unfortunately, outcome information is not
available on 1994 SOS, neither outcomes on community safety nor on long term benefits
to the participants of the programs.
Comparisons across these programs on these costs-per-participant are also dubious.
Clearly, the unit costs for K-12 and Senior Corps should not be compared to the other
four programs. The nature of the participants differs substantially. One purpose of the
four programs is to help youngsters, particularly those disadvantaged, over the summer.
Inclusion of the additional costs of CNS SOS-related staff costs does not appear to add
substantially to these costs-per-participant. As the Appendix indicates, these CNS staff
time costs add only about $200 to the cost per participant for any of those four programs.
4
Table 1: Costs That Are Directly Applicable to Specific sos Programs
SOS Program Costs
Grants to Programs
K-12
$400,000
NCCC (including transportation and Misc.
Expenses)
509,000
National Service Grants (NSG)
2,185,577
Senior Corps (SC)
360,000
VISTA
1,941,789
Youth Corps (YC)
2,001,582
Subtotal
7,397,948
Grant Review Panel
K-12
76.000
National Service Grants (NSG)
76,000
Youth Corps (YC)
76,000
Subtotal
228,000
Program Consultants
- Youth Corps (1)
22,406
- Senior Corps (2)
33,739
Subtotal
56,145
Ethnographer Contracts
K-12
10,935
NCCC
20,000
National Service Grants
25,320
Senior Corps
9,965
VISTA
18,751
Youth Corps
8,600
Subtotal
93,571
Educational Benefits
K-12
0
NCCC
91,000
National Service Grants
688,000
Senior Corps
0
VISTA
934,000
Youth Corps
486,000
Subtotal
$2,199,000
TOTAL WITHOUT CNS PERSONNEL COSTS OR
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
7,775,664
TOTAL WITH CNS PERSONNEL COSTS (Table 4)
BUT WITHOUT EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
8,118,221
TOTAL WITH EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS BUT
WITHOUT CNS PERSONNEL COSTS
9,974,664
TOTAL WITH CNS PERSONNEL COSTS (Table 4)
AND WITH EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
10,318,221
Table 2: Costs That Are Applicable Jointly to All Six Programs
SOS Program Costs
National Events/Public Information
April New York City Public Safety Forum
49,660
May Leesburg Project Leaders Training
126,927
June St. Louis SOS Kickoff
7,000
August Chevy Chase "Wrap-Up" and Assessment Meeting
131,600
Media Support
23,300
Training and Technical Assistance (NCPC)
250,000
Program Evaluation
Consultants (4)
129,330
Travel for Staff and Consultants (includes Program and PE
22,356
Staff)
Evaluation Contracts (2)
74,800
Accomplishment Survey and Entrance and Exit Forms:
Postage, Printing, and Contract Services
38,328
Program consultants applicable to all programs (2)
58,399
Travel of program staff and consultants not assignable to individual
81,171
programs
Temporary personnel (e.g., administrative assistance, grant revenue, etc.)
364,204
Supplies
8,750
Furniture rental (7th floor)
7,000
Outside printing/copying
2,000
TOTAL Without CNS Personnel Costs
1,374,825
TOTAL With CNS Personnel Costs
1,583,047
Table 3: Costs by Program
SOS Program Costs
Excluding
Including
CNS
CNS
Personnel
Personnel
K-12
Grants to program
400,000
400,000
Grant review panel
76,000
76,000
Program staff
---
90,010
Ethnographer
10,935
10,935
Total Direct Program Cost
486,935
576,945
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
43,048
56,245
Total
644,552
765,111
Educational Benefits
0
0
Total
644,552
765,111
NCCC
Grants to program (including $25,000 for participant transportation
and Misc. Expenses)
509,000
509,000
Program staff
---
7,029
Ethnographer
20,000
20,000
Total Direct Program Cost
529,000
536,029
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
46,767
52,256
Total
690,336
720,206
Educational Benefits
91,000
91,000
Total
781,336
811,206
National Service Grants
Grants to program
2,185,577
2,185,577
Grant review panel
76,000
76,000
Program staff
---
130,480
Ethnographer
25,320
25,320
Total Direct Program Cost
2,286,897
2,417,377
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
202,175
235,664
Total
2,603,641
2,784,962
Educational Benefits
688,000
688,000
Total
3,291,641
3,472,962
Table 3: Costs by Program (Continued)
SOS Program Costs
Excluding
Including
CNS
CNS
Personnel
Personnel
Senior Corps
Grants to program
360,000
360,000
Program staff
---
31,749
Program Consultants
33,739
33,739
Ethnographer
9,965
9,965
Total Direct Program Cost
403,704
435,453
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
35,690
42,451
Total
553,963
609,825
Educational Benefits
0
0
Total
553,963
609,825
VISTA
Grants to program
1,941,789
1,941,789
Program staff
---
37,390
Ethnographer
18,751
18,751
Total Direct Program Cost
1,960,540
1,997,930
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
173,323
194,773
Total
2,248,432
2,324,624
Educational Benefits
934,000
934,000
Total
3,182,432
3,258,624
Youth Corps
Grants to program
2,001,582
2,001,582
Grant review panel
76,000
76,000
Program staff
--
46,899
Program consultant
22,406
22,406
Ethnographer
8,600
8,600
Total Direct Program Cost
2,108,588
2,155,487
Support allocation: Equal share
114,569
131,921
Support allocation: Share based on program direct costs
186,411
210,133
Total
2,409,568
2,497,541
Educational Benefits
486,000
486,000
Total
2,895,568
2,983,541
Table 4: CNS Personnel Costs
Applicable to Particular Programs:
K-12
$ 90,010
NCCC
7,029
National Service Grants
130,480
Senior Corps
31,749
VISTA
37.390
Youth Corps
46.899
Subtotal
$ 343.557
Applicable Jointly to All Six Programs:
Work with NCPC in Training and Technical
32,616
Assistance
Program Evaluation
CNS Personnel
105,244
Program Personnel Special Site Visits
12,000
CNS Program Personnel Applicable to all
55,758
programs
Budget Personnel
2,604
Subtotal
208.222
Total
$ 551.779
Table 5: 1994 Summary of Summer of Safety Costs
Costs Without
Educational Benefits
With Educational Benefits
Not
Including
Not
Including
CNS Staff
Including
Including
CNS Staff
CNS Staff
CNS Staff
Direct Costs
7,775,664
8,119,221
9,974,664
10,318,221
Indirect (Allocated) Costs
1,374,825
1,583,047
1,374,825
1,583,047
TOTAL
9,150,489
9,702,268
11,349,489
11,901,268
Appendix
Total Costs Per Participant Completing 1994 sos Program
Costs Without
Educational Benefits
With Educational Benefits
Not
Including
Not
Including
CNS
Including
Including
CNS Staff
Staff
CNS Staff
CNS Staff
NCCC (91)
$7,586
$7,914
$8,586
$8,914
National Service Grants (688)
3,784
4,048
4,784
5,048
VISTA (934)
2,407
2,489
3,407
3,489
Youth Corps (486)
4,958
5,139
5,958
6,139
K-12 (1980)
326
386
N/A
N/A
Senior Corps (2461)
226
248
N/A
N/A
Note: (1) The number in parenthesis are the numbers of participants used for these
calculations.
(2) NCCC is a 24-hour per day residential program, unlike the other programs.
(3) National Service Grants. VISTA, and Youth Corps are stipended, include
Education Awards, and involve full-time service.
(4) The numbers for the K-12 and Senior Corps program are not comparable to the
other programs. "Number of participants" for these two programs has a
substantially different meaning than for the other four programs. These programs
are primarily non-stipended, do not include Education Awards, and involve part-
time service.
5/24/95
BASIC TIME
Benefit Rates Used
1994 sos COSTS Sheet1
DATA
28% for CNS amployers
7.65% for Consultants "Temps "(Enche)
PERSON
CALENDAR PERIOD COVERED
TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS ON 1994 sos
TOTAL SALARY $ FOR THESE DAYS
TOTAL SALARY AND FRINGE BENEFITS ANY COMMENTS
Program Evaluation-Fyll Time
Employees
David Rymph
3/1/94-12/31/94
50
21,189.76
GS-15 STEP
5
Carylon Kari
3/1/94-2/10/95
35
4/1/94-2/10/95
150
11,126.53
GS-14 STEP
Ryan Ferrara
Bernie Halloran
3/1/94-12/31/94
40
20,746.00
4/1/94-9/31/94=42$PER HOUR9/31/94-PRESENT=$13 PER HO
Charles Helfer
3/1/94-12/31/94
100
12,716.03
GS-14 STEP 1
34,970.88
GS-13 STEP 10
Marie Wallace
1/4/94-2/10/95
18
21
Tony Williams
3,117.60
190PERHOUR
9/1/94-12/31/94
10
TOTAL
1,377.02
GS-6 STEP 7
Consultants
Mitchell Ratner
4/15/95-2/10/95
193
$63,890.72
68,779
$60,000.72
$41.38 PER HOUR
William Milsap
3/7/94-12/31/94
86.75
$22,208
8/22/94-11/11/94
23,907
$22,208
$32 PER HOUR
Johnnie Daniels
10
$2,600
Jamie Merisotis
2/21/94-10/21/94
2,799
$2,000
$32.50 PER HOUR
95
$31,448.80
33,865
$31,448.80
$41.38 PER HOUR
TOTAL
Director Program Administration
Full Time Employees
Catherine Pierce
2/28/94-2/10/95
231
A.T. Bostic
2/28/94-5/27/94
97,896.95
GS-15 STEP 5
60
Miles Wilson
3/14/94-8/1/94
11,325.70
GS-11 STEP 1
59
14,682.60
GS-12 STEP 4
Tim Silard
4/11/94-8/31/94
94
32,872.63
GS-13 STEP 10
Barbrara Neighbors-Glass
5/1/94-8/31/94
50
13,899.52
GS-13 STEP 2
David O'Brien
3/1/94-10/1/94
147
46,731.00
GS-14 STEP 1
K-12
Calvin Dawson
3/15/1994-1/30/95
100
Valerie Wheeler
12/1/93-9/1/94
24,885.76
GS-12 STEP 4
112
28,716.44
GS-12 STEP 5
VISTA
Kelly Daly
3/14/94-9/30/94
137
Jim Kriedler (VISTA)
3/14/94-9/30/94
32,028.00
GS-12 STEP 2
25
Jim Kriedler (David O'Brien-SOS)
3/14/94-9/30/94
4,030.05
GS-9 STEP 2
56
9,027.38
GS-9 STEP 2
Senior Corps
Douglas Ricker
5/10/94-1/6/95
108
14,934.00
4/1/94-9/31/94=12$PER HOUR9/31/94-PRESENT=$13 PER HOUR
Donna Whitaker
5/10/94-1/6/95
25
10,283.52
GM-15 -
Cari Keller
5/10/94-1/10/95
136
18'805
4/1/94-9/31/94=12$PER HOUR9/31/94-PRESENT=$13 PER HOUR
Sue Fahy
5/9/94-2/10/95
64
20,133.44
GM-14
Budget
Larry Bevan
3/1/94-3/30/94
9
Jessica Marshall
2,663.31
GM 13
5/1/94-9/31/94
9
2,605.36
$51,564 PER YEAR
Consultants
Mike Russell
3/1/94-8/31/94
105 30
37,418
R. Sampson
1/10/94-1/7/95
GS-15 STER 10 B331/day+7.657.
471 HOURS=58.875 DAYS
$19,489.98
$41.38 PER HOUR
Dick Staufenberger
5/2/94-9/23/94
503 HOURS=62.875 DAYS
$20,814.14
22,406,520,844.14
$41.38 PER HOUR
*ALL SALARIES BASED ON GROSS PAY
y 50% as a cutred emplyee $12/m+FB
50% as a"thongs "(Evene) @ $21.65
2f 100% as a "temp" C $21.65
SOURCES: Ryan Femara, fession Marshall, Donal
sporther, Danid Ryph, and 1994 G.S
Page 1
salary actedule
Changes From March 14. 1995 Total Costs
Based on CNS Memos of
May 2. May 12. and May 25 1995
1.
Addition of three CNS staff
+ 82,752
2.
Revision of costs of national
- 133,313
meetings and NCPC technical
assistance and training
($722.000 to 588.687)
3.
Double-Counting cost of
- 56.500
ethnographer contract for NCCC
4.
Deletion of Computer investment
- 26,979
cost
5.
Reduction of supplies
- 12,250
($21,000 to 8,750)
6.
Addition of NCCC Travel Costs for
+ 25,000
participants
Net Change
- 121,290
May 10, 1995
SUMMER OF SAFETY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
PRIVATE SECTOR COST ESTIMATES
The following list reports estimated costs from a private building construction
contractor. The items in italics are numbered according to their corresponding number on
the "Summer of Safety Accomplishments List of 50 Reasons Why the Corporation for
National Service Can Be Proud of Its First Corporation-Wide National Program." The final
"cost" is rounded to the nearest thousand.
ACCOMPLISHMENT
COST
Community Policing
1.
Freed up 26,413 hours of police officers' time.
$35/hour + 35% Fringe
$1,248,000
Improvement of Household Security
8.
Performed 13,513 household security surveys or audits.
$225/house*
$3,040,000
* as performed by private contractor
OR
1 hour each @$35/hour + 35% Fringe for
surveys and audits performed by police or fire dept.
$638,000
9.
Installed 1,001 new window and door locks.
1 hour each @ $25/hour + 35% Fringe
$34,000
1
Building and Neighborhood Cleanup
39.
Boarded up 711 abandoned buildings.
3 workers times 1 day per building
$25/hr per worker ( + 35% Fringe) times 24 hours
$576,000
Materials @ $600 per building
$427,000
Hauling and miscellaneous
materials/wastes @ $175 per building
$124,000
41.
Removed graffiti from 1,467 walls and fences.
Assume 12' high by 25' = 300 square feet
1/4 hour per square feet = 75 hours per fence
$12/hour + 35% Fringe times 75
$1,782,000
(includes hauling and misc. materials)
Environmental Restoration
43.
Planted 74,329 trees.
$2/tree
Plant 1 each 30 minutes
= $16.88
Hauling, etc @ 10 per tree
10.00
Total
$29 per tree
$2,156,000
45.
Built or renovated 44 miles of trails.
Asphalt 1 mile approx is $600,000 (with curbing)
(too expensive, go with the following...)
Narrow dirt trail, no asphalt compact dirt, clear grub
approximately $25,000/ mile
$1,100,000
2
Park and Playground Restoration
46.
Constructed 15 playgrounds.
new playground approx. $500,000 includes
clearing site, design, asphalt,
fence around, equipment
$7,500,000
47.
Renovated 45 playgrounds.
2 weeks times 2 men = $5,000 for one
$225,000
48.
Maintained 65 playgrounds.
$1,000 each
$65,000
49.
Repaired or painted 242 pieces of playground equipment.
2 pieces per day = 121 days
Paint @ $5,000
$39,000
50.
Bagged and removed 2,016 trash bags or barrels
of debris from neglected park and playground areas.
1 bag each hour = 27,216
Disposal costs approximately $500 each truckload
and 30 bags each truckload = $33,600
$61,000
3
Realth dish
when
file
PERSONAL
October 12, 1995
TO:
Shirley Sagawa
FROM:
Gary Kowalczyk Zz
SUBJECT:
Your Draft on Reauthorization Strategy
I believe the analysis in your reauthorization strategy is impeccable, although I confess to
some skepticism about whether the Hill leadership will allow a bipartisan group.
Clearly, the idea of getting key people invested in resolving their concerns before a
reauthorization bill reaches the floor of either house is very attractive. I would raise three
points about proposing a special Congressional group focused on national service reform.
First, I agree with the first "problem" in your list and would be concerned that this unique
approach with the Congress will be viewed as acknowledging the existence of fundamental
problems with national service that require "reform" (a somewhat different notion than
"adjustment" or "mid-course correction"). I would be concerned about legitimatizing our
opponents, sending an unintended signal about the Administration wavering on its support,
and in the long run hurting the program.
Second, I also believe we have a potentially powerful resource in our own bi-partisan group
and that they can be more proactive in coalition building. The Board has a clear role in
broadly assessing performance and determining plans and strategies. Given a willingness on
their part to become more visibly involved, the Board could:
Hold hearings in Washington and/or around the country with the announced purpose
of surfacing and considering reform proposals. They could, for example, explicitly
reference the proposals in Senator Grassley's letter to the President as well as other
concepts that have surfaced. By involving a wide array of witnesses and groups, they
could also help in broadening and energizing coalitions to support national service.
Invite members of Congress from each Party to participate in the hearings.
- 2
Take a page from Senator Mikulski's approach to HUD and EPA restructuring, and
ask (pay) a prestigious and nonpartisan group such as the National Academy of Public
Administration (or any similar organization) to be associated with the hearings.
[They could also be asked to analyze the public's views about the reauthorization of
national service and/or expand on Harris' restructuring options for the Corporation
whether or not hearings are held.] If such an organization handled staffing, agenda
setting and writing the Board's report on the hearings, it would add credibility and an
air of impartiality. Continuing with the NAPA example, the organization is
composed of senior (often retired) public administrators who should have a relatively
sophisticated understanding of the philosophical, inter-governmental, and management
environment affecting national service.
The process we follow may well be more important than the product in this case. If it
works, our options will be clearer, informed by solid and broad-based analysis and enjoy
greater support.
Third, I know there is a consensus that "fast" action prior to the campaign season is
preferable for national service. Making this timing imperative a key determinant of our
strategy, however, may be a mistake since the likelihood of achieving it is not great if the
current Hill environment continues. It is just as likely that the deliberations on national
service will be dragged throughout the year and we will find ourselves with temporary
funding until the election is held. If that is the case, early initiation of a bipartisan
Congressional reform effort will at best be premature and it could even serve as a vehicle for
heightening attention to national service as a political issue.
Finally, I'm really glad you're taking this initiative. Either the Hill option or other ideas
have the attraction of being a potential solution to the issue you have very correctly
identified. Whatever we do collectively, it needs to get underway quickly and deliberately.
Strategic assumption: Our full range of assets weren't sufficient to win on appropriations -- it
took the President to pull us out. Assume President has less clout in reauthorization process.
What do we do differently in next 6-9 months to win?
Prime Re-Authorization Fights
Question
Manifestation
Who can participate?
Means-testing
Shirleyer
90/2/195
For what benefits?
Cap living allowance
Fyi re our
Reduce education award (vets)
Through which entities?
EX.A discussions
Prohibit federal agency programs
about Dept.
Prohibit grants to those related to
strategic plans of
advocacy organizations
reauthor
Stop Corporation from picking
national directs
Let's discuss
Supervised how?
Whenever
End dual structure
Doing what?
R
No advocacy/politics
No fee for service
Under what parameters?
Cap on costs
Block grants
What tools do we have that we need to deploy in this fight?
1.
1993 Congressional supporters:
Where do they stand now? What are their reauthorization needs?
What are the elements of Democratic base of concern (House leadership; any caucuses;
etc.)?
What do we need to change to keep 1993 Republican votes? What must be preserved?
2.
National charities
What is impact of Istook on ability/willingness to be active?
How can they be most effectively used (what more than a support letter)? Aims should
be: i) maintain/shore up weak base, ii) keep opponents quiet, iii) drive public
debate from Clinton VS. Republicans to mainstream VS. extremes
3.
Corporations
They were silent (except for City Year's) during appropriations. What turns them around
within next 6 - 9 months?
4.
Our programs
What is mandate for Citizens For...? Is there adequate funding?
How do we mobilized and track consistent with lobbying restrictions?
5.
State Commissions
Is there unanimity among them about main issues?
Are their whips clear and acceptable to us?
6.
Other elected officials
They didn't expend any capital in appropriations. Is dynamic different here?
What do they need (changes/preservations)? Who are our whips?
7.
Other stakeholders
Since this isn't directly a competition against their bread & butter, will higher ed,
religious
foundations and others help here when they didn't on appropriations?
easers
Who in-house has responsibility?
Who are targets? Who are whips within target community?
Jain is to yet
What precisely will Olympics do?
not bugin that
8.
Press
Car ce delivered
Shift media outreach strategy to new target markets
or CD basis
Pick main deliverable national break-through targets
9.
President
Are we sure we can't use him (base? Target media?)
10.
Public
How can we maintain (and demonstrate) depth of public support?
What new resources do we need?
Better intelligence about Republican leadership's views about this (e.g., if we made
Kassebaum happy, is it enough? Bond? Grassley?)
Next steps
Plans need be revised to determine what Department will do to further reauthorization --
to answer questions (or set process to do so). Show time lines.
Plan suggested hearing issues/witnesses for Kassebaum.
Need to give Board their role (hearings; Congressional contact; state commissions;
national charities; their regional media)
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Sec. 3.2(C) Initials: JGP Date: 1/16/20
2013-0661-F(2)
October 20, 1995
MEMORANDUM FOR REATHA CLARK KING
CONFIDENTIAL
REVISED
FROM:
RICK ALLEN
SUBJECT:
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS FY'96 STRATEGIC PLAN
Attached you will find the separate elements of External Affairs plan for this new Fiscal Year; as
we discussed, I wanted to share these items with you at this preliminary stage, even though
further clarification of each departmental plan is needed; a synthesizing overlay must still be
drafted; and Harris' input and approval is required.
As you look through the attached, I would ask you to keep in mind the following:
1.
Reauthorization is the prime imperative: As you know, we have felt for some time that
AmeriCorps and Learn & Serve would receive adequate appropriations (the National Senior
Corps having been well treated in the Congress' initial bills, and A*VISTA having received
probably its foreseeable maximum funding in those same early versions), as long as we continued
to make a principled and aggressive case and avoided major scandals or mistakes. I have
regretted that this relative certainty is based neither on our programs' value nor our hard External
Affairs work, but on the absolute commitment of the President. In the macro-politics of the final
budget negotiations between the Administration and the Congress, the Republican leadership
knows that the President will insist on the preservation of AmeriCorps -- which has solidified our
future but made us a hostage in bigger political battles.
Under this assumption, the reauthorization process becomes the Corporation's biggest challenge
for the 1996 Fiscal Year. All programs must be reauthorized in this period. The focus shifts from
the appropriations committees to Senator Kassebaum's and Representative Goodling's
authorizing committees. In many senses, we welcome this process, because it may be easier to
discuss matters of policy here, rather than be bogged down in battles of politics.
The best venue continues to be the Senate. Partisanship is less intense and our votes always
relatively easier to amass. Additionally, Chairperson Kassebaum is interested in improving
national service, not destroying it, and is characteristically inclined to trying for consensus within
her Committee (on which Harris Wofford formerly served). Her staff has indicated an intention to
begin hearings and negotiations over the legislation, perhaps as early as the end of this year.
Despite these factors, reauthorization will not be easy. Especially during a Presidential election,
Republicans in both bodies will not be willing to give President Clinton an easy victory on an item
they know is of not only personal interest, but potential political benefit. Additionally, there
continues to be no meaningful, committed constituency for service. The traditional field is weak,
riven with internecine squabbles and politically naive. Finally, there are a range of issues,
especially related to the internal management of the Corporation (for example, the current dual
state structure of commissions and Corporation offices) for which it may be difficult to mesh
political realities on the Hill with internal political pressures from our base and employees.
Shirley has taken the lead on both the substance and the process of reauthorization, and am I in
complete accord with her actions and instincts. She will review with the Board a range of
communications steps that will engage the Board, Corporation employees, and the broader field.
External Affairs will take the lead role with Congress, prime responsibility for accomplishing the
outreach to the field and sole control over press relations.
2.
Other major goals: the above should not be read to suggest that reauthorization is not the
only goal of importance for External Affairs. There are three other principle categories of
involvement: (i) to service the needs of the program staff (this is particularly true for the
publications section of Public Affairs and the outreach aspects of Public Liaison); (ii) to expand
the national identity of all of our programs, on their own merits; (iii) to expand the public
excitement about service as an abiding ethic for all Americans, whether or not realized through
specific national service programs.
Further (and although they are largely subsumed within the foregoing) we have responsibilities for
achieving many of the Corporation goals Eli and Harris have set for this next year (these are
discussed most fulsomely in their joint statement before Chairman Hoekstra's Oversight
Committee, which is included in your Board book). Of the group, I would see External Affairs
especially involved in the following (I track the testimony's language): More business and
foundation support; more bi-partisan involvement; more partnerships with our nation's great
charities; more customer-friendly operations; and more connections to those who serve.
2.
Audiences for Communication: There are a plethora (in no particular order):
The Congress
The White House and the rest of the Administration
The Board
Corporation employees (these break down into categories, generally by program
area, location -- headquarter or field, and other elements)
Programs in the field
Constituencies (from national non-profits to university Presidents, ethnic groups to
coalitions with issues agenda)
The general public (with differences in audiences for recruitment and general
identity)
The press (split into electronic and print; national, regional and local)
Each of these audiences has their own interests and sensitivities. We also have a range of topics
to convey, from encouragement of broad support, to inspiration of specific action (eg., "call our
800# and sign up"), to transmission of general information.
Our tools are many and expanding:
Our fax network now includes the Board, all Corporation offices and
Commissions, key press, certain other interested friends, and the White House;
We use e-mail and mass distribution of hard copies (at our reception areas) at
headquarters, as well as all-hands meetings, and departmental and inter-
departmental meetings; for our headquarters staff;
2
Our AmeriCorps newsletter now is distributed primarily to members and to
Congress, as well as to a list of other interested parties;
We will be on the Internet and World Wide Web within a month, with substantial
information about all of our "streams of service";
We have superb AmeriCorps and Senior Corps videos and television PSAs, the
latter receiving wide play time and the former distributed to our field and used at
speeches and public gatherings;
We have various other Public Affairs tools (from campus op-eds and ads to a huge
array of publications), all outlined in J. Toscano's attached plan.
3.
Accountability: Generally speaking, each department head is responsible for
communicating to the audiences in their purview. That puts Gene in charge of all elected officials,
J. responsible for the press and all publications, and Melinda for the constituencies. There are
other specific situations: Rhonda (in Public Liaison) handles regular communications with the
Board; program staff handle regular, substantively-oriented field communications; I generally deal
with the White House; and a range of people deal with the general staff.
I believe that accountability is best ensured by division of responsibility among the three
departments. Thus, the department head who drafted the respective plan attached hereto is
responsible for carrying it out. The difficulty comes on inter-departmental matters; we have dealt
with this by giving one department lead authority for each major project. This worked relatively
smoothly for our very intense "sweeps week" of September 11 - 13, and we would intend to
continue that model. I also note how much of our time must be spent reactively -- the politicized
nature of our external environment leaves so much outside of our control or initiation, irrespective
of prior planning.
I hope that the attached and this summary are useful places for us to start an initially private
discussion. I will concurrently be working through more detailed work plans with each
department head and coordinating more with Harris. I look forward to your comments, perhaps
when we meet at 10 a.m. at the Capitol Hilton on Sunday (I will call your room -- if you run into
scheduling problems, my home number is 301-469-2080).
3
October 19, 1995
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR REAUTHORIZATION -- FY 1996
NEEDS
Goal:
All streams of the Corporation must be reauthorized. Thus, the
entire Corporation must be involved in the reauthorization.
A. Build support in the field for reauthorized bill.
Turn national support into local support. That is, the
next stage in building support is to recruit the local
affiliates of the national organizations that are
Corporation supporters to weigh in on the Corporation's
behalf.
This will be accomplished working with Public Liaison, and
such outside entities as the Coalition for National and
Community Service and Citizens for Service.
Target:
-- grantees, state commissions, executive directors
-- outside groups that are not grantees
-- other stakeholders like elected officials,
academics, foundations, private sector supporters,
nonprofit charities
-- increase partnerships with the volunteer sector
(Points of Light)
Through:
has nothing
creation of a Congressional bi-partisan working
group, under the auspices of Nancy Kassebaum, Chair
is of
of the Senate Labor Committee, to focus on
reauthorization issues
Melinda's-
reauthorization meetings convened by the Corporation
not
plan
(public liaison)
No mechanism closure
communication with the Board through letter (a la
Tom Ehrlich project), regional hearings, etc.
-2-
then how can it. reauthorization meetings convened at the
really help
Corporation's instigation but without our
participation
we need to
-- Congressional hearings starting as early as next
Steer
month to build the record, raise issues, and lay the
groundwork for the introduction of a consensus
reauthorization bill upon the Congress' return in
February 1996
B. Build political support for reauthorization.
Target:
-- core constituencies: seniors (RSVP, FGP, SCP),
But Refut metinday Inday there's in plan
elementary and secondary education, AmeriCorps*VISTA
alumni, university programs & presidents
-- religious leaders, charities, corporate leaders
local elected officials & governors
Specifically to
STATE This
Through:
No plan to convert
RESTONATION
into political support
- public liaison outreach strategies
C.
Focus political support on the Senate Labor Committee and the
House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, in
particular on moderate and moderately Republicans who will
form the swing constituency.
New targets
-- particularly important/ in this regard are Senators
Kassebaum, Frist, DeWine, Abraham and Gorton and
Representatives Goodling (PA), Barrett (NE), McKeon
nearly all new
(CA), Castle (DE), and Greenwood (PA)
-- Senator Jeffords and Representative Gunderson should
play key roles in developing both the legislation
itself and support for the new bill
-- press, stakeholders, religious leaders, charities,
etc., should be focused on these key members just as
we focused on key appropriation leaders
- - mobilize P.A. support of corporations - at least provide
info
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS TIMELINE
BRANT
10/18/95
Congressional and Intergovermental
Public Affairs
Public Liaison
Fall 1995
Hearings
Opening Ceremonies - national
Campus Awareness Campaign
Internet Web Site
YSA SuperConference
Joint Conference with US Conference of Mayors
Media Guide and trainings
Renewal Regional Meetings (AmeriCorps)
Launch of merchandise line
AmeriCorps Alums
Final Aguirre Report
Make a Difference Day
(Design Corporate Awareness Campaign)
Winter 1996
Introduction of the President's FY97 budget
MLK Day of Service
Reauthorization hearings
Learn and Serve White House briefing
National Service Summit (Romney proposal)
Learn and Serve "starter kit"
Spring/Summer 1996
Floor Action
Awards - President's Service at the White House
National Community Service Conference
Appropriations Hearings
Summer Service initiatives
National Day of Service
Senior Corps Conference
1996 PUBLIC LIAISON
Independent Sector
Private Sector Initiatives
Constituent Relations
National Initiatives
Assumptions: 1) that outreach is driven by the reauthorization process and 2) that the
Public Liaison priorities of building strength within the broader service/volunteer
communities, and growing the non-federal financial support for programs become the
ascendant efforts.
Objective 1. Build private sector, financial and in-kind, support for local programs
Market national service programs as high quality, high return investments
Develop strategic national partnerships with businesses and foundations.
Existing: Increase the scale of investments of national companies that support local
programs, either by increasing their involvement (sponsor additional AmeriCorps
Members, engaging their employees in service initiatives, etc.), by bringing in more
locations (you're in 3 cities now, how about all of your operating sites), and by
packaging for cause related marketing (let us help you fulfill your civic obligations
in the area of the environment.)
New: Attract new investors through industry groups (banks through including
national service in the new regulations and training for the Community
Reinvestment Act), through pools of matching funds (Ford Foundation and state
pools), and by issue areas (environment, human needs, public safety, and education)
Launch and promote pools of matching funds for community foundations. National
service programs become more attractive investments with each matching
component. Build upon the Ford Foundation investment. Encourage state pools.
Become a working partner of the National Service Grantmakers Forum.
Provide training and consulting for programs, commissions. Invest in our own
infrastructure so that they may generate their own support at the local level.
Highlight and promote business and foundation service champions/spokespersons.
See Public Affairs for Corporate awareness campaign.
Pursue alternative funding tactics such as sponsorship and cause-related marketing.
Objective 2. Build partnerships and alliances with national community-based
volunteer and service organizations.
Expand the view of relationship from grantor
to
that
of
partner.
Collaborate with national networks by serving in their initiatives. Join Make a
Difference Day (with USA Weekend), strengthen National Day of Service (with
YSA), support conferences such as National Community Service Conference (Points
of Light) and its emerging Connect America initiative, sponsor the Emerging
Leaders track at the Independent Sector, bringing youth service to a new market.
Selectively fund innovative programs that bring in new partners. Raise the profile,
and evaluative priority, of private sector investment in the Corporation's own
grantmaking decision process. Support the designation of a higher proportion of
funds for venture capitalist functions innovative, demonstration projects that
bring in new assets and new approaches.
Design and implement creative service initiatives which draw new allies. See
Objective 3
Participate in joint public relations/awareness campaigns.
Objective 3. Create a national network of service initiatives and events that bring
together the spectrum of national and community service participants for the
common good. Provide an organizing concept or reason to work together
National service days: Make a Difference, MLK, National Day of Service, Spring
Break, and a "summer service" opportunity
Awards: build on the partnership with the President's Service Awards (for
Voluntarism) by developing awards for AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, Seniors, and
a private sector award that reflects creative corporate/philanthropic investments in
the community (but does not compete with POLF's corporate volunteerism awards).
National Service Summit --- the Romney idea
Collaborations: support the national initiatives of partners in service, i.e. the Points
of Light "Connect America" campaign. See Objective 2
Grow the leadership field through AmeriCorps Alumni/ae which will extend the
network of partners and generate public awareness and support.
Objective 4. Build the national identity of AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve and Senior
Corps as key assets in the service field, as powerful levers for volunteer initiatives,
and as leaders in the mission that service is an essential part of any American's life.
Build the name brand and logo identification though standards and creative
applications. The new merchandising approach, the All* AmeriCorps line, builds
name recognition and generates funds.
Build a presence through conferences, events, trainings, awards.
Deploy the corporate communications networks with careful use of cause-related
marketing and sponsorships. See Objective 1.
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE
October, 1995
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
The Corporation's public affairs approach continues on three parallel, complementary
avenues: press, promotion, and publications. While the actual application differs
program to program, public affairs will work closely with public liaison and
intergovernmental affairs to support their efforts to reach out to public, private, and
independent sector partners.
Where possible, our efforts will be consistent and coordinated across the streams -- we will
coordinate communications efforts of the three Corporation programs wherever and
whenever we can especially for major events, such as the MLK Service Day, National
Day of Service, etc. That's why Public Affairs has restructured itself along functional lines
rather than programmatic -- with four teams: press, promotion, publications, and team
management. That's also why we have welcomed active participation on our public
plan he ping am
affairs teams by one representative from each stream of service -- AmeriCorps state and
national, AmeriCorps*VISTA, AmeriCorps*NCCC, Learn and Serve America higher
Staff
education, Learn and Serve America K-12, and the National Senior Service Corps. I am
pleased to report that each program has designated its representative, and are now
participating in a truly coordinated Corporation public affairs effort.
Our print news clip library contains over 6,000 print stories from the past year. Most ran
in the small newspapers of middle America, but every major daily ran at least one story
profiling local programs or members..
To lend a sense of the overwhelmingly positive tone of the coverage, the following snapshot
is from our electronic database which only contains entries through August 4th (our
staff is busy entering into our database the 2,000 or more clips that have come in since
then):
389 positive editorials and 75 negative editorials
191 positive op-eds and 60 negative op-eds
245 positive letters to the editor and 21 negative letters to the editor
Program specific news stories (member profiles, program profile, program overview):
AmeriCorps: 2,827 positive ; 67 negative stories
Senior Corps: 540 positive; 2 negative stories
Learn and Serve America : 29 positive ; 0 negative stories
1 -
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
AMERICORPS
Press:
We will embark on a proactive press strategy to ensure that the accomplishments and goals of local programs are
publicized in a variety of media outlets. PA is conducting training sessions with program staff and recently published and
distributed a comprehensive AmeriCorps Media Guide to empower local programs in their efforts to publicize their work.
We will reach out to strategic newspaper reporters, network and syndicated television programs, popular magazines, etc.
to help portray AmeriCorps as a public/private sector partnership based in the independent sector. In addition, we will
reach out to publications that reach specific audiences to support the promotion campaigns described below. We will
continue to seek positive editorials and columns to support the efforts of intergovernmental affairs, and will continue to
develop and place op-ed pieces by AmeriCorps partners and friends.
At the same time, we will continue an aggressive reactive press strategy that seeks out bad stories and kills them (or at
least isolates them so that one bad article does not become a dozen). We are further developing our PA "friends and
family" database, made up of communications staff of the state commissions, national direct programs, private sector
partners, foundations and non-profits, and other communications professionals with whom we will maintain regular
contact. We will publish a regular PA Update via fax/modem to this list so that they are well-armed with the latest
information.
Promotion:
Campus: We have moved the concept of a public awareness strategy targeted at college-aged citizens to the edge of
execution. A team assembled of staff from public liaison, AmeriCorps programs, recruitment, and others, have developed
a simple, attractive, and unique design concept to reach out to these potential members. Two different posters and public
service print ads, a radio public service announcement, a op-ed for campus-based newspapers (both with Daphne Zuniga
from TV's Melrose Place as the signature talent), AmeriCorps post cards (a new and explosively popular medium), and
airport dioramas, focused on college-rich media markets will support recruitment efforts and raise public awareness. The
AmeriCorps public service video is now on electronic kiosks in hundreds of student unions across the country. The
Corporation's recruitment team is working with PA so that their recruitment ads and materials further develop the
concept.
Partners: We have begun discussions with Corporation program and public liaison staff to consider using the Campus
strategy model to develop targeted public awareness campaigns aimed at potential private sector partners and the
nonprofit sector. As well, we are working to bring media focus on new and innovative AmeriCorps/private sector
partnerships to illustrate this new, innovative way of doing government.
Publications:
Our new publications team has already proven extraordinarily cost-effective - eliminating the need for outside
consultants and getting things done in a much more timely fashion. The AmeriCorps First Year Review is a good example
-- it moved from concept to product in four weeks - and that includes over two weeks at the printer - and was written,
edited, proofed, and designed completely in-house. The recently published AmeriCorps Media Guide is designed to
empower local programs to garner press attention and communicate their accomplishments to their communities. We
have met with every stream of the Corporation to determine their needs for FY96 and to determine priorities and
eliminate duplicative material. For the first time, every Corporation publication will pass through one team to ensure
consistency and cost-effectiveness. Increasingly, we anticipate publishing materials via the Corporation's Internet WEB
home page -- which Automation is currently developing.
2 -
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
SENIOR CORPS
Press:
We will pursue a tactic similar to the AmeriCorps press strategy -- we will seek ways to empower and assist senior
programs and their 1200 project directors to garner positive press coverage for their local programs. While the two
remaining field Public Affairs positions have now been eliminated, the addition of a veteran of the White House
Conference on Aging brings new talent and resources to our efforts. The 1996 Senior Conference will be key to our
efforts to publicize Senior Corps on a local and national level., and we will update our Senior Corps Media Guide to
incorporate this opportunity. We will help Members of Congress promote projects in their states and districts during
National Volunteer Week. The Senior Demonstration projects offer fertile ground for publicity and media focus.
Promotion:
We intend to build upon the products developed in 1995. We have conducted a survey of our customers and have
received excellent feedback on their quality and usefulness, and our efforts have won a national marketing award. A
concern is that we have not supplied items in large enough quantities - an issue we are now addressing. It is critical that
we strike a balance between promoting the individual programs as well as the Senior Corps identity. Materials will be
targeted at attracting younger volunteers, more male volunteers, and professionally skilled volunteers.
Reaching each of these target populations will help achieve the 1995 White House Conference on Aging resolution which
called for NSSC to double the number of participants by the year 2000. Positioning NSSC as "the" leader in senior service
-- and promoting the concept of productive aging - will drive our strategy.
Publications:
We are meeting with the Senior Corps staff to determine the program's need for FY96.
3 -
OFFIC I UBLIC AFFAIRS
LEARN AND SERVE AMERICA
A comprehensive communications strategy has been approved that is designed to develop a message for the program
(what is it?), targets parents, students, and educators, and positions L&S as the leader of the service-learning
movement.
Press:
A White House briefing for each education community (K-12 and Higher Ed) will serve two purposes - cement
relationships with leaders of the education communities (so that they can be our emissaries to their colleagues), and
provide a vehicle to generate trade and general press coverage. We have developed an education press target list that we
will educate on L&S's role. We will pitch intergenerational (and interprogrammatic) tie-ins to features, family, and
children's publications. We will pitch L&S as the service-learning model to the education trade press, and find and
spotlight the top 25 model programs.
Promotion:
Our goals are:
- define service learning
- create talking points that describe the programs and its values
- determine which programs and individuals to feature
- develop a service-learning advisory board so that education leaders can carry the L&S message
We intend to target three audiences - parents, L&S children, and the education community. The National Youth
Leadership Conference agreed to contract with a top public relations expert to assist in the creative (design and message
development) process of building public awareness for service-learning - our job is to position L&S as the leader of that
movement through a multi-media public service campaign. We are pursuing beneficial relationships with contacts in the
communications, entertainment, and business communities to help secure a national spokesperson, encourage writers
and producers of family-oriented programming to incorporate service-learning themes, and help stretch CNS promotional
resources by securing in-kind donations from the private sector.
Publications:
We have met with the L&S staff to determine their needs for FY96. In addition, we have surveyed all service-learning
material already developed, and are assembling a low-cost L&S Starter Kit which can be distributed to educators and
community organizations. We are considering a "Weekly Reader" type publication that transmits the value of service-
learning in an educational and engaging manner for schoolchildren.
4
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
from:
Shirley Sagawa
re:
Questions for staff input on reauthorization of
AmeriCorps*State/National and on Corporation structure
date: October 25, 1995
Attached for your comment is a draft of questions that we need to get staff
input on asap. Please note that I have not included questions on other
Corporation programs. We will need to do a similar exercise for these
programs in the near future.
We will be scheduling a series of open meetings with Harris next week to go
over these questions, in order. Please plan to share any data that will inform
the discussion at or before the meetings. These questions should NOT be
distributed outside of the Corporation; to do SO could send a signal to Congress
or the field that the Corporation seeks these changes. We have not developed
any position on these questions yet. Please do not interpret the fact that a
question is asked as an indication of support for the underlying position. Many
questions were included because others have raised the issues and we want to
be prepared to respond.
A notice has gone into the federal register requesting input from the public on
any issue affecting our reauthorization, regulations, and policies. Please make
sure your constituency groups know that we are eager to get their thoughts
about how we can improve our ability to achieve our mission. Also attached is
the draft vision statement, goals, and indicators (now being refined), as
approved by the Board. When the indicators have been cleaned up, the
package will be designed and printed for broad distribution IN DRAFT for
comment.
We are working on a list of questions for public input, such as:
Given the vision, mission and goals of the Corporation, what changes should be
made in the Corporation's programs to make them more effective?
Beyond changes in specific programs currently operated by the Corporation,
what can the Corporation do to further these goals?
How can we develop an AmeriCorps that costs less but delivers as much or
more?
What kinds of incentives might be necessary to increase the non-federal share
of program budgets? What is a realistic time schedule for such increases to
take place?
What is the appropriate role for state commissions and the Corporation?
How can we guard against politicization of national service?
distribution
Harris Wofford
Susan Stroud
Gene Sofer
Jim Scheibel
Rick Allen
Mal Coles
Debbie Jospin
Diana London
Melinda Hudson
Tom Endres
Tracy Gray
Hugh Bailey
GaryKowalczyk
Calvin Dawson
Terry Russell
Tim Silard
Larry Wilson
Don Scott
J Toscano
Jim Ekstrom
Diana Algra
Bruce Cohen
Peter Heinaru
Mae Chao
Bruce Cline
Miles Wilson
Lisette Nieves
Marlene Zakai
Hank Oltman
Mike Kenefick
Lance Potter
David Rymph
Peg Rosenberry
AmeriCorps*State and National
For the purpose of this exercise, assume the alternative is NOT the system we
have now, but no program at all.
L
Cost issues
1.
What is the lowest per member grant amount we should agree to, both on average and for
any individual program? How would you achieve these cuts (please consider ALL elements,
including living allowance, education award, federal and state administrative funds, etc)? What
would be the effect of these cuts on the program, including quality, program design options, etc.?
What can be done to mitigate any negative effect?
2.
What would be the effect of lowering the maximum allowable living allowance to $7,500?
To $100 per week?
3.
What would be the effect of eliminating payment of living allowances for part-time
members? What if living allowances for part-time member can only be paid out of work-study
funds?
4.
What would be the effect of eliminating payment of "program support" -- paying only for
Member support costs?
5.
What would be the effect of offering a standard $1,000 or $3,000 per FTE program
support grant? Or offering a standard $1,000 per FTE in program support plus an additional
amount equal to the cash raised by the grantee (up to $5,000)?
6.
What is the maximum amount in-cash and in-kind in non-federal, non-Corporation, and
private funds that programs can be expected to raise so that 75 percent of current programs could
continue to participate in AmeriCorps? At a 50 percent match of the total program budget, how
many AmeriCorps programs could participate? At a 50 percent match of the grant, how many
would stay in? Would a three or five-year phase-in of a 50 percent match be feasible?
II.
Training/T/A
1.
How can we design a system for training and technical assistance that costs less but
delivers more?
III.
Politicization
1.
What more can we do to guard against politicization and advocacy?
IV.
National identity
1.
National identity has many aspects. In general, it is all the ways in which Members come
to appreciate that they are connected to one another, ways communities identify that they have
benefited from AmeriCorps, and ways in which both appreciate that AmeriCorps stands for
"getting things done," community, opportunity, and responsibility. It is communicated in many
ways: visible identification like logos and uniforms; common experiences (like participation in an
opening ceremony or training in CPR); publications and press reports; and the sharing of a
philosophy of community change and personal responsibility (as in the pledge). Think about how
a Girl Scout or Head Start parent comes to understand that they are part of a larger whole. Think
about how the community feels about the Girls Scouts or Head Start as a result of what they
know about those organizations and the impact they have had locally and nationally. What
elements of national identity are most important for AmeriCorps?
2.
Can we strengthen Member identity and weaken the identity of local organizations as
"AmeriCorps Programs"? Are the two inextricably linked?
V.
Program Administration
1.
If we had a system in which most AmeriCorps funds (say 75%) went to states to
administer through a block grant (i.e. Corporation does not approve individual programs), how
would we ensure national identity and quality? What if certain states could achieve greater
flexibility based on performance? How would this work?
2.
How would we administer a system in which living allowances for all AmeriCorps
Members was paid centrally either with a standard program support grant and no program
support grant going to program sponsors?
3.
If state commissions received a formula grant that they could spend on any service
program, how would they divide it up among AmeriCorps, stipended programs not part of
AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, and other volunteer programs?
VI.
Leveraged volunteers
1.
Should priority be given to programs that generate and help to deploy effectively unpaid
volunteers?
2.
What goals can we agree to for numbers of additional volunteers and numbers of
volunteer hours that must be leveraged per Member and per program?
Corporation Structure
1.
Can the Corporation move toward becoming a non-governmental entity? How would this
best be achieved?
2.
What functions do cluster directors perform currently?
3.
What functions do the state offices perform currently? How many staff serve in state
offices? How much time is spent on each function? What is the overall budget for state offices?
4.
What functions do state commissions peform? How many staff work for state
commissions? What is the overall budget for state commissions?
5.
Can cost savings be achieved by combining the functions of state offices and state
commissions?
6.
What are the arguments for continuing the current system?
7.
How could the functions of state commissions be transferred to state offices?
8.
How could the functions of state offices be transferred to state commissions or to
headquarters?
9.
What would happen if responsibility for Learn and Serve America was transferred from
State Educational Agencies to state commissions or state offices?
10.
Could any of these functions be tranferred to a state-level non-profit organization?
11.
What other options exist for reconfiguring the state system?
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
from:
Shirley Sagawa
re:
Questions for staff input on reauthorization of
AmeriCorps*State/National and on Corporation structure
date: October 25, 1995
Attached for your comment is a draft of questions that we need to get staff
input on asap. Please note that I have not included questions on other
Corporation programs. We will need to do a similar exercise for these
programs in the near future.
We will be scheduling a series of open meetings with Harris next week to go
over these questions, in order. Please plan to share any data that will inform
the discussion at or before the meetings. These questions should NOT be
distributed outside of the Corporation; to do SO could send a signal to Congress
or the field that the Corporation seeks these changes. We have not developed
any position on these questions yet. Please do not interpret the fact that a
question is asked as an indication of support for the underlying position. Many
questions were included because others have raised the issues and we want to
be prepared to respond.
A notice has gone into the federal register requesting input from the public on
any issue affecting our reauthorization, regulations, and policies. Please make
sure your constituency groups know that we are eager to get their thoughts
about how we can improve our ability to achieve our mission. Also attached is
the draft vision statement, goals, and indicators (now being refined), as
approved by the Board. When the indicators have been cleaned up, the
package will be designed and printed for broad distribution IN DRAFT for
comment.
We are working on a list of questions for public input, such as:
Given the vision, mission and goals of the Corporation, what changes should be
made in the Corporation's programs to make them more effective?
Beyond changes in specific programs currently operated by the Corporation,
what can the Corporation do to further these goals?
How can we develop an AmeriCorps that costs less but delivers as much or
more?
What kinds of incentives might be necessary to increase the non-federal share
of program budgets? What is a realistic time schedule for such increases to
take place?
What is the appropriate role for state commissions and the Corporation?
How can we guard against politicization of national service?
distribution
Harris Wofford
Susan Stroud
Gene Sofer
Jim Scheibel
Rick Allen
Mal Coles
Debbie Jospin
Diana London
Melinda Hudson
Tom Endres
Tracy Gray
Hugh Bailey
GaryKowalczyk
Calvin Dawson
Terry Russell
Tim Silard
Larry Wilson
Don Scott
J Toscano
Jim Ekstrom
Diana Algra
Bruce Cohen
Peter Heinaru
Mae Chao
Bruce Cline
Miles Wilson
Lisette Nieves
Marlene Zakai
Hank Oltman
Mike Kenefick
Lance Potter
David Rymph
Peg Rosenberry
to appreciate that they are connected to one another, ways communities identify that they have
benefited from AmeriCorps, and ways in which both appreciate that AmeriCorps stands for
"getting things done," community, opportunity, and responsibility. It is communicated in many
ways: visible identification like logos and uniforms; common experiences (like participation in an
opening ceremony or training in CPR); publications and press reports; and the sharing of a
philosophy of community change and personal responsibility (as in the pledge). Think about how
a Girl Scout or Head Start parent comes to understand that they are part of a larger whole. Think
about how the community feels about the Girls Scouts or Head Start as a result of what they
know about those organizations and the impact they have had locally and nationally. What
elements of national identity are most important for AmeriCorps?
2.
Can we-strengthen Member identity and weaken the identity of local organizations as
"AmeriCorps Programs"? Are the two inextricably linked?
V.
Program Administration
1.
If we had a system in which most AmeriCorps funds (say 75%) went to states to
administer through a block grant (i.e. Corporation does not approve individual programs), how
would we ensure national identity and quality? What if certain states could achieve greater
flexibility based on performance? How would this work?
2.
How would we administer a system in which living allowances for all AmeriCorps
Members was paid centrally either with a standard program support grant and no program
support grant going to program sponsors?
3.
If state commissions received a formula grant that they could spend on any service
program, how would they divide it up among AmeriCorps, stipended programs not part of
AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, and other volunteer programs?
VI.
Leveraged volunteers
1.
Should priority be given to programs that generate and help to deploy effectively unpaid
volunteers?
2.
What goals can we agree to for numbers of additional volunteers and numbers of
volunteer hours that must be leveraged per Member and per program?
Corporation Structure
1.
Can the Corporation move toward becoming a non-governmental entity? How would this
best be achieved?
2.
What functions do cluster directors perform currently?
3.
What functions do the state offices perform currently? How many staff serve in state
offices? How much time is spent on each function? What is the overall budget for state offices?
4.
What functions do state commissions peform? How many staff work for state
commissions? What is the overall budget for state commissions?
5.
Can cost savings be achieved by combining the functions of state offices and state
commissions?
6.
What are the arguments for continuing the current system?
7.
How could the functions of state commissions be transferred to state offices?
8.
How could the functions of state offices be transferred to state commissions or to
headquarters?
9.
What would happen if responsibility for Learn and Serve America was transferred from
State Educational Agencies to state commissions or state offices?
10.
Could any of these functions be tranferred to a state-level non-profit organization?
11.
What other options exist for reconfiguring the state system?
AmeriCorps*State and National
Background information to inform future policy discussions on issues of concern to
Congress -- Internal questions
For the purpose of this exercise, assume the alternative is NOT the system we
have now, but no program at all.
Cost issues
What is the lowest per member grant amount we should agree to, both on average
and for any individual program? How would you achieve these cuts (please
consider ALL elements, including living allowance, education award, federal and
state administrative funds, etc)? What would be the effect of these cuts on the
program, including quality, program design options, etc.? What can be done to
mitigate any negative effect?
What would be the effect of lowering the maximum allowable living allowance to
$7,500? To $100 per week?
What would be the effect of eliminating payment of living allowances for part-time
members?
(norkstude)
What would be the effect of eliminating payment of "program support" -- paying
What old, betth effect of limitary offering a standard 91000 program or 2000 support? 3022 or offering per ₹
only for Member support costs?
or
FTE
How can we design a system for training and technical assistance that costs less but
delivers more?
What is the maximum amount in-cash and in-kind in non-federal, non-Corporation,
and private funds that programs can be expected to raise so that 75 percent of
current programs could continue to participate in AmeriCorps? At a 50 percent
match of the total program budget, how many AmeriCorps programs could
would there- or five year phose in 1 a 50! match be workabe ?
participate? At a 50 percent match of the grant, how many would stay in?
Politicization
What more can we do to guard against politicization and advocacy?
National identity
some limit, eg. $5000
grantee (my to
H by panel the
corporation of cash
a match in the
porzion support pl plus
standard $1000 per FTE
National identity has many aspects. In general, it is all the ways in which Members
come to appreciate that they are connected to one another, ways communities
identify that they have benefited from AmeriCorps, and ways in which both
appreciate that AmeriCorps stands for "getting things done," community,
opportunity, and responsibility. It is communicated in many ways: visible
identification like logos and uniforms; common experiences (like participation in an
opening ceremony or training in CPR); publications and press reports; and the
sharing of a philosophy of community change and personal responsibility (as in the
pledge). Think about how a Girl Scout or Head Start parent comes to understand
that they are part of a larger whole. Think about how the community feels about the
Girls Scouts or Head Start as a result of what they know about those organizations
and the impact they have had locally and nationally.
What elements of national identity are most important?
Can we strengthen Member identity and weaken program-identity the of for local organizations
programs? Are the two inextricably linked?
Las "Americorps" programs.
Structure
If we had a system in which most AmeriCorps funds (say 75%) went to states to
administer through a block grant (i.e. Corporation does not approve individual
programs), how would we ensure national identity and quality? What if certain
states could achieve greater flexibility based on performance? How would this
work?
[Not a payroll] living allowances
How would we administer a system in which payroll for all AmeriCorps Members
was paid centrally with a standard program support grant and no program support
or
grant going to program sponsors?
state OK
If state commissions received a formula grant that they could spend on any service
program, how would they divide it up among AmeriCorps, stipended programs not
part of AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, and other volunteer
programs?
and and help to while effecturely
should Leveraged priority volunteers to quren to programs that The generate/unpaid stunteen?
What goals can we agree to for numbers of additional volunteers and numbers of
volunteer hours that must be leveraged per Member and per program?
Corporation Structure
Can the Corporation become ins a non-governmental entity? How would this best be
#
more toward
achieved?
What functions do cluster directors perform currently
What functions do the state offices perform currently? How many staff serve in
state offices? How much time is spent on each function? What is the overall budget
for state offices?
What functions do state commissions peform? How many staff work for state
commissions? What is the overall budget for state commissions?
Can cost savings be achieved by combining the functions of state offices and state
commissions?
What are the arguments for continuing the current system?
How could the functions of state commissions be transferred to state offices?
How could the functions of state offices be transferred to state commissions or to the
headquarters?
What would happen if responsibility for Learn and Serve America was transferred
from State Educational Agencies to state commissions or state offices?
Could any of these functions be tranferred to a state-level non-profit organization?
What other options exist for reconfiguring the state system?
Gene
CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT not sent
Vews?
MEMORANDUM FOR HARRIS WOFFORD
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
From:
Shirley Sagawa
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Re:
Reauthorization Strategy
Sec. 3.2(C) 2013-0661-FC3) Initials: JGB Date: 1/16/20
Date:
October 9, 1995
although many programe M the HUD bill are
funded w/o anthoryation
Here are some preliminary thoughts about a reauthorization strategy for you and
Rick and Gene to muse over.
It seems to me that we are heading into reauthorization from a dangerously weak
position. Clearly our appropriation will only be obtained through a veto strategy,
and only because the President feels so strongly about AmeriCorps. Obviously a
reauthorization bill does not provide the same fail safe mechanism -- the default
position, if agreement cannot be reached, is no bill at all. Unfortunately, health care
reform has taught us that there is no issue SO popular that Congress will feel that it
must pass a bill. I think it is rather unlike to expect an appropriation for FY1997
without an authorization bill in place; only the President's reelection and a turnover
of both houses would cause me to think differently. Therefore, I would tend not to
think of reauthorization as a negotiation; rather, we will have to position ourselves
more as technical advisors and lobbyists than as negotiators. For this reason, I think
you are right to be looking for significant restructuring options that respond to
concerns you are hearing on the Hill.
My sense, though, is that timing is critical here. We should not "give too much
away" unless it really is going to result in support for AmeriCorps. For example, the
list of things I came up with in response to the Grassley amendment only make
sense if they gained us Grassley's support or a majority of votes against Grassley,
had it been offered. Otherwise, laying them out merely sets the bar lower for the
final package.
One idea I have floated with Gene and Rick is to ask some of our Republican
friends, such as Chaffee and Hatfield to approach Kassebaum and Kennedy, and
then Senate (and House?) leadership about appointing a bipartisan group of Senators
(and maybe House members) to develop options to reform national service. They
would work to see that the members appointed included a majority of friendly
legislators, as well as those who have been most engaged in the debate (Grassley,
SS- Kemterly and & her talked about the same model it winked dring
Uris last Hend start reauthonyation. She is ppedly floating it with Rose G. baun
and Hoekstra, if the House is included). The reasons I have thought this makes
sense are the following:
1)
Many of our opponents have different issues with the program -- some want
more controls in the system to prevent advocacy; others want more state control;
some want more national nonprofits; others want more local grassroots
organizations; etc. Even if we were able to cut a lot of individual deals, we could be
undercutting our support with some members as we go door to door trying to make
others marginally more comfortable.
2)
Without a strong package going to the floor with enough votes to beat a
filibuster, we will not be able to get the bill out of the Senate. It would be far better
to work out a deal before the floor to prevent an ugly floor fight during the
Presidential election.
3)
This strategy worked, somewhat, with the child care bill I worked on.
Kennedy and Dodd were lead players in that effort and understand how to make it
work.
4)
Organizing a committee that includes people who claim they are interested in
reforming, not abolishing, the program puts them in a "getting to yes" posture,
whereas a floor fight puts them in a "kill the bill by amendment" mode.
5)
The creation of a reform/restructuring committee allows the Republicans to
"declare victory" without killing the program altogether.
The problems with the strategy include:
1)
It Trey're that sayang will be complicit it anyway in
means we allowing the Republicans to say that
AmeriCorps needs restructuring, which may not be our best message at this time.
2)
By including our opponents in the reauthorization design group, the bill may
look less like we would want it to than if we just take our chances with the Labor
Committee, which has many friends It also put them in the portion of tein told "no"
3) by Kassebaum & other Repullicans.
Kassebaum may not appreciate individuals outside the Committee asking to
to 4) wit Bond enlowsing Gassley.
be involved in her process. Implicatly, Hey' M threatening to take it away from here:
The White House may not agree to this process. Unlike 1993, the WH should
not micro manage. It should limit it involvement to those issues of major
support to the President.
Whichever direction we go on strategy, we will need to be prepared with options for
restructuring. Here is my thinking to date:
Option 1 -- Keep the same basic structure, but address specific criticisms that have
been raised.
Under this option, we would keep the same basic framework of the current
legislation. We would address (probably through an Administration proposal or less
formal document) the minor things that need to be addressed, but assume the same
programmatic and organizational structure we have now. As issues were raised (i.e.
cost per member; duplicative state structure; means testing; ed awards for unpaid
volunteers; etc.), we would provide options for addressing them. Currently we are
developing this bill in conjunction with the program offices. Gary and I are working
on options for responding to the issues likely to be raised.
Option 2 -- AmeriCorps*State Block Grant.
Under this option, AmeriCorps* State would become more like a block grant. We
would work to retain some funding for AmeriCorps* Direct. AmeriCorps*VIS
and AmeriCorps NCCC would be kept separate and essentially intact (but see
Option 3). Changes to the existing structure that would make it more like a block
grant include increasing the formula share from 1/3 to 1/2 or more; once states have
their package approved, allow them to make adjustments to budgets, reallocate
slots, etc. We would want to continue enough competitive funding to drive quality,
and would want to keep a "national identity" for AmeriCorps. Changes that might
be made to option 1 in response to issues raised would also be made here, although
in this context we would want to make it clear that every restriction (i.e. stronger
advocacy prohibitions; limitations on cost per member) moves us further away from
the block grant concept.
Option 3 -- AmeriCorps Block Grant
Under this option, AmeriCorps*VISTA, A*NCCC, A*National, A*Leaders and
*State would be all be folded together into a block grant with specific national
level setasides. As part of the block grant, states would be asked to support at least
one "VISTA" model, involving placement of individual or small groups of Members
at small grassroots nonprofit organizations, after they were recruited and trained.
We would work to retain the ability to operate a small, residential corps that could
do "rapid response," a small cadre of nationally recruited and placed Members
(combo of A*VISTA and A*Leaders), as well as a small national multistate and
demonstration grants function like A*National. Under such a structure, state offices
might not be necessary (the Senior Corps could be run out of Headquarters, if there
were individuals at the state commission level who could serve to promote senior
corps).
Option 4 -- Service Block Grant.
This option assumes option 3, folding in either just Learn and Serve, or both Learn
and Serve and Senior Corps. In this case, we would support some kind of funding
earmarks, and work to preserve the name identity of both programs. Again, no state
offices would be necessary. Assume opposition of Senior Corps groups and the
Learn and Serve community.
Option 5 -- AmeriCorps, combining the best of A*VISTA and A*National
This option is similar to the one you have floated in which payroll and benefits, in
addition to education awards, for all Members are handled either centrally by the
Corporation or its contractor, or by State Commissions. Organizations would apply
for a specific number of Members, describing how they will recruit, select, train,
place, and supervise them, while achieving the other key goals of AmeriCorps
(getting things done, strenghthening community, encouraging responsibility, and
expanding opportunity). This option could also involve the provision of program
support grants to all sponsors with more than ten Members, or just to certain types
of organizations (those with large number of Members; grassroots groups with
economic hardship; those working on specific "priority" issues; etc.). These grants
could be limited to a specific amount (up to $5,000 per Member, for example). All
sponsoring organizations would be encouraged to request "teamleader" supervisors
to provide a low-cost structure for the program. To limit administrative challenges,
Members would start only on three allowable start-dates that correspond to the
school year.
I have tried to think about what our top priorities should be in the reauthorization.
Here is my list, developed without discussion with the program units or others:
1)
Retain the ability have a national program known as AmeriCorps with a
national identity. Retain other product names (I sense that this is important to the
other constituencies).
2)
Channel AmeriCorps funding through state commissions, providing state
commissions with significant administrative support.
3)
Retain at least 15% of funding for an AmeriCorps*National-style program.
4)
Retain at least 10% of funding for a "rapid response" programs -- a residential
A*NCCC style program and an individual placement A*VISTA style program.
5)
No means testing of the education award.
means testry rept by toxablity of benefits.
6)
Do not reduce amount of education award below $4,000.
7)
Retain ability and funds to pay living allowance, health care, child care
benefits roughly equivalent to current amounts, with werer to pay less.
8)
In the case of a block grant structure, retain an earmark for AmeriCorps.
9)
Retain a dedicated funding stream for Senior Corps programs.
10) Retain funds for service-learning K-12 and Higher Ed.
11) Retain funding for at least 20,000 AmeriCorps Members.
12) Retain an education awards only capacity.
13) Retain discretionary funding as in Subtitle H.
14) Retain training and t/a funds.
15) Retain evaluation funds.
16) Retain an element of competition in the amount that goes to a state.
17) Retain the Corporation as an independent agency.
18) Retain the ability of individuals to serve in AmeriCorps before, during and
after college. + to rhoon notto goto college.
19) Keep the matching requirements achievable.
20) Allow funds to go to program support.
These are not in any order, and some may be assumed if we do not propose them.
confidential Dreft
MEMORANDUM FOR HARRIS WOFFORD
From:
Shirley Sagawa
DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
Re:
MARKING Per E.O. 13526
Reauthorization Strategy
Date:
October 9, 1995
Sec. 2013-0661-F(a) 3.2(C) Initials: JGP Date: 1/16/20
Here are some preliminary thoughts about a reauthorization strategy for you and
Rick and Gene to muse over.
It seems to me that we are heading into reauthorization from a dangerously weak
position. Clearly our appropriation will only be obtained through a veto strategy,
and only because the President feels so strongly about AmeriCorps. Obviously a
reauthorization bill does not provide the same fail safe mechanism the default
position, if agreement cannot be reached, is no bill at all. Unfortunately, health care
reform has taught us that there is no issue so popular that Congress will feel that it
must pass a bill. I think it is rather unlike to expect an appropriation for FY1997
without an authorization bill in place; only the President's reelection and a turnover
of both houses would cause me to think differently. Therefore, I would tend not to
think of reauthorization as a negotiation; rather, we will have to position ourselves
more as technical advisors and lobbyists than as negotiators. For this reason, I think
you are right to be looking for significant restructuring options that respond to
concerns you are hearing on the Hill.
My sense, though, is that timing is critical here. We should not "give too much
away" unless it really is going to result in support for AmeriCorps. For example, the
list of things I came up with in response to the Grassley amendment only make
sense if they gained us Grassley's support or a majority of votes against Grassley,
had it been offered. Otherwise, laying them out merely sets the bar lower for the
final package.
One idea I have floated with Gene and Rick is to ask some of our Republican
friends, such as Chaffee and Hatfield to approach Kassebaum and Kennedy, and
then Senate (and House?) leadership about appointing a bipartisan group of Senators
(and maybe House members) to develop options to reform national service. They
would work to see that the members appointed included a majority of friendly
legislators, as well as those who have been most engaged in the debate (Grassley,
and Hoekstra, if the House is included). The reasons I have thought this makes
sense are the following:
1)
Many of our opponents have different issues with the program -- some want
more controls in the system to prevent advocacy; others want more state control;
some want more national nonprofits; others want more local grassroots
organizations; etc. Even if we were able to cut a lot of individual deals, we could be
undercutting our support with some members as we go door to door trying to make
others marginally more comfortable.
2)
Without a strong package going to the floor with enough votes to beat a
filibuster, we will not be able to get the bill out of the Senate. It would be far better
to work out a deal before the floor to prevent an ugly floor fight during the
Presidential election.
3)
This strategy worked, somewhat, with the child care bill I worked on.
Kennedy and Dodd were lead players in that effort and understand how to make it
work.
4)
Organizing a committee that includes people who claim they are interested in
reforming, not abolishing, the program puts them in a "getting to yes" posture,
whereas a floor fight puts them in a "kill the bill by amendment" mode.
5)
The creation of a reform/restructuring committee allows the Republicans to
"declare victory" without killing the program altogether.
The problems with the strategy include:
1)
It means that we will be complicit in allowing the Republicans to say that
AmeriCorps needs restructuring, which may not be our best message at this time.
2)
By including our opponents in the reauthorization design group, the bill may
look less like we would want it to than if we just take our chances with the Labor
Committee, which has many friends.
3)
Kassebaum may not appreciate individuals outside the Committee asking to
be involved in her process.
4)
The White House may not agree to this process.
2
Whichever direction we go on strategy, we will need to be prepared with options for
restructuring. Here is my thinking to date:
Option 1 -- Keep the same basic structure, but address specific criticisms that have
been raised.
Under this option, we would keep the same basic framework of the current
legislation. We would address (probably through an Administration proposal or less
formal document) the minor things that need to be addressed, but assume the same
programmatic and organizational structure we have now. As issues were raised (i.e.
cost per member; duplicative state structure; means testing; ed awards for unpaid
volunteers; etc.), we would provide options for addressing them. Currently we are
developing this bill in conjunction with the program offices. Gary and I are working
on options for responding to the issues likely to be raised.
Option 2 -- AmeriCorps*State Block Grant.
Under this option, AmeriCorps*State would become more like a block grant. We
would work to retain some funding for AmeriCorps*Direct. AmeriCorps*VISTA
and AmeriCorps *NCCC would be kept separate and essentially intact (but see
Option 3). Changes to the existing structure that would make it more like a block
grant include increasing the formula share from 1/3 to 1/2 or more; once states have
their package approved, allow them to make adjustments to budgets, reallocate
slots, etc. We would want to continue enough competitive funding to drive quality,
and would want to keep a "national identity" for AmeriCorps. Changes that might
be made to option 1 in response to issues raised would also be made here, although
in this context we would want to make it clear that every restriction (i.e. stronger
advocacy prohibitions; limitations on cost per member) moves us further away from
the block grant concept.
Option 3 -- AmeriCorps Block Grant
Under this option, AmeriCorps*VISTA, A*NCCC, A*National, A*Leaders and
A*State would be all be folded together into a block grant with specific national
level setasides. As part of the block grant, states would be asked to support at least
one "VISTA" model, involving placement of individual or small groups of Members
at small grassroots nonprofit organizations, after they were recruited and trained.
We would work to retain the ability to operate a small, residential corps that could
do "rapid response," a small cadre of nationally recruited and placed Members
(combo of A*VISTA and A*Leaders), as well as a small national multistate and
demonstration grants function like A*National. Under such a structure, state offices
might not be necessary (the Senior Corps could be run out of Headquarters, if there
were individuals at the state commission level who could serve to promote senior
corps).
Option 4 -- Service Block Grant.
This option assumes option 3, folding in either just Learn and Serve, or both Learn
and Serve and Senior Corps. In this case, we would support some kind of funding
earmarks, and work to preserve the name identity of both programs. Again, no state
offices would be necessary. Assume opposition of Senior Corps groups and the
Learn and Serve community.
Option 5 -- AmeriCorps, combining the best of A*VISTA and A*National
This option is similar to the one you have floated in which payroll and benefits, in
addition to education awards, for all Members are handled either centrally by the
Corporation or its contractor, or by State Commissions. Organizations would apply
for a specific number of Members, describing how they will recruit, select, train,
place, and supervise them, while achieving the other key goals of AmeriCorps
(getting things done, strenghthening community, encouraging responsibility, and
expanding opportunity). This option could also involve the provision of program
support grants to all sponsors with more than ten Members, or just to certain types
of organizations (those with large number of Members; grassroots groups with
economic hardship; those working on specific "priority" issues; etc.). These grants
could be limited to a specific amount (up to $5,000 per Member, for example). All
sponsoring organizations would be encouraged to request "teamleader" supervisors
to provide a low-cost structure for the program. To limit administrative challenges,
Members would start only on three allowable start-dates that correspond to the
school year.
I have tried to think about what our top priorities should be in the reauthorization.
A group of us developed a statement of principles earlier this year, which is
attached. This list gives more specificity to the elements. It was developed without
discussion with the program units or others:
1)
Retain the ability have a national program known as AmeriCorps with a
national identity. Retain other product names (I sense that this is important to the
other constituencies).
2)
Channel AmeriCorps funding through state commissions, providing state
commissions with significant administrative support.
3)
Retain at least 15% of funding for an AmeriCorps*National-style program.
4)
Retain at least 10% of funding for a "rapid response" programs -- a residential
A*NCCC style program and an individual placement A *VISTA style program.
5)
No means testing of the education award.
6)
Do not reduce amount of education award below $4,000.
Awarn
for
7)
Retain ability and funds to pay living allowance, health care, child care
benefits roughly equivalent to current amounts.
8)
In the case of a block grant structure, retain an earmark for AmeriCorps.
9)
Retain a dedicated funding stream for Senior Corps programs.
10) Retain funds for service-learning K-12 and Higher Ed.
11) Retain funding for at least 20,000 AmeriCorps Members.
12) Retain an education awards only capacity.
13) Retain discretionary funding as in Subtitle H. ? Deminstration
14)
Retain training and t/a funds.
15) Retain evaluation funds. when located
&
16) Retain an element of competition in the amount that goes to a state
7
17)
Retain the Corporation as an independent agency.
18) Retain the ability of individuals to serve in AmeriCorps before, during and
after college.
19) Keep the matching requirements achievable. new
20)
Allow funds to go to program support.
These are not in any order, and some may be assumed if we do not propose them.
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
SERVICE
Nov. 3, 1995
TO:
Corporation Reauthorization Team
FROM:
Jim Scheibel
Tom Endres
Diana London
SUBJECT: Nov. 6 meeting re. Reauthorization of the Domestic Volunteer Service Act
Attached please find the following documents:
Senior Corps reauthorization issues
AmeriCorps*VISTA reauthorization issues
The Domestic Volunteer Service Act as of October 1993
We look forward to your participation in the discussion on DVSA reauthorization, to be
held Monday, Nov. 6, from 1:00 to 4:30 in Conference Room 8410.
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
DATE:
Nov. 3, 1995
TO:
Corporation Reauthorization Team
FROM:
Jim Scheibel
Tom Endres
SUBJECT:
Reauthorization Discussion: Senior Corps
I. Background
Reauthorization issues for the Senior Corps have been identified after consultation with NSSC
Headquarters staff, the NSSC Program Councils (June 12, 1995 meeting,) NSSC Directors
Association Presidents at a day-long meeting called for this purpose (August 31, 1995), and
again at a September 18 meeting with NSSC Association Officers to receive Board Member
feedback from them. A final discussion was held with Association Officers during a regularly
scheduled conference call on October 25.
II. Goal
Our goal in consulting with the NSSC Directors Association is to reach consensus on as many
issues as possible so that, to the extent possible, the Corporation and the NSSC Directors
Associations can speak similarly in recommending changes to Congress. We agreed that in this
political climate it is best to recommend minimal changes to the Domestic Volunteer Service Act
related to the Senior Corps.
III. Issues for discussion re. Senior Corps
The following issues are presented for discussion:
Changes/Safeguards relating to DVSA
1. Update and strengthen purpose clauses for each of three programs.
2. Make minor language changes so law is consistent with current names:
a) Change name to National Senior Service Corps, and make corresponding changes in Table of
Contents and Title II headings.
b) Change references to ACTION to Corporation for National and Community Service (Sections
225 (e); 403 (a); 408; 416 (f)(1); 421.) Delete any other references to ACTION.
c) Make technical name change to Retired and Senior Volunteer Program in Sec. 200 to reflect
language elsewhere in law.
3. Sections 211 and 213, lower age of eligibility to 55 for FGP and SCP, using RSVP
"preference" language for those 60 and over; change "sixty" to 55 in section 223 regarding
minority group participation.
DVSA Deletions
4. Delete section 201(c) calling for review by State Unit on Aging before awarding new RSVP
grants.
Issues for discussion affecting VISTA as well as Senior Corps
5. Change evaluation language:
a) Delete sec. 504(b).
b) Delete second sentence in sec. 416(a) requiring evaluations every three years.
Changes/Safeguards relating to NCSTA
6. Ensure that State Commission Boards continue to require Senior service representative.
7. Change language for "National Youth Service Day" to "National Day of Service".
8. Incorporate DVSA sec.2(a) "Volunteerism Policy" into NCSTA.
DVSA ISSUE 1. UPDATE AND STRENGTHEN PURPOSE CLAUSES FOR EACH OF THE THREE NSSC
PROGRAMS.
ISSUE: The current purpose clauses for RSVP, Foster Grandparents, and Senior Companions should be
updated to better reflect the richness of the programs and better convey what they are about.
BACKGROUND: The current purpose clauses were first developed over twenty years ago and are
inadequate in describing the programs as they have evolved. They read as follows:
Sec. 200. It is the purpose of
(1) this title to provide for National Senior Volunteer Corps, comprised of the retired senior volunteer
program, the foster grandparent program, and the senior companion program, that empower older
individuals to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the
volunteers and those whom they serve, and provide communities with valuable services;
(2) part A, the retired senior volunteer program, to utilize the vast talents of older individuals willing to
share their experiences, abilities, and skills in responding to a wide variety of community needs;
(3) part B, the foster grandparent program, to afford low-income older individuals an opportunity to
provide supportive, individualized services to children with exceptional or special needs; and
(4) part C, the senior companion program, to afford low-income older individuals the opportunity to
provide personal assistance and companionship to other older individuals through volunteer service.
DISCUSSION: NSSC proposes the following revised purpose clauses for the three NSSC programs
(these are initial drafts only):
It is the purpose of
(1) this title is to provide for the National Senior Service Corps, comprised of the Retired and Senior
Volunteer Program, the Foster Grandparent Program, and the Senior Companion Program, that empower
older individuals to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the
volunteers and those whom they serve, and provide communities with valuable services;
(2) part A, the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, in recognition of the potential benefit to society of
the growing population of older Americans, develops opportunities for people age 55 and older to share
their experiences, abilities and skills for the betterment of their communities and themselves.
(3) part B, the Foster Grandparent Program, taps the diversity and skills of eligible people 55 years and
older by providing them with volunteer service opportunities that positively impact the lives of children,
teenagers and families, many of whom face serious, often life-threatening challenges.
(4) part C, the Senior Companion Program, enables eligible people aged 55 and older to provide critical
support services and companionship to adults at risk of institutionalization and who are struggling to
maintain a dignified independent life in the face of illness, disability, or frailty and isolation.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the revised purpose clauses.
DVSA ISSUE 2. MAKE MINOR LANGUAGE CHANGES so LAW IS CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT
NAME USAGE:
A) CHANGE NAME TO NATIONAL SENIOR SERVICE CORPS, AND MAKE CORRESPONDING
CHANGES IN TABLE OF CONTENTS AND TITLE II HEADINGS.
B) CHANGE REFERENCES TO ACTION TO CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE (SECTIONS
224 (E); 403 (A); 408; 416 (F)(1); 421. DELETE ANY OTHER REFERENCES TO ACTION.
c) MAKE A TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE NAME TO RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER
PROGRAM IN SEC. 200.
ISSUE: The law should be updated to reflect current practice and usage.
BACKGROUND: The current umbrella name in the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA)
for RSVP, Foster Grandparents, and Senior Companions is "National Senior Volunteer Corps."
This name change was made in 1993 when the DVSA was reauthorized as part of the National
and Community Service Trust Act. (Prior to that time, the umbrella name was "Older American
Volunteer Programs (OAVP)"). Since the 1993 amendments, the umbrella name has evolved
from "Volunteer Corps" to "Service Corps."
ACTION was formally merged into the Corporation for National Service in April 1994, but the
name change was not accompanied by corresponding legislative action.
The name of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program was changed during the last
reauthorization to reflect the fact that not all RSVP volunteers are retired, but corresponding
language in Sec. 200 was not changed.
DISCUSSION: National Senior Service Corps is the umbrella name currently being used by the
Corporation. It conveys the unified "service" theme for Corporation Programs, and is generally
accepted by NSSC customers. The "S" in the current logo represents both "senior" and "service."
Concern has been expressed by Project Director representatives, however, that while it is
acceptable to change this umbrella name, other references to the word "volunteer" should remain
in the Act.
Deleting the name "ACTION" and inserting the name "Corporation for National Service" will
make DVSA consistent with currently used language and help clarify that the programs
authorized by DVSA are part of the Corporation for National Service.
RECOMMENDATION Change references in the DVSA from "National Senior Volunteer
Corps" to "National Senior Service Corps." Maintain the use of the word "volunteer" elsewhere
in the act. Change all references to "ACTION" to Corporation for National Service." Add "and"
to all references to the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program.
DVSA ISSUE 3. SECTIONS 211 AND 213, LOWER AGE OF ELIGIBILITY TO 55 FOR FGP AND
SCP, USING RSVP "PREFERENCE" LANGUAGE FOR THOSE 60 AND OVER; CHANGE "SIXTY" TO
55 IN SECTION 223, MINORITY GROUP PARTICIPATION
ISSUE: Should the age of eligibility for participation in the Foster Grandparent and Senior
Companion Programs be lowered from 60 to 55, to correspond to the age of eligibility for
participants in the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)?
BACKGROUND: In the 1993 DVSA amendments (part of the 1993 NCSTA), the age of
eligibility for participation in the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) was lowered
from 60 to 55, with a preference given to placement of volunteers age 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 to participate, and to enable projects to respond to needs in
communities that could benefit by a younger cohort of seniors.
DISCUSSION: At the time that the age of eligibility for RSVP was lowered, consensus could not
be reached among Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion project directors about lowering
the age for participation in those programs as well. One viewpoint held that the program existed
to serve the senior, and that this focus would be lost if younger, more vigorous older adults were
able to join the program. The other viewpoint held that younger, more vigorous older adults
were needed to meet ever-pressing community needs. Because of this lack of concensus, no
efforts were made to lower the age for Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions.
Now, with the RSVP experience to look to, Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Project
Directors see the benefits of lowering the age of eligibility. Focus on the senior has not been lost
with the lowering of the age for RSVP, and a better balance between meeting the needs of the
senior and the needs of the community is taking hold nationally among project directors.
Consistency in the age of eligibility for all Senior Corps programs will simplify the delivery of
the Senior Corps message, will expand the base of persons eligible to participate, and will enable
projects to continue their efforts to balance the "senior" with the "service" rendered by Senior
Corps volunteers.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Lower eligibility for Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions to 55.
2) Include preference for placement of older volunteers consistent with the preference provided
in RSVP provisions.
3) Make corresponding age change in section 223 regarding minority group participation.
DVSA ISSUE 4. DELETE SECTION 201 (c) CALLING FOR REVIEW BY STATE UNIT ON AGING
BEFORE AWARDING NEW RSVP GRANTS
ISSUE: In current law, State Units on Aging are given preference for sponsorship of RSVP
projects, and are afforded a 45 day review and recommendation period for RSVP grants. Should
this requirement be continued?
BACKGROUND: The preferences given to the State Units on Aging for sponsoring, or
reviewing and making recommendations on RSVP grants, are included in decades-old provisions
that have oulived their time and usefulness.
DISCUSSION: RSVP was started as an Older Americans Act demonstration program in the late
1960s to show that, given the opportunity, older persons would come forward to meet the needs
of their communities through volunteer service. When the "aging network" of State and Area
Agencies on Aging was created as part of the Older Americans Act, it made sense to include
RSVP in the aging network's sphere of influence.
In the 1990's, RSVP is no longer considered an "aging" program, but a vital part of the growing
national service movement. Indeed, Senior Corps programs should figure prominently in the
commissions' State Service Plans. It could be viewed as an overlapping responsibility with State
National Service Commissions for State Units on Aging to continue to have this review and
recommendation authority.
Moreover, since State Units on Aging fall under the offices of the governors of the states, and
Executive Order 12372 provides governors with the option to review grants, it is therefore no
longer necessary to include this specific provision relating to the State Units on Aging.
Additionally, since State Units on Aging could be sponsors of Senior Corps programs, it could
be viewed as a conflict of interest for them to have this kind of review and recommendation
authority.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete section 201(c).
DVSA ISSUE 5. CHANGE LANGUAGE IN DVSA RELATED TO EVALUATION:
A) DELETE SECTION 504(B).
B) DELETE SECOND SENTENCE OF 416(A) THAT REQUIRES AN EVALUATION EVERY THREE
YEARS.
ISSUE: Language should be changed to allow program as well as administration funds to be
spent for evaluation. Current law requiring evaluations every three years should be dropped.
BACKGROUND: The current law (Section 504(b)) caps evaluation dollars for all DVSA
programs at 2-1/2 percent of all program administration funds. Furthermore, section 504(a)
limits administration funds to 18 percent of the total DVSA funding. These limitations placed on
evaluation funding have resulted in a great discrepancy in available evaluation funding between
programs authorized by DVSA and programs authorized by NCSTA.
The requirement in section 416(g) to evaluate VISTA and each of the three Senior Corps
programs every three years means that while VISTA must be evaluated once every three years,
one of the three Senior Corps programs must be evaluated each year. This has not allowed for
thoughtful, in-depth evaluations of Senior Corps programs that lead to meaningful feedback in
working to improve program quality.
DISCUSSION: Sec. 504 (b) was added in the 1993 amendments to supercede Sec. 416(g).
Eliminating section 504(b) will allow the Corporation to spend up to one percent of the entire
DVSA budget on evaluation of its programs, as specified in section 416(g). Both administration
and program dollars would then be available for program evaluation.
Eliminating the sentence in section 416(g) that requires evaluations every three years will also
remove the need to meet artificial deadlines and instead allow the Corporation to conduct
evaluations in a manner that leads to higher quality programs.
The National Senior Service Corps Directors Associations are opposed to dropping Sec. 504 (b).
Their position is that in these times of program cutbacks, they don't want program money
diverted to evaluation. Further, they suggest that rather than dropping the three-year evaluation
requirement entirely, it should be changed to five years.
RECOMMENDATION: Absent the ability to draw funds to support evaluations from other
sources, Section 504 (b) should be deleted. The sentence in section 416(g) that requires
evaluations of programs every three years should also be deleted.
NCSTA ISSUE 6. ENSURE THAT STATE COMMISSION BOARDS CONTINUE TO REQUIRE
SENIOR SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE.
ISSUE: Current language in the National and Community Service Trust Act (Section 12638)
requires that an individual with experience in promoting volunteer service by older Americans be
included on State Commissions. There is a need to safeguard this provision.
BACKGROUND: By including the provision that an individual with experience in promoting
volunteer service by older Americans be included on State Commissions, The National and
Community Service Trust Act insured that there would be a spokesperson on each State
Commission who could raise the awarness of Commission members about the role that older
Americans can play in the service movement, and ensure that senior service programs are
included in state service plans.
DISCUSSION: In keeping with the Corporation's objective to promote the integration of the
various streams of service, and to enable new service programs to build on and benefit by the
experience of the NSSC projects which are represented in over 70,000 community based
organizations across the nation, it makes sense to support the current Commission infrastructure
designed to acheive these objectives.
RECOMMENDATION: Make no change in existing law that would diminish the role of senior
service representation on State Commission Boards.
NCSTA ISSUE 7. CHANGE LANGUAGE ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE DAY TO
LANGUAGE CALLING FOR A NATIONAL DAY OF SERVICE.
ISSUE: Should language be changed in the National and Community Service Trust Act (Section
12653) to include senior volunteers in a national day of service?
BACKGROUND: Current language in the National and Community Service Trust Act calls for a
National Youth Service Day. Last year, the Corporation for National Service organized events
around National Day of Service, dropping the word "youth" from all Corporation publicity
efforts.
DISCUSSION: Dropping the word "youth" from the currently established service day makes its
name more inclusive and recognizes the contributions of senior volunteers. While program
constituents have recommended a separate senior service day, the Corporation should maintain
only one national service day. This will allow for a greater media focus on one day rather than
dividing news coverage between two separate days.
RECOMMENDATION: Change language in the National and Community Service Trust Act to
establish a National Day of Service.
NCSTA ISSUE 8. INCORPORATE DVSA SEC.2(A) "VOLUNTEERISM POLICY" INTO NCSTA.
REVISE SEC. 12501 OF NCSTA TO ELIMINATE REFERENCES TO YOUTH AND YOUNG ADULTS
AND TO CLARIFY ELIGIBILITY FOR THE EDUCATION AWARD.
ISSUE: Language from DVSA's introduction should be incorporated into the introduction of the
NCSTA. NCSTA purpose statements should be altered to more accurately reflect all streams of
service.
BACKGROUND: The DVSA includes language on national policy related to the support of
volunteer service that could enhance the purpose clauses of the NCSTA, and reaffirm this
statement of national policy to the benefit of national service.
DISCUSSION: The following language from Sec. 2(a) of DVSA, as modified could be included
as part of Sec. 12501 of the NCSTA:
Because of the long-standing importance of volunteer service throughout American history, it is
the policy of the Congress to foster the tradition of volunteer service through greater involvement
on the part of both young and old citizens.
Two changes should be made to NCSTA's Sec. 12501 to make it more consistent with a
Corporation that includes service participants of all ages:
Sec. 12501 (a) (6): delete words "especially youth and young adults."
Sec. 12501 (b) (3) add after words "national service:" "and who meet specific criteria." This will
clarify that not all participants in programs run by the Corporation for National Service are
eligible for the education award.
RECOMMENDATION Make three changes to NCSTA Sec. 12501 as detailed above.
AmeriCorps*VISTA Reauthorization Issues
Nov. 6, 1995
1. Statement of Purpose
2. Areas of Program Concentration
3. Recruitment and Planning Functions
4. Priority for Local Recruits
5. Term of Service
6. Cash Stipend Option at End of Service
7. VISTA Literacy Corps
8. Applications for Assistance
9. University Year for VISTA
10. Special Volunteer Programs
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 1. Statement of Purpose (Sec. 101)
ISSUE: Should the statement of purpose for the Volunteers in Service to America
program contained in the Domestic Volunteer Service Act be amended in any
way?
BACKGROUND: The current language makes no reference to the relationship
between VISTA and AmeriCorps.
The current language also makes no reference to the primary objective of each
AmeriCorps* VISTA project which is the achievement of self-sufficiency of
program initiatives undertaken by the AmeriCorps* VISTAs.
DISCUSSION: If AmeriCorps is to be officially included in reauthorization
language, the term AmeriCorps* VISTA should be set forth in the statement of
purpose for the program.
RECOMMENDATION: Add term "AmeriCorps*) VISTA to purpose statement if
similar language is also to be added to the NCSTA. Add clarifying language to
the Statement of Purpose which discusses capacity building, self-sufficiency, and
achievement of sustainable activities as a goal of each AmeriCorps* VISTA
project.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 2. Areas of Program Concentration (Sec. 103 (a))
ISSUE: Should DVSA language be changed to emphasize the Corporation's four
program priority areas?
BACKGROUND: Section 103 (a) contains an accumulation of program emphases
and target population groups dating back to the Economic Opportunity Act of
1964, and refers to other legislation which may no longer be valid.
DISCUSSION: Current language makes to reference to the National and
Community Service Trust Act, nor to the broad program priority areas of
AmeriCorps: Education, Public Safety, Environment, and Human Needs.
RECOMMENDATION Amend language to ensure consistency with
AmeriCorps program priorities while maintaining clear low-income focus of the
AmeriCorps VISTA program.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 3. Recruitment and Placement Functions (Sec. 103 (b))
ISSUE: Should language in recruitment section of DVSA be altered to reflect
current CNS recruitment structure?
BACKGROUND: A number of provisions mandate specific organizational
structures, information systems, public affairs activities, and hiring requirements
related to the recruitment and placement of AmeriCorps* VISTA members which
are inconsistent with the current recruitment structure.
DISCUSSION: The current language indicates that "the office established under
this subparagraph shall be merged with the recruitment office of such
Corporation. At no time after such transfer of functions shall more than one
office responsible primarily for recruitment exist within the Corporation."
Functions of recruitment and evaluation/placement of applicants for
AmeriCorps* VISTA are clearly distinct with placement requiring close contact
with, and specific knowledge of, individual project needs as well as suitability
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: Repeal all language which is inconsistent with current
recruitment structure of the Corporation.
Clarify that evaluation/placement of candidates for AmeriCorps* VISTA service
remain in the program office with flexibility to administer in the most efficient
and economical manner possible.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 4. Priority for Local Recruits (Sec. 103(b)(6)(C))
ISSUE: Should VISTA give priority to locally recruited members over nationally
recruited members?
BACKGROUND: Current language requires that "a locally recruited volunteer
(receive) priority for placement in the sponsoring organization.
that recruited
such volunteer." National recruits, by inference, receive a lower priority in
placement for AmeriCorps*VISTA service.
DISCUSSION: Field staff recommends deleting this requirement and substituting
"best qualified" or "most appropriately skilled" applicant since the desired
outcome is achieving the best "match" possible of member to assignment.
Politically, and economically, current language may be more acceptable.
Image of "outsiders" coming into certain communities still raises concerns, and
costs of transporting national recruits can be expensive in current budget climate.
RECOMMENDATION: Delete current language and remain silent on the issue;
OR
Leave current language as is since we have been able to increase number of
national recruits and we may not want to go much above the current one-third
level if the budget is substantially reduced.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 5. Term of Service (Sec. 104 (b))
ISSUE: Should DVSA language place a cap on the number of years a VISTA can
serve?
BACKGROUND: Current language provides a minimum one year of service for
AmeriCorps' VISTAs, but allows for service up to a total of five (consecutive or
non-consecutive) years.
DISCUSSION: Minimum of one year of service should be retained as minimum
amount of time needed to obtain demonstrable results on a typical A *VISTA
assignment.
AmeriCorps*VISTA service should be regarded as service and not a job.
The ability to earn education award is limited to two years. Most A*VISTA
projects last 3-4 years.
RECOMMENDATION: Limit term of service to no more than 2 years, but allow
for a second enrollment period of up to two years (after some substantial period of
time has elapsed) with an understanding that the education award is available for
only 2 years, OR
Limit Corporation-funded service to two years, with a corresponding period for
the education award, and allow non-Corporation funds to support service for up to
two additional years with no education award provided.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 6. Cash Stipend Option at End of Service (Sec. 105 (a))
ISSUE: Should DVSA retain the VISTA end-of-service stipend as an option to
the educational benefit?
BACKGROUND: AmeriCorps* VISTAs are currently eligible for a $100 per
month cash stipend option payable at the end of service if they do not choose the
education award. (The legislation allows up to a maximum of $125 per month
assuming the availability of funds.) Leaders are authorized a stipend of $200 per
month. No such option exists in the AmeriCorps grant programs. (NCCC has a
"cash-out" option of $2362.)
DISCUSSION: A*VISTAs are not eligible for unemployment compensation after
they leave service; the stipend is intended to provide some assistance during the
period of transition after service.
Approximately 50% of current A*VISTAs have chosen the stipend option. That
percentage has remained fairly constant since the inception of the education award
in March 1994.
Approximately 15% of A*VISTAs are 50 and older; another 17% are between 40-
49. This compares with a total of 9% over the age of 40 in the AmeriCorps grants
programs.
75% of AmeriCorps VISTAs over the age of 50 select the cash stipend option;
43% of those between 40 and 49 select the stipend option.
A different demographic profile exists between AmeriCorps VISTA and
AmeriCorps grants. Seniors continue to be a recruitment target for the A*VISTA
program and are specifically encouraged to participate per Sec. 107 of the DVSA.
RECOMMENDATION: The stipend option is clearly very attractive to a
significant portion of the program, costs less than the education award, and should
be retained.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 7. VISTA Literacy Corps (Sec. 109)
ISSUE: Should VISTA Literacy Corps continue to be authorized?
BACKGROUND: VISTA Literacy Corps is a separately authorized, separately
appropriated program component within the overall VISTA program. FY 96
House mark eliminates the Literacy Corps entirely; Senate Appropriations
Committee retains it with an 8% reduction.
DISCUSSION: The regular VISTA program has had a considerable level of
activity focusing on adult literacy for the past 15-20 years--long before
authorization of the Literacy Corps in FY87. Ideally, we would like to have the
flexibility to determine the appropriate level of resources devoted to this activity
without legislative prescription.
In a time of diminishing resources, the Literacy Corps may provide a means for
obtaining some additional funding for AmeriCorps* VISTA which may be lost if
the program is totally eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Literacy Corps continues to receive funding in FY
96, we should not propose elimination, OR
Eliminate the Literacy Corps authorization, and move the funding into the regular
program if it is politically feasible.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 8. Applications for Assistance (Sec. 110)
ISSUE: Should a time limit be set on the number of years a VISTA project
operates?
BACKGROUND: The language in this section stipulates that assistance cannot
be denied to any project solely on the basis of the number of years the project has
already received assistance.
DISCUSSION: Each A*VISTA project should have as an overriding goal the
accomplishment of a set of goals/objectives within a generally-agreed upon
timeframe.
Corporation field staff should have the ability to determine if requests for
additional A*VISTA assistance which clearly exceed the anticipated project
timeframe warrant further support.
Legislation as currently written reduces the Corporation's flexibility to close
projects at the end of a Memorandum of Agreement if they have not been able to
accomplish project goals within a reasonable timeframe.
RECOMMENDATION: Repeal Section 110 of the DVSA, especially in light of
anticipated budget reductions.
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 9. University Year for VISTA (Sec. 111-113)
ISSUE: Should authorization for University Year for VISTA be retained?
BACKGROUND: Title I, Part B, of the DVSA contains language authorizing a
full-time, stipended program for students enrolled in higher education institutions
known as University Year for VISTA. This authorization has not been funded
since FY 1994.
DISCUSSION: Current language allows for full-time service on an academic
semester, academic year, or full year with payment of living allowance and
stipend. Program focus mirrors that of the regular VISTA program.
RECOMMENDATION: Repeal all of Part B authorizing language since Learn
and Serve authorization contains similar provisions and all higher education
activity should be under the same "umbrella."
VISTA Reauthorization Issues
ISSUE 10. Special Volunteer Programs (Sec. 121-124)
ISSUE: Should language authorizing Special Volunteer Programs be retained?
BACKGROUND: Title I, Part C, of the DVSA contains language authorizing
stipended and non-stipended special volunteer and demonstration programs,
technical and financial assistance to private voluntary efforts, and literacy
challenge grants. This authorization has not been funded since FY 1994.
DISCUSSION: Virtually all of the authorities contained in Part C of the DVSA
are available to the Corporation under Subtitle H and other provisions of the
NCSTA. Literacy Challenge Grants have never been funded.
RECOMMENDATION: Repeal all of Part C authorizing language since NCSTA
contains sufficient flexibility to carry out all activities except for the Literacy
Challenge Grants.