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
348832735
label
Decision Memos [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
348832735
contentType
document
title
Decision Memos [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
AmeriCorps Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
348832735
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
311842741-20130661F-Seg3-022-005-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
94135aca4583442e
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F
(3)
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:
Americorps
Series/Staff Member:
General Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24223
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Decision Memos [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
4
1
United States
Office
Office of Budget
Washington,
Department of
of the
and Program
D.C.
Agriculture
Secretary
Analysis
20250
January 31, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Joel Berg
Deputy Director
FROM:
Associate Director
Office of Public Affairs Lighlads
Lawrence Wachs
SUBJECT: National Service Proposal
This is in response to your memorandum of January 28. Attached for your information
is a copy of the advice that we provided to the Deputy Secretary on this subject.
To enable the Secretary to make an informed decision on your National Service
proposals, we suggest that you:
--
Describe your plans in sufficient detail (including funding sources) to allow OGC
to determine if the funding sources can be used to fulfill the requirements of
your plan. Since the President's FY 1995 Budget has been completed and it
does not include "new" money for USDA National Service initiatives, you will
also need to work with the involved agencies to describe the impact on existing
programs by funding this plan.
--
After receiving OGC comments, ask the relevant Under/Assistant Secretaries to
clear the proposals or provide comments (a simultaneous clearance would be
the most expeditious way to accomplish this).
--
Send the entire package to the Deputy Secretary/Secretary for a decision.
With this information in hand, the Secretary should more easily be able to determine
the specific levels at which the Department should participate in the National Service
Initiatives.
Attachment
JAN 27 1994,
MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
FROM:
Stephen B. Dewhurst
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST
Director
SUBJECT:
Funding for USDA National Service Project
Charlie Rawls recently sent us a copy of Joel Berg's decision memorandum to the
Secretary requesting decisions on a number of proposals to implement national
service projects. Some of these proposals would affect the FY 1995 budget. The
most significant proposal requests funding of $19 to $45 million for long-term USDA
national service activities that would focus on rural development, hunger, and
environmental issues. The decision memorandum indicates that the FY 1995 budget
should include either line items or special earmarks for these activities. As you know,
we are currently in the advanced stages of the budget process. Budget numbers and
allocations were settled with OMB several weeks ago, and we are now reviewing
galley proofs of the final budget documents. Needless to say it is too late to include
new material in the President's budget.
It would be possible, however, to identify existing funding sources or programs that
might be used to further national service objectives. A statement for inclusion in
testimony or in other documents could be prepared which would indicate how we plan
to carry out these initiatives through existing programs. The Office of the General
Counsel would need to review the potential sources of funding identified in the
decision memo to ensure that funds could, in fact, be used for the purposes that are
proposed, and it would certainly be appropriate to request comments on the specifics
of the plan and funding proposals from the relevant agencies and sub-cabinet before
asking the Secretary for a decision. We would be glad to work with OGC and
Joel Berg to facilitate this review, if you so desire.
CC: Kim Schnoor
Charlie Rawls
* SERVICE A M DEPARTMENT
UNITED
FYI
STATES
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
-Dul
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY/DEPUTY SECRETARY
THROUGH:
J. Assistant David Carlin Secretary JDC for
Congressional Relations
FROM:
Joel Berg 13
Director of National Service
Subject:
Status of the USDA AmeriCorps Program
ISSUE:
Despite the fact the USDA AmeriCorps program has been supported by the President, nearly all
the Democrats in the Senate, and the offices of over one dozen Republicans in the Senate, the
program continues to be on hold due to opposition from Senator Bond.
The issue is whether the Secretary will cancel the USDA AmeriCorps program planned for the
1996-1997 program year or whether the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary will take a series of
final actions aimed at securing a compromise agreement with Senator Bond that would allow the
program to continue for a one year period of transition.
BACKGROUND:
The USDA AmeriCorps Program is NOT Currently Operating
A third year of the USDA AmeriCorps program was scheduled to have started on October 1, but
all projects have been placed on hold pending continued negotiation with key Congressional
leaders with oversight responsibilities over AmeriCorps programs.
The Forest Service AmeriCorps program has been shut-down even longer for a year and a half
--- because the Interior Appropriations Subcommittees rejected the Secretary's reprogramming
request last year. If we do have success in solving the overall USDA AmeriCorps issue, we will
still need to get reprogramming approved from the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in
order to continue the Forest Service portion of the program.
2
Why a Decision Must Be Made Immediately
Given that AmeriCorps members must finish their full term of service which normally lasts
ten calendar months before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 1997, it would be
impossible to run a full program if a compromise is not reached by December 13.
Both the potential program participants and the communities should be notified as to whether
they will have an AmeriCorps program this year or whether they immediately need to make
alternative plans.
Other Options Suggested by Congressional Staff Are Not Legal or Possible
Several congressional staff have suggested that all USDA projects could continue immediately
by applying directly to the Corporation for National Service (CNS) or state commissions on
national service. As of next year (the 1997-1998 program year), some AmeriCorps projects
previously sponsored by USDA may be funded directly by CNS and/or by governor-appointed
state commissions of national and community service. However, CNS and state commission
funds have already been committed and application deadlines have already passed for this year
(the 1996-1997 program year). Thus, this option can help start new projects next program year,
but is not relevant to projects planned for this program year.
Other congressional staff have suggested that USDA fund the entire program --- including
educational awards itself, without signing a cooperative agreement with the CNS. However,
the USDA Office of General Counsel has ruled that USDA can not legally fund an AmeriCorps
program without a cooperative agreement with CNS and that USDA can not fund educational
awards. (See attached memorandums from Kenneth E. Cohen, dated March 11, 1994 and March
26, 1996).
Therefore, there is no legal, financial, or logistical way to continue the projects now on
hold without some support from both USDA and CNS for at least one year of transition.
Thus, if compromise is not reached by December 13, all the USDA AmeriCorps projects
planned for this year will be canceled.
Senator Bond's Most Recent Position
Senator Leahy recently wrote letter to Senator Bond (attached), requesting some clarification on
how USDA AmeriCorps projects might be able to proceed. In a letter of response to Leahy
(attached), Bond still indicated that he had reservations about USDA spending funds on
AmeriCorps:
3
"After reviewing your proposal to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
use its own appropriated funds to support AmeriCorps projects, I fear that this approach
is contrary to the objectives we have pursued to reform AmeriCorps to generate support
for funding of AmeriCorps.
However, Bond's letter to Leahy did seem to keep to door open for some future compromise:
"I understand your objective and agree the USDA AmeriCorps programs are beneficial
and serve the community well. Be assured that when Congress convenes in January, I
will work with Members to ascertain new ways of funding these programs."
Senator Grassley with whom Harris Wofford reached an agreement to reform certain aspects
of AmeriCorps in exchange for Grassley's support of the overall AmeriCorps program --- has
also opposed USDA spending the Department's own funds on AmeriCorps. (See attached letter).
Republican Support for the USDA AmeriCorps Program
While Speaker Gingrich continues to oppose the overall AmeriCorps program, the three most
relevant committee chairs in the House have not opposed USDA spending its own funds on
AmeriCorps.
Congressman Jerry Lewis, Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and
Independent Agencies, and Congressman Joe Skeen, Chair of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture, have not objected to USDA spending the Department's own funds
on AmeriCorps.
Congressman Bill Goodling, Chair of the House Economic and Educational Opportunities
Committee the authorizing committee over AmeriCorps also holds a favorable position,
writing: "It is my understanding that this agreement (Wofford's agreement with Grassley) in no
way limits the Department of Agriculture from unilaterally funding AmeriCorps programs." (See
attached letter).
A number of Republicans in Congress many of whom have previously opposed the overall
AmeriCorps program have contacted USDA by phone or by mail asking us to find ways to
continue AmeriCorps projects in their state or district; these include: Senators Phil Gramm, Kay
Bailey Hutchinson, John McCain, Pete Dominici, Dirk Kempthorne, Larry Craig, Ben
Nighthorse Campbell, Spencer Abraham, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe, Bill Cohen, Mark
Hatfield, Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell and Congressmen Doug Bereuter and Jack Quinn.
Unfortunately, while a number of these supportive Republican offices have written and/or
called the offices of Bond and Grassley, none of them have, to date, agreed to play a
forceful leadership role in trying to save the program.
4
On the Democratic side, Senator Leahy has been the strongest supporter of the program, having
both spoken with and written to Bond about this matter a number of times. Reportedly, Bond
has not been particularly receptive to these discussions. Other Democratic offices that have been
active in supporting USDA AmeriCorps are: Senators Paul Wellstone, Paul Sarbanes, Jeff
Bingaman, Chuck Robb, Tom Daschle, Patty Murray, Bob Graham, Ron Wyden, Diane
Feinstein, and Carl Levin and Represenatives John Murtha, Frank Mascara, Frank Pallone, Earl
Blumenauer, Elizabeth Furse, John Baldacci, John Dingell, Mike McNulty, Jack Reed, James
Clyburn, Pete Peterson, Tony Hall, Pat Danner, Frank Tejeda, Norm Dicks, Richard Durbin,
Steny Hoyer, Lynn Woolsey, and Colin Peterson.
All told, we have spoken with over 170 Congressional offices about this matter. Various letters
of support and inquiry are attached.
OPTIONS:
Option 1: Make A Concerted, Final Attempt to Save Program
The Secretary would request Congress to allow USDA to continue funding and supporting
AmeriCorps projects for one year only as the projects were allowed to transition into a new
arrangement, starting next year, in which they would receive funding directly from the CNS
and/or from state commissions of national service.
Advantages of this option: It seems to be the only remaining way to find any possible
compromise to save USDA AmeriCorps projects. Even if these efforts fail, we can tell
Congressional and other supporters that we made every effort possible to save the program.
Disadvantages of this option: There is a slight chance that such actions might anger Senator
Bond.
If the Secretary does choose this option, the Secretary or Deputy Secretary could take some or all
of the following actions:
1) Call Congressman Jerry Lewis, who, as Chair of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, is Bond's counterpart in the
House. USDA has had successful AmeriCorps projects in Lewis' district sponsored by both the
Forest Service and NRCS, and Lewis has no personal objections to USDA continuing to fund
AmeriCorps. The Secretary would request Congressman Lewis to contact Senator Bond.
2) Call Congressman Joe Skeen, Chair of the House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee, and/or Senator Thad Cochran, Chair of the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee. USDA has sponsored successful AmeriCorps projects
throughout Cochran's home state of Mississippi. Congressman Skeen's staff has urged USDA to
5
continue to support a successful project in Mr. Skeen's district. Both Bond and Grassley have
couched their opposition to the USDA AmeriCorps program on the statement --- either implicit
or explicit that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees oppose USDA spending on
AmeriCorps. If the Secretary could convince Skeen and/or Cochran to communicate with Bond
and Grassley that such a belief is not accurate, this might convince Bond and Grassley to allow
us to continue funding projects.
3) Call Senator Barbara Mikulski, who is ranking Democrat on the Senate appropriations
Committee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies. Senator Leahy's staff believes that
Mikulski is the only Democrat in a position to influence Bond. In the past, Mikulski has not
been extremely supportive of Federal agency AmeriCorps programs, but her staff has recently
learned of the success of USDA projects in rural Maryland. In addition, key Democratic offices
have already contacted her office asking for her help in this matter. The Secretary would ask her
to contact Bond.
4) Re-contact Senator Bond. I would suggest first sending Bond a copy of the "Citizens Guide
to Food Recovery," with a cover note that thanks him for his help on the Emerson Bill, points out
that the guide is dedicated to Emerson, and asks for his help on a compromise on AmeriCorps. I
would suggest that the Secretary call him a few days after the guide and the note are delivered.
5) Work with the office of Harris Wofford to determine whether the President, the Vice-
President, the Head of OMB, or the White House Chief of Staff would be willing to call
Bond about this matter. Given the fact that the President highlighted the USDA AmeriCorps
program in his recent radio address, this may be an available option.
Option 2: Cancel the program planned for this year.
Advantages of this option: It would end the uncertainly about the program endured for months
by past and prospective AmeriCorps Members, project managers, and staff.
Disadvantages of this option: It would end an extremely successful program and foreclose most
future projects related to food recovery, rural development and environmental protection. Some
in Congress might react to such an action by blaming USDA for ending successful projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I recommend option one, in which the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary would immediately take
concrete steps to attempt to save the program.
6
DECISION BY THE SECRETARY (DEPUTY SECRETARY):
Approve
Disapprove
Discuss with me
Date
Reviewed by
Agriculture
Counsel
20250-1400
MAR 1 1 1994,
MEMORANDUM FOR JOEL BERG
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
FROM:
Assistant Kenneth E. General Cohen
Research and Operations Division
SUBJECT:
National Service Projects
This memorandum summarizes the conclusions of our March 7,
1994, meeting with Terry Russell, Acting General Counsel,
Corporation for National and Community Service. The Corporation
is charged by Congress with administering the National and
Community Trust Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-82, 107 Stat. 785.
(References are to Subtitle C, Part I of the National and
Community Service Act of 1990, as amended.) Accordingly, courts
will be deferential to the Corporation interpretation of the Act.
Based on our discussion with Mr. Russell, we reached the
following conclusions:
1. USDA may receive assistance from the Corporation.
(section 121 (b) (1), 107 Stat. 788).
2. The Act confers upon USDA the authority, if it receives
Corporation assistance under section 121, to conduct
national service programs or to enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements. While USDA is not fettered in the
type of entity that may receive assistance from USDA,
existing national service programs should under section
121 (b) (4) be considered.
3. If USDA receives assistance under section 121, then USDA
is authorized and required to pay stipends, health care, and
child care. (Sections 140 (a), (d), and (e), 107 Stat. 811-
813).
4. USDA has no general authority to provide national
service educational awards directly and it may not provide
funds to the Trust for such purpose.
We also concluded that it is possible for USDA to conduct to
some degree national service programs without section 121
assistance, but the extent of such programs would have to be
reviewed case-by-case. Receiving assistance under section 12
confers considerable authority on USDA under the Act that we
otherwise would not enjoy generally. No minimum amount of
assistance from the Corporation is required to trigger section
121.
Finally, I cautioned that any financing mechanisms used
within USDA should assure that agency appropriations are not
augmented unlawfully.
ATTACHMENT A
United States
Office of the
Washi.
Department of
General
D.C.
Agriculture
Counsel
20250-1400
MAR 27 1996
MEMORANDUM FOR JOEL S. BERG
DIRECTOR
Assistant General Kemett Eloker
NATIONAL SERVICE
FROM
Kenneth E. Cohen
Research and Operations Division
SUBJECT
Authority of USDA to Administer an AmeriCorps
Program Without a Grant From the Corporation for
National and Community Service
This memorandum is in response to your request for a legal
opinion as to whether the Department of Agriculture ("USDA") has
the authority to administer a national service program in the
absence of a grant from the Corporation for National and
Community Service (the "Corporation") to support the program.
For the reasons expressed below, it is my view (i) that USDA does
have the authority to administer a national service program
without a grant from the Corporation, but (ii) USDA does not have
the authority to bestow upon program participants those benefits
commonly associated with national service programs, i.e., living
allowance, health insurance, child-care, and an educational
award, unless USDA receives some assistance, even non-monetary
assistance, from the Corporation.
The National and Community Service Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.
101-610, 104 Stat. 3129, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12501 et seq.
(the "Act"), as amended by the National and Community Service
Trust Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-82, 107 Stat. 785, established
the Corporation in order to administer various national service
programs authorized under the Act and under the Domestic
Volunteer Service Act of 1973. 42 U.S.C. § 12651 et seq. Chief
among these programs are the AmeriCorps programs.¹
1 I.e., AmeriCorps National, AmeriCorps State, and
AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps. The term
"AmeriCorps" does not actually appear in the Act, but the
regulations for the Corporation (45 CFR Chapter XXV) define
"AmeriCorps" as "the combination of all AmeriCorps programs and
participants." 45 CFR § 2510.20. The regulations then define an
"AmeriCorps program" as "any program that receives approved
AmeriCorps positions" or "any program that receives Corporation
funds under section 121 of the Act, id.; an "AmeriCorps
participant" is defined as "any individual who is serving in --
(1) An AmeriCorps program; (2) An approved AmeriCorps position;
2
Section 121 of the Act authorized the Corporation to enter
into contracts or cooperative agreements with Federal agencies in
order to provide assistance to the agencies in support of
national service programs. 42 U.S.C. § 12571 (b) (1). This same
section also authorized Federal agencies receiving assistance
from the Corporation to enter into subcontracts and subagreements
with local entities carrying out national service programs to
support those programs. (b) (4) The Act further provided that
national service programs carried out with assistance provided
under Section 121 must provide program participants with specific
benefits, to wit: a living allowance, § 12594 (a) (1); fully paid
health insurance, (d) (1) i child-care, (e) (1) i and an educational
award, § 12595 (a).
In Fiscal Year 1995, USDA administered an extensive national
service program using assistance, in the form of a grant, that it
had received from the Corporation under Interagency Cooperative
Agreement No. 94ADFDC047, dated October 19, 1994. This agreement
had been entered into by the Corporation and USDA pursuant to
Section 121 of the Act. In administering this program, USDA
provided program participants with the benefits required by
42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595.
Now, however, USDA faces the possibility that it will not
receive grants from the Corporation to support USDA national
service programs in Fiscal Year 1996 and beyond. Will the
absence of such cash assistance provided under Section 121
preclude USDA from using its appropriations to administer a
national service program and provide program participants with
the benefits required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595?
The first step in this inquiry is to ascertain what
activities in the area of national service programs the Act
presently authorizes Federal agencies to perform, since, in the
absence of such authority, Federal agencies generally do not have
the authority to provide the above-described benefits that are
required for national service program participants. The Act,
however, does not contain any express or specific grant of
authority to Federal agencies to administer national service
programs. Section 121 of the Act, which is the part of the Act
that most approximates such a specific authority, merely states
that "the Corporation may enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement with another Federal agency to support a national
service program carried out by the agency." The Act, therefore,
only states how the Corporation may assist Federal agencies; in
or (3) Both,' id. An "approved AmeriCorps position" is defined,
in turn, as "an AmeriCorps position for which the Corporation has
approved the provision of an AmeriCorps educational award as one
of the benefits to be provided for successful service in the
position. Id.
3
doing so, it appears simply to assume that Federal agencies may
administer national service programs.
Nevertheless, the Act clearly states that only those
programs that receive assistance under Section 121 are required
to provide the full panoply of national service program
benefits.² 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 (a) (1) (living allowance); (d) (1)
(health insurance) i (e) (1) (child care) i § 12595 (a)
(educational award) Thus, if grants are unavailable as
assistance under Section 121, the question becomes whether other
forms of assistance, i.e., non-monetary assistance, may be
available from the Corporation that will trigger the USDA
authority to spend its appropriations on the national service
program benefits.
On this issue, the Act is clear. It mentions several forms
of non-monetary assistance that could be the subject matter of an
agreement between the Corporation and Federal agencies. For
example, the Corporation may provide program assistance, in the
form of planning assistance, operational assistance, or
replication assistance, to entities -- including Federal agencies
(see 42 U.S.C. § 12582 (a) ) -- that submit applications for the
planning, establishment, operation, expansion, or relocation of a
national service program. 42 U.S.C. § 12574. The Corporation
also is authorized to provide technical assistance to those
entities, such as Federal agencies, that are described in
Section 121 of the Act. § 12575 (b) Finally, the Corporation
may provide training assistance to support programs already
receiving assistance under Section 121. § 12575 (a). Thus, there
is a cornucopia of non-monetary assistance that the Corporation
may provide to Federal agencies through a cooperative agreement
that would qualify as assistance under Section 121.³ Once a
2 Thus, the Act appears to countenance Federal agencies
establishing a species of national service programs that would
not bestow upon participants the benefits described in §§ 140 and
141 of the Act. For USDA, this is fully consistent with the
Secretary's authority to accept voluntary service. 7 U.S.C.
§ 2272. However, since I understand your inquiry to be whether
USDA may administer a national service program complete with the
benefits described in the Act, I will venture no further down
this legal cul-de-sac.
3
I do not believe, however, that the availability of
educational awards for participants in a national service program
may qualify, in and of itself, as Section 121 assistance since
such awards, by the very terms of the Act, shall be available to
participants in national service programs that are already
receiving "assistance provided
...
under
[Section
121.]"
42 U.S.C. § 12595 (a) (emphasis added) Thus, to characterize the
educational awards as Section 121 assistance would amount to
4
Federal agency receives such assistance from the Corporation, it
may then provide to the participants in its national service
program the benefits required by 42 U.S.C. §§ 12594 and 12595.
Moreover, Section 121 of the Act does not state that the
assistance which Federal agencies receive from the Corporation
must be a grant. Section 121 (b) refers to cooperative
agreements, which envisage substantial involvement on the part of
the cooperators, but does not require the transfer of money.
Further, Section 121 (b) expressly says that the "support
provided by the Corporation pursuant to the contract or
cooperative agreement may include the transfer to the Federal
agency of funds available to the Corporation." 42 U.S.C.
§ 12571 (b) (1). The necessary corollary of this provision is that
such contracts or cooperative agreements may include other forms
of assistance besides funds.
This view of USDA's authority to administer national service
programs in the absence of a grant from the Corporation is shared
by the Corporation itself. Terry Russell, General Counsel for
the Corporation, has opined that:
[T] he National and Community Service Act reflects
Congressional intent to provide authority to Federal
agencies to operate national service programs -- regardless
of whether operational funds are transferred from the
Corporation to the federal agencies.
Mr. Russell's views provide me with additional comfort for my
opinion because, as I indicated to you in an earlier
memorandum,⁵ the Corporation has been charged by Congress with
administering the Act, and courts of review are deferential to
agencies in the agencies' reasonable interpretation of statutes
within their purview. Therefore, courts would be deferential to
the Corporation in its view that the Act authorizes Federal
agencies to operate national service programs without operational
funds from the Corporation.
Therefore, I conclude that USDA has the authority to
administer a national service program, such as an AmeriCorps
program, without a grant from the Corporation, provided that USDA
circular reasoning.
4
Memorandum from Terry Russell to Kenneth E. Cohen,
Assistant General Counsel, Research and Operations Division,
Office of the General Counsel, USDA, at 2 (March 12, 1996).
5
Memorandum from Kenneth E. Cohen to Joel Berg, Deputy
Director, Office of Public Affairs, at 1 (March 11, 1994).
5
enters into an agreement with the Corporation to receive non-
monetary assistance, such as that referred to in 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12574 and 12575.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact Michael F. Kiely of this office at (202) 720-4600.
OCT 31 '96 15:46 FR
TO 97204614
P.02/02
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
MISSOURI
COMMITTEES
APPROPRIATIONS
BANKING, HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS
SMALL BUSINESS
United States Senate
BUDGET
ENVIRONMENT AND
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2503
PUBLIC WORKS
October 23, 1996
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Pat:
After reviewing your proposal to allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to use its own appropriated funds to support AmeriCorps projects, I fear that
this approach is contrary to the objectives we have pursued to reform AmeriCorps to
generate support of funding for AmeriCorps.
I understand your objective and agree the USDA AmeriCorps programs are
beneficial and serve the community well. Be assured that when Congress convenes in
January, I will work with Members to ascertain new ways of funding these programs.
I look forward to working with you during the 105th Congress. If you or your staff
have any questions, please contact Shawn Gilleylen of my staff at 4-5721.
Sincerely,
FuldBond Christopher S. Bond
REALY To
Ta3 FEDERAL COUNTROUSE BUILDING
] 136 Has WATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASPINGTON X 20510-1501
320 6TM STREET
724-3744
your CITY, LA 51 101-1244
ELL (702) 224-
17121 733-1894
United States Senate
210 WATERLOO BULLOING
121 FEDERAL BUILDINGS
501 COMMETICIAL Tracer
210 WALNUT STREET
CHARLES E. GRAGSLEY
WATERLOO. LA 30701-8437
065 Maxis IA 50208-2140
(319) 212-0857
(515) 284-4890
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1501
116 FEDERAL Burding
] 206 FEDERAL BLALDING
131E. ATM STREET
101 1st STACET and
DOVEMPORT. $ C201-1613
Crump RAMOS IA 42a01-1227
(318) 322-4331
(310) 363-8632
September 25, 1996
107 FEDEHAL BUILDING
a Sourn Aim STREET
COUNCIL BLUIPS. LA 61501-4204
17121 322-7103
Mr. HATTIS Wofford
Chief Executive Officer
Corporation for National Service
1201 New YORK Ave., NW
washington, D.C. 20525
Dear Hamis Mr Nofford:
Thank you for your September 1 letter regarding the desire
of the United States Department of Agriculture to administer an
AmeriCorps program. while the intentions of those who would
design this joint program may be socially meaningful, for various
reasons. I would not support an arrangement reinstating a joint
program with AmeriCorps Members working at the USDA.
AS you know, the end of grants to federal agencies is an
operative element of our agreement. Though the argument could be
made that funding the operating costs of a joint USDA/AmeriCorps
program Erom a surplus account at USDA may not literally violate
our agreement. I feel that such accounting would serve to violate
the spirit and intent of that agreement. The General Accounting
office measured the average cost per participant at federal
agency grant programs as exceeding $30,000. I do not feel that
taxpayers will be comforted to know that their government would
finance such expensive programs by using two respective accounts
ar. USDA and AmeriCorps instead of the tormer singularly
AmeriCorps approach. I think chat taxpayers expect that these
expensive programs have ended.
Committee Assignments:
BUDGET
FINANCE
JUDICIARY
JU
COAM
Even if it were possible to run an efficient and effective
jointly funded program, I believe that taxpayers would perceive
our efforts to reinstate these failed programs as a general
abandonment of reform. Indeed. I think that my acquiescence to a
continued AmeriCorps program at USDA may be perceived by some of
my colleagues as an abandonment of my commitment to effective
oversight of the programs.
Finally. I am not convinced that this is an appropriate time
for USDA to be undertaking additional financial responsibilities
beyond the recently appropriated level. Since the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture seems to have made no
specific appropriation for an AmeriCorps program, and since the
Subcommittee likely believes that sacrifices were made so that it
could reach its outlay targets for USDA, I find it difficult to
support an idea that a new financial endeavor should be
undertaken by an already financially challenged USDA.
It will be a long road toward recovery and attainment of
AmeriCorps' full potential. I am happy to continue to help you
along that path.
Sincerely,
Chuck
Chuck Grassley
United States Senator
OCT-09-1996 16:02 FROM
TO
97204014
F.00
FRANK MASLAKA
THANSMURTATION AND
201n DISTANT. PENNSYLVANIA
INFRASTBUCTURE COMMITTEE
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
1531 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
Buauc BUILDINGS
(202) 225-4665
Congress of the United States
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
house of Representatives
VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
EDUCATION TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING
Washington. DC 20515-3820
October 9, 1996
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman
House Committee On Economic
And Educational Opportunities
2181 RHOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Goodling:
I am writing to urge that you make every effort to reach an agreement with
Department of Agriculture officials so that several every successful AmeriCorps
programs operating in my District can continue in Fiscal 1997.
Over this past year, a program, involving 10-12 young people, established
and ran a very successful food program in Fayette County that included gleaning
and community gardening projects, as well as an educational component that
taught needy residents about effective nutrition. Another Fayette County program,
overseen by USDA's Rural Development Agency, utilized five young adults who
helped low-income citizens file for home loans, worked on designing the National
Road Visitors' Center, and organized and assisted in running clean-up projects of
junk yards and trails near the National Road.
Local officials involved with both of these efforts have repeatedly praised
the Corps volunteers and spoken highly of the quality of their work. They are
deeply interested in ensuring they can count on both of these projects providing
assistance in the coming months. As a result, I would implore you to work out the
needed understanding with Department of Agriculture officials that will allow the
Department to continue to play a role in such important AmeriCorps programs.
DISTRICT OFFICES
(800) 213-5570
Greene Co. Ofc. Bldg.
47 East Penn Street
96 North Main Street
3093 Washington Pike
Municipal Bldg. Room 103
93 E. High St. Rm. 303
Uniontown, PA 15401
Washington, PA 15301
Bridgeville, PA 15017
324 Esliowfield Avenue
Waynesburg, PA 15370
(412) 437-6078
(412) 228-4326
(412) 220-9046
Charleroi, PA 15022
(412) 852-2182
(412) 483-9016
996 16:03 FROM
I want to thank for your time and attention and your assistance in resolving
this problem which directly impacts many citizens of my District.
Very truly yours,
Thank mascare
Frank Mascara
Member of Congress
FM:bml
NOV-19-1996
13:18
FROM
TO
97204614
P.02
GEORGE biller, CALIFORNIA
MARGE ROUKEMA NEW JERSEY
DALE E. and MICHIBAN
STEVE GUNDEPSON, WISCONSIN
PAT WALAMMS, MONTAMA
HAMRIS W 100 ELL ILUNOIS
MATTHEW a CALIFORNIA
CASS BALLENGER NORTH CAROLINA
MARRE wher YORK
BILL BARRETT. NEBRASKA
THOMASE. CONTER OHIO
RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM. CALFORATA
DONALDA DAYNE may JERSEY
PETE MOEKSTRA MICHIGAN
PATENT. HOWAR
MOWARD P. "BUCK" MCKEON, CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL N. CASTLE DELAWARE
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC
ROGERT E AMERICANCE. NEW JERSEY
MACK Man PHODE ISLAND
JAN MEYERS, KANSAS
TIM NORMER INDIANA
SAM JOHNSON, TEXAS
AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
XAVIER RECEIVA CALIFORNIA
JAMES M. TALENT, MISSOURI
ROBERT c. "adem" BOOTT. VIRGINIA
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, PENNSYLVANIA
GENE REGEN, TEXAS
TIM MUTCHINSON, ARKANSAS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
LYNN c CALIFORNIA
JOGEPH K knollenberg, MICHIGAN
CARLOS A. BOMERO-BARCELA, PUERTO RICO
FRANK D. RIGGS. CALIFORNIA
2181 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
CHANKA BETTALL PENNSYLVAGIA
UNDBEY o. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA
EARL BLUMENANDA OREGON
DAVE WELDON, FLORIDA
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6100
DAVID FUNDERBURK, NORTH CAROLINA
MARK SOUDER, INDIANA
MAJORITY 225-4627
DAVID MONTOSH. INDIANA
(TTY)-(202) 226-2372
CHARLIE NORWOOD, GEORGIA
MINORITY 225-3725
(FTV) (202) 22-3113
November 15, 1996
The Honorable Frank Mascara
1531 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Frank:
Thank you for your letter concerning the beneficial work of the AmeriCorps
members serving in your district under two Department of Agriculture sponsored
AmeriCorps programs. I, too, have noticed the beneficial work of AmeriCorps members
serving in my district, and around the country.
As I'm sure you are aware, the issue of funding for AmeriCorps has been quite
contentious this past year. However, the decision to discontinue funding of federally
sponsored AmeriCorps programs, such as those sponsored by the Department of
Agriculture, is the result of an agreement reached between Harris Wofford, the CEO of
the Corporation for National Service, and Senator Grassley. This action was not taken
by this Committee and I was not a part of the negotiations that led to the final agreement.
However, it is my understanding that this agreement in no way limits the Department of
Agriculture from unilaterally funding AmeriCorps programs. Instead, the agreement
merely limits the Department's ability to "directly" sponsor such programs.
Furthermore, the language contained in the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriation's Act of 1996, H.R. 3610, allows the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior to fund AmeriCorps programs, but only after making the required reprogramming
requests (which apparently had not been done in the past). In short, I would expect that
the programs operating in your district will continue to operate unless the Department of
Agriculture or the Appropriation's Committee opt to cease their funding of these
programs. In either case, this decision would be out of the control of this Committee.
Therefore, I would urge you to contact the Department of Agriculture and the Committee
on Appropriations with this concern.
TO
97204614
P.03
NOV-19-1996 13:19 FROM
While I have serious questions about the current operations of the Corporation for
National Service and its premier program, AmeriCorps, I believe that this Congress can,
and will, find a better way to encourage and support community service during the
coming year. Your input into this matter is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for sharing your views with me on this very important issue.
Sincerely,
Bill BILL GOODLING
Chairman
WFG/dam
NOV 14 '96 11:10 FR
TO 97204614
P.02/03
PATRICK LEAHY
COMMITTEES:
VERMONT
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND
FORESTRY
APPROPRIATIONS
United States Senate
JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4502
October 21. 1996
The Honorable Kit Bond
Chairman
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Kit.
I am writing to follow up on my letter to you last April and our conversation regarding USDA
sponsored Amer-Corps programs that took place during conference on the Appropriations bill for
the VA. HUD and Independent Agencies.
I hope that you can provide the clarification that is needed for USDA sponsored AmeriCorps
programs to continue under the leadership of local organizations and land managers. These
programs have brought new volunteer efforts to every corner of rural Vermont--- areas difficult
to reach through traditional nonprofit organizations.
The Department of Agriculture would like to build on the success of their AmeriCorps programs
in keeping with the requirement that National Service funds should not be transferred to
Federally run programs. Already local organizations play an active role in most USDA
AmeriCorps programs. The Department intends to transfer authority for running all of its
AmeriCorps programs to the local non-profits or land managers involved in those programs,
while continuing to offer technical assistance and financial support. However, National Service
education awards are needed to allow this new partnership to move forward.
To be clear, the Corporation for National Service interprets current law as allowing the
Corporation "to enter into agreements with federal agencies to support national service programs,
with the understanding that such agreements need not include the transfer of funds." Providing
education awards for USDA sponsored programs would result in no funds being transferred to
any federal agency. Those awards, like all National Service education awards would be set-aside
on behalf of individual participants in the program and would go directly to approved institutions
of higher education or lending agencies from the National Service Trust. The Department of
Agriculture would fund all necessary costs for operating these programs and paying member
stipends from funds already appropriated to it by the Congress. No "new" money is needed.
The uncertainty about providing National Service "education only" awards to participants in
USDA supported programs has left around 1,000 prospective members in limbo. Equally
important, the delay has left countless residents of rural areas without the assistance these
members would bring to rural communities.
VERMONT OFFICES: COURT HOUSE PLAZA, 193 MAIN STREET, BURLINGTON 802/963-2525
FEDERAL BUILDING. ROOM IR. MONTPELIER
OR DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800/842-3193
[email protected]
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
NOV 14 yo
October 21. 1996
The Honorable Kit Bond
Page 2
The Rural Fire Protection Task Force is a good example of the benefits these programs can bring.
With the assistance of the AmeriCorps Fire Technical Team, Vermont's Rural Fire Protection
Task Force was able to install 44 dry fire hydrants, lowering insurance rates by about $76 per
year for 1,600 home owners living in rural areas of the state. That translates into over $7 of
savings for every $1 spent on the program.
The AmeriCorps programs sponsored by USDA in Vermont have provided valuable assistance to
poor rural residents. I hope that you will be able to provide the clarification that is needed to
build on the success of these programs while we discuss options for sustaining them in the future.
Sincerely,
Patent PATRICK LEAHY
healy
United States Senator
PJL/adr
** TOTAL PAGE. 03 **
OCT-04-1996 11:58 FROM SPHPC
TO
12027204614
P.01
ARLEN SPECTER
COMMITTEES:
PENNSYLVARIA
INTELLIGENCE
JUDICIARY
APPROPRIATIONS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3802
September 19, 1996
The Honorable Christopher S. Bond
Chairman
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Kit:
It has just been brought to my attention that a funding issue has arisen concerning the role
of the United States Department of Agriculture in various AmeriCorps projects.
I am advised that an AmeriCorps program in Fayette County, Pennsylvania has six
students who are prepared to commence work to rehabilitate housing and to mitigate pollution,
which is vital to economic development in that region I would appreciate your help to see that
all necessary steps are taken to allow these six AmeriCorps students to commence work.
I understand you recently met with Secretary Glickman on the broad issue of the United
States Department of Agriculture involvement in AmeriCorps. I am hopeful that this matter will
be resolved promptly so the Fayette County work of AmeriCorps personnel can proceed.
As always, I appreciate your assistance on this matter and wish to thank you for your
personal consideration
Sincerely,
aclen
Arlen Specter
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
TOTAL P.01
11/21/98
16:17
JOHN P. MURTHA
COMMITTEE.
12TM DISTRICT. PENNSYLVANIA
APPROPRIATIONS
Congress of the United States
house of Representatibes
Mashington. DC 20515-3812
November 21, 1996
Senator Christopher S. Bond
U.S. Senate
293 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Bond:
I'm writing to you out of concern over the potential loss of some USDA Americorps projects in
southwestern Pennsylvania that have been very successful in contributing lo the area's economic
development. I understand Senator Specter has also written to you previously about the USDA
Americorps team in Fayctte County, Pennsylvania, where the unemployment rate is over 10% and
over 20% of residents live below the poverty level. Fayette County is part of the Congressional
district I represent.
I know you've had some concerns over the USDA's funding of these projects. However, I ask you
to reconsider allowing the USDA TO fund its Americorps projects for the coming year. It is my
understanding that the USDA and the Corporation for National Service are offering to make this the
last year in which the USDA will administer the programs and that they will use this year to
transition to a direct. non-profit funding mechanism for those programs.
We're down to the wire in terms of being able to get this year's projects under way. Soon there won't
be enough time left for the students to complete the number of hours of service to fulfill the
requirements of the program. In an area with such high unemployment and poverty levels, the
program has given invaluable opportunity to these kids. They've been waiting for their jobs to start
and will be left hanging-- it will be too late for them to pursue other options, which are few and far
between.
Additionally, there are projects that were begun last year on which work was expected to continue
this year but which now remain unfinished. The work done thus far will have been wasted if it is
not followed through this year to its completion.
I appreciate your assistance on this issue.
Sincerely,
JOHN P. MURTHA
Member of Congress
JOHN McCAIN
241 RUSSELL SÉNATE OFFICE BUILDING
ARIZONA
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0303
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
02027 D4-2235
vicu
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE. SCIENCE.
1839 SOUTH ALMA SCHOOL ROAD
AND TRANSPORTATION
United States Senate
SUITE 375
MESA, AZ-86210
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
(602) 491-4300
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
2400 EAST ARIZONA
BILTMORE CIRCLE
SUITE 1150
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
(602) 952-2410
November 4, 1996
450 WEST PASEO REOONOO
SUITE 200
Tucson, AZ 85701
(520) 670-6334
Mr. Vince Ancell
TELEPHONE FOR HEARING IMPAIRED
Director
(202) 224-7132
(602) 952-0170
Department of Agriculture
Office of Congressional Relations
ADMBG, Room 213-A
Washington, D.C. 20250-0001
Dear Mr. Ancell:
I wish to bring to your attention a matter concerning my
constituent, Helen Crofford, who has expressed her concerns
regarding potential changes to Department of Agriculture
/Americorps partnerships.
Please investigate, in accordance with existing rules,
regulations, and ethical guidelines, the statements made in the
enclosed letter and return the response to me at the following
address:
Attn: Kevin Adam
Office of Senator John McCain
1839 S. Alma School Rd.
Suite 375
Mesa, AZ 85210
The response you provide will be greatly appreciated and
will be forwarded to my constituent. If you should have any
questions, please contact my office at (602) 491-4300. I look
forward to your reply at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
John John McCain
United States Senator
JM/zka
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLEO PAPER
Navajo County Natural Resource Conservation District
51 W. Vista - Holbrook, AZ 86025 - Phone (520) 524-2652
October 29. 1996
Honorable John McCain
United States Senator
1839 S Alma School Rd Ste 375
Mesa AZ 85210
Dear Honorable John McCain:
The Navajo County Natural Resource Conservation District Board would like you to
consider, and hopefully support us on the following issue.
For the last two years, USDA, through the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has utilized the services of various individuals serving as Americorps Members in
Navajo County. These folks have furthered the cause of resource conservation with local
individuals and groups by serving in roles that NRCS has never employed, except as
volunteers (and as such, with very limited success).
Americorps workers under USDA-NRCS have established the need for a continuing
demonstration of sustainable agriculture in this remote part of rural Arizona. Our
Demonstration Farm has a capable farm manager available at this time that will continue
the work of the last two years: over 350 people visited the Farm in 1996 alone, and the
Farm newsletter "As it Grows" is currently mailed to over 300 people. Numerous
classes from local schools and tours from the surrounding area (including the Navajo
Nation) get first-hand experience here on what goes into the production of the nation's
food.
Our new designated farm manager cannot begin work because it is our understanding that
Senator Bond and Senator Grasley do not feel that the Americorps program warrants
participation by USDA. Be assured that the Americorps program is serving the concerns
of rural Arizona. We ask for your support in continuing the USDA-Americorps
partnership in Navajo County.
Sincerely,
Helen Crofford
Helen Crofford
Chairperson, Navajo County NRCD
CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT SELF-GOVERNMENT
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, DC
November 7, 1996
Mr. Vince Ancell
Director, Office of Congressional Relations
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Room 213A, ADMBG
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Ancell:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I have received from
constituents of mine regarding delays in funding for EnviroCorps,
a USDA/AmeriCorps program that works with local sponsors on
environmental education and enhancement in the Portland (Oregon)
area.
As you will note, Messrs. Cannon and Dallaire report that
EnviroCorps is currently waiting to start its third year but
cannot do so until a consensus is reached between the USDA and
Senators Bond and Grassley and funds are released.
Because of my interest in this matter, I would encourage the
Department in doing whatever is possible to bring this matter to
a satisfactory conclusion.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Mark O. Hatfield
United States Senator
MOH/aw
503-326-3386 3386
LaMarr Cannon
Jeff Dallaire
1315 SE Pine St.
Portland, OR. 97214
Senator Mark Hatfield
121 SW Salmon St. Suite 1420
Portland, OR. 97204
October 24, 1996
Dear Senator Hatfield:
We are writing to you to express our concern over the delay of funding for EnviroCorps.
EnviroCorps is a USDA/AmeriCorps program that works with local sponsors on environmental
education and enhancement in the Portland area.
In the last year alone, this twenty-member team improved 23 acres of wetland, planted 3,367
trees and shrubs, recruited 1,795 volunteers, led 1,159 students on service learning projects,
canvassed 10,326 homes in Portland to disconnect their downspouts to reduce.sewage
overflow and filled 2,000 sandbags during the February floods to/protect buildings and the
sewage treatment facility.
EnviroCorps works with local partners such as Metro Regional Government, the East
Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District, Portland State University, the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, the
Environmental Middle School, Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center, Friends of Trees,
Friends of Smith and Bybee, local business owners and others.
The reason for the funding delay is complicated but stems from concerns that the USDA
cannot effectively run AmeriCorps programs. The USDA is currently seeking to reach a
consensus with Senators Christopher Bond (MO) and Charles Grassley (IA), to allow USDA to
continue to provide technical assistance, funding, and administrative support services to
AmeriCorps programs. Program funds have already been set aside, no additional funds are
necessary and projects and work done by EnviroCorps are chosen by the team and 115 local
partners, not by the USDA.
EnviroCorps is currently waiting to start its third year but cannot do so until consensus is
reached. The delay in funding has already caused several qualified candidates to seek
employment elsewhere and left EnviroCorps unable to provide support and assistance to its
local partners. Further delays may jeopardize the future of EnviroCorps. Anything that your
office can do to help bring about this consensus would be greatly appreciated by the
community that benefits from their spirit of volunteerism.
Thank you.
LaMan Car
MDM Jeff Dallaire
LaMarr Cannon
Phil Gramm
Texas
United States Senate
MEMORANDUM
Date: 10-8
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
14th & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
My constituent has sent me the enclosed
communication, and I would appreclate a
response which addresses his/her concerns.
Please send your response, together with
the constituent's correspondence, to me
at the following address:
Office of Senator Phl! Gramm
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
Attention:
Brett Brewer
2/4 - - 767
-8754
CITY-OF-GONZALES
1-210-672-2813
Sep 30,96
14:32 No 006 P.02
CITY
CONTAL
OCT 08 1996
OF
CITY OF GONZALES
SHRINE OF A GREAT TEXAS HERITAGE
COUNT
Where The Fight for Tenas' 14-may Buyon
September 25, 1996
Senator Phil Gramm
United States Senate
Russell Senate Office Bldg., Rm 370
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: Americorps Program
Dear Senator Gramm:
A letter from me by facimile dated September 24, 1996,
conveyed to you the importance of the Americorp Program to
Gonzales, Texas. After several phone calls to Washington I am
beginning to understand some of what is happening and how it it
affects us in Gonzales.
Based on these phone conversations, I am under the impression
that the Americorps Program as such is alive and well. However,
the portion that is funded through grants from Corporation for
National Service (CNS) to USDA has been eliminated. It is further
understood that this is the direct result of concerns raised by
Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond of Missouri. In order to meet
concerns raised by Senator Bond and others, CNS will no longer make
grants of operating funds to Federal agencies. The legal result of
this policy is that USDA funding source (operating funds
transferred from CNS to USDA) has been eliminated. The USDA
AmeriCorps program, including our program and other projects in
Texas, has been put on hold pending discussions.
The success of the Gonzales AmeriCorps program was conveyed in
the previous correspondence. This success happened only because of
the support of USDA. We did not possess the manpower to make these
successes happen. We do not foresee being able to budget
additional manpower to continue the program in the absence of USDA
assistance. Our focus on housing and workforce training will
continue, but some other part of the job description of Main Street
or Economic Development will have to be prioritized out. These two
departments including all clerical duties are being handled by one
employee. This lack of manpower exists with all rural communities
and prohibits them from focusing on all community and economic
opportunities that arise.
P.O. Drawer 547
820 St. Joseph Street
Gonzales, Texas 78629
Phone: (210) 672-2815
Fax: (210) 672-2813
CITY-OF-GONZALES
TEL :1-210-672-2813
Sep 30,96 14:34 No.006 P.03
page 2
Luling, Columbus, and Halletsville, Texas are three of our
neighbors that will lose along with Gonzales. The budget required
for their communities to accomplish community and economic
development is nominal at best. The loss to these communities is
monumental.
It is additionally understood that new legislation is not
necessary and additional appropriations are not required to
continue the USDA AmeriCorps program. Therefore, I stress the
importance of approval from Senator Bond on this issue.
This is a very complicated issue. I am not sure that I have
all the necessary information. Please search out all sides of this
issue from USDA, CNA, Senator Bond, etc. in order to determine if
we can access this program for the 1996-1997 year.
Sincerely,
Sandra I.Mauldin
Sandra F. Mauldin
Main Street Program Manager
Economic Developer - Gonzales
Vice President, Community
Empowerment Board
CITY OF GONZALES
CITY OF GONZALES
SHRINE OF A GREAT TEXAS HERITAGE
EXPERIES
COUN
Where The Fight for Texas Liberty Began
September 24, 1996
Senator Phil Gramm
370 Russell
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gramm:
The City of Gonzales has experienced great community and
economic benefits due the process of the Enterprise Communities
grant, being named a Champion Community and the organization of the
Gonzales Community Empowerment Board. The non-profit organization
is intended to accomplish improvements in the four areas that
include housing, recreation, economic development and education for
a quality work force. In addition the Community Empowerment Board
encourages citizens participation in solving community problems and
planning for the future.
The Community Empowerment Board applied for an Americorps
Member for 1995-1996, and made great strides during this program
time. The member is sponsored by the City of Gonzales. An
accounting is enclosed for your reference.
We were so pleased with our successes in housing and economic
development that we applied for a second program year. We are
further along with education and are looking forward to
accomplishments in this area also. However, now we learn that the
funding for our portion of the Americorps Program is in jeopardy
because of Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond of Missouri.. Several
other communities such as Luling and Hallettsville had hoped for an
Americorps Member for the next year.
You have been involved and supportive of our program in the
past. We ask if you could determine the reasoning for Senator
Bond's position. We thank you in advance for any and all
assistance you may be able to give. We look forward to a reply.
Sincerely,
Deidra Voigt
Council, District 3
City of Gonzales
Phone: (210) 672-2815
Fax: (210) 672-2813
Gonzales, is a Champion Community under the Federal
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community initiative. The Community
Empowerment Board applied to the United States Department of
Agriculture for an Americorps member to work in local areas of
community improvements for the 1996-1997 year. Applications are
being solicited subject to final notification of funding.
Gonzales currently has an Americorps member in the 1995-1996
program year, and the accomplishments have benefitted the City's
community and economic development. The following are
accomplishments or successes for this past one year term. The
member helped develop a survey of housing in Gonzales. A house by
house identification of properties was accomplished. This includes
possible ways to utilize vacant lots, historical houses,
substandard structures, etc. A database of this information was
developed and coordinated with the Gonzales County Appraisal
District to identify ownership and cross reference properties for
timely information retrieval.
The member assisted in a housing survey to identify the need
for rental and purchase property. This survey was accomplished in
cooperation with the top three employers in Gonzales.
This program provided the Assistance in developing a video of
neighborhood participation in the Gonzales Housing Program. The
video was used to support an application for a Federal Home Loan
grant.
The Gonzales Americorps member served with, and assisted the
Housing Rehabilitation Citizens Committee. The member helped
develop a contractor's packet to show opportunities for local
contractors. This was also associated with the Federal Home Loan
grant.
The program provided assistance in developing a database for
use in creating business proposals for businesses interested in
expanding or relocating in Gonzales. It has allowed the local
economic developers to respond quickly and professionally to
requests by companies interested in Gonzales for expansion or
relocation.
The Americorps member participated and helped with Community
Empowerment Board Activities and assisted with the Housing
Initiative made up of realtors, bankers, lawyers, architects,
contractors, and community leaders to address various housing needs
of Gonzales. In a nutshell this has helped create awareness of the
housing need and urge citizen participation on the various
committees.
Record keeping duties included maintaining a file of reporting
to the State and National Office for the Americorps Program and
helping organize a visual presentation for the meeting with
Clifford J. Diehl from the General Accounting Office for the U.S
House of Representatives.
The Gonzales Americorps member participanted in a project
cluster meeting hosted by the Enterprise Zone Office in Mercedes,
Texas, a community service project benefitting the Head Start
Program in Weslaco, Texas, and a project cluster meeting sponsored
by the Rural Development Office. This was followed by a community
service project benefitting owners of sub-standard housing in
Hebbronville, Texas.
STATE OF KANSAS
KANSAS
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & PARKS
Operations Office
512 SE 25th Avenue
WILDLIFE
Pratt KS 671248174
OPARKS
316/672-5911 FAX 316/672-6020
October 4, 1996
The Honorable Jerry Lewis
The Honorable Charles Grassley
The Honorable Christopher Bond
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Senate
Washington. DC 20510
Washington. DC 20515
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Bond:
I appreciate the efforts of yourself. Senator Grassley, and Congressman Lewis to examine the
relationship between USDA and the Corporation for National Service regarding the AmeriCorps
program. At this time in America, it is critical that government operate ethically and above
board, without the intent, act or perception of wrongdoing.
However, as I am certain you will find, the relationship between USDA, CNS and the
AmeriCorps projects administered at the state level is reasonable and desirable. This partnership
allows rural Americans to perform needed community services for an honest wage and broaden
their potentials for the future in the process. When these AmeriCorps members have completed
their educations, they will be ready to take their places as productive members of society, with
not only the classwork behind them but also the experience earned in the successful completion
of their AmeriCorps projects.
Without the assistance of the USDA and CNS. the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
would'not be able to hire these young people, lacking the funding to do so. The department can,
however, provide raw materials, tools and supervision. Important projects underway now, and
others that might be completed in the future, would die without being completed. Rural
communities would lose the employment options provided by AmeriCorps, the public would lose
the benefits provided to the natural resources and outdoor recreation projects, and the individuals
who would have been selected as members would lose valuable opportunities. The language
proposed by USDA correlares to previous agreements, and fully supports the principles under
which AmeriCorps was conceived, while ending the transfer of operating funds from CNS to
USDA.
No additional funding is needed to support the AmeriCorps program, and the positive impact it
makes is tremendous. I hope that you will find that you are able to fully support continuation of
AmeriCorps as a viable program important to the American people.
Sincerely,
Rob Manes
Assistant Secretary for Operations
= If Heirtr
FIRE 807.=
Idaho
Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
802 W. Bannock, Hoff Building, Suite 1006
P.O. Box 2637
Boise, ID 83701
(208)338-5900
(208) 338-9537 FAX
Conservation Development - Self-Govemment
October 4, 1996
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Honorable Larry E. Craig
President
United States Senate
Rod B. Robison
Washington, D.C. 20510
2697 W. 6300 S.
Rexburg, ID 83440
Dear Senator Craig:
Vice-President
Kevin Koester
The Idaho Association of Soil Conservation Districts (IASCD), representing the 51
P.O. Box 697
local Conservation Districts in Idaho needs your help in allowing the USDA to
Lava Hot Springs, ID
continue to aid grass-roots groups sponsoring AmeriCorps projects. As we understand
83246
the current situation, the USDA and Corporation for National and Community Service
Secretary
(CNS) do NOT need any additional funds, nor do they need Congress to take any
Kyle Hawley
formal legislative action.
1180 Lewis Road
Moscow, ID 83843
The USDA and CNS simply need to reach an informal consensus with key members of
Treasurer
Congress (Senator Christopher Bond; Senator Charles Grassley; and Congressman
Roger Stutzman
Jerry Lewis) on this issue. The issue of allowing the USDA to participate in the
1937-B East 4100 North
AmeriCorps program for FY 1997 needs to be resolved now. We are already behind in
ID 83316
implementing this years program and recruiting new AmeriCorps members.
Director
Art Beal
The IASCD sponsors the Homestead Assessment System (Home* *Syst) project, a
P.O. Box 9
wellhead/environmental protection program, because of its tremendous value as a
Sweet, ID 83670
mechanism for community outreach teaching voluntary protection of drinking water.
Last year we partnered directly with the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation
Director
Service (NRCS) to have 15 AmeriCorps members deliver the Home* Syst program
Alice M. Wallace
1005 North Fifth Avenue
to rural and urban communities state-wide. This is a community service that otherwise
Sandpoint. ID 83864
would not be provided As a result of this program, this past year some 158,593 Idaho
citizens have been exposed to and made aware of the Home *Syst program and
Executive Director
1,332 citizens have participated by completing voluntary assessments.
J. Kent Faster
Idaho Home"A"Syst
The IASCD is asking that you request Senator Bond, Senator Grassley, and
Project Specialist
Congressman Lewis to reach an informal consensus that would allow CNS to enter into
J. Kent Foster
a non-monetary cooperative agreement with the USDA. This non-monetary
cooperative agreement will allow the Department to provide technical assistance,
funding, administrative support services and other assistance to national service
programs sponsored by non-profit organizations, state, local, and tribal governments,
and the local managers of public lands, and to allow participants in those programs to
receive National Service educational awards from the National Service Trust.
Printed on recycled paper
This informal consensus must be reached as quickly as possible as the future approach and success
of our efforts here in Idaho are very much dependant on the USDA AmeriCorps program. We
appreciate your timely attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
1. Kent Foster
J. Kent Foster
Executive Director
CC:
Rod Robison, IASCD President, Rexburg
National Road
HERITAGE PARK
3543 National Road & Nelson Road
Box 528
Farmington, PA 15437
Phone: 412 329-1560
412 329-1552
Fax: 412 329-1561
Joel Berg
U.S.D.A. Director of National Services
Room 538 A
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Mr. Berg:
October 7, 1996
In 1996, the National Road Heritage Park was fortunate to employ five U.S.D.A.
AmeriCorps workers to assist in carrying out the mission of the NRHP.
These five young people were instrumental in implementing numerous programs and
performing valuable services benefiting the three-county area, including:
1. Creating a low-interest loan program for restoration of residential
and commercial properties
2. Cleaning up junkyards and dump sites along the National Road
3. Conducting research and making application on behalf of three National
Road communities to be nominated to the National Register as Historic
Districts (some of which had been seeking the National Register nomination
for years)
4. Assisting the local community center in remodeling the community building
5. Developing heritage school programming in the three-county area.
Without the participation of AmeriCorps volunteers this year, there is no doubt that these
and other programs would never have been successfully implemented.
The National Road corridor is economically distressed with an unemployment average of
over 9%. Without sufficient tax base and infrastructure, we need the assistance of
programs such as AmeriCorps to develop resources and heritage tourism.
We therefore urge you to support and work to ensure that the AmeriCorps program
receives further funding. Currently, enactment of renewed funding is in the hands of
Senator Christopher bond of Missouri. We ask you to use your good offices to encourage
Senator Bond to release the AmeriCorps bill for vote and approval.
Your cooperation and interest are appreciated.
Roberty Sincerely, Genable
Robert J. Grenoble
Executive Director
Robert Rabasco
2150 North Meridian
Apt. 3604
Wichita, KS. 67203
Mr. Joel Berg
Ag Box 1301
Washington, DC. 20250-1301
Dear Mr. Berg,
I am writing to you on behalf of the six members of the Great Plains Nature Center Americorps
team in Wichita, Kansas. With the general election over I can-nothelp but wonder if President
Clinton's re-election will have any effect on the future of our team. The recent conciliatory tones
that are being put forth by Congress seem to indicate that our legislators are more willing to work
together. Again, I am brought to question whether or not there is any new information available
on the status of our team. The other members of our team have indicated that they are ready to
start work on a days notice. We anxiously await information concerning our start date. I
appreciate any news you have concerning the status of our team. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Robert Rabasco
Valia Kaluer
Rupan Stucky
M ut the
Sharewart
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE
SECRETARIAT. USDA
1996 OCT 16 P 2: 54
COPIES:
Mary E. Swartz
323 North Ash
Newton, Ks. 67114
October 8, 1996
Dear Mr. Glickman,
I am a candidate for an AmeriCorps position. I applied to the program for two reasons.
First, I believe that the program benefits both the individual as well as the community.
The benefits may be seen at the national level as well, support of higher education and job
skill enhancement can only improve individuals ability to be functional in the job market.
This in turn may help to alleviate dependence on non work oriented work benefits. The
cash award would help to guarantee that student loans will be paid back, which would be
an obvious benefit to the taxpayer. Second, as a near graduate of a masters in biology I
felt the position I applied for focused on areas that my education has prepared me for as
an, educatior, naturalist and interpretitor work. The education of children about their
environment is very important for them to be able to make responsible choices when
making decisions concerning the environment. As you know the program was to begin on
October 1, but was held up do to the funding issue. Now it seems since the program has
been funded for two years, congressmen have held up its implementation for program
administration concerns. I am writing to you in hopes of convincing you of the
importance of the program and its implementation. I am sure my reasons may sound
selfish, however, I truly believe the program is worthy of merit.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Mary C Swentz
Mary E. Swartz
Action Office: OC
Referral Code: 2
* 3114854*
D9553
UNITED UNITED DEPARTMENT OF
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
April 6, 1994
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY/DEPUTY SECRETARY
THROUGH:
James Michael Kelly
dirkelly
Associate General Counsel
FROM:
Joel Berg JB
Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Justification of Non-Competition of Current National Service Projects
ISSUE:
The Corporation for National and Community Service has given tentative approval to our grant
request for money to operate our Summer of Safety project with the Chicago High School of
Agricultural Sciences. Their grant will make it possible to run the program this summer. It
will provide jobs to participants, many of whom will be recent graduates of the high school,
service to the community, and up to 50 education awards worth $1,000 each for participants who
successfully serve the entire summer. In order to accept the Corporation's funds for the Chicago
project as well as the major yearlong programs we have planned in the areas of rural
development, anti-hunger, and the environment, the Department must award the necessary
discretionary cooperative agreements non-competitively for this year's round of applications.
BACKGROUND:
In September of 1993, Congress passed the National and Community Service Trust Act, which
enables Federal Departments to manage national service programs individually or manage them
in partnership with others. The basic mechanism for the Department to enter into "partnerships"
with non-profit groups and State and local organizations for the purpose of implementing
national service programs is a discretionary cooperative agreement. Under normal
circumstances, such agreements should be awarded on a competitive basis. However, the time
between publication of the Corporation for National and Community Service's final rules on
March 11, 1994 and the application deadlines of March 14 for Summer of Safety programs and
April 29, 1994 for AmeriCorps FY 95 yearlong projects, make it impractical to engage in a
competitive process.
Departmental regulations allow for the award of agreements non-competitively where such
awards are in the best interest of the Government and/or where such competition is impractical.
The National and Community Service Trust Act makes it clear that Federal departments are
expected to manage national service programs and that such participation is necessary for the
Corporation to meet its objectives. The lack of sufficient time to compete awards was a factor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
imposed on us externally by the Corporation and not the result of any delay within the
Department. Combined, these two factors would seem to form a necessary justification for
making non-competitive awards in this first year of the program.
In addition to the above issues, I believe that the other factors listed below further justify a
decision to make our initial awards non-competitively:
1.
The Department is using the implementation of pilot projects for FY 94 Summer of
Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs as the mechanism to develop the necessary
regulations, procedures, and processes for ensuring maximum competition in future
awards.
2.
While it is impractical for the Department to initially make awards competitively, the
award process is not devoid of competition. The Corporation's approval of applications
is based on their own formal competitive process which conforms to all applicable
Federal laws and regulations. For the Department's applications for FY 94 Summer of
Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs to be approved, they must first be reviewed and
graded by a panel of independent experts and then selected on the basis of objective and
subjective rankings.
3.
The projects that will be sent to you for your final approval are the result of meetings,
briefings, calls and mailings to hundreds of farming, anti-hunger, rural development,
environmental, and other constituency groups over the last 11 months. We have
endeavored to give the broadest possible exposure to TEAM USDA's national service
program.
OPTIONS:
1.
Participate in the national service program for the summer of 1994 and the yearlong
programs beginning in September of 1994 and running through June of 1995 by relying
on the attached justification for non-competition as well as the competition conducted by
the Corporation. In addition, use the experience gained in running programs to establish
the necessary competitive procedures for all awards in following years beginning with
the Summer of Service programs in June of 1995.
PRO: The Summer of Safety program we are proposing to run in partnership with the
Chicago High School of Agricultural Sciences will be able to proceed. This
program alone will result in the Corporation awarding up to 50, $1,000 education
awards to participants. The yearlong programs we are proposing will result in
the award of up to 1,500, $4,725 education awards from the Corporation's funds.
Both the summer and yearlong programs will also result in significant benefit to
the public in the areas of rural development, anti-hunger, and the environment.
CON: An organization or member of Congress may protest based on the lack of
competition in our selection process. However, it must be pointed out that our
regulations do provide for exemptions to competition and OGC has concurred
with the attached justification laying out the rationale for non-competition in this
instance.
2.
Do not participate in the national service program for the summer of 1994 and the
yearlong programs beginning in September of 1994 and running through June of 1995
until the necessary competitive procedures can be established.
PRO: No discretionary cooperative agreements would be granted without competition.
CON: The Summer of Safety project involving the Chicago High School of Agricultural
Sciences would have to be canceled. We would not be able to run the major
yearlong programs we have planned in the areas of rural development, anti-
hunger, and the environment you have previously announced. The Department
could not participate in any projects until the next Summer of Service period
which would be June of 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend implementing option one. I request that you endorse the attached justification for
non-competition of current national service projects, which will allow us to proceed with any
projects the Corporation for National and Community Service approves this year.
As manager of the Department's national service program I want to assure you that I recognize
the need for and value of competitive awards. Given the circumstances, every effort is being
made to minimize the negative impact of non-competition and to use the existing circumstances
to ensure that a sound, long-term process is set in place to foster competition in all future
awards. In the interim, the projects that are forwarded to you for final selection as part of the
USDA AmeriCorps application were not formulated in a vacuum. They are the result of almost
a year's worth of conversations and presentations to the widest variety of constituent groups,
non-profit groups, members of the public, and State and local organizations.
As a final note, I would add that the approach recommended here, that is to award non-
competitively now while developing proper procedures for competition in all future awards, is
an approach that is being adopted by other Federal departments, most notably Health and Human
Services.
Agree
Date
4/21/94
Disagree
Discuss
Reviewed by
JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPETITIVE SELECTION OF SITES
AND PARTNERS FOR USDA FY 94 "SUMMER OF SAFETY"
AND
FY 95 AMERICORPS YEARLONG PROJECTS
Pursuant to the regulations contained in 7 CFR 3015.158 (d), the Deputy Director for
Public Liaison who serves as the Department of Agriculture's National Service Program manager
hereby determines that it is in the best interest of the government and necessary to the
accomplishment of the goals of the program to award co-operative agreements for FY 94
Summer of Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs non-competitively. As these agreements
are being executed, a concurrent effort will be undertaken to develop the rules, policies, and
procedures necessary to ensure that all subsequent awards are made competitively. This
determination was made after careful consideration of several factors including:
1.
USDA participation in national services programs is needed for the Corporation for
National and Community Service and the Government to meet the goals for the nation's
national service program;
2.
The limited time available to apply to the Corporation for funds makes competition
impractical;
3.
The national service program is new and pilot projects are needed to maximize the
Department's ability to define the proper procedures and rules for implementing the
program in the future;
4.
Because Federal agency involvement in national services programs is designed to build
on existing structures, the Department opted to focus on projects that most closely
resembled current service structures in order to provide a foundation for expanding
structures and services in the future; and
5.
The process of awarding funds for projects is not completely devoid of competition
because the Department's application to AmeriCorps is approved by the Corporation on
a competitive basis.
The following discussion presents a detailed explanation of each factor considered in
making the determination to award cooperative agreements non-competitively.
1
I.
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS
The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, P.L. 103-82, clearly states that
one of its main objectives is to, "build on the existing organizational service infrastructure of
Federal, State, and local programs and agencies to expand full-time and part-time service
opportunities for all citizens, ⑉1 The important role of Federal agency participation in national
service programs is reinforced in the Act's provision to allow the Corporation for National and
Community Service to, enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with another Federal
agency to support a national service program carried out by the agency. 112 It is clearly the intent
of the program to use participation by Federal agencies to accomplish its goals. There are even
specific funds set aside solely for the purpose of awarding money to Federal agencies who apply
to run programs individually or in partnership with other Federal agencies, non-profit
organizations, institutions of higher learning, etc. A failure by Federal departments to
participate would adversely affect the Corporation for National and Community Service's (AKA
AmeriCorps) ability to achieve its goals.
II.
TIME CONSTRAINTS
In order to participate, Federal agencies (Federal departments and independent agencies)
must submit applications for funds to the Corporation for National and Community Service by
the deadlines established by the Corporation's rules. Because the National and Community
Service Trust Act of 1993 was not signed into law until September 21, 1993, there has been
little time for the Corporation for National and Community Service (AKA AmeriCorps) to
establish the necessary rules to guide Federal departments in their implementation of the
program. Prior to enactment of the law, the Department undertook several initiatives to prepare
for its implementation. A work group was established in March of 1993 to beginning defining
how to implement national service within USDA and to structure the "models" that form the
guides for such service. Unfortunately, the late signing of the bill left insufficient time for
USDA to complete all the steps necessary to engage in full competition for its projects.
AmeriCorps did not publish its notice of availability of funds for Summer of Safety
programs until February 3, 1994. The time between this notice and the application deadline of
March 14, 1994 was insufficient to allow for a publication by USDA of a request for proposals,
review the applications, and submit an application to AmeriCorps. This left two options: one,
do not submit a Summer of Safety application; two, identify projects that had previously been
discussed within the Department and see if they were candidates for submission to AmeriCorps.
In view of the time constraints, it was determined to be in the best interest of the Government
and necessary to carry out the objectives of the USDA National Service program to choose the
later option. The precise mechanism for choosing projects is described in Paragraph IV.
¹P.L. 103-82, Sec. 2(a)(7)
²P.L. 103-82, Sec. 121(b)(1)
2
The severe time constraints placed on applicants in the initial year of the program can
be seen in table 1. These time constraints are imposed on the Department externally and are not
caused by delay within the Department.
Table 1.
Time Line for Significant Events in Preparation of CNCS Application for FY 94 Summer
of Safety Application Due 3/14/94 and Yearlong FY 95 AmeriCorps Programs due
3/29/94.
EVENT
DATE
DATE
DATE
TIME
REASONABLE
OCCURRED
SUMMER
YEAR-LONG
AVAILABLE FOR
PERIOD OF
OF
AMERICORPS
USDA TO
TIME
SERVICE
APPLICATION
ESTABLISH
NEEDED TO
APPLICATION
DUE
AND CONDUCT
CONDUCT
DUE
COMPETITION¹
COMPETITION²
National and
9/21/93
Community Services
Trust Act of 1993
signed by President
Clinton
Draft Corporation for
1/7/94
National and
Community Service
(CNCS) regulations
published
Notice of availability
2/3/94
of Funds for Summer
of Safety programs
published
Comment period on
2/7/94
draft regulations ends
CNCS Regulations
3/11/94
3/14/94
3 DAYS
150 DAYS
approved by OMB
CNCS final
3/18/94
3/29/94
42 DAYS
150 DAYS
regulations published
I Time from the approval of rules to the time an application was due to be delivered to the CNCS.
2 Time required to publish a request for proposals, have proposals evaluated by independent review panel, and make award of cooperative
agreement, including the time to develop the necessary rules, publishing them, get comments and publish them in final form. The entire process
could take 120 to 180 days. 150 days is used here as an average.
3
III.
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL RULES
Because Federal Department involvement in national service programs is new, it is
necessary to establish the most effective process for ensuring that all future awards are made
with the maximum degree of competition. The Office of Communications is establishing a
schedule for the development of the necessary rules and regulations that will allow for full
competition of awards beginning with the Corporation for National and Community Service's
Summer of Service program in FY 95. The experiences gained in the initial awards will serve
as a valuable "testing" ground to final rules and procedures that emphasize the integrity of the
Department's program and the maximum benefit to the public.
IV.
INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL SERVICE INTO USDA STRUCTURE
In addition to establishing departmental rules and procedures, it is necessary to evaluate
how national service programs can be integrated into the Department's organizational structure.
It is an obvious goal of the national service program to allow existing Federal organizations to
merge, where practicable, their existing program delivery with national service projects. This
is a formidable task in a department with 43 agencies and 115,000 plus employees.
Part of the process for developing rules and procedures involves an assessment of how
the Department's existing resources can be focused to provide support to national service
projects. This assessment involves three steps: 1) identify key agencies; 2) establish national
service teams; and, 3) identify pilot projects for FY 94 applications.
1.
Identify Key Agencies.
a.
In March of 1993, a national service work group was established in
USDA. The group consisted of representatives from all agencies and
offices. This group developed a proposed model for deliver of national
service programs within USDA. The model consists of three "Teams":
(1)
An Environmental Team
(2)
An Anti-Hunger and Empowerment Team
(3)
A Rural Development Team
4
b.
In conjunction with the work group, the Office of Communication
identified the key agencies that would need to be involved in pilot efforts.
Initially, a total of four key agencies or groups of agencies were
determined to already have program delivery mechanisms that mirror or
closely resemble those necessary for national service projects. The
Extension Service (ES), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) were determined to be the key
groups associated with the Anti-Hunger team. The Forest Service (FS),
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and ES were determined to be the
key group associated with the Environmental Team. The Rural
Development Administration (RDA), Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA), and Rural Electrification Administration (REA), SCS and FS
were determined to be the key groups associated with the Rural
Development Team.
Several of these agencies have large existing programs or delivery
mechanisms that lend themselves to most effectively defining how national
service should be implemented within USDA. The Extension Service
supports the world's largest volunteer group, the 4-H Clubs. The Forest
Service through its human resources division runs Youth Conservation
Corps and National Forest Foundation camps that are similar to the type
of project expected to be run under national service. The new Rural
Development Team groups those agencies which form the focus of
services in rural development which is one of the Corporation's priority
areas. Finally, the Soil Conservation Service deals daily with the public
in an interactive mode quite similar to that proposed for national service.
2.
Establish National Service Teams.
Once the key agencies were identified, teams were established to develop the
necessary procedures and propose pilot projects for submission in FY 94
applications. The teams were an expansion of the agencies' representatives on
the national service work group. Their purpose is to move from a "work group"
structure toward integration of national service within the agencies' established
organizational structure.
3.
Identify Pilot Projects.
a.
As part of the efforts to establish models for national service within the
Department, USDA representatives attended a wide variety of forums,
meetings, conventions, and briefings where the public was informed of the
proposed national service program and the role that Federal departments
might play if the law was enacted. In addition to the meetings, interviews
were given to magazines and newsletters that would most likely be read
by groups interested in engaging in partnerships with the Department.
5
While these efforts were not official requests for proposals, they served
to alert the public of the national service program. As a result of these
efforts a few organizations submitted unsolicited proposals to the
Department. Three criteria were used to identify candidate pilot projects.
Note that these projects are called "candidate" because their identification
by USDA does not guarantee that they will be approved by AmeriCorps.
The criteria are:
(1)
Does the project conform to the criteria established by the
Corporation for National and Community Service;
(2)
Does the project maximize the Department's ability to use its
resources in unique ways with an emphasis on the greatest number
of partnerships between other Federal agencies, public, and non-
profit organizations;
(3)
Does the project maximize the Department's ability to establish
sound Department-wide rules, policies, and, procedures for the
implementation of national service within its agencies.
b.
Table 2. shows the projects selected for the FY 94 Summer of Safety
application submitted by the Department and the reasons for their
selection.
6
Table 2. FY 94 Summer of Safety Pilot Projects
PROJECT
CRITERIA
RATIONALE
FOR
SELECTION
Chicago High School of
1.
Conform to AmeriCorps
Participants will be doing work
Agricultural Sciences
criteria.
in three areas identified as
appropriate for Summer of
Safety:
Youth as a Resource
Restoring Safety to
Public Spaces
Youth Safety Initiatives
2.
Maximize Department's
Run in conjunction with the
ability to use it resources
Justice Department, this project
and partner with other
involves the participation of the
agencies.
Extension Service, Forest
Service, Soil Conservation
Service, The Chicago Public
School District, and The Chicago
Housing Authority. This mix of
partners was not found in any
other potential pilot project.
3.
Maximize Department's
The large number of partners,
ability to establish sound
the relationship between USDA
policies and procedures
and the Justice Department and
for future awards.
several local agencies lends it
self to identifying issues and
solutions in a wide variety of
situations
Arizona Department of Youth
1.
Conform to AmeriCorps
Participants will be doing work
Treatment and Rehabilitation
criteria.
in three areas identified as
appropriate for Summer of
Safety:
Youth as a Resource
Restoring Safety to
Public Spaces
Youth Safety Initiatives
7
PROJECT
CRITERIA
RATIONALE
FOR
SELECTION
Arizona Department of Youth
2.
Maximize Department's
Participants in this project
Treatment and Rehabilitation
ability to use it resources
include the State of Arizona
and partner with other
Department of Youth Treatment
agencies.
and Rehabilitation, Arizona State
University, the Forest Service
and the Maricopa County Court
System. It provides an expansion
of the existing Youth
Conservation Corps concept with
the providing of service in an
urban setting.
3.
Maximize Department's
The largest existing program in
ability to establish sound
USDA that mirrors the national
policies and procedures
service concept is the Youth
for future awards.
Conservation Corps. This
projects provides the opportunity
to explore ways to expand that
concept and integrate it with
national service. It also provides
an opportunity to work with
elements of the local justice
system to determine ways to best
structure national service
programs targeted at crime
related issues.
V.
EXISTING COMPETITION
There is already an element of competition in the award process. Projects developed by the
Department are submitted to the Corporation for National and Community Service. All applications
are reviewed by panels of independent experts, graded, and then evaluated by the Corporation's
management before they are rejected or approved.
8
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OF ONTER AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250-1300
September 20, 1993
DECISION MEMO FOR THE SECRETARY
From:
Joel Berg, Deputy Director of Public Affairs
JB
Through:
Ali Webb, Director of Public Affairs
an
Subject:
Next Steps for National Service at USDA
ISSUE:
As you know, the National Service Trust Act will be signed by President Clinton tomorrow.
While slightly scaled-down in cost and size, the final law basically resembles the broad outlines of
the national service program that Clinton proposed during the campaign. It is a major victory for
both President Clinton and the "New Democrat" politics championed by the DLC.
The House version of the bill contained an amendment by Congressman George Miller mandating
that USDA run an environmental corps on public lands. Since you had previously testified in the
Senate about your intention for USDA to run precisely such a program, we strongly supported the
amendment and it was included in the final conference bill.
As a direct consequence of your vocal public support for national service, I have been able to
obtain strong backing for our long-term planning efforts from most USDA agencies. The White
House has continually recognized USDA as the leading Cabinet department in promoting the
initiative, which is one of the President's top priorities.
USDA is also playing a major role in coordinating flood relief efforts tied to youth service. Ron
bi okered a compromise between myself and the Extension Service wherein a minimum of 10% of
the disaster relief money spent by the Extension Service in the Midwest -- a minimum of $290,000
-- will be used for 4-H youth service projects. Additionally, John Maynor and I are working
closely with Secretary of Education Riley's office to determine what role we can have in helping
manage a program authorized by the disaster bill that will allow up to $8 million in work-study
funds 10 be used for Midwest college students involved in community flood relief projects.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PRINTED ON RECLAIMED MATERIALS
2
With regard to our long-term, non-flood related planning, we have made great progress. I have
informally solicited help from over 30 different USDA employees in 10 different agencies.
However, now that the bill has become law, I believe we should institutionalize our planning group
into a cross-agency management team, which will eventually run our Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and
Empowerment Corps, our Rural Development Corps, and our Environmental Corps.
In order to properly run a complex and challenging new program, I believe we need to build a
management team comprised of some of the most talented and highly motivated employees from a
wide range of USDA agencies. My goal is to make the assignment to the national service
management team one of the most prestigious and sought-after jobs in the Department. With your
continued support, national service will be a flagship project demonstrating the effectiveness of
your "Team USDA."
DECISION # 1:
I recommend detailing six career employees from various USDA agencies to work full-time on
developing our national service initiatives. I recommend selecting the detailees after conducting a
Department-wide search open to all USDA employees. I recommend that at least three of the six
employees will have program experience in nutrition, rural development, and natural resources. I
further recommend that you direct the Assistant Secretary for Administration to find office space
for at least nine employees to work together. (The six detailees, my assistant, and two full-time,
non-paid interns.)
Agree
Date
9/30/93
Disagree
Discuss with me
DECISION # 2:
I recommend that, by either meeting or memo, you communicate to your Sub-Cabinet and the
relevant Agency Administrators that national service is an important priority for both the President
and yourself. I recommend that you ask them to give full support for non-reimbursable details for
the six employees mentioned above.
Agree to do in a meeting
Date 9/30/93
Agree to do by memo
Disagree
Discuss with me
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
1991
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY
USDA NATIONAL SERVICE BUDGET
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
D9400
UNITED UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250-1300
January 21, 1994
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY
From:
Joel Berg, Deputy Director of Public Affairs JB
Subject:
Budget for USDA National Service Projects
Background:
As you will read in the attached memorandum to you from Mack McLarty
and Eli Segal (attachment A), the White House hopes that Cabinet agencies will
match Corporation for National Community Service funds with money from their
own budgets in order to pay for agency-sponsored national service projects.
In response to the White House request, I am now in the process of
consulting with USDA under and assistant secretaries, agency administrators, and
office heads to determine potential resources for our national service programs.
This process will soon discern how much money USDA agencies are willing to
contribute voluntarily to national service, but I need direction regarding the size,
scope, and budget of the overall program you would like the Department to
manage.
I still hope to discuss budget issues and other key national service issues
with you personally. However, I am requesting that you make decisions about
USDA's national service budget as soon as possible, so I can work with OBPA and
OMB to incorporate our proposal into the President's budget before his February 7
address to Congress. The charts on the following three pages outline the three
phases I am proposing for USDA national service projects:
In Phase One, starting this April, USDA would assign personnel to help manage
Civilian Community Corps Projects in Maryland.
In Phase Two, this July through August, USDA would help manage an urban
farming project with the Chicago High School of Agricultural Sciences and a
forestry project in Arizona or California.
In Phase Three, starting this Fall, USDA would begin to run our long-term Rural
Development, Empowerment and Anti-Hunger, and Public Lands and Environmental
Teams.
In this memorandum, I request that you make five decisions on critical
budgetary and structural issues that must be resolved before we can proceed with
any of the three phases.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
PRINTED ON RECLAIMED MATERIALS
Phase 1, Starts April 1994
What: Team USDA Coordinates Civilian Community Corps
Projects
Projects: Corps Projects Include Environmental, Anti-Hunger,
and Midwest Disaster Relief Work
Where: Based in Ft. Meade, Maryland, But Work Will Be in
Baltimore, Eastern Shore, Virginia National Forests, and Flood
Areas of the Midwest
Number of Participants: 60
USDA Budget: None, Except for Staff Time in Helping the
Corps Run USDA-Related Projects
2
Phase 2, Starts July 1994
What: Team USDA Runs Summer of Service Programs
Projects: Gang Members and Other at-Risk Youth Engage in
Environmental Work in a National Forest and in Urban Farming
at Sites Throughout a Major City
Where: Two Sites, One Possibly in Chicago and Another
Possibly in Arizona or Southern California
Number of Participants: 100 or 50
USDA Budget: $800,000 or $400,000
3
Phase 3, Starts September 1994
What: USDA Year-Round AmeriCorps Projects Begin
Projects: Teams Conduct Work on Empowerment and Anti-
Hunger, Public Lands and the Environment, and Rural
Development - Each Team Also Has Sustainable Agriculture
Component
Where: 50 Programs in 49 States, 30 Programs in 31 States,
or 21 Programs in 19 States
Number of Participants: 2,400 or 1,400 or 1,000
USDA Budget: $45 Million, $25 Million, or $19 Million
4
5
Decision #1: Personnel Support for April Projects in Maryland
Phase One of USDA national service activities could begin this April if USDA
provides assistance to projects sponsored by the Civilian Community Corps (CCC)
in Maryland. The National and Community Service Act mandates the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop proposals for the CCC, a national set of pilot youth service
programs to be operated on closed military bases.
Phil Caplan of the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs sent the attached
memorandum to Ron Blackley further urging us to help with CCC these projects
(Attachment B).
Even prior to Ron's exchange with Phil Caplan, I had met with the CCC staff
to discuss how USDA could help their program. We discussed the possibility of
USDA loaning staff and providing technical assistance to the CCC's first projects.
There are many USDA-related projects that CCC could help manage,
including: building a SCS nature trail for visitors in Beltsville; performing anti-
hunger and other anti-poverty work in Baltimore; working with SCS to improve the
water quality of the Anacostia River and the Chesapeake Bay; providing food
assistance to migrant farm workers on the nearby Delmarva Peninsula of Delaware;
running urban farms in Baltimore; working on the George Washington National
Forest in Virginia; and travelling to the Midwest to provide flood relief.
Recommendation #1:
USDA should temporarily detail at least one employee from relevant agencies
to help manage each USDA-related work project. Some possible examples: a FNS
employee would be detailed to an anti-hunger project; a SCS employee would be
detailed to a water quality project; or an Extension Service employee would be
detailed to an urban farming project.
I further recommend that the Forest Service open their residential barracks in
the George Washington National Forest and provide support personnel to CCC
participants for a period of at least one month.
Agree
Date
Disagree
Discuss with me
6
Decision #2: Funding for Summer of Service Projects
Phase Two of USDA national service activities could begin this June if USDA
helps run Summer of Service projects. Each year, the Corporation for National and
Community Service designates a theme for special summer projects; last year's
theme was "children," this year's theme will be "public safety." I am now
investigating ways that USDA can help manage summer programs that combine
our traditional functions with improving public safety. I have two ideas on how
this can be achieved.
In conjunction with the Chicago High School of Agricultural Sciences, as
well as with a partner school elsewhere in Chicago or its suburbs, USDA could help
run a summer project aimed at mobilizing recent high school graduates with
agricultural training to recruit gang members and other at-risk youth to run urban
farms. The program participants would then help form community anti-crime
patrols at the farms and create "safe-havens" surrounding the farms for other
community activities. Given your strong support for the Chicago school, and
USDA's difficulty in providing the school with other significant funds, this summer
project would be one concrete way to help.
In conjunction with an existing youth service corps or a state department of
youth rehabilitation, youth offenders, gang members, and other at-risk youth could
be recruited to work side-by-side with college students in conservation work in
national forests. Organizations in Arizona and California have already expressed an
interest in participating in such a program.
Recommendation #2:
USDA should manage both an urban farming program in Chicago and a forestry
program in California or Arizona. The National Future Farmers of America
Foundation has offered to attempt to help raise money for the Chicago project. In
addition, both projects may be able to obtain funds from the Corporation for
National and Community Service. In the event that we obtain no outside funding,
each program would cost USDA $400,000; both would cost $800,000.
Agree to both summer programs
Date
Approve only urban farming program
Disapprove of either
Discuss with me
7
Decision #3: Funding for Long-Term AmeriCorps Pilot Sites
Phase Three the final and long-term phase of USDA national service
activities could begin in September with the three AmeriCorps teams you have
previously announced: the Rural Development Team, the Empowerment and Anti-
Hunger Team, and the Public Lands and Environment Team.
These teams will provide a quick and dramatic vehicle with which you and
President Clinton can demonstrate your success in reinventing government. They
will fulfill the basic missions of USDA while meeting the critical needs of each
community served.
We will make every effort to locate our pilot projects in Empowerment Zones
and Enterprise Communities. Pilot programs could also be specifically targeted at
rural communities facing short-term job dislocations because of NAFTA, the
Northwest Forest Plan, or military base closings.
Additionally, our programs will also reunite the interests of the middle-class
and the poor by allowing young people from all types of families to earn their way
through post-secondary education. Such programs will likely be highly popular.
Due to a variety of factors, including differentials in the amount of the
stipends and differing costs for residential and non-residential programs, each of
our three teams will have differing costs per server. Each Rural Development Team
member will cost around $30,000 per year, each Empowerment and Anti-Hunger
Team member will cost around $15,000 per year, and each Public Lands and
Environment Team member will cost between $15,000 - $20,000 per year. In
each case, these estimates include the cost of a $4,725 educational voucher.
Below I will outline possible USDA funding options. My estimates for the
number of participants that could be served by each USDA funding level assume
that USDA and our partner agencies will receive a minimum of a $5 million grant
from the Corporation for National and Community Service out of a total pot of $18
million available for all federal agencies.
Following are three maps which indicate the number, type, and potential
locations of AmeriCorps/USDA pilot sites if we were to spend $19 million, $25
million, or $45 million dollars.
I must stress that none of the pilot locations have been selected yet; these
maps are intended to give you a general idea of the type of geographical spread we
could achieve for various funding levels.
11
The $19 million option would fund: 1,000 participants, including 400 in the
Empowerment and Anti-Hunger Team, 400 in the Public Lands and Environment
Team, and 200 in the Rural Development Team. The participants would work in
five Rural Development sites of 40 people each, eight Empowerment and Anti-
Hunger sites (half urban, half rural) of 50 people each, and eight Public Lands and
Environment sites ( half urban, half rural) of 50 people each.
The $25 million option would fund: 1,400 participants, including 500 in the
Empowerment and Anti-Hunger Team, 500 in the Public Lands and Environment
Team, and 400 in the Rural Development Team. The participants would work in
ten Rural Development sites of 40 people each, ten Empowerment and Anti-Hunger
sites (half urban, half rural) of 50 people each, and ten Public Lands and
Environment sites ( half urban, half rural) of 50 people each.
The $45 million option would fund: 2,400 participants, including 1,000 in
the Empowerment and Anti-Hunger Team, 1,000 in the Public Lands and
Environment Team, and 400 in the Rural Development Team. The participants
would work in ten Rural Development sites of 40 people each, 20 Empowerment
and Anti-Hunger sites (half urban, half rural) of 50 people each, and 20 Public
Lands and Environment sites ( half urban, half rural) of 50 people each.
Recommendation #3:
Given the strong backing of President Clinton and OMB Director Leon Panetta for
national service, it is possible, despite the advanced state of the budget process,
for USDA to either request FY95 line items or special earmarks for our AmeriCorps
projects. I recommend that you direct OBPA to work with me to develop a $25
million AmeriCorps budget for FY95. This $25 million figure represents about
1.3% of the $1.8 billion of discretionary spending in USDA rural development,
environmental, and anti-hunger programs that carry out tasks similar to those to be
performed by our AmeriCorps Teams. This budget would fund 1,400 participants
at 30 pilot locations an ambitious but manageable goal for our first year.
Agree to $25 million option
Date
Approve $45 million option
Approve $19 million option
Approve no USDA funds
Discuss with me
12
Decision #4: Creation of USDA Center for National Service
I strongly believe that our AmeriCorps program will be most likely to succeed
if it is managed in a non-traditional and non-bureaucratic manner that cuts across
existing USDA agency lines.
Despite strong support for my planning efforts from the White House and
from Ron Blackley, some agencies have reacted to my initial requests for help with
indifference or hostility.
One agency even continues to hamper our efforts to incorporate youth
service activities in Midwest flood relief.
Furthermore, many of our team concepts would require help from agencies
that, even under your reorganization plan, will continue to be managed by different
under and assistant secretaries. For instance, the Rural Development Team will
need help from RDA, the Forest Service, the Extension Service, FmHA, REA, and
SCS. The Empowerment and Anti-Hunger Team would need help from FNS, the
Extension Service, AMS, and HNIS.
Even the Public Lands and Environment Team, which will be run mostly by
employees under Jim Lyons on the Forest Service or SCS, will still likely need help
from sustainable agriculture experts in ARS, outreach workers in the Extension
Service, and conservation program employees in ASCS. Based on these cross
cutting needs, USDA AmeriCorps programs will work best if coordinated at the
departmental level.
We must have a management structure which will guarantee that
AmeriCorps/USDA programs meet the vision of President Clinton and yourself
rather than the bureaucratic idiosyncracies of individual USDA agencies.
AmeriCorps should be a flagship program for your "Team USDA" concept.
I fully understand your reluctance to create a new USDA office at a time you
are reducing offices and merging agencies. Therefore, I would recommend creation
of a new "center" to guide USDA national service activities that would not
technically be a new office or agency. Secretary Babbitt has already taken such an
action at the Department of Interior.
This new center could either remain tied to public affairs functions by being
placed in the new Office of Communications (OC) or it could be created as a free-
standing entity that reports directly to the Secretary and would be administered
under the umbrella of Executive Operations.
13
The new center could manage a large AmeriCorps/USDA program with only
ten full-time employees in Washington, who would be recruited from the ranks of
existing USDA employees: a Director, a Rural Development Team Coordinator, an
Empowerment and Anti-Hunger Team Coordinator, a Public Lands and Environment
Team Coordinator, an Internal and External Communications Coordinator, a
Coordinator of Recruitment and Training, a Coordinator of Private and Non-Profit
Fundraising, an Office Manager, a Staff Assistant, and a Receptionist.
If the new center operates with staff detailed from USDA agencies, it would
need its own budget of only $231,931 for FY95 (Attachment C). If, however, the
new center operates with employees whose positions have been transferred from
agencies, then it would need its own budget of $862,744 for FY95. (Attachment
D). You could take either action, under the authority of the National and
Community Service Trust Act, without further approval from Congress.
Either budget for the center could be funded out of the $19 million, $25
million, or $45 million you would set aside to run our three AmeriCorps Teams.
Recommendation #4:
If you approve of USDA managing significant AmeriCorps program with sites
across the country, management of that program will require leadership
independent of the office of public affairs. I therefore recommend that you create a
new USDA Center for National Service that reports directly to the Secretary under
the umbrella of Executive Operations. The office would have ten employees
transferred from other USDA agencies.
Date
Agree to new independent center with transferred employees
Approve new independent center with detailed employees
Approve new center within OC with transferred employees
Approve new center within OC with detailed employees
Disapprove of any new national service structure
Discuss with me
14
Decision #5: Method for Obtaining National Service Budget
Funding for USDA AmeriCorps initiatives could either be requested through
new separate line item or multiple line items in the USDA budget request, or it
could simply be earmarked as a Secretarial initiative with funds coming from a
wide variety of existing programs.
As you will see in the attached summary of existing FY94 budget items
(Attachments E - - H), I have identified almost $2 billion in discretionary spending in
USDA programs that carry out tasks similar to those that will be carried out by our
three AmeriCorps Teams. I identified $823 million in rural development, $225
million in feeding programs and nutrition, and $815 million in natural resources and
the environment. Each figure represents overhead funds (not in loans or
entitlements) which could be tapped legally to help fund AmeriCorps. By spreading
the earmarks over a dozen USDA agencies, no single agency would be required to
make an unreasonable contribution.
Recommendation #5:
While earmarking is the easiest approach, obtaining a separate budget line item
increase the visibility of AmeriCorps, reduce resistance from USDA agencies, and
make it more likely that AmeriCorps will develop strong Congressional supporters
who will help institutionalize it. I recommend that the USDA seek a separate line
item in the FY95 budget for each of our three AmeriCorps teams.
Agree to line item requests
Date
Approve of earmarking approach
Disapprove of any budget request
Discuss with me
01-07-1994 10:28
6064928
CORP.NAT'L_SERV
P.02/02
A
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM FOR CABINET SECRETARIES
FROM:
MACK McLARTY
ELI SECAL
SUBJECT: Budgetary Support for National Service
Congressional consideration of National Service legislation is now nearing
conclusion. The President expects to sign the National and Community Service Trust
Act of 1993 into law in early September.
The support and active assistance of your department is critical L we are to
create quality placements for more than 20,000 Americans this coming year. With
your help, many of these participants will become engaged in service activities which
directly advance the missions of your departments.
Some federal agencies are already engaged in using full-time volunteers to
deliver their programs across the country. For example, the Department of Defense
supports Summer of Service and VISTA Summer Associate volunteers serving in
communities impacted by base closure and realignment of military facilities. The
Department of Health and Human Services involves Foster Grandparents in Head
Start programs in a number of communities. Many other agencies, including the
Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
Department of Interior are currently considering new or expanded efforts.
In addition to these ongoing efforts, National Service is a cost effective way of
dealing with many national emergencies. With the assistance of the Department of
Agriculture and Federal Emergency Management Agency, for example, additional
service volunteers have already begun assisting communities rebuilding after the
Midwestern floods.
As you develop your operating plans for FY 1994 and your budget requests for
FY 1995, we ask that you identify areas where National Service volunteers can be
effectively used to deliver the Administration's programs. Over the months to come,
we will be discussing these matters with you in greater depth. As you know, this
effort is the main agenda item for the inter-deparimental working group chaired by
Peter Edelman. Please call on Peter to meet with your senior staff if you would like
to discuss this initiative in greater detail.
Original to: CofS-Ron Blackley
CC: OPA/OPL DepDir-Joel Berg
B
THE WHITE HOUSE
December 27, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO RON BLACKLEY
FROM:
PHIL CAPLAN PLANPC PC
SUBJ:
Civilian Community Corps
As we spoke about after a breakfast last month, I have enclosed
briefing material about the Civilian Community Corps, part of the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
The legislation calls for the Secretary of Agriculture to
"develop proposals for the Corps" and to sit on the Advisory
Board (see pp. 63 and 68 of the attached statute).
General Donald Scott or Sarah Whitman, both of the CCC, will
follow-up with you soon.
Please call if you have any questions.
Thank you.
BUDGET FOR USDA CENTER FOR NATIONAL SERVICE WITH ALL STAFF DETAILED
C
12/30/93
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SERVICE
FY 95 BUDGET
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
SECTION I
OPERATING
ACTUAL
PROJECTED
PROJECTED
VARIANCE
PLANS
OBLIGATIONS
COMMITMENTS
FOR YEAR
FROM PLAN
1100
Salaries:
Salaries
0
0
0
0
0
Overtime
0
0
0
0
0
Awards
0
0
0
0
0
Lump Sum Payment
0
0
0
0
0
1200
Benefits
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL, SECTION I
0
0
0
0
0
COMMITMENTS
UNOBLIGATED
SECTION II
OPERATING
ACTUAL
THROUGH
OBLIGATION/
AS OF
PLAN
OBLIGATIONS
04/15/93
COMMITMENTS
04/16/93
2100
Travel
60,000
0
0
0
60,000
2200
Transportation of Things
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
2300
Rent, Comm, Utilities:
Leases
0
0
0
0
0
Mail/Communications
8,700
0
0
0
8,700
Rent/Etc., Subtotal
8,700
0
0
0
8,700
2400
Print, Reproduction:
Printing
7,000
0
0
0
7,000
Photography
3,300
0
0
0
3,300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Print/Repro, Subtotal
10,300
0
0
0
10,300
2500
Other Services
Training
0
0
0
0
0
Design
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
Video and Film
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
Repair and Maintenance
1,300
0
0
0
1,300
Teleconferences
29,180
0
0
0
29,180
Contractors/Agreements
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
3,996
0
0
0
3,996
Fees
3,000
0
0
0
3,000
Other Ser., Subtotal
52,476
0
0
0
52,476
2600
Supplies/Materials
Subscript/Public
250
0
0
0
250
Supplies/Materials
2,550
0
0
0
2,550
ADP Software
3,150
0
0
0
3,150
Gasoline
0
0
0
0
0
Supplies/Mat., Subtotal
5,950
0
0
0
5,950
3100
Equipment:
Equipment
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
ADP Equipment
10,500
0
0
0
10,500
Equipment, Subtotal
11,500
0
0
0
11,500
4100
Prompt Payment Act
0
0
0
0
0
Greenbook Costs
80,995
0
0
0
80,995
0
0
0
0
0
Reserve
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL, SECTION II
231,921
0
0
0
231,921
TOTAL, SEC. I & II
231,921
0
0
0
231,921
D
BUDGET FOR USDA CENTER FOR NATIONAL SERVICE WITH TEN FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES
12/27/93
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SERVICE
FY 95 BUDGET
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
SECTION I
OPERATING
ACTUAL
PROJECTED
PROJECTED
VARIANCE
PLANS
OBLIGATIONS
COMMITMENTS
FOR YEAR
FROM PLAN
1100
Salaries:
Salaries
522,096
0
0
0
522,096
Overtime
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
Awards
0
0
0
0
0
Lump Sum Payment
0
0
0
0
0
1200
Benefits
144,983
0
0
0
144,983
TOTAL, SECTION I
668,079
0
0
0
668,079
COMMITMENTS
UNOBLIGATED
SECTION II
OPERATING
ACTUAL
THROUGH
OBLIGATION/
AS OF
PLAN
OBLIGATIONS
04/15/93
COMMITMENTS
04/16/93
2100
Travel
60,000
0
0
0
60,000
2200
Transportation of Things
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
2300
Rent, Comm, Utilities:
Leases
0
0
0
0
0
Mail/Communications
5,800
0
0
0
5,800
Rent/Etc., Subtotal
5,800
0
0
0
5,800
2400
Print, Reproduction:
Printing
4,500
0
0
0
4,500
Photography
3,000
0
0
0
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Print/Repro, Subtotal
7,500
0
0
0
7,500
2500
Other Services
Training
0
0
0
0
0
Design
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
Video and Film
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
Repair and Maintenance
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
Teleconferences
22,320
0
0
0
22,320
Contractors/Agreements
1,800
0
0
0
1,800
Labor Employment
0
0
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
Fees
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
Other Ser., Subtotal
37,120
0
0
0
37,120
2600
Supplies/Materials
Subscript/Public
250
0
0
0
250
Supplies/Materials
2,000
0
0
0
2,000
ADP Software
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
Gasoline
0
0
0
0
0
Supplies/Mat., Subtotal
3,250
0
0
0
3,250
3100
Equipment:
Equipment
1,000
0
0
0
1,000
ADP Equipment
5,000
0
0
0
5,000
Equipment, Subtotal
6,000
0
0
0
6,000
4100
Prompt Payment Act
0
0
0
0
0
Greenbook Costs
73,995
0
0
0
73,995
0
0
0
0
0
Reserve
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL, SECTION II
194,665
0
0
0
194,665
TOTAL, SEC. I & II
862,744
0
0
0
862,744
E
POSSIBLE FUNDS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT TEAM
ALREADY IN USDA BUDGET
TITLE
DESCRIPTION FROM FY 94
POTENTIAL
EXPLANATORY NOTES
FUNDS
(IN MILLIONS)
FMHA
Provides funds for grants to very low-income elderly owner-
25.000
Very Low-Income
occupants to make necessary repairs to improve and modernize
Repair Grants
their dwellings in order to remove safety and health hazards.
FMHA
Provides funds for USDA to share with state or other political
11.000
Rural Housing for
subdivisions, public or private nonprofit organizations, or
Domestic Farm Labor
nonprofit organizations of farmworkers the cost of providing low-
rent housing, basic household furnishings and related facilities to
be used by domestic farm laborers.
FMHA
Provides funds for grants made to local organizations to promote
12.750
Mutual and Self-Help
the development of mutual or self-help housing programs under
Housing Grants'
which groups of usually six to ten families build their own homes
by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to pay for
construction supervisors who will work with the families.
FMHA
Provides funds for grants to eligible private nonprofit groups,
23.000
Rural Housing
Indian tribes, and government agencies for the rehabilitation of
Preservation Grants
single family housing owned by low-income and very low-income
families and the rehabilitation f rental and cooperative housing
for low and very low-income families.
FMHA
Provides funds for grants to public and private nonprofit
2.500
Supervisory and
organizations for packaging loan applications for housing
Technical Assistance
assistance under the various housing programs of FMHA.
Grants
FS
Provides funds for research on ways to broaden the economic
13.000
Research on Enhancing
opportunities available to rural communities with forest-based
Rural America
economies.
FS
Provides technical and financial assistance to help communities
4.864
Economic Recovery
that have become distressed due to their economic dependence on
forest resources, including timber.
FS
Strives to strengthen rural communities and enhance their social
3.890
Rural Development
and natural environments. Through a more diverse use of forest
resources -wood, recreation, wildlife, minerals, scenic quality -
communities can develop natural resource-based opportunities and
enterprises.
FS
Provides funds for studies to be cost-shared with participating
0.550
Economic
communities to develop alternative economic opportunities for
Diversification Studies
strengthening rural communities or regions.
FS
Provides funds to allow the program staff to be a partner in
1.500
Forest Products
coalitions concerned with the future of both rural and urban
Conservation and
communities with an emphasis on, among other things: the role of
Recycling
proper utilization of forest resources in economic development
and business retention; identification of needs as part of research
project planning and application of new technologies.
F
TITLE
DESCRIPTION FROM FY 94
POTENTIAL
EXPLANATORY NOTES
FUNDS
(IN MILLIONS)
FMHA
Provides funds for grants to very low-income elderly owner-
25.000
Very Low-Income
occupants to make necessary repairs to improve and modernize
Repair Grants
their dwellings in order to remove safety and health hazards.
ES
.950
Rural Development
Centers
Alternative Agriculture
Provides funds for the Center to offer grants to support the
6.500
Research and
development and commercialization of new industrial and
Commercialization
consumer products and uses for agricultural and forestry
Center
materials, with preference for projects that benefit rural
communities and are environmentally friendly.
ES
Provides funds for proposals including training emergency rescue
1.975
Farm Safety
professionals in farm accident extrication procedures and
education of nonprofessional in first-on-the-scene emergency
response procedures.
CSRS
Provides funds for research grants. Emphasis is placed on
107.664
National Research
research in the areas of natural resources and the environment;
Initiative Competitive
nutrition, food quality, and health; plant systems; animal systems;
Grants
rural development, markets, and trade; and processing of value
added products.
RDA
Provides funds for grants to public and quasi-public, and
500.000
Water and Waste
nonprofit associations, and to certain Indian tribes for the
Disposal Grants
development, storage, treatment, purification, and distribution of
water or the collection, treatment, or disposal of waste in rural
areas.
RDA
Provides funds for grants to finance and facilitate development of
42.500
Rural Business
small and emerging private business enterprises in rural areas or
Enterprise Grants
cities of up to 50,000 population.
REA
Provides funds for grants for the purpose of promoting rural
13.025
Rural Economic
economic development and job creation projects including funding
Development Grants
for project feasibility studies costs, start-up costs, incubator
projects, and other expenses for the purpose of fostering rural
development.
APHIS
Programs develop methods to control animals and pests; conduct
53.008
Scientific and Technical
diagnostic laboratory activities that support the Agency's
Services
veterinary programs; and also provides and directs technology
development in coordination with other groups in APHIS to
support plant protection programs of the agency and its
cooperators at the State, national and international level.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FUNDS SUBTOTAL IN MILLIONS:
823.68
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR
G
ANTI-HUNGER AND EMPOWERMENT TEAMS
ALREADY IN USDA BUDGET
TITLE
DESCRIPTION FROM FY 94
POTENTIAL
EXPLANATORY NOTES
FUNDS
(IN MILLIONS)
ES
Targets low-income youth and families with young children and
61.431
Expanded Food
helps them to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and
Nutrition Education
changed behavior necessary to improve their diets.
Program
ES
Conducts programs in the District of Columbia addressing
1.038
D.C. Extension Service
critical issues and problems, especially in the areas of youth
development, family living, home horticulture, consumer
education, community resource development, and food and
nutrition.
ES
Conducts education projects which address the needs of the
1.975
Food Safety
different participants within the food industry. The aim is to
increase responsible involvement in protecting the safety of the
food supply.
ES
1.750
Indian Reservation
Extension Education
ES
Provides funds for programs in which the Extension Service and
4.265
Nutrition Education
FNS are collaborating to develop nutrition education programs
Initiative
that target the most needy WIC clients, who are vulnerable to at-
risk factors and to those who are eligible for food assistance
programs and need help to receive these benefits.
ES
2.000
Rural Health and
Safety
HNIS
Provides funds for competitive contracts to conduct various
.075
Research Program
research activities.
FNS
Provides funds for FNS nutrition studies and education efforts.
15.835
Nutrition Studies and
Education
FNS
Provides funds for various projects to evaluate the effectiveness
.500
WIC Evaluation
of the WIC program as well as provide resources for States to
Projects
conduct individual evaluations
FNS
Provides funds for 100 percent grants to States to implement
75.00
Food Stamp
employment and training programs for the purpose of assisting
Employment and
members of households participating in the Food Stamp Program
Training Program
in gaining skills, training or experience that will increase their
ability to obtain regular employment.
FNS
Funds to support the FNS research agenda in several areas
10.600
Food Stamp Research,
including, welfare reform, coordination and simplification,
Evaluation, and
evaluation of program effectiveness operations and integrity, and
Demonstration Projects
nutrition education and monitoring.
H
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC LANDS TEAM
ALREADY IN USDA BUDGET
TITLE
DESCRIPTION FROM FY 94
POTENTIAL
EXPLANATORY NOTES
FUNDS
(IN MILLIONS)
FS
Provides for State Foresters and contracted private consulting foresters to
12.500
Urban and
give technical assistance to private landowners to develop plans for and
Community Forestry
ensure proper tree planting.
FS
Provides for expanded tree planting and stewardship efforts on private
12.500
Trees for the Future
forest lands and in urban and community areas. In addition to
environmental benefits 9 urban forestry programs can provide productive
seasonal jobs for inner city youth.
FS
Provides for Maintenance and minor renovation of facilities including
26.495
Maintenance of
roof replacements, siding, painting, floor coverings, and electrical and
Facilities
mechanical systems.
FS
Provides for maintenance planning, roadside brushing, surface grading,
82.198
Forest Road
replace/repair bridges and other structures and obliteration of roads no
Maintenance
longer needed.
FS
Provides for maintenance work including clearing pathways of
31.332
Forest Trail
encroaching vegetation and fallen trees, repairing or improving trail
Maintenance
signs, treadways, drainage facilities, and bridges.
FS
Provides construction of research facilities.
3.572
Research
Construction
FS
Provides for replacement, construction and improvement of offices,
10.264
Construction for
employee housing, service and storage buildings, nursery buildings,
Fire, Administrative,
airports, and heliports. Also provides water, waste, electrical and similar
and other Purposes
utility systems to provide quality facilities to support fire and general
administrative purposes.
FS
Provides for repair and rehabilitation of existing recreation facilities, to
73.604
Recreation
meet health and safety standards, protect soil and water resources and to
Construction
construct new facilities to meet public recreation needs.
FS
Program finances for planning, management, project engineering,
133.218
Forest Road
construction, and reconstruction of multipurpose road systems on and
Construction
adjacent to NFS land.
FS
Provides for redevelopment and improvement of the trail system. Trail
33.510
Trail Construction
redevelopment emphasizes the reconstruction and relocation of
substandard trails resulting from age, heavy use, location or lack of
maintenance. Reconstruction includes facility work such as bridge
replacement, tread replacement, drainage structures, and barrier
removal.
FS
Provides for correcting resource damage and health and safety conditions
79.000
Natural Resource
by accomplishing heavy maintenance and repair of recreation facilities
Protection and
especially in counties with high unemployment.
Environmental
Infrastructure
Initiative
TITLE
DESCRIPTION FROM FY 94
POTENTIAL
EXPLANATORY NOTES
FUNDS
(IN MILLIONS)
ARS
Provides for development of management guidelines, practices, and
83.524
Research on Soil,
systems for promoting cost-effective conservation and enhancement of
Water, and Air
the quality and production capacity of our Nation's soil, water, and air
Sciences
resources. Emphasis is being placed on water quality protection,
sustainable agriculture, waste utilization, and a better understanding of
the impact of global change on agricultural productivity on soil and
water conservation and protection.
ES
The program provides a critical step between research efforts and
2.963
Sustainable
producers adopting improved management practices. The program
Agriculture
focuses on: establishing validation applied research and demonstration
projects; developing databases and decision support systems utilizing
research based information resulting from projects funded under subtitle
B.
ASCS
Provides technical assistantance to land owners and operators who enter
1.490
Water Bank Program
into agreements for the conservation of specific wetlands.
SCS
Provides funds for specialists to inventory and interpret site-specific
24.509
Conservation
information about soil, plant, wather, and other ph ysical conditions to
Technical Assistance
detrmine 1 esible atternative land uses and conservation treatment
alternatives.
SCS
Provides assistrace to farmers and ranchers in planning and applying
6.055
Great Plains
resource manage nnt systems on their farms and rances to prevent or
Conservation
reduce the effects of the climatic hazards of the area.
Program
SCS
Provides funds to carry out preventative measures, including but not
50.122
Watershed and Flood
limited to resertdh, engineering operations, methods of cultivation, the
Prevention Services
growing of vegetation, rehabilitation of e .isting work and chages in
use of land.
SCS
Provides funds for the Department to make surveys of proposed small
1.920
Watershed Planning
watershed projects and prepares plans in cooperation with local sponsors.
SCS
Provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in planning and applying
26.871
Resource
resource managemnt systems on their farms and rances to prevent or
Conservation and
reduce the effects of the climatic hazards of the area.
Development
SCS
Provides funds to conduct research, investigations, and surveys of
1.154
River Basin
watersheds of rivers and other waterways.
Surveys and
Investigations
Reforestation and
Provides funds to reforest. harvested areas, unsuccessful plantations, and
62.828
Stand Improvement
areas damaged by fire, insects, or disease and to release planted trees
from competing vegetation or overcrowding
ARS
Provides funds for additional labor, subprofessional, and junior scientific
2.500
Special Fund
help to be employed under contracts and cooperative agreements to
strengthen work at Federal research installations in the field.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC LANDS TEAM POTENTIAL FUNDS SUBTOTAL IN
815.14
MILLIONS:
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY
THROUGH:
Richard Rominger
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture
FROM:
Ali Webb
Director of Communications
SUBJECT:
Remaining Issues for Implementing the USDA AmeriCorps Program
ISSUE:
In order to formalize and institutionalize AmeriCorps at USDA, this decision memo -- drafted
with extensive input from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Office of Budget and
Program Analysis (OBPA) -- requests that you: formally delegate authority for the
AmeriCorps/USDA national service program, approve a process for staffing and funding the
program and communicate your desire to continue the program in FY 96 and beyond.
By signing off on the attached Secretary's Memorandum, you will empower me to work
with the sub-cabinet, agency administrators, OGC, and OBPA to run the large and high-
quality program we have planned -- without you having to review lengthy decision memos
about technical issues. More importantly, you will make the program an institutionalized
part of USDA.
This memo will attempt to cover comprehensively the major national service decisions which
need to be made now to implement our FY 95 TEAM USDA AmeriCorps program.
2
ISSUE # 1 - Need for a Formal AmeriCorps Management Group:
Now that the Team USDA AmeriCorps national service program has moved from the planning
stage to the actual implementation of projects, we need to establish formally the program within
the Department's organizational structure. Such delegation is necessary now to avoid possible
delays or obstacles to the USDA AmeriCorps program.
BACKGROUND:
In September of 1993, Congress passed the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993,
which enables federal agencies to manage national service programs individually or manage
them in partnership with others. Using the authorities contained in the Act and the existing
authorities of USDA program agencies, I have worked with the Department's agencies and
other federal departments to develop the Department's AmeriCorps program this year.
Thirteen different USDA agencies --- SCS, FS, FNS, FmHA, ASCS, RDA, REA, ARS, ES,
AMS, OICD, NASS, and ERS --- will be actively involved in supporting AmeriCorps; to the
extent permitted by law, some of these agencies will be providing funding and staff support
while others will be providing critically needed technical assistance. While my effort to date to
coordinate our planning efforts with all these sometimes competing agencies has been a difficult
challenge, most of the USDA agencies have been ultimately supportive. The manner in which
representatives from different agencies have worked together has been extremely encouraging to
all those engaged in the process. What we have seen in developing this program is positive
proof that the Secretary's vision for a reorganized and unified Department will succeed. The
national service program demonstrates that there are significant benefits to the employees and to
the public when we plan and act as a team and not a group of disparate agencies.
My staff and I have been able to function within an informal structure guided by your expressed
interest in the program and everyone's desire to do a quality job in accordance with all
applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Now that we have reached the point where formal
agreements must be established between the USDA and the Corporation for National and
Community Service (CNCS), as well as between the USDA and other federal, state, and local
entities and non-profit organizations, there is a need for formal delegations of authority to allow
the appropriate people to perform their duties. Specifically, there is a need for one person to be
delegated the authority vested in you to oversee and coordinate the efforts of the USDA's
agencies in developing and managing national service programs. I am convinced that we need a
strong, non-bureaucratic, but fully empowered mechanism for managing national service at the
Secretarial level. This program is too important to the President and too visible to be left to the
agencies alone to manage. It requires someone with the authority to establish priorities and to
create partnerships between agencies, and who has a clear picture of your vision and the
President's vision.
3
Normally, the delegation of authority would be handled by identifying the organization that will
manage the program and then amending the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) containing their
existing authorities to add the national service program. However, the current delegations of
authorities which specify the duties performed by the Director, Office of Communications are
grossly out of date. The most current delegation of authority contained in the CFR is for the
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs (OGPA) dating back to 1988. There has never been
a formal delegation of authority which recognizes that in 1990 a portion of the duties of OGPA
were assumed by the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, with the remainder
assumed by the Director, Office of Public Affairs. To further complicate the issue, the existing
delegation of authority does not reflect the current Office of Communications.
While it is clearly essential that the delegations of authority be brought up-to-date, that work
will take a substantial amount of time. The deadlines and the requirements for planning and
operating the USDA national service program make it imperative that a clear delegation of
authority exist now. Many key national service issues have to be addressed immediately or
certainly before a formal revision of the existing delegation of authority can be approved.
OPTIONS For Issue # 1 - Need for a Formal AmeriCorps Management Group:
1.
Do not delegate authority to anyone to oversee centrally, manage and coordinate the
USDA AmeriCorps program.
PRO: The agencies might feel that they were not being burdened by another layer of
bureaucracy and will have more freedom to implement national service. Another
advantage is that no paperwork would have to be done.
CON: It would be difficult to guarantee that the USDA national service program could
be successfully implemented without a central authority to manage and coordinate
the program. In fact, it is likely that the program would fail to meet our
expectations of excellence, resulting in an undesirable outcome for the
Administration, the Department, and the Secretary.
2.
Delay delegating authority for AmeriCorps until the existing OGPA Delegations of
Authority can be revised to reflect the current Office of Communications and Assistant
Secretary for Congressional Relations structures.
PRO: Making delegations by specifying them in the appropriate delegations of authority
is the most complete way to make delegations.
CON: There is no argument about whether the existing delegations have to be amended.
However, there is a substantial amount of work involved in amending existing
delegations. The CNCS deadlines and the requirements of the USDA
AmeriCorps program make it imperative that a clear delegations of authority exist
now. Waiting until the existing delegations of authority are amended would
jeopardize our conduct of an AmeriCorps program.
4
3.
By Secretary's Memorandum Immediately delegate the authority to manage the USDA
AmeriCorps program to the Director of the Office of Communications, who will further
delegate the authority to the Director of National Service. At the same time initiate the
procedures to revise the existing delegations of authority for the Office of Governmental
and Public Affairs (OGPA) to reflect the delegations of the Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Relations and the Office of Communications.
PRO: The Secretary's memorandum requires substantially less effort to develop and
would not impede or preempt any of the Secretary's reorganization efforts but
would delegate the authority necessary for the national service program to be
centrally managed immediately. The revision of the delegations of authority
which could proceed at their normal pace would not delay management of the
USDA AmeriCorps program and would make the necessary delegations of
authority for both the Office of Communications and the Assistant Secretary for
Congressional Relations.
CON: Again, the agencies might view the establishment of a formal national service
group as impinging on their authority. But regardless of their feelings on that
issue, the OGPA delegations of authority have to be revised.
RECOMMENDATION for Issue # 1 - Need for a Formal AmeriCorps Management
Group:
I recommend you implement option 3. This option would achieve Departmental coordination
with the least amount of paperwork. Your signature on the attached Secretary's Memorandum
will formally establish the USDA national service program and delegate authority to manage
this program to the Director of the Office of Communications who will in turn delegate this
authority to the Director of National Service. It will also begin the long over due process of
updating the Office of Governmental and Public Affairs delegations of authority to reflect the
current Office of Communications and Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
DECISION BY THE SECRETARY:
Agree
Date
Disagree
Discuss
Reviewed by
5
ISSUE #2 - Funding and Staffing of a AmeriCorps Management Group:
The Office of Communications, in which the function of coordinating AmeriCorps is now
housed, does not currently have either the budget or the FTE's to adequately support this
expanding program. If you agree that the Team USDA AmeriCorps program should continue
to have some centralized management group, then there is a need to institutionalize slightly
expanded funding and staffing for that group.
BACKGROUND:
To date, the management group for these efforts has been composed of three people on full-time
detail from the Office of Communications and various people on part-time detail from some of
the agencies. Early start-up costs -- such as funding for travel and applications, copying the
public service announcement you taped, and printing recruitment posters and brochures -- have
been paid for primarily from the Office of Communications with some contributions from SCS
and FS. As we move toward full implementation of the Team USDA AmeriCorps, it is
important to fund and staff the formal management structure we have proposed to support the
program, as well as prepare the agencies for their ever-increasing role in the Administration's
national service initiatives. Without adequate staffing and funding, it will not be possible to
manage effectively the 42 separate programs USDA will be operating in FY 95. It will also not
be possible to fund changes to the personnel/payroll system necessary to operate one-half of our
programs.
OPTIONS for Issue 2 - Funding and Staffing the AmeriCorps Management Group:
1.
Do not fund or staff the central management group.
PRO: Agencies can proceed at their own pace in meeting their AmeriCorps objectives
the best way each agency head sees fit.
CON: Without adequate funding or staffing, it will be impossible to support the central
management organization recommended in issue 1. It will not be possible to
coordinate a coherent set of operational guidelines, recruitment, training, and
management procedures, and program objectives. In addition, many of the
requirements of the CNCS involve interaction at the Departmental level. If a
central organization is not staffed or funded to perform this role it would be
necessary to create various task forces throughout the year to coordinate the
agencies' efforts to evaluate programs, recruit participants, and submit an
application to CNCS for a grant.
6
2.
Provide funding and staffing for the central management group from the agencies
and the Office of Communications. Use a small three- person staff in the Office of
Communications supported by detailees from the agencies and funded in part with
monies provided through an "assessment" of those agencies running or in the process of
planning programs. This would combine the benefits of central management while
reducing the burden on agency resources and, in fact, enhancing those resources through
the training of agency personnel. The staff and funding requirements for this option are
attached.
PRO: The program is managed centrally for the Secretary. No new organization has to
be created. No separate budget has to be submitted. Detailees could be rotated
into the national service support unit to learn Team USDA AmeriCorps
procedures and polices and then return to their agencies to serve as a resource to
manage the agency's individual program(s). Support and clerical staff would be
detailed for six to eight months and professional staff would be detailed for eight
to 12 months. Details would be on a non-reimbursable basis.
Each agency would be "assessed" an amount to cover a portion of the cost for the
national support organization within the Office of Communications to perform its
duties. The amount of the assessment would be based on the size of the
organization's existing programs and those planned for the next year which must
be worked on during the current fiscal year.
CON: Agencies may think they are "losing" the services of the personnel detailed.
However, if the agency is running a national service program or programs and
the detailees are helping to manage or operate those programs, then their services
are not "lost" to the agency.
Again agencies may feel they are "losing" dollars. However, if the Secretary is
to be guaranteed consistent and accountable management of the Team USDA
national service initiatives, this money is a necessary expense associated with
implementing national service.
3.
Establish a AmeriCorps Office in the Office of the Secretary. Staff and fund this
office by transferring positions and funds from the largest agencies expected to
participate in national service programs.
PRO: A clear line of authority would exist from the Secretary to the national service
office and its personnel. Funding necessary to support the program would be
clearly identified.
CON: At a time when the Secretary is seeking to consolidate and trim USDA's
organizational structure, a new office would be created. In addition, this may
lead some Congressional opponents to claim we are creating a new bureaucracy.
7
RECOMMENDATION for Issue # 2 - Funding and Staffing a National Service Group:
I recommend you implement option 2, which would be a good compromise between either
creating a large new formal office or simply letting the agencies work totally independently.
This option achieves the objective of having an appropriate degree of central management while
limiting the burden on the agency resources and leaving them with a substantial degree of
flexibility in implementing national service projects. It is requested that you sign the attached
memorandum directing the Under and Assistant Secretaries, agency administrators, and office
heads to provide support to the Team USDA AmeriCorps national service program as outlined
in the attachment to the memorandum. (The same memorandum also outlines FY 96 budget
issues discussed in "Issue 3." )
DECISION BY THE SECRETARY:
Agree
Date
Disagree
Discuss
Reviewed by
8
ISSUE # 3 - Identify AmeriCorps Initiatives or Potential Initiatives in the FY 96 and FY 97
USDA Budgets.
This year's USDA AmeriCorps program will be funded largely by approximately $20 million in
FY 95 funds appropriated to agencies for their regular activities. Working with the Office of
The General Counsel, the Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and the various agency
administrators and their staffs, we have identified appropriations from which we can legally
fund national service programs. Given that CNCS is unlikely to contribute significant new
funds in the future to USDA AmeriCorps programs, agencies must begin now to identify funds
in their FY 96 budgets to support that year's programs. In addition, the Department must
decide on whether or not to ask Congress for specific AmeriCorps appropriations in the FY 97
budget.
BACKGROUND:
The President and former OMB Director Panetta have demonstrated their budgetary
commitment to AmeriCorps by requesting funding for CNCS for FY 96 that would be double
the amount funded in FY 95. However, even if Congress grants most of that request, the
amount of the CNCS funds available to federal agencies will still be minimal -- increasing from
about $17 million to $34 million. Given the likelihood that CNCS will again grant operating
funds to at least 15 federal agencies, USDA can not realistically expect to receive more than $4
million in funding from CNCS for FY 96. It is for this reason that the White House and CNCS
continue to push federal agencies to find funding for AmeriCorps from their existing agency
budgets.
However, maintaining or expanding a significant AmeriCorps program could place a significant
burden on USDA agency budgets. If USDA simply maintains the size of our AmeriCorps
program at the same level in FY 96 as in FY 95 -- 1,200 participants -- then USDA agencies
will have to provide at least $18 million from their FY 96 budgets. Increasing the size of the
USDA AmeriCorps program would be even more expensive -- increasing the program to 2,000
participants would cost USDA $34 million; doubling the program to 2,400 participants would
cost USDA $41 million.
In addition, while a few agencies such as Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service had
made specific requests for AmeriCorps funds in their FY 96 budgets, some agencies still do not
take the need to support AmeriCorps seriously because they have not been directed to make
such requests a part of their own appropriations within the USDA budget.
One possible solution to these problems is to rely on existing appropriations in the FY 96
USDA budget to fund the Department's AmeriCorps for that year and then request Congress to
appropriate to the Department funds specifically designated to support our AmeriCorps program
in FY 97. To accomplish this, USDA agencies would have to be asked immediately to identify
sources of funding for AmeriCorps programs in their FY 96 budgets, and in the winter include
the AmeriCorps program in their FY 97 budget requests.
9
OPTIONS for Issue # 3 - Including AmeriCorps in the FY 97 USDA Budget Request:
1.
Do not make AmeriCorps a part of the Department's formal budget.
PRO: Not including AmeriCorps in the USDA budget would lessen the potential that
the Department would have to cut in other areas to meet budget caps. Some
agencies may feel relieved of their perceived burden in supporting AmeriCorps.
This option also limits attempts by Congress to "target" national service programs
within the Department.
CON: It will be difficult to maintain and nearly impossible to expand the USDA
AmeriCorps program past FY 96 without specific appropriations. Moreover, if
AmeriCorps is not part of the formal budget process, most agencies will not
consider it a "real" program. They certainly would not consider it a priority of
either the Secretary or the President. This would also reduce the Department's
ability to significantly impact the American people through AmeriCorps.
2.
Send the attached memorandum from the Secretary to the Under and Assistant
Secretaries, agency administrators, and office directors directing them to identify
AmeriCorps programs in their FY 96 budgets and preparing to make specific requests
for AmeriCorps programs in their FY 97 budget requests.
PRO: This would probably allow the USDA AmeriCorps program to expand and would
"institutionalize" the inclusion of national service within each agency budget.
One difficulty we encountered this year was that many agencies said they could
not support national service because they had not planned for it. This would
allow them to plan and for the Secretary to oversee the priorities. Most
significantly, it would move national service from something many of the
agencies see as "hanging off the side" of the Department, into the realm of being
acknowledged as a central priority of the Secretary. It also opens the discussion
of how the flexibility provided under the national service legislation can be used
to support the Secretary's reorganization efforts and the Administration's re-
invention of government initiatives. Some agencies, such as the Forest Service,
have already made specific requests for AmeriCorps funding in their FY 96
budget requests.
CON: Spending funds on AmeriCorps may make it more difficult for the Department to
meet budget caps. Some agencies could argue that they are being forced to come
up with national service programs just to satisfy someone else's desires at the
expense of current programs.
10
RECOMMENDATION for Issue # 3 - Including AmeriCorps in the FY 97 Budget Request
I recommend you implement option 2. It is requested that you sign the attached memorandum
directing the Under and Assistant Secretaries to identify national service programs in their
formal FY 97 Departmental budget submissions. In addition they are asked to identify funds in
their FY 96 budgets that may be used to support national service in that year.
DECISION BY THE SECRETARY:
Agree
Date
Disagree
Discuss
Reviewed by
Attachments
SECRETARY'S MEMORANDUM
USDA National Service Program
1 PURPOSE
This memorandum establishes the USDA National Service Program and
designates the Director of the Office of Communications as the USDA
manager for the program.
2 BACKGROUND
The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 established the
Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and the Public
Lands Corps. The intent of the legislation is to engage Americans of
varied ages and backgrounds in community-based service. This service
will address the Nation's educational, public safety, human, and
environmental needs to achieve direct and demonstrable results. In
doing so, national service will foster civic responsibility,
strengthen the ties that bind us together as a people, and provide
educational opportunity for those who make a substantial commitment
to service. Federal departments are eligible to apply for funds to
run national service programs directly or in partnerships with
others.
3 POLICY
As the People's Department, it is the responsibility of all USDA
agencies to strive for the maximum allowable participation by the
USDA in the area of national service. By identifying existing
programs that can be used to support national service initiatives or
proposing new programs or projects, agencies will strive to the
fullest extent possible to use AmeriCorps grants, services, and
educational awards to leverage existing resources and to integrate
the national service concept more fully into agencies' programs and
activities. USDA will run programs in which both the participants
and the managers at every project site will represent a socio-
economically diverse group of Americans.
4 DELEGATION
The Director of the Office of Communications will manage the USDA
national service program and coordinate the Department's national
service initiatives, including those involving the Public Lands
Corps. The Director is authorized to develop detailed guidelines and
procedures for agencies to follow in planning, operating, staffing,
and funding the program.
5
This Memorandum shall expire in ninety days.
MEMORANDUM TO:
UNDER SECRETARIES
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
GENERAL COUNSEL
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
AGENCY ADMINISTRATORS
OFFICE DIRECTORS
FROM MIKE ESPY
The AmeriCorps national service program is a priority for the President and for the Department.
AmeriCorps will serve as an innovative and cost-effective mechanism for delivering the
Department's services. I want to thank those agencies who have been SO supportive of our current
national service efforts. With your help the Department has been able to establish itself as the
leader in Federal national service programs.
To continue and expand this leadership role, I request that you take three steps:
1) Review how you may be able to detail staff -- either full time or part time -- to the
centralized USDA AmeriCorps management group. Because national service will grow in scope in
each succeeding year, it is necessary to establish a trained cadre of personnel within your agencies.
It is also essential to limit the size of any organization devoted to Departmental management of
national service. To develop the appropriate staff while keeping the management organization
small, I have decided to use personnel detailed from the agencies to provide the bulk of the support
for the management group. This will give the management group the resources it needs, while
giving vital training to key agency personnel who will return to the agencies to support their
growing national service efforts. There is also the need to provide funds to support the activities
of this group. The Office of Budget and Program Analysis will assist each agency in making the
appropriate arrangements. A staffing plan and budget is attached.
2) Make recommendations as to potential AmeriCorps initiatives in your FY 96 budgets.
Those agencies which did not specifically request funds for AmeriCorps initiatives in FY 96 should
begin working now with the USDA Director of National Service, Mr. Joel Berg, to identify the
AmeriCorp initiatives to be funded from your existing FY 96 budgets and conduct the necessary
competition for inclusion of outside partners. Mr. Berg will publish a time table for the
accomplishment of this work.
3) Include national service projects in your FY 97 budget requests. As we enter the FY 97
budget cycle next year, I want each agency to carefully consider specific national service programs
to be identified in their budget requests.
In formally establishing the Team USDA AmeriCorps national service program, I have placed
central coordinating responsibility for this program in the Office of Communications, while
reserving for the agencies significant flexibility in the implementation of the program. Mr. Joel
Berg, Director of National Service in the Office of Communications, is available to work with you
in identifying and developing AmeriCorps projects. He can be reached at 720-6350, room 538-A.
Staffing
for
USDA National Service Group
POSITION
NAME
GRADE²
ORG³
STATUS
Director
Joel Berg
ES-01
OC
Permanent
Communications Coord.
Katherine Gibney
GM 13/14
OC
Permanent
Deputy Communications and
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Training Coordinator
Administrative Coord.
Ron De Munbrun
GM 15
TBD
Permanent
Office Manager
Denise Bennet
GS 6/4
ASCS
Detailee
Anti-Hunger Coordinator
Donna Hines
GM 13/1
FNS
Detailee
FmHA Agency Liaison
Jim Coyne
GM 12/7
TBD
Detailee
EZ/EC and RDA Liaison
David Gibson
GM 14
TBD
Detailee
Extension Service and 4-H
TBD
TBD
ES
Detailee
Liaison
Forest Service State and Private
TBD
TBD
TBD
Detailee
Forestry Liaison
Evaluation Coordinator
TBD
TBD
TBD
Detailee
Resource/Grants Coordinator
TBD
GS 9/11
TBD
Detailee
Technology Support
TBD
GS 9/11
ES
Detailee
Clerical Support/Office
TBD
GS 8
TBD
Detailee
Automation
1
Some positions may be filled on a part time basis or they may filled on a rotating basis. This can be worked out between
the Director and the agencies.
2 Some grade levels are dependent on the grade of the current incumbent. Grade levels may increase or decrease as new
personnel are rotated through the group and as requirements change.
3 The organization is determined by the subject matter of the position and/or the willingness or desire of an agency to lend
support to the TEAM USDA national service group.
Engage tens of thousands of Federal employees in a serve-a-thon during National
Youth Service Week in April to raise money for AmeriCorps.
On a Saturday or a Sunday, multitudes of Federal employees could perform
community service and solicit funds per hour from "sponsors." If just 30,000
employees-- a small fraction of the Federal workforce --- participated in the event
and raised an average of only $100, we would raise $3 million for AmeriCorps.
Such an event would raise public understanding of the unique public/private
partnership of AmeriCorps, "get things done" in urban, suburban, and rural
communities throughout America, and generate positive media coverage. Such an
event would probably need approval from OPM for an exemption from the
restrictions of the Combined Federal campaign.
D9553
UNITED DEPARTMENT OP
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
April 6, 1994
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY/DEPUTY SECRETARY
THROUGH:
James Michael Kelly
dirkelly
Associate General Counsel
FROM:
Joel Berg JB
Deputy Director, Office of Public Affairs
SUBJECT:
Justification of Non-Competition of Current National Service Projects
ISSUE:
The Corporation for National and Community Service has given tentative approval to our grant
request for money to operate our Summer of Safety project with the Chicago High School of
Agricultural Sciences. Their grant will make it possible to run the program this summer. It
will provide jobs to participants, many of whom will be recent graduates of the high school,
service to the community, and up to 50 education awards worth $1,000 each for participants who
successfully serve the entire summer. In order to accept the Corporation's funds for the Chicago
project as well as the major yearlong programs we have planned in the areas of rural
development, anti-hunger, and the environment, the Department must award the necessary
discretionary cooperative agreements non-competitively for this year's round of applications.
BACKGROUND:
In September of 1993, Congress passed the National and Community Service Trust Act, which
enables Federal Departments to manage national service programs individually or manage them
in partnership with others. The basic mechanism for the Department to enter into "partnerships"
with non-profit groups and State and local organizations for the purpose of implementing
national service programs is a discretionary cooperative agreement. Under normal
circumstances, such agreements should be awarded on a competitive basis. However, the time
between publication of the Corporation for National and Community Service's final rules on
March 11, 1994 and the application deadlines of March 14 for Summer of Safety programs and
April 29, 1994 for AmeriCorps FY 95 yearlong projects, make it impractical to engage in a
competitive process.
Departmental regulations allow for the award of agreements non-competitively where such
awards are in the best interest of the Government and/or where such competition is impractical.
The National and Community Service Trust Act makes it clear that Federal departments are
expected to manage national service programs and that such participation is necessary for the
Corporation to meet its objectives. The lack of sufficient time to compete awards was a factor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
imposed on us externally by the Corporation and not the result of any delay within the
Department. Combined, these two factors would seem to form a necessary justification for
making non-competitive awards in this first year of the program.
In addition to the above issues, I believe that the other factors listed below further justify a
decision to make our initial awards non-competitively:
1.
The Department is using the implementation of pilot projects for FY 94 Summer of
Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs as the mechanism to develop the necessary
regulations, procedures, and processes for ensuring maximum competition in future
awards.
2.
While it is impractical for the Department to initially make awards competitively, the
award process is not devoid of competition. The Corporation's approval of applications
is based on their own formal competitive process which conforms to all applicable
Federal laws and regulations. For the Department's applications for FY 94 Summer of
Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs to be approved, they must first be reviewed and
graded by a panel of independent experts and then selected on the basis of objective and
subjective rankings.
3.
The projects that will be sent to you for your final approval are the result of meetings,
briefings, calls and mailings to hundreds of farming, anti-hunger, rural development,
environmental, and other constituency groups over the last 11 months. We have
endeavored to give the broadest possible exposure to TEAM USDA's national service
program.
OPTIONS:
1.
Participate in the national service program for the summer of 1994 and the yearlong
programs beginning in September of 1994 and running through June of 1995 by relying
on the attached justification for non-competition as well as the competition conducted by
the Corporation. In addition, use the experience gained in running programs to establish
the necessary competitive procedures for all awards in following years beginning with
the Summer of Service programs in June of 1995.
PRO: The Summer of Safety program we are proposing to run in partnership with the
Chicago High School of Agricultural Sciences will be able to proceed. This
program alone will result in the Corporation awarding up to 50, $1,000 education
awards to participants. The yearlong programs we are proposing will result in
the award of up to 1,500, $4,725 education awards from the Corporation's funds.
Both the summer and yearlong programs will also result in significant benefit to
the public in the areas of rural development, anti-hunger, and the environment.
CON: An organization or member of Congress may protest based on the lack of
competition in our selection process. However, it must be pointed out that our
regulations do provide for exemptions to competition and OGC has concurred
with the attached justification laying out the rationale for non-competition in this
instance.
2.
Do not participate in the national service program for the summer of 1994 and the
yearlong programs beginning in September of 1994 and running through June of 1995
until the necessary competitive procedures can be established.
PRO: No discretionary cooperative agreements would be granted without competition.
CON: The Summer of Safety project involving the Chicago High School of Agricultural
Sciences would have to be canceled. We would not be able to run the major
yearlong programs we have planned in the areas of rural development, anti-
hunger, and the environment you have previously announced. The Department
could not participate in any projects until the next Summer of Service period
which would be June of 1995.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend implementing option one. I request that you endorse the attached justification for
non-competition of current national service projects, which will allow us to proceed with any
projects the Corporation for National and Community Service approves this year.
As manager of the Department's national service program I want to assure you that I recognize
the need for and value of competitive awards. Given the circumstances, every effort is being
made to minimize the negative impact of non-competition and to use the existing circumstances
to ensure that a sound, long-term process is set in place to foster competition in all future
awards. In the interim, the projects that are forwarded to you for final selection as part of the
USDA AmeriCorps application were not formulated in a vacuum. They are the result of almost
a year's worth of conversations and presentations to the widest variety of constituent groups,
non-profit groups, members of the public, and State and local organizations.
As a final note, I would add that the approach recommended here, that is to award non-
competitively now while developing proper procedures for competition in all future awards, is
an approach that is being adopted by other Federal departments, most notably Health and Human
Services.
Agree
Date
4/21/94
Disagree
Discuss
Reviewed by
JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-COMPETITIVE SELECTION OF SITES
AND PARTNERS FOR USDA FY 94 "SUMMER OF SAFETY"
AND
FY 95 AMERICORPS YEARLONG PROJECTS
Pursuant to the regulations contained in 7 CFR 3015.158 (d), the Deputy Director for
Public Liaison who serves as the Department of Agriculture's National Service Program manager
hereby determines that it is in the best interest of the government and necessary to the
accomplishment of the goals of the program to award co-operative agreements for FY 94
Summer of Safety and FY 95 AmeriCorps programs non-competitively. As these agreements
are being executed, a concurrent effort will be undertaken to develop the rules, policies, and
procedures necessary to ensure that all subsequent awards are made competitively. This
determination was made after careful consideration of several factors including:
1.
USDA participation in national services programs is needed for the Corporation for
National and Community Service and the Government to meet the goals for the nation's
national service program;
2.
The limited time available to apply to the Corporation for funds makes competition
impractical;
3.
The national service program is new and pilot projects are needed to maximize the
Department's ability to define the proper procedures and rules for implementing the
program in the future;
4.
Because Federal agency involvement in national services programs is designed to build
on existing structures, the Department opted to focus on projects that most closely
resembled current service structures in order to provide a foundation for expanding
structures and services in the future; and
5.
The process of awarding funds for projects is not completely devoid of competition
because the Department's application to AmeriCorps is approved by the Corporation on
a competitive basis.
The following discussion presents a detailed explanation of each factor considered in
making the determination to award cooperative agreements non-competitively.
1
I.
ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS
The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, P.L. 103-82, clearly states that
one of its main objectives is to, "build on the existing organizational service infrastructure of
Federal, State, and local programs and agencies to expand full-time and part-time service
opportunities for all citizens. ⑉1 The important role of Federal agency participation in national
service programs is reinforced in the Act's provision to allow the Corporation for National and
Community Service to, "...enter into a contract or cooperative agreement with another Federal
agency to support a national service program carried out by the agency. 112 It is clearly the intent
of the program to use participation by Federal agencies to accomplish its goals. There are even
specific funds set aside solely for the purpose of awarding money to Federal agencies who apply
to run programs individually or in partnership with other Federal agencies, non-profit
organizations, institutions of higher learning, etc. A failure by Federal departments to
participate would adversely affect the Corporation for National and Community Service's (AKA
AmeriCorps) ability to achieve its goals.
II.
TIME CONSTRAINTS
In order to participate, Federal agencies (Federal departments and independent agencies)
must submit applications for funds to the Corporation for National and Community Service by
the deadlines established by the Corporation's rules. Because the National and Community
Service Trust Act of 1993 was not signed into law until September 21, 1993, there has been
little time for the Corporation for National and Community Service (AKA AmeriCorps) to
establish the necessary rules to guide Federal departments in their implementation of the
program. Prior to enactment of the law, the Department undertook several initiatives to prepare
for its implementation. A work group was established in March of 1993 to beginning defining
how to implement national service within USDA and to structure the "models" that form the
guides for such service. Unfortunately, the late signing of the bill left insufficient time for
USDA to complete all the steps necessary to engage in full competition for its projects.
AmeriCorps did not publish its notice of availability of funds for Summer of Safety
programs until February 3, 1994. The time between this notice and the application deadline of
March 14, 1994 was insufficient to allow for a publication by USDA of a request for proposals,
review the applications, and submit an application to AmeriCorps. This left two options: one,
do not submit a Summer of Safety application; two, identify projects that had previously been
discussed within the Department and see if they were candidates for submission to AmeriCorps.
In view of the time constraints, it was determined to be in the best interest of the Government
and necessary to carry out the objectives of the USDA National Service program to choose the
later option. The precise mechanism for choosing projects is described in Paragraph IV.
¹P.L. 103-82, Sec. 2(a)(7)
²P.L. 103-82, Sec. 121(b)(1)
2
The severe time constraints placed on applicants in the initial year of the program can
be seen in table 1. These time constraints are imposed on the Department externally and are not
caused by delay within the Department.
Table 1.
Time Line for Significant Events in Preparation of CNCS Application for FY 94 Summer
of Safety Application Due 3/14/94 and Yearlong FY 95 AmeriCorps Programs due
3/29/94.
EVENT
DATE
DATE
DATE
TIME
REASONABLE
OCCURRED
SUMMER
YEAR-LONG
AVAILABLE FOR
PERIOD OF
OF
AMERICORPS
USDA TO
TIME
SERVICE
APPLICATION
ESTABLISH
NEEDED TO
APPLICATION
DUE
AND CONDUCT
CONDUCT
DUE
COMPETITION¹
COMPETITION²
National and
9/21/93
Community Services
Trust Act of 1993
signed by President
Clinton
Draft Corporation for
1/7/94
National and
Community Service
(CNCS) regulations
published
Notice of availability
2/3/94
of Funds for Summer
of Safety programs
published
Comment period on
2/7/94
draft regulations ends
CNCS Regulations
3/11/94
3/14/94
3 DAYS
150 DAYS
approved by OMB
CNCS final
3/18/94
3/29/94
42 DAYS
150 DAYS
regulations published
I Time from the approval of rules to the time an application was due to be delivered to the CNCS.
2 Time required to publish a request for proposals, have proposals evaluated by independent review panel, and make award of cooperative
agreement, including the time to develop the necessary rules, publishing them, get comments and publish them in final form. The entire process
could take 120 to 180 days. 150 days is used here as an average.
3
III.
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL RULES
Because Federal Department involvement in national service programs is new, it is
necessary to establish the most effective process for ensuring that all future awards are made
with the maximum degree of competition. The Office of Communications is establishing a
schedule for the development of the necessary rules and regulations that will allow for full
competition of awards beginning with the Corporation for National and Community Service's
Summer of Service program in FY 95. The experiences gained in the initial awards will serve
as a valuable "testing" ground to final rules and procedures that emphasize the integrity of the
Department's program and the maximum benefit to the public.
IV.
INTEGRATION OF NATIONAL SERVICE INTO USDA STRUCTURE
In addition to establishing departmental rules and procedures, it is necessary to evaluate
how national service programs can be integrated into the Department's organizational structure.
It is an obvious goal of the national service program to allow existing Federal organizations to
merge, where practicable, their existing program delivery with national service projects. This
is a formidable task in a department with 43 agencies and 115,000 plus employees.
Part of the process for developing rules and procedures involves an assessment of how
the Department's existing resources can be focused to provide support to national service
projects. This assessment involves three steps: 1) identify key agencies; 2) establish national
service teams; and, 3) identify pilot projects for FY 94 applications.
1.
Identify Key Agencies.
a.
In March of 1993, a national service work group was established in
USDA. The group consisted of representatives from all agencies and
offices. This group developed a proposed model for deliver of national
service programs within USDA. The model consists of three "Teams":
(1)
An Environmental Team
(2)
An Anti-Hunger and Empowerment Team
(3)
A Rural Development Team
4
b.
In conjunction with the work group, the Office of Communication
identified the key agencies that would need to be involved in pilot efforts.
Initially, a total of four key agencies or groups of agencies were
determined to already have program delivery mechanisms that mirror or
closely resemble those necessary for national service projects. The
Extension Service (ES), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), and the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) were determined to be the key
groups associated with the Anti-Hunger team. The Forest Service (FS),
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and ES were determined to be the
key group associated with the Environmental Team. The Rural
Development Administration (RDA), Farmers Home Administration
(FmHA), and Rural Electrification Administration (REA), SCS and FS
were determined to be the key groups associated with the Rural
Development Team.
Several of these agencies have large existing programs or delivery
mechanisms that lend themselves to most effectively defining how national
service should be implemented within USDA. The Extension Service
supports the world's largest volunteer group, the 4-H Clubs. The Forest
Service through its human resources division runs Youth Conservation
Corps and National Forest Foundation camps that are similar to the type
of project expected to be run under national service. The new Rural
Development Team groups those agencies which form the focus of
services in rural development which is one of the Corporation's priority
areas. Finally, the Soil Conservation Service deals daily with the public
in an interactive mode quite similar to that proposed for national service.
2.
Establish National Service Teams.
Once the key agencies were identified, teams were established to develop the
necessary procedures and propose pilot projects for submission in FY 94
applications. The teams were an expansion of the agencies' representatives on
the national service work group. Their purpose is to move from a "work group"
structure toward integration of national service within the agencies' established
organizational structure.
3.
Identify Pilot Projects.
a.
As part of the efforts to establish models for national service within the
Department, USDA representatives attended a wide variety of forums,
meetings, conventions, and briefings where the public was informed of the
proposed national service program and the role that Federal departments
might play if the law was enacted. In addition to the meetings, interviews
were given to magazines and newsletters that would most likely be read
by groups interested in engaging in partnerships with the Department.
5
While these efforts were not official requests for proposals, they served
to alert the public of the national service program. As a result of these
efforts. a few organizations submitted unsolicited proposals to the
Department. Three criteria were used to identify candidate pilot projects.
Note that these projects are called "candidate" because their identification
by USDA does not guarantee that they will be approved by AmeriCorps.
The criteria are:
(1)
Does the project conform to the criteria established by the
Corporation for National and Community Service;
(2)
Does the project maximize the Department's ability to use its
resources in unique ways with an emphasis on the greatest number
of partnerships between other Federal agencies, public, and non-
profit organizations;
(3)
Does the project maximize the Department's ability to establish
sound Department-wide rules, policies, and, procedures for the
implementation of national service within its agencies.
b.
Table 2. shows the projects selected for the FY 94 Summer of Safety
application submitted by the Department and the reasons for their
selection.
6
Table 2. FY 94 Summer of Safety Pilot Projects
PROJECT
CRITERIA
RATIONALE
FOR
SELECTION
Chicago High School of
1.
Conform to AmeriCorps
Participants will be doing work
Agricultural Sciences
criteria.
in three areas identified as
appropriate for Summer of
Safety:
Youth as a Resource
Restoring Safety to
Public Spaces
Youth Safety Initiatives
2.
Maximize Department's
Run in conjunction with the
ability to use it resources
Justice Department, this project
and partner with other
involves the participation of the
agencies.
Extension Service, Forest
Service, Soil Conservation
Service, The Chicago Public
School District, and The Chicago
Housing Authority. This mix of
partners was not found in any
other potential pilot project.
3.
Maximize Department's
The large number of partners,
ability to establish sound
the relationship between USDA
policies and procedures
and the Justice Department and
for future awards.
several local agencies lends it
self to identifying issues and
solutions in a wide variety of
situations
Arizona Department of Youth
1.
Conform to AmeriCorps
Participants will be doing work
Treatment and Rehabilitation
criteria.
in three areas identified as
appropriate for Summer of
Safety:
Youth as a Resource
Restoring Safety to
Public Spaces
Youth Safety Initiatives
7
PROJECT
CRITERIA
RATIONALE
FOR
SELECTION
Arizona Department of Youth
2.
Maximize Department's
Participants in this project
Treatment and Rehabilitation
ability to use it resources
include the State of Arizona
and partner with other
Department of Youth Treatment
agencies.
and Rehabilitation, Arizona State
University, the Forest Service
and the Maricopa County Court
System. It provides an expansion
of the existing Youth
Conservation Corps concept with
the providing of service in an
urban setting.
3.
Maximize Department's
The largest existing program in
ability to establish sound
USDA that mirrors the national
policies and procedures
service concept is the Youth
for future awards.
Conservation Corps. This
projects provides the opportunity
to explore ways to expand that
concept and integrate it with
national service. It also provides
an opportunity to work with
elements of the local justice
system to determine ways to best
structure national service
programs targeted at crime
related issues.
V.
EXISTING COMPETITION
There is already an element of competition in the award process. Projects developed by the
Department are submitted to the Corporation for National and Community Service. All applications
are reviewed by panels of independent experts, graded, and then evaluated by the Corporation's
management before they are rejected or approved.
8
ROUTE TO:
ERICORP
SECRETARY
AND
W
DEPUTY SECRETARY
UNITED
CA
GF
SM
STATES
DB
JG
EO
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE
MB
MG
MP
January 24, 1996
TC
SG
JP
BC
MH
CRAY
MD
FJ
CR
PD
AK
KS
DECISION MEMORANDUM FOR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
JD
JK
TY
THROUGH: Jill Long Thompson
D96-86 FEB 23 1996
Under Secretary, Rural Economic and Community Development
FROM:
Joel Berg
B
Director of National Service
SUBJECT:
Request for Approval of 1996 RECD AmeriCorps Training Conference
Pursuant to the Secretary's memorandum regarding offsite training with a cost in excess of
$25,000, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and Rural Housing Service requests you to
approve spending of $137,000 for the 1996 RECD AmeriCorps training conference described
below. Funds for this purpose have been previously set-aside from FY95 RECD funds -- a
process approved by the USDA Office of General Counsel.
CONFERENCE TITLE: RECD/AmeriCorps National Member Training
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the conference is to instruct the FY96 RECD AmeriCorps
Members and State Contacts in community development principles, theories, methods, and
practices. The course material will be specifically designed to concentrate on those areas of rural
development expertise that will be most useful to the Members. This information will be
presented in classroom- and interactive group settings.
Similar training provided to last year's RECD-sponsored AmeriCorps Members provided a
significant boost to the program by helping Members magnify both the quality and quantity of
service provided to rural communities. Both AmeriCorps Members and RECD staff alike have
repeatedly described last year's national training conference as the single greatest tool that
ensured the success of last year's program. Perhaps most importantly, last year's training (as we
expect will this year's) allowed all our Members to meet together to exchange ideas, learn from
each others' strategies, and bond together as friends and colleagues as part of the national
movement, called AmeriCorps, that is changing the civic ethic of the country.
2
This team-building across regional divisions could not possibly be accomplished through
teleconferences or regional/local training programs. The Corporation for National Service
(CNS), the Federal agency designated by President Clinton to oversee the AmeriCorps program,
has had serious concerns about the isolation of our individually-placed Members. The CNS
views this national training as a critical way of addressing that concern. Moreover, the National
and Community Service Act of 1993 which authorizes AmeriCorps requires that all AmeriCorps
Members receive extensive, substantive training in their field of service. An RECD national
training is the most cost-effective way to meet this statutory requirement of the program.
DESCRIPTION: The training will prepare the Members for the work situations they encounter
when they return home to their communities and sponsoring agencies. Members will receive 31
hours of training in USDA and CNS policies, community development philosophy and
approaches, community analysis and assessment, understanding and managing change, group
process dynamics and skills, conflict resolution, identification and development of leaders, and
strategic planning for communities. In addition, those Members returning for their second year
with RECD AmeriCorps will receive advanced training which will include facilitation skills,
managing and motivating volunteers, community leadership development, strategic planning
implementation, and project management.
The conference attendees will thereby gain a practical, working knowledge in the application of a
variety of community development methodologies and techniques, and, as part of their
"homework" for the week, will complete plans for specific activities they will undertake when
they return. In addition, they will leave with a much greater understanding of the USDA/RECD
mission, especially as it relates to the implementation of the EZ/EC initiative. This course of
study and it's practical application simulations will allow Members and State Contacts to work
more effectively in furthering Departmental, Agency, and CNS goals.
A large, centralized training conference, such as the one proposed, is essential to the success of
the RECD AmeriCorps program. In addition to the training received, it is the single opportunity
during the year to bring the necessarily dispersed Members into one setting. In the brief time
allotted, the team building, the sharing of knowledge, experiences and frustrations, and the
experience of being together for a week is the best way to engender the spirit, focus, and
motivation in each Member to represent the RECD and AmeriCorps in exemplary fashion.
ELIGIBILITY: All AmeriCorps Members working under the auspices of RBS and RHS, and
State Contacts in the following states: AK, AR, AZ, CA, FL, GA, IL, KY, LA, MS, NC, NM,
OR. PA. SC, TX, VA, WA, WV. In addition, there will be a limited number of slots available
for selected FS and NARCS attendees and for the USDA Regional Facilitator for the Four
Corners region - all at their Agencies' cost. These attendees will be approved by Dave Gibson
(the RBS National Coordinator).
3
COST: The budgeted amount of $137,000 will cover:
all travel and lodging costs for the 125 Member,
19 State Contact, and 4 National Office staff
Attendees, and
all costs related to the training contractors
and materials.
Approximately five (5) National Office personnel will attend this training at their own cost.
COST SAVINGS: By cutting costs wherever possible, the RECD has significantly reduced the
original estimated cost of $200,000. The specific training funds requested will now be less than
$1,000 per person; estimated per person cost is $925.
The following steps will be taken to reduce costs:
AmeriCorps Members will "double-up" in their
hotel rooms and all meals will be catered
instead of paying the Members the usual per
diem. Estimated savings: $19,000.
Ground transportation and taxi charges will
be minimized by choosing a hotel with airport
shuttle service.
All materials will be printed in Washington
and shipped to the conference site, eliminat-
ing Xerox costs. Estimated savings: $8,000.
Unfortunately, we have no way of guaranteeing Federal payment for "Super Saver" flights
without asking AmeriCorps Members (earning only $12,000 annually) to incur personal financial
liability in the event of cancellations, so we do not anticipate significant savings to be realized on
airfare.
DATES: March 25 through March 29, 1996.
LOCATION: Jackson, Mississippi.
4
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the Deputy Secretary approve this training.
DECISION BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY:
Approve
PER
Disapprove
Discuss with me
Date
3.5.96
Reviewed by
03-20-96 12:14PM
P02
INFORMATIONAL BULLETS FOR THE RHS ADMINISTRATOR'S OPENING REMARKS
TO THE
RECD/AMERICORPS MEMBERS TRAINING CONFERENCE - JACKSON, MS
in FY95 there were 125 RECD/AmeriCorps Members: 66 RBS
Members and 59 RHS Members
in FY96 there are about 131 Members: 85 RBS and 46
RHS Members
Please note that exact numbers fluctuate during the year due
to resignations and new hires
RECD/AmeriCorps Members are working in such diverse areas as
outreach for RECD housing, home repair, and water and waste
systems installation, assisting in the application for RECD
grants and loans, early childhood development, youth
leadership, parenting education, health care and nutrition,
economic opportunity and development, neighborhood
revitalization and safety, recreation resources, and
agriculture.
RECD Members usually are working in their own communities,
encouraging and organizing their friends and neighbors to
take an interest in their communties while marshalling
various state, Federal, and non-profit resources to support
these efforts
in FY95 RECD/AmeriCorps Members organized over 3,700
volunteers who contributed over 23,000 hours to work
together to improve their communities
in FY95 RECD Members (both RBS and RHS Members) served in 86
EZ/EC Designated and Champion communities and quickly
identified, using community and Agency strategic plans,
local needs which they could address through the AmeriCorps
program
the 57 RHS Members doing outreach in FY95 provided 1,648
502, 504, and 306c grants and loans to 5,432 individuals in
14 States in 6 geographic regions (total RECD funds accessed
through AmeriCorps: $27,645,634)
the 66 RBS Members working in EZ/EC Designated or Champion
Communities in FY95 accessed over $20 million in RECD
program funds benefitting more than 1,000 families in 20
communities
AmeriCorps Members received much local and regional press
coverage of their service, and were often the recipients of
commendations for their efforts
AmeriCorps Members, many of whom had already completed their
terms of service, offered to take the skills they had
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
03-20-96 12:14PM
P03
learned in the RECD/AmeriCorps program to participate in the
inter-USDA/inter-Federal Virgin Islands relief effort.
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION