Back to USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Clinton Library Copies - Rural Development 1 [2]

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

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

348833831

label

USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Clinton Library Copies - Rural Development 1 [2]

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831

pageCount

Source metadata

348833831

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831

contentType

document

title

USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Clinton Library Copies - Rural Development 1 [2]

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831

collections

Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)

AmeriCorps Files

iiifBase

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831

naId

348833831

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

otherTitles

311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf

mediaId

be7a963307e0711a

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: 24222 FolderID: Folder Title: USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Clinton Library Copies - Rural Development 1 [2] Stack: Row: Section: Shelf: Position: S 66 1 5 1 MESSAGE DISPLAY FOR C. R. HARTGRAVES To S.DEITEMEYER To L.LAVERTY CC B.BOTTS CC J.ABBOTT:R03A To R.HARTGRAVES From: Bob Cron Host: W01C Postmark: Jan 23,94 9:04 AM Delivered: Jan 23,94 9:07 AM Status: Previously read Urgent Subject: Forwarded: Reply to: ARIZONA DREAM TREK Comments: From: Bob Cron:WO Date: Jan 23,94 9:04 AM This is the response I received concerning coordination work with the Arizona Dream Trek. A key point is that much of this trail crosses other than National Forest and much of the non-NF does not exist on the ground. Another key point is the multiple jurisdictions involved. While determined people can make their way along the proposed Arizona Trail, a constructed public trail is many years away. Thanks Bob Previous comments: From: JIM SCHMID:R03F05A Date: Jan 19,94 9:28 AM I spoke with Thadd and Chris over the weekend. They say the Charity must have sent the letter. They think it is information letter only. They think everything is going fine. What's the problem? In the last two months I've spoken with them by phone 4 times and in person once. I've provided them all the AZ Trail info we have. I'm the acting AZ Trail Steward. This is two young guys who want to hike the trail, not a big event. Less than 30% of the trail is on the ground and signed. They know that. But still want to do it. So I gave them my contacts to get local maps from State, counties, BLM, NPS, etc. So they can plan their trip. This sure has generated a lot of WO phone calls out here. Perhaps you could fax the letter 602-670-4567 and I can handle it. Since office is closed back there I've mailed you an AZ Trail packet. Let me know if I can be of further service. I will be talking with Thadd and Chris again this week to help with their planning as planned. I can't think of any help we'd need from WO at this time. X REAM JAN-12-94 WED 11:58 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P. 03 The Arizona Dream Trek is a proposal to bring together people and organizations that would normally not work together. The primary goal is to complete the proposed route of the Arizona Trail, in one push, with minimal support. Secondly, we hope to raise funds for the Arizona Special Olympics (ASO) and the Arizona Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation (DYTR). We hope to bring these organizations together with local businesses and the private sector. The Arizona Trail is a proposed non-mecanized trail from the Arizona/Mexico border to the Arizona/Utah border. We hope to take the existing trail notes and put them together to make one trail. Along with our route notes we plan to keep written and photo journals of the hike. We will also take water samples of all available water supplies to be tested for purity. When completed, the Arizona Trail will boast one of the most diverse trails in the world. This will bring enjoyment for the People of Arizona and draw people from all over the world. With the publicity generated by the trek, we hope to raise a substantial amount of funds to be split between the ASO and DYTR. Some of the funds will also be donated to the development and completion of the Arizona Trail. The funds will be used to start new internal programs and programs with each other. The funds will come from corporate donations and donations from the private sector. The publicity the Arizona Dream Trek will generate, will also bring together different groups of people. Hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts will be helping the children of the city. The people that wish to help the children will help the trail. Everyone can benefit from the Arizona Dream Trek in some small way. The Arizona Dream Trek will fulfill many dreams. Our dreams to complete a long distance hike. The dreams of those responsible for the development of the Arizona Trail. The dreams of the athletes of the ASO and the troubled youth of the DYTR. These dreams are not going to be short lived, but will last a lifetime and longer. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thadd Hollis and Chris Carpenter 616 S. Hardy #224 Tempe, AZ 85281 (602) 967-7138 guests framel IG basically fraud Sam Barone Andrew Mors IG OIG / 7/75 JAN-12-94 WED 11:58 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P.04 ARIZONA TRAIL GENERAL INFORMATION IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NEEDED CONCERNING THE ARIZONA TRAIL, WE ASK THAT YOU DIRECT YOUR GENERAL QUESTIONS TO: Arizona State Park Attn: AZ Trail Steward 1300 West Washington Phoenix AZ 85007 602/542-4662 to DIRECT QUESTIONS ABOUT SPECIFIC AREAS TO: (KAIBAB PLATEAU AREA) (TUSAYAN/GRAND CANYON AREA) Kaibab National Forest Kaibab National Forest North Kaibab Ranger District Tusayan Ranger District Attn: Sue Spear Attn: Joel McCurry/Ken Olsen PO Box 248 PO Box 3088 Fredonia AZ 86022 Tusayan AZ 86023 602/643-7395 602/638-2443 (FLAGSTAFF AREA) (EAST OF FLAGSTAFF) Coconino National Forest Coconino National Forest Peaks Ranger District Blue Ridge Ranger Office Attn: Connie Birkland Attn: AZ Trail Coordinator 5075 North Highway 89 HC 31 Box 300 Flagstaff AZ 86004 Happy Jack AZ 86024 602/527-3630 602/527-3670 (SOUTHERN ARIZONA AREA) (CENTRAL ARIZONA AREA) Coronado National Forest Tonto National Forest Supervisors Office Supervisors Office Attn: Patricia Spoerl Attn: Carl Taylor 300 West Congress PO Box 5348 Tucson AZ 85701 Phoenix AZ 85010 602/670-4552 602/225-5200 Mike mikeBarn Jim Abbott 602-670 J 4552 JAN-12-94 WED 11:59 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P.05 UTAH Pupe Son 15 Nag. Mor Page Navalo Ned Mon. Kaibad National 160 Formal- Grand Carron Nal. Park 89 Canyon de Chelly Nad. Monument Wupeted Nad. Mon. 64 National Forest surest Cream Nal. Non Known National Forse Riordan 40 Prescriber Shoo Rdex National Carryon Homolori 40 Forest Dead House Perised Forest in: HORKER Jerame Net Park 93 Cards Non Lake Fartilards Hovesu 89 Lyman Lake Alamo Lake 17 Total Bucksidn Mountain onest ADsore Secreaves Nanonal Fores 10 Jores Har. Mon. Phoene Dutchmen Boyce Painted Case Grande Avina Thompson 70 Rocks Nat Mon 8 McPartand Yuma Prison Loronado YUME INstruct Roper Picacho Fores Laks Park Oracle Catalina Saguaro Nad. Monument Seguaro Nat. (West) & Organ Pipe Cactus (Eag) No. Monument Two SAMPLE 10 Chincanue First 19 E NE. Mon. 5 Tubec Tombstone National Parks and Monuments Presidio Turnecacode Courthouse Nal. Month National Forests Pategonials Nopales Coronado Not. Mom. Arizona State Parks MEXICO ARIZONA TRAIL JAN-12-94 WED 11:59 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P.06 UTAH Plee Sories 15 N.S. Mon Page Navaja Nari Mon. Kaibab Asiona 160 Formation Grand Cenvon Net. Park 89 Caryon De Cheity Nat. Monument Wupand Ned. Mon. 64 National Farest Sunset Cream Nam. Mon. Keymen National Form Flordsn 40 Prescriber Ratx National tenis Danyon Homolovi 40 Fores abree Dead Horse. Re Perified Forest - Hatrone Jerome NELL Park 93 Carte Lake Fort size Heraeu Lyman Lake Alamo 89 Lake 17 Tonto Buckside Mountain Tomboa Abscher Signatures Manonal Fored Mon 10 Prowns Durchmen Boyce Painted Case Grande Rune Thompson 70 Rocks Nail Mon 8 Mcharland Yuma Prison Coronado Yums National Rober Picacho Forest Lake Park Oracle Causlina Saquare Ned. Monument Secuaro Net. (West) Organ Pipe Cacus (East) Nad. Monument Twom and 10 Chinanus No: Mon. 19 y Tubec Tombstone Presidio National Parks and Monuments Turnecare Courthous Nad. Mos National Forests Pategorist None Coronado Nad. Mem. Arizona State Parks MEXICO ARIZONA TRAIL JAN-12-94 WED 12:00 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P.07 ARIZONA TRAIL GENERAL INFORMATION The Arizona Trail will be a continuous, non-motorized trail that traverses the State from the Arizona-Mexican border to the Arizona-Utah border. The primary users of the over 700 mile long route will be hikers and equestrians. The Trail will be open to back-country bicyclists along segments outside Wilderness or other specially managed areas. Where appropriate, parts of the Arizona Trail will be used by cross- country skiers. In certain areas, existing trails are being connected by low volume "back roads". New trails are already being built away from these roaded, interim trail links in order to meet our non-motorized goal. GOVERNMENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: Over ninety-five per cent of the Trail will pass through federal. state, or locally- administered lands. The Arizona Trail is currently coordinated by the U.S. Forest Service. with nearly 75 per cent of the route on U.S.D.A. Forest Service administered lands. This includes four national forests: the Kaibab, Coconino, Tonto, and Coro- nado. Several smaller units of these Forests. the ranger districts, will administer portions of the Arizona Trail. They include: the Sierra Vista, Nogales, and Santa Cata- lina Ranger Districts on the Coronado NF; the Globe, Mesa, Tonto Basin. Cave Creek, and Payson Ranger Districts on the Tonto NF; the Blue Ridge. Mormon Lake. and Peaks Ranger Districts on the Coconino NF; and the Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger Districts on the Kaibab National Forest. The District Rangers and Recreation Staff Officers on each of the ranger districts are the ultimate contact for work to be done on the Forests. The Arizona State Parks Trail Coordinator and AHETC (Arizona Hiking & Equestrian Trails Committee), a sub-committee to the State Parks Board, have pro- vided crucial support at several levels of Arizona Trail development since 1985. The U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service is involved with the Trail in three areas: the Coronado National Memorial, Saguaro National Monument, and Grand Canyon National Park. The Coronado NM and Saguaro NM have cooperated with the Forest Service to open the Trail segments in their areas. Work remains to be done to link Kaibab NF portions of the Trail with the North Kaibab and Bright Angel Trails in Grand Canyon National Park. The U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management will be involved with the project in three areas: the Empire-Cienega area southeast of Tucson. the Box and White Canyon area near the Gila River. and the Arizona Strip-Buckskin Mountain area at the Utah border. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) plan- ning is being done for the Empire Cienega area. The permanent Trail route in the other areas will also require NEPA work. Currently. over 100 miles of the Trail on the Kaibab and Coronado National Forests. Saguaro National Monument. and Coronado National Memorial have been officially dedicated, while the Trail planning and construction process continues else- where. In areas where existing trails will be a part of the State-long route much of the planning involves development of local trailheads. These are important because most people will use portions of the Trail for a day. weekend. or week. Trail guide sheets will direct users to specific segments of the Trail. JAN-12-94 WED 12:01 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P. 08 PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT: Maintenance and operation of the Arizona Trail will be through a partnership between government agencies. volunteers. and the private sector. Integral to the pro- ject will be a network of volunteers. The commitment from volunteers and contribu- tions from businesses and organizations will vary. Individuals and groups may choose to work one day on a segment of the Trail or a local trailhead. More likely. vol- unteers will adopt a portion of the Trail for a year or more as a symbol of ownership in the eventual 700 plus mile pathway. The work may include construction and/or maintenance of the treadway. water bars (erosion control), gates. interpretive signs, etc. Arizona State Parks and the AHETC have developed an Adopt-a-Trail Handbook that lists trails throughout the State that have been or need to be adopted. Also included are guidelines and a sample volunteer agreement form for U.S. Forest Ser- vice trails. The handbook is available from AZ State Parks. Trails Coordinator. 800 W. Washington, Suite 415, Phoenix, AZ 85007. Organizations and businesses may make monetary or supplies con- Wire Pass tributions for a particular section or Jacob Lake trailhead. Supply contributions might include building materials. tools. signs, or food for volun- teers. An effort will be made at Grand Canyon trailheads and in trail guides to National Park acknowledge adoption and con- tributions. Flagstaff Some very special people will be crucial to the project - Mogallon Rim the Trail Stewards. They will be the local liaison between the agency. sponsors, and volunteers. They may help coordinate devel- opment of a trailhead or adopt a Superior segment of the Trail. People Phoenix and materials management skills are essential for this type of volunteer position. To date. active stewards are working north and south of Tucson, and on the Kaibab Plateau. Many more of these volunteers Tucson are needed to help coordinate the work along the Trail. Coronado Nat. Mem. It is now apparent that the Arizona Trail is not only linking the diverse Arizona landscape, but also individu- als, families. groups, businesses. and agencies. These people. from widely varied backgrounds. with or without trail work experience. share the vision of a non- motorized pathway across Arizona. Please consider carefully the hard physical and organizational work necessary for this project. The rewards will be as varied as our volunteers. but will be based upon a lasting contribution to our Arizona recreation environment. JAN-12-94 WED 12:01 DEPT YOUTH TRMT & REHAB FAX NO. 5424992 P. 09 TRAIL NOTES BORDER To BORDER IN ARIZONA Backcountry crowds in national parks NEW TRAIL have increased slightly from previous years, according to an annual survey by the American Hiking Society. Survey fig- ures, obtained by dividing the number of backcountry overnight stays counted in a park by the amount of acreage in that park, show that in 1990, backcoun- try overnight stays in national parks, monuments and recreational areas reached 1.6 million. This is a two per- cent increase over 1988 and about the same as 1986 levels. The overall trend is still down. however, since current back- country use lags behind record-setting 1976, when the Park Service recorded 2.6 million overnight stays. The most con- gested backcountry continues to be in Shenandoah National Park, with 19.5 campers per 100 acres. Trails funding weathered the 1992 budget debates fairly well, no thanks to The Canyon State's New National Forests, Saguaro National the Bush Administration. Congress Monument, and Coronado National appropriated nearly $53 million for 750-Mile Route Memorial). Shewalter predicts half the Forest Service trails maintenance and project will be finished in two years. construction. an increase of $3 million W hen Dale Shewalter left the "We're designing it 50 people can hike over 1991 and nearly $8 million over the Midwest and moved to in sections over a week or weekend." Administration's proposal. (Current esti- Arizona 15 years ago he Shewalter says. "This trail is outstanding mates show almost $250 million is need- found himself in the most beautiful land because of the geographic diversity and ed just to deal with the Forest Service's he'd ever seen. But he had problems hik- history you encounter. In just a few trail maintenance and reconstruction ing. He'd follow a trail to the top of one hours, you go from stark desen to high backlog.) Several Park Service tralls pro- mountain, soak up the breathtaking alpine life zones." Traces of previous civ- grams also benefited from a modest scenery, then wish for a connecting trail ilizations, from prehistoric Native Amer- boost in funding. Specific trails projects to another mountain in the distance. This icans to Spanish conquistadors to west- allocated funds include the Bay Area quandary, along with his impassioned ern frontiersman, add to the mystique. Ridge Trail in California and the New zeal for the landscape, evolved into the Although the trail is off-limits to Jersey Coastlands Trail. Arizona Trail. a 750-mile route that when motorized vehicles. certain non-wilder- complete will stretch from the Utah bor- ness sections will be open to equestrl- News from the Appalachian Trail: der to the Mexican line. ans and mountain bikers. Shewalter says The Appalachian Trail Conference Since Shewalter started plotting the most of the trail is "primitive," although needs volunteers from June through Arizona Trail seven years ago. plenty of some sections pass near towns. Water October. Projects include trail and shelter regional trail groups have become isn't a problem. though. since the trail construction and rehabilitation, and involved. as have the Forest Service (75 passes near natural springs. open-area maintenance. No experience percent of the trail goes through four An Arizona Trail Association is in the required. Contact: Crews, ATC, P.O. Box national forests). the Bureau of Land works but until then. it's up to a hodge- 807, Harpers Ferry, WV 25425. Management and the Park Service. About podge group of volunteers to see the Attention hikers: No rabble rousing 95 percent of the route will be on public project through. For more information or allowed in New Hampshire's White land. with much of it following existing to volunteer. contact: Dale Shewalter, Mountains, unless you're prepared to trails. So far, more than 100 trail miles Arizona Trail Coordinator, Kaibab deal with the law. Under New Hamp- have been dedicated, primarily in the far National Forest, 800 S. Sixth St., Williams, shire state law, engaging in reckless northern and southern sections of the AZ 86046; (602) 779-4320. activity (endangering yourself or others) state (in the Kaibab and Coronado -Annetie Wysocki while hiking that state's portion of the 102 MAY 1992/BACKPACKER PHOTO BY ERIC WUNROW Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. USDA Volume 54 No. 1 March-April 1995 We Welcome Our 26th Secretary The swearing-in makes it official, as Dan Glickman (right) becomes our 26th Secretary...page 1. INSIDE Dan Glickman takes helm of Department as our 26th Secretary P1 USDA's FY96 budget calls for a $2.1 billion gain, cut of 841 staff years P2 When it floods-twice-in Calif., our employees are on the front lines P3 Around & About USDA-For Employees P4 Editor's Roundup on USDA People in the News P6 United States Department of Agriculture Published by the Office of Communications Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. Community Development Research Briefs & Case Studies Reports Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute Volume 4, No. 2, Spring 1996 Perspectives on Multi-party Collaboration Joan Sinclair, Jack Salo, Ron Dougherty Edited by Diane Crews Innovation and Collective Action: A Department Administrator's View by Joan Sinclair When we shed our "do-it-yourself" tendencies, and transcends customary program and agency divisions. operate collectively, our perspectives are broadened and Communities lacking resources to fill some identified creativity is expanded. Collaborators form non-traditional needs, should collectively determine priorities, based alliances. They assess needs and set priorities together. upon fact, versus supposition or belief, develop They design collective responses, pool their expertise and cooperative strategies, and objectively evaluate the results. resources, set up integrated operations and begin to demand that the funding sources measure their success How is it that we begin to make the adjustments as if they were a single entity. Collaborators find ways to needed? What are the key elements in a successful make technological and administrative systems flexible collaborative effort? The first critical adjustment needs to be attitudinal. The new environment will mark the and responsive. They are ideal leaders. beginning of the end for sole proprietorship over one or more areas of expertise, both at the agency and It would be virtual sacrilege to denounce any of the "c" individual levels. The narrowly focused specialties which words (coordinate, cooperate, collaborate, or co-about have developed in a segmented human services system anything) these days, with good reason. They describe must be integrated to eliminate the elitism spawned by necessity now, when once we could afford to settle for past practices. When resources are pooled success- less. My favorite "c" word has become collective; as in fully, one's own expertise is generously shared and that collective decision-making, collective responsibility, or of others respected. Leaders cannot expect this to collective outcomes and measurements. Collaboration happen automatically. The message must be clear that which produces collective results moves beyond the investment in the "whole" is more valued than investment elementary achievement of "playing well with others" into in the "sole" and opportunities must be made available the challenging realm of tangible accomplishment. for new tenets to be put into action. It has been a long-established mode to pursue Once the partners have reached consensus on initiatives on the basis of internal priorities, or by the priorities based upon data sources, client, staff and priorities set by some far away funding source. The old public input, or other agreed-upon means, an operational "do-it-yourselfer" drafts the plan or writes the grant, and configuration must be established. Innovation may take then distributes it, in the spirit of cooperation, to other many forms. One model of collaborative service interested parties whose support is needed. The provision will require that the partners, save one, give up collaborator, however, makes phone calls as soon as the operational authority, while retaining an equal share of light bulb glows, to see what others think and, if there is responsibility for problem resolution and ultimate apparent interest, invites everyone s(he) can think of outcomes. Combined staff are not necessarily housed (including the clientele) to the collective decision-making together, or assigned to the integrated effort full time, but table. All who participate gain ownership, and collective they do need the clarity provided by one operational responsibility for assuring outcomes are achieved. The leader. The designee receives authority through "do-it-yourselfer" in us will not be able to dominate in a delegation from the decision-making partners, and - world of limited, although consolidated and more flexible, reports to them as a group, much like the relationship resources. It will be critical that client-based, community- between a chief executive officer (CEO) and a board of level service planning be done in a manner which directors. CaRDI provides research, education and policy analysis on critical community and rural development issues Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. 8 Kid Activity booklet I, WILL TRY , (your name) MY BEST TO CONSERVE WATER AND TO KEEP OUR WATERS CLEAN. "I'M SO HOPPY YOU CAN HELP!" Raymond Rain's Clean Water Game You let the 1. Each player water run You wash a few You mulch your needs a while clothes everyday garden and use marker. brushing less water. your teeth. BACK 5 AHEAD 4 2. Taking turns BACK 2 each child draws a card. You water You over 3. Move ahead You told your your lawn all You collected fertilize parents about day even during as many rain water to your lawn the toilet the hottest spaces as water your with card needing fixing. part. plants. chemicals. indicates. AHEAD 3 AHEAD 3 BACK 5 BACK 3 4. Read messages and follow instructions. WATER FRIENDS START You You install a SEAL conserve water saving OF water by device in the APPROVAL recycling. shower. AHEAD 1 AHEAD 3 You disposed When doing of hazardous You let the household laundry you hose run waited until chemicals while washing down the you had a the car. full load. drain. BACK 3 AHEAD 4 BACK 3 You dumped your You changed the You take You fixed dirtied cleaning oil in your car long a leaky fluid down the and disposed of showers. faucet. drain after the oil at the BACK 2 AHEAD 4 painting. service station. BACK 6 AHEAD 4 HHHH NNNN 3 3 3 3 S A A A 60 0.0 0 - Paul Swaim askod ml to UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF FREEZURE send this to you. RUY A. TEIXEIRA yx SOCIOLOGIST OFFICE: ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE HOME: 204 E. MELBOURNE 1301 NEW YORK AVENUE. NW SILVER SPRING. MD 20901 WASHINGTON. DC 20005-4788 PH: (301) 588-0918 PH: (202) 219-0552 FAX: (202) 219-0202 Chapter 23: Human Capital Issues in Rural America Ruy A. Teixeira Agriculture and Rural Economy Division Economic Research Service DRAFT 1301 NY Avenue, Washington, DC 20005 U.S. Department of Agriculture March 8, 1994 Prepared for The American Countryside: Rural People and Places, Emery Castle, ed., University Press of Kansas, forthcoming STAFF Table of Contents This chapter provides an overview of human capital issues facing rural America, where human capital is defined as the productivity-enhancing skills acquired by individuals through education, training and other means. The purpose is not to be comprehensive, but rather to stimulate discussion on how rural human capital development can best serve the overall goal of rural economic development. I divide my overview into three sections: (1) basic facts on human capital levels in rural America and how these levels have been changing over time; (2) the relationship of human capital levels to the development prospects of rural areas; and (3) key research and policy issues for the 1990's that emerge from (1) and (2). Basic Facts on Human Capital Levels in Rural America Human capital levels are generally assumed--correctly--to be lower in rural (nonmetro)¹ America than in urban (metro) America. However, close scrutiny of the data reveals that the magnitude of these differences is less than usually supposed. Educational Attainment. I turn first to a comparison of rural and urban workers by levels of educational attainment. This comparison can be conducted in several ways. The most obvious way is to look at summary measures of educational attainment across the two geographical designations and assess the magnitude of the differences between them. This information provides an important baseline for comparison and I provide such information in considerable detail. Another way of comparing eductional attainment across rural and urban 1 The terms "rural" and "nonmetro", as well as "urban" and "metro", will be used interchangeably. 2 areas is to consider the usefulness of a given level of education to individuals in those areas. It may be the case that a level of education relatively low by urban standards suits many rural individuals well, due to demand and other considerations. Because of this, I accompany the following presentation of the basic data on educational attainment (and other aspects of human capital) with a consideration of variations in demand for skill across rural and urban areas. 1990 Census data indicate that nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) adults have somewhat lower educational attainment levels than their metropolitan (metro) counterparts (Table 23.1). In contrast to earlier historical periods, however, the metro and nonmetro distributions have some important similarities. In both areas, a typical worker has a high school diploma but not a bachelor's degree. This broad middle of the education distribution comprises 55 percent of the metro workforce and a nearly identical 56 percent of the nonmetro labor force. By contrast, in 1960, the median rural education attainment was only 9.3 years, compared to 11.1 in urban areas. (Table 23.1 about here) Still, a rural gap in educational attainment remains, both at the top and at the bottom of the distribution. In 1990, 31 percent of the nonmetro population age 25 and older had not finished high school compared to 23 percent of the metro population. A rural gap in educational attainment is also evident at the top end of the distribution. Forty-eight percent of metro adults attended at least some college, 23 percent earned a bachelor's degree, and 8 percent a professional or graduate degree. The corresponding nonmetro 3 shares were significantly lower at 35, 13, and 5 percent. It is important to emphasize, however, that the long-term trend has been for the educational attainment gap between rural and urban areas to close, a convergence illustrated by calculation of high school completion rates for younger cohorts. As shown in Table 23.2, the nonmetro gap in high school graduation rates among these cohorts was halved between 1971 and 1991. (Table 23.2 about here) On the upper-end of the distribution, though, the rural-urban gap in completing a bachelor's or more advanced degree actually increased after 1971. Specifically, the share of the metro population, ages 25-44, with at least four years of college increased by 10.8 percentage points between 1971 and 1991, while the nonmetro increase was a smaller 5.4 points. But note that this divergence exaggerates actual rural-urban differences in school continuation, because it reflects, at least in part, an intensified rural brain-drain (rural youth attending college increasingly migrated to urban areas where the economic returns to their education were higher). Note also that, given the existence of this differential in returns to education, some of the rural-urban gap in college completion rates--whatever its true magnitude--may simply reflect a rational approach to investment in education by rural individuals. On balance, then, these rural-urban comparisons of educational attainment indicate some grounds for concern (particularly in terms of college completion rates), but do not suggest a massive human capital deficit in rural America. Instead, the bulk of the rural workforce appears to match up fairly 4 well with their counterparts in urban areas. Educational Achievement. The data in the previous section suggest that the educational attainment levels of average rural workers are less of a problem than generally supposed. However, it could be objected that the attainment levels of these rural workers are not the issue, achievement levels are. In other words, the typical rural student may now be staying in school and getting a diploma, but, due to the poor quality of rural schools, he or she may be learning much less than his or her urban counterpart. By this logic, the current abundance (by historical standards) of rural high school graduates could be deceptive: these graduates may not know enough to be good workers. A related concern is that rural high schools may not adequately prepare their best students for the most challenging colleges and universities. Thus, the skills acquired by rural students could still be a severe problem despite the historical upgrading in terms of years of schooling. To measure levels of student achievement, it is necessary to turn to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationwide, representative survey of the cognitive achievement levels of students across the United States. The NAEP was started in 1969 as an annual survey of 9, 13 and 17 year olds. (Since 1980 it has been done biennially.) The NAEP is the only existing data set which allows statistically valid comparisons of achievement levels of students in the United States. Up to 100,000 students are tested during each survey year, distributed so that 4000-6500 students are tested in a given subject at each of the three age/grade levels. Because the main interest here is in the quality of the rural workforce, I will focus my analysis on the 12th graders in the data set the next cohort to be entering 5 the workforce. The NAEP usually tests each subject area only every other test year. Therefore, to look at a full range of subjects, it was necessary to look at two, rather than just one, recent assessments--1988 and 1990. The 1988 NAEP tested students in reading, history, civics, geography and writing. The 1990 NAEP tested student knowledge of math and science, and also tested reading, the only subject repeated from 1988. The mean achievement scores of 12th graders broken down into metro- nonmetro categories are remarkably similar (table 23.3). The only overall subject in which there is a statistically significant difference at the 95 percent level of confidence is reading in 1988. Note, however, that even this modest difference disappears in the 1990 data. This is because metro 12th graders improved only slightly in reading from 1988 to 1990, while nonmetro 12th graders had a much larger increase in achievement levels. (Table 23.3 about here) Statistically significant, though small, differences also exist in two subfields of mathematics, algebra/functions and measurement. However, the mathematics composite, which measures overall achievement across all fields of mathematics, shows no significant difference between metro and nonmetro students. Although the general pattern of results in Table 23.3 does indicate a very slight metro advantage, the data clearly do not suggest that the average 6 rural student is being shortchanged by inferior schools². All the differences in the table are less than 5 points on a scale that theoretically ranges from 0 to 500. (Over 90 percent of 12th graders actually score between 225 and 375, still a large range.) And, there is even one subject (writing) where nonmetro students score a little higher than their urban counterparts. Now, it could still be argued that a comparison of metro and nonmetro 12th graders is misleading because of higher nonmetro dropout rates. These high nonmetro dropout rates mean, the argument runs, that the worst students are filtered out of nonmetro school systems before the 12th grade test is even administered. Hence the deceptive equivalence between metro and nonmetro students: nonmetro schools are worse, but the creaming phenomenom gives them better kids to work with, propping up the average nonmetro score. This hypothesis can be tested by looking at the scores of 8th graders in the three key subjects of math, science and reading. Very few students have dropped out of school before 8th grade, so if the similarities between metro and non-metro scores are caused by the greater number of non-metro drop-outs, we would expect greater metro/non-metro differences among 8th graders than among 12th graders. As the data in Table 23.4 show, there is nothing in the 8th grade data to support the hypothesis that metro/non-metro score equivalence is driven by the relatively high non-metro drop-out rate. In science, for example, 8th grade non-metro students actually do marginally better than metro students 2 Based on time trend data from the NAEP (Greenberg and Teixeira, 1993), there may have been slightly more basis for such a viewpoint in the past. These data show that the metro-nonmetro achievement gap was slightly larger in the mid-1970's, but has diminished in the intervening years. It is interesting to note that this convergence of achievement scores parallels the convergence of attainment levels documented in the previous section. 7 (although the difference is not statistically significant). And, while metro 8th graders do score slightly higher than non-metro 8th graders in math and reading, only the math difference--less than five points on a 500 point scale- - -is statistically significant. (Table 23.4 about here) Because differences in the United States are often regional in character, it is useful to further disaggregate the data into four geographic regions (table 23.5). Across most regions, these data confirm the previously- observed pattern of only small differences between metro and nonmetro average achievement levels. Note, however, that in the South substantially larger nonmetro/metro differences can be observed. But even here the differences are not large--no more than 9 points in any one subject. (Table 23. 5 about here) The most surprising finding from this table is that in the Northeastern and Midwestern states nonmetro students generally score higher than metro students. This is particularly noticeable for nonmetro science students in the Midwest, whose average science score is a statistically significant 12 points higher than metro science students. Thus, with the possible exception of the South, is does not appear that nonmetro students are learning less in school than metro students. Indeed, in some areas of the country they appear to be learning more. Table 23.6 presents a further disaggregation of the data by the 8 commonly-used Beale system of detailed urban/rural categories. In reading, the population size of the county does not seem to have any obvious direct effect on students' test scores. That is, scores fluctuate with county size but not in any easily definable pattern and only over a range of seven points. (Table 23.6 about here) Mathematics and science scores look somewhat different. Here, it is interesting that larger nonmetro counties do quite well, better than almost all the metro categories, while there is a drop in scores of over ten points when county urban population goes below 20,000. This is still not a very large drop in a 500 point scale, but it does suggest that the very smallest nonmetro counties may not be able to offer their students the same educational opportunities in subjects which involve advanced facilities and/or teacher education as the larger counties. (Because reading scores are probably more dependent on the general quality of the student's school, rather than particular subject offerings, they would be less likely to reflect a school district's inability to provide advanced courses.) Although most rural twelfth graders, even those in the smallest counties and the smallest schools, are achieving at levels equal to or only slightly worse than their urban counterparts, the fact remains that fewer rural than urban twelfth graders go on to college, as described in the previous section. Part of the explanation for this may be that rural schools on average offer fewer advanced courses than urban schools (table 23.7). The differences here are quite substantial. 9 (Table 23.7 about here) For example, only 48.6 percent or nonmetro students attend schools that offer calculus, compared to 90.4 percent of metro students. And only 7.5 percent of nonmetro students have the opportunity to take second year physics, compared to 32.9 percent of metro students. These data can be further broken down by Beale categories (data not shown). These data reveal that the smallest nonmetro counties offer their students fewer advanced courses than the larger ones. This suggests that students in rural areas, particularly the most remote ones, may not be well prepared to go on to do college level work or even to meet the minimum entrance requirements for some colleges. The fact that nonmetro schools offer fewer advanced classes than nonmetro schools (table 23.7) may also provide an explanation for why metro students are slightly more likely than nonmetro students to reach advanced levels of achievement. Table 23.8 presents calculations of the percentage of students, metro and nonmetro, who score 20 percent or more above the mean in each subject area. Although the differences are not statistically significant in any of the subjects, the data do display a uniform pattern: more metro than nonmetro students score at advanced levels. (Table 23.8 about here) To summarize, the message conveyed by these data on educational achievement could not be clearer. Rural students are not receiving inferior quality education and the general public presumption that this is so is simply 10 wrong. Indeed, when rural students stay in school-and there is still some room for improvement here--the general education they receive is roughly on a par with that in other areas of the country. That said, there is obviously a need to improve the access of rural students to advanced courses that facilitate access to higher education. There is a genuine gap between metro and nonmetro areas in this regard. But this is quite different from the standard assumption that the average rural worker suffers severely from poor educational preparation. Vocational Training. Of course, a discussion of educational attainment and achievement does not exhaust the issue of human capital development. Indeed, for much of workforce outside of professional and managerial occupations, post-school vocational training--formal company training programs, informal on-the-job instruction, etc. is as important (or more important) for skill development as attending school. In addition, a large (though declining) portion of the rural workforce was educated when average educational attainment levels in rural areas were quite low, making skill development through training particularly important for these workers. A basic assessment of human capital development in rural areas must therefore encompass the area of post-school vocational training. Do rural workers have adequate training opportunities after joining the labor force? Data for 1991 suggest that rural workers do not have as many opportunities to improve their job skills as urban workers (Table 23.9), though the magnitude this deficit is fairly small (40 percent of nonmetro as compared to 43 percent of metro workers had received training on their current job). 11 (Table 23.9 about here) That said, it is worrisome that this gap in training rates opened up between 1983 and 1991. Although some U.S. employers appear to have concluded that their long-run competitiveness requires increased investment in workforce training, this trend was markedly weaker in rural areas. A related concern is that enterprise-based training may be least available to those rural workers in greatest need of improved vocational skills. This illustrated by the data in Table 23.9, which shows workers with low levels of formal education receiving much less post-school training. Obviously, the coincidence of low educational attainment and a paucity of job training provides undesirable reinforcement for those stuck in low-skill, dead-end jobs. Training rates are also low for racial and ethnic minorities. Only about one in four rural Blacks and Hispanics report any training on their job as compared to over 41 percent of other (predominantly White) rural workers. In addition, training rates are quite low in the rural South, where educational attainment is lowest and most nonmetro Blacks and Hispanics live. The training provided to rural workers also differs in several respects from that provided to urban workers (Table 23.10). One difference is that nonmetro workers receive less training in managerial and computer skills than metro workers. A second is that nonmetro workers are less likely to participate in formal company training programs. (Table 23.10 about here) 12 The latter tendency is probably due, at least in part, to the smaller size of rural firms. Most small firms can not afford to establish formal training programs and must instead rely on either informal instruction from co-workers or external training providers. Finally, among external providers, nonmetro firms differ from metropolitan employers by relying more on private vocational schools and less on four-year colleges. This reflects the fact that many rural firms are not located near public or private schools that can provide specialized vocational training for their workforce. In sum, these data suggest that there are grounds for concern about the training opportunities accorded rural workers. But the data do not indicate a massive shortfall in rural human capital development, any more than the education data did. We must conclude that the common perception of rural workers as suffering mightily from human capital deficits is incorrect. In many ways, in fact, rural workers match up surprisingly well with their urban counterparts. This suggests that, if rural workers are faring poorly--and they are--the primary causes may lie elsewhere, outside of the realm of human capital development. How Important Are Human Capital Levels to Rural Areas? This brings us to the question of just how important human capital levels really are to rural America. Obviously, they are of some importance-- but the real issue here is: how much? This is not clear, despite the claims of many who see higher rural educational levels as a panacea for rural problems. 13 In fact, there are a number of grounds for questioning the efficacy of more education as a strategy for rural development. To begin with, rural areas, as mantioned at the beginning of this chapter, have upgraded human capital levels dramatically from their very low levels of 30 years ago (when the median rural resident had only a 9th grade education). But the years since 1980 have seen a troubling divergence of economic outcomes between metro and nonmetro areas, despite this enriched stock of rural human capital. This divergence includes slower employment growth, higher unemployment, relative and absolute earnings deterioration, higher levels of underemployment, relative decline in nonmetro per capita income and higher poverty rates (Lichter, 1991). Can all this really be due to the fact that, despite dramatic upgrading in rural educational levels, a rural-urban human capital gap--albeit smaller than generally believed (see previous section) still exists? This seems implausible given other indicators like the relative decline in nonmetro returns to education and the outmigration of a substantial percentage of the better educated nonmetro population to metro areas³. Such indicators speak to a relative lack of demand for high-skill workers in rural areas in the 1980's. In fact, skill demand was quite weak in rural areas in the 1980's, both relative to urban areas and relative to nonmetro trends in the 1970's. This relationship holds no matter what measure of job skill requirements is used (i.e., the educational levels of job incumbents or direct ratings of job skill 3 See McGranahan and Ghelfi (1991) for data and discussion. 14 levels taken from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles4 [DOT]). In the 1970s, the decade of the "rural turnaround", job mix analyses show that rural growth rates in skill requirements of jobs were close to those in urban areas. In fact, in some cases the skill growth rates in rural areas were even a little bit higher. For example, general educational development (GED) required- a DOT measure--grew at a ten year rate of 2.9 percent in rural areas, compared to 2.2 percent in urban areas⁵. Similarly, average years of education required grew at a ten year rate of 1.9 percent in rural areas in the 1970s, compared to 1.3 percent growth in urban areas. In the 1980's, both rural and urban areas experienced slowdowns in the rate of growth of job skill levels⁶. But rural areas experienced a much more dramatic slowdown in skill level growth--rates only about one-third to one- 4 The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) is a compendium of occupational titles in common use in civilian U.S. labor markets. The compendium is based on survey information collected at irregular intervals by job analysts for the U.S. Employment Service. A variety of information about each occupational title is contained in the DOT, including ratings of the educational development, training time, physical capabilities, temperaments and aptitudes necessary for the job. There have been four editions of the DOT: 1939, 1949, 1965 and 1977, plus a substantial revision of the fourth (1977) edition, issued in 1991. The fourth edition contains information on well over 12,000 different occupations. 5 For technical details on how this analysis was performed, see appendix to Teixeira and Mishel (1992). 6 Note that these findings contradict the conventional wisdom that the 1980's was marked by an explosive growth in the skill levels of jobs. Of course, it could be argued that these findings, since they are based on analyses of job mix (changes in the distribution of jobs in the economy), fail to capture the tremendous changes taking place within jobs. In other words, the distribution of jobs may not have changed much, but the content of the work that individuals do within particular jobs has radically shifted. Data on the changing content of work within occupations does not support this proposition, however. Indeed, these data show the same sluggish growth in job skill requirements revealed by analysis of job mix changes. See Teixeira and Mishel (1993) and Teixeira and Mishel (forthcoming) for specific figures and discussion. 15 tenth of those in the previous decade, For example, growth in handling data skill requirements (DOT measure) in rural areas fell from a ten year rate of 4.8 percent in the 1970s to .7 percent in the 1980s, growth in verbal aptitude requirements from 2.9 percent to .4 percent and growth in GED requirements from 2.9 percent to just .3 percent. Nor do the optimistic scenarios of a skills explosion in the economy, due to rapid movement into a high skill economy in the 1990's, presage high skill demand in rural areas (pace Workforce 2000, Johnston and Packer, 1987). Even under an optimistic assumption of equal occupational growth rates across rural and urban areas, rural areas are projected to emulate their poor performance of the 1980's. For example, from 1990-2005, verbal aptitude skill requirements are projected to rise at a 10 year rate of .8 percent in rural areas and GED skill requirements at a rate of .9 percent. Other skill measures show a similar pattern. Further food for thought is provided by estimates of the relationship between educational levels and local economic growth in rural areas. The relationship is not a strong one, to say the least, as shown by two recent analyses based on county data, aggregated into "commuting zones"⁷. The first one, conducted by Killian and Parker (1991), was not able to find a significant effect of local educational levels on employment growth in rural areas in either the 1970's or 1980's. The second, by McGranahan (1993), shows that average years of education have had no significant effect on the growth of relatively high-skill or "complex" manufacturing jobs in rural areas in the 7 There are 763 commuting zones in the United States (excluding Alaska), of which about 508 may be considered nonmetro. See Killian and Parker (1991), Appendix A for technical details. 16 last two decades⁸. Together, these studies provide strong support for the contention that growth in skill demand has been weak in rural areas and that, therefore, inadequate human capital cannot be the main bottleneck to rural development. Key Research and Policy Issues for the 1990's This discussion of rural human capital suggests several areas of concern for the future. First, given the exceptional labor market disadvantages suffered by high school dropouts, continued progress is needed in reducing the proportion of dropouts in the rural workforce9. This recommendation seems particularly sensible in light of the perfectly decent education provided by the average¹ rural school to those who do stay in school. A second area of concern is the relatively low proportion of the rural workforce with a four year college degree. The gap here is significant and has even increased in recent years (though some of this is clearly due to outmigration of the well-educated to urban areas). One way to help remedy 8 Interestingly, years of education (ages 25-44) has had a significant negative effect on the growth of low-skill or "routine" manufacturing jobs in rural areas. That is, the lower the educational levels, the higher the growth in routine manufacturing employment. For technical details on the distinction between complex and routine manufacturing, see appendix to McGranahan and Ghelfi (1991). 9 Though note that 1990 Census data already show the dropout rates of metro and nonmetro 16-19 year olds being virtually indentical. 10 0f course, just because the average rural school is providing a reasonably good education doesn't mean all rural schools are. Indeed, the figures on average educational achievement undoubtedly cloak substantial variation among individual schools in rural and urban areas. Students and schools that are faring particularly poorly may need special remedial assistance simply to reach the average levels of educational achievement referred to here 17 this is to increase the proportion of rural schools that offer advanced courses in college preparatory subjects. As shown by the NAEP data, rural students are currently dramatically underserved in this regard, despite the reasonably good job that rural schools do in imparting general academic skills. A third area of concern is a gap that appears to be developing in the amount of post-school vocational training available to rural and urban workers. While this gap is not large at the present time, the trend is highly undesirable given the importance of such training to the bulk of the rural workforce. The overwhelming proportion of the year 2000 rural workforce, after all, are already on the job today. It follows that training, not schooling, will be the vehicle for improving their human capital, if it is improved at all. All of these rural human capital deficits, however--relatively many high school dropouts, relatively few college graduates, relatively little post- school vocational training--must be considered in the context of relatively weak skill demand in rural areas. Indeed, given relatively weak demand, a rural deficit in skill supply is, at least to some extent, a natural outcome of economic dynamics, rather than a "problem", in the true sense of the term. This suggests that the roots of weak skill demand in rural areas must be addressed, if upgrading rural human capital is to have the desired positive effects. Of course, it is probably impossible to completely eliminate the differential in human capital demand between rural and urban areas--due to agglomeration economies and other spatial factors that impinge on such demand- -but narrowing that differential should be feasible. To do this, a number of questions must be answered. 18 For example, if, as the data suggests, rural areas are not primarily hobbled by their relative lack of human capital, what are they hobbled by? Where do the deficits truly lie? What really keeps the high growth sectors of the economy away from rural areas? Lack of infrastructure? Lack of critical mass? "Rurality"? Answering these questions--and then addressing them in a policy sense--will help ensure that improving human capital levels in rural areas improves the welfare of rural places, not just rural individuals. 19 References Beale, C.L. and G.V. Fuguitt. 1990. "Decade of Pessimistic Nonmetro Population Trends Ends on an Optimistic Note." Rural Development Perspectives 6:3 (June-September). Brown, D.L. 1989. "Demographic Trends Relevant to Education in Nonmetropolitan America." in J.D. Stern, ed., Rural Education: The Changing Landscape, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Fuguitt, G.V., D.L. Brown and C.L. Beale. 1989. Rural and Small Town America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Greenberg, E.J. and R.A. Teixeira. 1993. "Educational Achievement in Rural Schools." Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Greenberg, E.J., P.L. Swaim and R.A. Teixeira. 1993. "Can Rural Workers Compete for the Jobs of the Future?" in Agriculture's Changing Horizon: Outlook '93 Proceedings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993, pp. 919-930. Johnston, W.B. and A.E. Packer. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Killian, M.S. and T.S. Parker. 1991. "Education and Employment Growth in a 20 Changing Economy." In Education and Rural Development: Rural Strategies for the 1990's, edited by R.W. Long. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. McGranahan, D.A. 1993. "Education and Employment Growth in Complex and Routine Manufacturing." Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. McGranahan, D.A. and L.M. Ghelfi. 1991. "The Education Crisis and Rural Stagnation in the 1980's." In Education and Rural Development: Rural Strategies for the 1990's, edited by R.W. Long. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. McGranahan, D.A., J.C. Hession, F.K. Hines and M.F. Jordan. 1986. Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metro and Nonmetro Counties, 1970-1980. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Mishel, L.R. and R.A. Teixeira. 1991. "The Myth of the Coming Labor Shortage: Jobs, Skills and Incomes of America's Workforce 2000." Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Snyder, T.D. 1987. Digest of Educational Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Swanson, L.L. and M.A. Butler. 1988. "Human Resource Base of Rural 21 Economies." in Brown, D.L., J.N. Reid, H. Bluestone, D.A. McGranahan and S.M. Mazie, eds., Rural Economic Development in the 1980's: Prospects for the Future, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Teixeira, R.A. and E.J. Greenberg. Forthcoming. "The Myth of Inferior Rural Education." Rural Development Perspectives. Teixeira, R.A. and L. Mishel. 1992. "The Myth of the Coming Labor Shortage in Rural Areas." Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Teixeira, R.A. and L. Mishel. 1993. "Whose Skills Shortage--Workers or Management?" Issues in Science and Technology, Summer. Teixeira, R.A. and L. Mishel. Forthcoming. "Skills Shortage or Management Shortage?" in D. Bills, ed., The New Modern Times: Factors Reshaping the World of Work. SUNY Press. 22 Table 23.1 Educational Attainment of Persons Aged 25 and Older, 1990 Schooling Completed Metro Nonmetro percent Graduate or professional degree 8.0 4.5 Bachelor's degree 14.5 8.5 Associate degree 6.4 5.4 Some college, no degree 19.5 16.1 High school graduate 28.6 34.7 High school dropout 23.0 30.8 Source: Greenberg, Swaim and Teixeira, 1993. 23 Table 23.2 Educational Attainment of 25-44 - Year-Olds, Selected Years Item 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987¹ 1991 Completed high school: Percent Metro 73.7 79.6 83.2 85.7 87.1 87.7 Nonmetro 65.6 70.7 77.8 80.8 82.7 83.7 Percentage points Nonmetro gap 8.1 8.9 5.4 4.9 4.4 4.0 Completed 4 or more years of college: Percent Metro 17.0 21.4 24.0 26.8 27.5 27.8 Nonmetro 10.8 13.8 17.5 18.0 16.2 16.2 Percentage points Nonmetro gap 6.2 6.6 6.5 8.8 11.3 11.6 1 The metro/nonmetro classification of counties was revised between 1983 and 1987 using 1980 Census data. Source: Greenberg, Swaim and Teixeira, 1993. 24 Table 23.3 MEAN ACHIEVEMENT SCORES OF 12TH GRADERS Metro Nonmetro Subject: Reading (1988) 288.0 (1.0) 284.1 (1.7) * Reading (1990) 288.7 (1.2) 288.3 (1.8) History (1988) 295.7 (1.2) 292.8 (2.1) Civics (1988) 296.6 (1.4) 296.0 (1.7) Geography (1988) 293.5 (1.2) 291.2 (2.2) Writing (1988) 223.9 (1.6) 224.8 (2.1) Science Composite (1990) 293.7 (1.5) 292.4 (2.4) Life Sciences 295.8 (1.3) 295.4 (2.2) Physical Science 291.2 (1.8) 289.0 (2.8) Earth and Space Science 291.8 (1.6) 290.6 (2.9) Nature of Science 298.6 (1.6) 296.9 (2.6) Mathematics Composite (1990) 296.3 (1.3) 293.1 (2.1) Algebra and Functions 298.0 (1.3) 293.6 (2.2) * Geometry 297.5 (1.5) 293.0 (2.5) Measurement 295.3 (1.4) 291.6 (2.2) * Numbers and Operations 295.0 (1.2) 292.4 (1.9) Data Analysis and Statistics 295.3 (1.3) 295.0 (2.3) Estimation (1990) 293.1 (1.2) 293.7 (1.6) * Metro-nonmetro difference is significant at the 95 percent level of confidence. Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 25 Table 23.4 MEAN ACHIEVEMENT SCORES OF 8TH GRADERS Metro Nonmetro Subject: Reading (1990) 261.5 (1.3) 259.6 (2.0) Science Composite (1990) 262.9 (1.7) 263.7 (1.6) Mathematics Composite (1990) 266.2 (1.4) 261.5 (1.5)* * Metro-nonmetro difference is significant at the 95 percent level of confidence. Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 26 Table 23.5 MEAN ACHIEVEMENT SCORES OF 12TH GRADERS, BY REGION NORTHEAST Metro Nonmetro Reading (1988) 286.9 (2.4) 289.8 ( 5.5) Reading (1990) 289.7 (2.8) 293.9 ( 1.3) History (1988) 297.0 (2.6) 298.6 (16.3) Civics (1988) 293.9 (2.6) 297.2 (10.2) Geography (1988) 293.4 (3.2) 306.1 ( 5.6) * Writing (1988) 231.8 (4.0) 222.8 ( 7.9) Science Composite (1990) 298.5 (4.1) 303.7 ( 1.4) Mathematics Composite (1990) 301.0 (2.7) 303.9 ( 1.0) MIDWEST Metro Nonmetro Reading (1988) 289.5 (1.3) 286.7 (4.3) Reading (1990) 289.2 (1.0) 294.6 (2.3)* History (1988) 298.0 (2.0) 297.6 (4.3) Civics (1988) 298.5 (2.1) 304.8 (3.1)* Geography (1988) 298.1 (1.3) 298.8 (3.6) Writing (1988) 221.0 (2.3) 230.4 (2.9)* Science Composite (1990) 291.6 (2.4) 303.5 (4.1)* Mathematics Composite (1990) 296.9 (3.0) 299.4 (0.7) SOUTH Metro Nonmetro Reading (1988) 287.8 (1.5) 279.7 (1.4)* Reading (1990) 287.2 (2.8) 279.2 (3.7)* History (1988) 290.6 (2.0) 287.7 (2.3) Civics (1988) 294.0 (2.5) 286.8 (3.0)* Geography (1988) 284.5 (2.5) 280.9 (3.7) Writing (1988) 215.9 (3.8) 218.9 (3.1) Science Composite (1990) 281.7 (3.6) 275.8 (4.4) Mathematics Composite (1990) 287.8 (1.7) 279.3 (4.5)* WEST Metro Nonmetro Reading (1988) 288.2 (1.7) 286.7 (4.3) Reading (1990) 288.2 (3.0) 289.1 (4.9) History (1988) 295.7 (2.0) 292.6 (2.7) Civics (1988) 299.4 (3.0) 299.5 (4.1) Geography (1988) 295.7 (2.2) 292.2 (3.8) Writing (1988) 223.2 (2.2) 228.1 (6.4) Science Composite (1990) 297.3 (2.8) 293.9 (9.3) Mathematics Composite (1990) 296.3 (2.3) 296.3 (7.5) * Metro-nonmetro difference is significant at the 95 percent level of confidence. Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 27 Table 23.6 MEAN MATH AND SCIENCE SCORES BY DETAILED URBAN/RURAL CATEGORIES (1990 data) Math Science Reading Metro areas: Central counties with population one million or more (Beale code 0) 292.2 (2.7) 289.7 (3.4) 285.1 (2.4) Fringe counties with population one million or more (Beale code 1) 302.0 (2.4) 299.1 (3.9) 291.3 (2.4) Counties with populations of 250,000 to one million (Beale code 2) 297.3 (2.9) 295.4 (3.9) 288.4 (3.2) Counties with populations less than 250,000 (Beale code 3) 291.9 (2.0) 289.8 (5.4) 292.0 (2.8) Nonmetro areas: Counties with urban populations of 20,000 or more (Beale codes 4, 5) 299.9 (1.9) 303.3 (4.0) 292.1 (2.5) Counties with urban populations of less than 20,000 (Beale codes 6, 7) 289.5 (2.9) 286.1 (3.8) 285.3 (3.4) Completely rural counties (Beale codes 8, 9) 287.3 (12.9) 286.3 (13.6) 288.8 (7.2) Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 28 Table 23.7 AVAILABILITY OF ADVANCED CURRICULA TO 12TH GRADERS Metro Nonmetro percent of students enrolled in schools that offer: Advanced placement course in: American government (1988) 21.8 (3.5) 6.6 (3.8) * American history (1988) 57.3 (4.2) 23.1 (6.8) * English language (1988) 54.1 (4.4) 29.5 (4.1)* English literature (1988) 59.9 (4.1) 24.6 (6.2) * Calculus (1990) 90.4 (2.4) 48.6 (7.7) * Second-year Biology (1990) 75.1 (3.7) 68.3 (5.8) Second-year Chemistry (1990) 62.2 (4.4) 44.6 (7.6) * Second-year Physics (1990) 32.9 (4.5) 7.5 (5.7) * * Metro-nonmetro difference is significant at the 95 percent level of confidence Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 29 Table 23.8 PERCENT OF 12TH GRADERS SCORING 20 PERCENT ABOVE THE MEAN BY METRO AND NONMETRO Metro Nonmetro Reading (1988) 4.0 (0.7) 2.8 (0.9) Reading (1990) 4.5 (0.6) 4.0 (0.8) History (1988) 3.9 (0.6) 2.5 (0.7) Civics (1988) 4.4 (0.6) 4.4 (0.7) Geography (1988) 4.7 (0.8) 3.0 (0.9) Writing (1988) 17.8 (1.0) 17.6 (1.5) Science Composite (1990) 9.0 (0.9) 6.4 (1.5) Mathematics Composite (1990) 3.9 (0.6) 3.1 (0.8) Note: standard errors in parentheses. Source: Teixeira and Greenberg, forthcoming. 30 Table 23.9 Skill-Improvement Training on Current Job, 1983 and 1991 Metro Nonmetro Group of workers 1983 1991 1983 1991 percent receiving training All workers 36.8 43.4 36.8 39.9 Gender: Men 37.6 43.1 37.2 39.3 Women 35.9 43.7 36.3 40.6 Race/Ethnicity: Hispanic 23.2 29.5 24.1 27.3 Black (nonhispanic) 30.7 37.4 27.8 27.1 White (nonhispanic) 38.7 45.9 37.8 41.4 Education: Dropout 17.1 19.3 19.0 18.2 High school graduate 31.0 35.8 33.3 34.7 1-3 years college 42.2 47.8 44.5 49.0 4 years college 51.1 57.9 55.3 65.3 5+ years college 60.5 67.8 68.4 72.8 Region: Northeast 31.9 40.0 38.6 42.6 Midwest 37.6 44.8 36.7 42.1 South 37.6 44.8 34.0 36.3 West 40.6 43.2 41.7 44.0 Source: Greenberg, Swaim and Teixeira, 1993. 31 Table 23.10 Types and Sources of Skill-Improvement Training for Workers Receiving Training on their Current Job, 1991 Training Type/Provider Metro Nonmetro Type of training: percent Managerial 27.9 23.7 Computer 34.7 29.3 Academic (Three R's) 14.5 14.6 Other technical 62.9 66.4 Training provider: School 32.0 33.3 Company program (formal) 42.5 37.1 On-the-job (informal) 39.7 39.4 If school: High school vocational educ. 4.4 4.0 Private vocational school 9.7 13.3 Two-year college 41.0 41.5 Four-year college 50.5 46.8 Source: Greenberg, Swaim and Teixeira, 1993. AMERICORPS M A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT IAN OF AGRICULTURE USDA AMERICORPS PROJECTS EZ I EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES In its first year of operation, AmeriCorps the domestic national service program proposed by President Clinton and passed with bipartisan support by Congress engaged 25,000 Americans of diverse backgrounds in service that filled unmet human, environmental, educational, and public safety needs. In exchange for such service, AmeriCorps Members received an educational award that can be used to pay for college, job training, graduate school, or to repay student loans. The Corporation for National Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, has given preference to project applications from Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Champion Communities; thus many AmeriCorps projects are located in these areas. Most AmeriCorps projects are funded through state commissions appointed by each state's governor and managed by non-profit organizations and local government organizations ---- most projects are not funded or managed directly by Federal agencies. However, a highly competitive process coordinated by the Corporation for National Service allowed a small portion of AmeriCorps positions to be managed by Federal agencies in tandem with local groups. In the first year of operation, the largest Federal agency award was granted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), allowing the Department to create unique public / private partnerships that sponsored 1,200 Members in over 300 mostly rural sites. These projects provided service focused on boosting rural development, fighting hunger, and improving the environment. The rural development projects were sponsored by four different USDA agencies: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest Service. Most of these USDA AmeriCorps rural development projects were placed in areas that were designated as either Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities. (List attached) Moreover, these projects targeted the most persistently poverty-ridden rural areas of the nation: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, the "colonias" on the U.S./Mexico border, and Native American reservations in the "Four Corners" (in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) area. During the first program year, AmeriCorps Members in USDA rural development projects achieved the following results: Secured new homes for 390 low-income families. Helped 3,484 families obtain running water and/or modern bathrooms for the first time. Provided early childhood development services to 4,670 children. Helped over 100 counties improve their emergency preparedness and response. Provided 867 families with assistance for health and safety hazard repairs in their homes. Educated 175 parents and children in parenting and family skills. Created after school programs, activities, and events that benefited 400 parents and students. Mentored and tutored 180 students. Helped save or create 1,000 jobs. Delivered technical assistance to 395 family farmers to help them continue to earn enough income to support their families and stay on their land. Taught entrepreneurship seminars attended by 285 citizens. Provided job training and/or vocational counseling to 509 citizens. All USDA AmeriCorps projects "got things done" while strengthening communities, expanding educational opportunity, and encouraging personal responsibility. For more information about the USDA AmeriCorps program, contact Joel Berg at 202-720-5746 or e-mail: "[email protected]" AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R02B CH 171 8 Lower Yukon Economic Development Council Anchorage AK R05A CH 2 1 Crowley's Ridge Development Council, Inc. Jonesboro AR R05B EC 20 1 Mississippi County, Arkansas EOC, Inc. Blytheville AR R05C CH 58 1 East Central AR Ec. Dev. Corporation - West Memphis Forrest City AR R05D EC 84 1 East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation - AR Brinkley Moro R05F CH 136 1 Mid-Delta Enterprise Community Helena AR R05C EC 183 1 East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation - AR Forrest City Forrest City R04A CH 18 1 City of Eloy Eloy AZ R04C CH 28 1 Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, Inc. Flagstaff AZ R04B EC 168a City of Douglas Douglas AZ R04D EC 168b 1 City of San Luis San Luis AZ R04E EC 168c 1 Nogales-Santa Crux County Economic Development Foundation Nogales AZ R06A EC 35 1 Imperial County Enterprise Community El Centro CA R06B CH 61 1 City of Shafter Shafter CA R06E EC 71 1 City of Watsonville Watsonville CA R06C CH 79 1 Kings Community Action Organization, Inc. Hanford CA R06F CH 153 1 City of Hollister Hollister CA R06D CH 207 1 County of Fresno, I-5 Business Development Corridor Firebaugh CA R12B EC 89 5 Marianna Chamber of Commerce Marianna FL R13A CH 157 1 QUOLA LC/CDC Valdosta GA R13B EC 211 1 Crisp/Dooly EZ/EC Coordinating Committee Cordele GA R13C EC 216 1 CSRA Regional Development Center Keysville GA R17A CH 198 1 City of Cairo Cairo IL R21C CH 70 1 Flat Woods Community-Based Development Corporation, Inc. Oneida KY R21B CH 90 1 Kentucky Communities Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. Barboursville KY P21D CH 165 1 Big Sandy Community Action Program/RECD Prestonburg KY The Service Connection R21F CH 165 1 KY (Big Sandy ADD) Prestonberg R21H CH 172 1 City of Bowling Green, Operation P.R.I.D.E. Bowling Green KY R21D CH TN127 1 Bell County Middlesboro KY R211 CH TN186 1 McCreary Co. Fiscal Court Whitley City KY R21A CH TN19 1 Cumberland Valley ADD London KY R22B CH 152 1 Southern Mutual Help Association, Inc. New Iberia LA R22A CH 160 1 St. Landry Economic Inducement District Opelousas LA R22C CH 164 1 St. Mary Community Action Agency, Inc. Franklin LA R22H CH 173 1 RECD Town of Cullen Cullen LA R22D EC 215 1 Macon Ridge Economic Development Program Ferriday LA R22F CH 221 1 Project Celebration, Inc. Many LA R28B CH 4 1 Town of Edwards Edwards MS R28A CH 14 2 Madison County Human Resource Agency Canton MS R28C EZ 45 3 Mid-Delta Empowerment Zone Alliance (MDEZA) Greenville MS R28R CH 108 2 Alcorn State University Lorman MS R28Q CH 203 1 Natchez-Adams County Economic Development Authority Natchez MS R37A CH 214b 1 Madison County Family Resource Center Marshall NC R35A EC 67 1 La Jicarita Enterprise Community Taos NM R35C CH 80 2 Eastern Plains Council of Governments Clovis NM R35B CH 98 1 NW New Mexico Council of Governments Gallup NM R42A CH 156 5 SW PA Heritage Preservation Commission Holidaysburg PA AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R45A CH 27 1 Denmark Community Outreach Enterprise Committee* Denmark SC R45C CH 83 1 Penn Center* St. Helena Island SC R45D EC 97 1 Williamsburg Enterprise Community Commission, Inc* Lake City SC R45B CH 99 1 Allendale-Barnwell Redevelopment Program Fairfax SC R48C CH 49 1 City of Luling Luling TX R48A CH 59 1 Middle Rio Grande Development Council Uvalde TX R48D CH 64 1 South Texas Development Council Laredo TX R48E CH 76 1 City of Gonzales Gonzales TX R48B CH 92 1 Dimmit County Commissioners Court Carrizo Springs TX R48F EZ 107 1 Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Mercedes TX R51B EC 218 2 VA Eastern Share Economic Empowerment & Housing VA Corporation(VESEEHC) Nassawadox R53A CH 177 1 Grant County Community Action Council Moses Lake WA R54B CH 137 1 Mingo County Commission Williamson WV R541 CH 139 1 Marion County Extension Office (City of Fairmont) Fairmont WV R54C CH 184 1 P.R.I.D.E In Logan County, Inc. Logan WV R54F CH 185 1 Mountain Enterprise Community Webster Springs WV R54D EC 187 1 McDowell County Action Network Wilcoe WV R54J CH 196 1 City of Morgantown Morgantown WV R54H CH 205 1 Lincoln County Economic Development Authority, Inc. West Hamlin WV R54A CH 206 1 Barbour County Development Authority Philippi WV 87 AWARDED URBAN EMPOWERMENT ZONES LEAD CONTACT LIST J. ATLANTA IL CHICAGO H94EZGA0033 H94EZIL0071 osepn Reid Valerie B. Jarrett City of Atlanta Dept of Plan and Devel 53 Trinity Avenue 121 N. LaSalle Street Atlanta. GA 30329 Chicago. IL 60602 4043306100 3127444471 MD BALTIMORE MI DETROIT/WAYNE COUNTY H94EZMD0060 H94EZMI0036 Michael V. Seipp Gloria W. Robinson Baltimore Development Corporation City of Detroit 66 South Charles Street 2300 Cadillac Tower Baltimore. MD 21201 Detroit. MI 48226 +108379305 3132246380 NY NEW YORK COUNTY/BRONX COUNTY PA PHILADELPHIA PA/CAMDEN NJ H94EZNY0063 H94EZPA0030 Denise Scott David L. Cohen Harlem Urban Development Corporation City of Philadelphia 163 West 125th Street City Hall Room 204 New York.. NY 10027 Philadelphia. PA 19107 2129614142 2156867508X 6 ezec contact list 1 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN SUPPLEMENTAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES LEAD CONTACT LIST CA LOS ANGELES/LA CO/VERNON/LYNWOOD OH CLEVELAND/CUYAHOGA COUNTY {94EZCA0024 H94EZOH0078 Parker C. Anderson James W. Pressier City of Los Angeles City of Cleveland 15 W. 6th Street 601 Lakeside Ave Rm 310 OS Angeles. CA 90014 Cleveland. OH 44114 132602100 2166642278X 2 ezec contact list 1 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENHANCED ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST CA OAKLAND/SAN LEANDRO/ALAMEDA MA BOSTON H94EZCA0012 H94EZMA0020 Craig Kocian Linda M. Haar City of Oakland City of Boston 475 14th Street One City Hall Square Oakland. CA 94612 Boston. MA 02201 5102383301X 6177224300 MO KANSAS CITY. MO/KANSAS CITY. KS TX HOUSTON H94EZMO0032 H94EZTX0008 David A. Warm Judity Butler Mid-America Regional Council City of Houston 600 Broadway. 300 Rivergate Ctr PO Box 1562 Kansas City. MO 64105 Houston. TX 77251 8164744240X 7132472666X 4 ezec contact list 1 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST AL BIRMINGHAM AR LITTLE ROCK/PULASKI COUNTY H94ECAL0054 H94ECAR0185 James R. Land Jim Mercado City of Birmingham Local Initiatives Support Corporation 710 N 20th Street Rm 1000 400 W. Markham Street Birmingham. AL 35203 Little Rock. AR 72201 2052542483 5013745472X AZ PHOENIX CA LOS ANGELES CITY & CO/HUNTINGTON PARK H94EZAZ0028 H94ECCA0021 lacques Avent Parker C. Anderson City of Phoeniz Los Angeles City and County / Huntington Park 200 W. Washington St. 12th Floor 215 W. 6th Street Phoenix. AZ 85003 Los Angeles. CA 90014 6022627957 2134851617 CA SAN FRANCISCO(BAYVIEW,HUNTERSPOINT.SE) CA OAKLAND/SAN LEANDRO/ALAMEDA H94ECCA0221 H94EZCA0012 Gail Goldman Craig Kocian San Francisco Redevel Agency City of Oakland 770 Golden Gate Avenue 475 14th Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Oakland. CA 94612 4157492480 5102383301X CA SAN DIEGO CO DENVER CITY AND COUNTY H94EZCA0014 H94EZCO0037 Michael Jenkins Myrna Hipp C of San Diego City & Co. of Denver Comm. Dev. Agency 1 , Third Avenue Ste 1620 200 W. 14th Ave. Rm. 203 San Diego, CA 921014199 Denver. CO 80204 6192366234X 3036404753X CT NEW HAVEN/HAMDEN CT BRIDGEPORT H94ECCT0189 H94EZCT0051 Walter A. Esdaile Dennis C. Murphy New Haven Community Empowerment Task Force 165 Church Street 45 Lyon Terrace New Haven. CT 06510 Bridgeport. CT 06604 2037727684X 2035767963 DC WASHINGTON DC DE WILMINGTON/NEW CASTLE COUNTY H94EZDC0101 H94EZDE0064 Judy Cohall Jim Walker Washington DC Ofc Of Econ Dev City of Wilmington 717 14th Street NW 12th Fl 800 N. French Street 7th Fl Washington. DC 20005 Wilmington. DE 19801 2027276600X.243 3025714130 FL TAMPA FL DADE COUNTY/MIAMI/HOMESTEAD/FLORIDA CI H94ECFL0085 H94EZFL0018 Roger A. Wehling Israel H. Milton City of Tampa Metro Dade County 306 E. Jackson St 8E 111 NW First Street Ste 2910 Tampa, FL 33602 Miami. FL 33128 8132748485 3053751267X ezec contact list 1 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST in. ALBANY, GA IA DES MOINES 94ECGA0166 H94ECIA0195 Roy Lane James Grant City of Albany City of Des Moines Comm Dev Dept 22 Pine Avenue PO Box 447 602 E. 1st \Ibany. GA 317020447 Des Moines. IA 50309 124313234 5152834182 L SPRINGFIELD. IL IL EAST ST LOUIS {94ECIL0141 H94EZIL0003 Billie J. Phelan Lamar Gentry City of Springfield City of East St. Louis 75 Durkin Drive. Suite P 301 E. Broadway pringfield. IL 62704 East St. Louis. IL 62201 175469677 6184826664X N INDIANAPOLIS KY LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY 94ECIN0114 H94EZKY0035 Sherry Kohlmeyer Woodford Porter. Sr. City of Indianapolis Empowerment Zone Community Board 100 East Washington Street. Suite 2042 1400 Willow Avenue ndianapolis. IN 46204 Louisville. KY 40204 173275894 5024526389X _A OUACHITA PARISH LA NEW ORLEANS H94EZLA0043 H94EZLA0059 Ervin Turner Ronald Mason Duachita Parish Police Jury City of New Orleans ) ox 3007 Tulane University Monroe. LA 712103007 6528 St Charles Avenue 183870903X New Orleans. LA 70118 5048655591 MA SPRINGFIELD. MA MA LOWELL H94ECMA0033 H94ECMA0206 Raymond Warren Richard Johnson City of Springfield City of Lowell City Hall 36 Court Street City Hall Springfield. MA 01103 Lowell. MA 01852 +137876020 5089704000 MA BOSTON MI MUSKEGON H94EZMA0020 H94ECMI0075 Linda M. Haar James Edmonson City of Boston City of Muskegon One City Hall Square 933 Terrace Street Boston. MA 02201 Muskegon. MI 494430536 6177224300 6167246702 MI FLINT MN MINNEAPOLIS H94EZMI0016 H94EZMN0054 Richard L. King, Jr. Ken Brunsvold City of Flint Off of Grants & Special Proj 1101 S. Saginaw St. Room 200 Flint. MI 48502 City Hall 3137667426X Minneapolis. MN 55415 6126732348X ezec contact list 2 January 5, 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST Mix SAINT PAUL MO KANSAS CITY. MO/KANSAS CITY. KS H94EZMN0077 H94EZMO0032 ames O' Leary David A. Warm Saint Paul Dept of Planning & Econ Dev Mid-America Regional Council 25 W. 4th Street 600 Broadway. 300 Rivergate Ctr Saint Paul. MN 55102 Kansas City, MO 64105 122666643X 8164744240X MO ST LOUIS/WELLSTON/ST LOUIS CO MS JACKSON. MS H94EZMO0079 H94ECMS0150 Carry T. Bushong Michael Stevens St. Louis Development Corp. City of Jackson $30 N. 15th Street PO Box 17 St Louis. MO 63103 Jackson. MS 39205 3146223400X 6019601845 NC CHARLOTTE NE OMAHA H94ECNC0107 H94ECNE0167 Martin R. Cramton. Jr. James Rhodes Charlotte Mecklenburg Plng Comm Omaha Enterprise Zone Assn Board 500 E. 4th Street Omaha/Douglas Civic Center Charlotte. NC 28202 Omaha. NE 68183 7043362205 4024445272 NH MANCHESTER NJ NEWARK/ELIZABETH H94ECNH0083 H94EZNJ0069 íohn 1. Snow Glenn A. Grant City of Manchester City of Newark Elm Street 920 Broad St. Room 205 Manchester. NH 03101 Newark. NJ 07102 6036246331X 2017333780X NM ALBUQUERQUE NV CLARK COUNTY/LAS VEGAS H94ECNM0168 H94ECNV0010 Michael Passi Douglas R. Bell Family & Community Services Dept Clark County One Civic Plaza NW Community Resources Management PO Box 1293 301 E. Clark Ave., Ste. 270 Albuquerque. NM 87103 Las Vegas. NV 89101 5057682865 7024555025 NY ALBANY/SCHENECTADY/TROY. NY NY NEWBURGH / KINGSTON H94ECNY0088 H94ECNY0093 Kevin O'Connor James H. Delaune Center for Economic Growth City of Newburgh Ofc of Comm. Dev. One Key Corp Plaza 83 Broadway Albany. NY 12207 Newburgh. NY 12550 5184658975 9145654250X NY ROCHESTER NY BUFFALO H94EZNY0042 H94EZNY0052 William A. Johnson. Jr. Kevin T. Greiner City of Rochester Econ. Dev. Corp. City of Buffalo City Hall 30 Church Street 901 City Hall Rochester. NY 14614 65 Niagara Square 7164287163X Buffalo. NY 14202 7168515087X ezec contact list 3 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST In AKRON OH COLUMBUS H94ECOH0129 H94ECOH0148 Warren L. Woolford PATRICK GRADY Dept. of Plng & Urban Dev CITY OF COLUMBUS 166 S. High Street 99 N. FRONT STREET Akron. OH 44308 Columbus. OH 43215 2163752770 6146457574X OH CLEVELAND/CUYAHOGA COUNTY OK OKLAHOMA CITY H94EZOH0078 H94EZOK0050 James W. Pressler C. Michael Pugh City of Cleveland Oklahoma City Planning Dept 501 Lakeside Ave Rm 310 One North Walker Cleveland. OH 44114 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 2166642278X 4052972289X OR PORTLAND/MULTNOMAH COUNTY PA HARRISBURG H94EZOR0070 H94ECPA0066 Fred King Stephen R. Reed N/NE Economic Development Alliance City of Harrisburg Northwest Reg. Educ. Lab. - 10 N. 2nd Street MLK City Govt Ctr 101 SW Main St.. Ste. 500 Harrisburg. PA 17101 Portland. OR 97201 7172553040X 5032759644 PA PITTSBURGH/ALLEGHENY CO ET AL RI PROVIDENCE H94EZPA0025 H94ECRI0071 Christopher Shea Frederick Lippin C of Pittsburgh The Providence Plan 200 Ross Street 15 Westminster St Ste 740 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Providence. RI 02903 +122552230X 4014558880 SC CHARLESTON TN NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON COUNTY H94ECSC0140 H94ECTN0037 Lawrence O. Thompson Phil Ryan City of Charleston Metropolitan Dev & Hsng Agency 496 King Street 172 Second Avenue N Ste 102 Charleston. SC 29403 Nashville. TN 37201 8037243796 6152523750 TN MEMPHIS/SHELBY COUNTY TX SAN ANTONIO H94EZTN0066 H94EZTX0007 Robert Lipscomb Andrew W. Cameron City of Memphis City of San Antonio 701 N. Main Street 419 S. Main Ste 200 Memphis. TN 38107 San Antonio, TX 78204 9015767308 2102203600 TX HOUSTON TX EL PASO H94EZTX0008 H94EZTX0009 Judity Butler Deborah G. Hamlyn City of Houston City of El Paso PO Box 1562 #2 Civic Ctr. Plaza 9th Floor Houston. TX 77251 El Paso. TX 799011196 7132472666X 9155414643X ezec contact list 4 January 5. 1995 AWARDED URBAN ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST TX WACO/MCLENNAN CO/BELLMEAD/LACY-LAKEVI TX DALLAS H94EZTX0010 H94EZTX0046 James N. Holgersson Ryan Evans City of Waco City of Dallas PO Box 2570 1500 Marilla. 4BN Waco. TX 767022570 Dallas. TX 75201 8177505640X 2146701694X - UT OGDEN CITY VA NORFOLK H94ECUT0015 H94EZVA0011 Rob Scott David H. Rice Ogden City Neighborhood Dev Norfolk Redevelopment and Hsg Auth 2484 Washington Blvd Ste 211 201 Granby Street Ogden. UT 84401 Norfolk. VA 23510 8016298901 8046231111X VT BURLINGTON WA SEATTLE - H94ECVT0134 H94ECWA0183 John E. Davis Carol Dickerson City of Burlington Comm & Econ Dev City of Seattle City Hall Rm 32 Municipal Building Burlington. VT 05401 3rd Floor 8028657144 Seattle. WA 98104 2066840100 WA TACOMA WI MILWAUKEE H94EZWA0049 H94EZWI0039 Donald D. Hines Michael L. Morgan 1 ,ma Plng & Dev Srvc Dept City of Milwaukee 747 Market Street Ste 1036 809 N. Broadway Tacoma. wa 98402 Milwaukee. WI 53216 2065915223 4142865600X WV HUNTINGTON H94ECWV0064 Cathy Burns Huntington Dept of Dev & Plng 800 Fifth Ave City Hall Rm 14 Huntington. WV 25717 3046964486 65 ezec contact list 5 January 5, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST K Z- FAIRBANKS/NORTH STAR BOROUGH AL ANNISTON 94EZAK0034 H94EZAL0001 laren K. Lavery Peter Erlenback owntown Assn 7 Main Street City of Anniston 35 2nd Ave. Ste 211 PO Box 670 airbanks. AK 99701 Anniston. AL 36202 074528671X 2052317660X L MOBILE AL AUBURN. AL 94EZAL0102 H94ECAL0180 tephen F. Kohrman PHILLIP DUNLAP 1obile Housing Board CITY OF AUBURN 51 S. Claiborne Street 171 N. ROSS STREET 10bile. AL 366331345 Auburn. AL 368310511 054342219 2058874960 L HUNTSVILLE AL OPELIKA {94ECAL0143 H94ECAL0003 Esther Morrison Danny E. Taylor I. Alabama African American Cham City of Opelika O Box 17126 PO Box 390 funtsville. AL 35810 Opelika. AL 368030390 058599790X 2057055156 in PINE BLUFF AR FORT SMITH {94EZAR0002 H94ECAR0018 Donald R. Sampson DONNA SMITH City of Pine Bluff CITY OF FORT SMITH 00 E. 8th Avenue Room 103 P.O. Box 1908 Pine Bluff. AR 71601 FORT SMITH. AR 72902 015431820X 5017842209 AZ TUCSON/SOUTH TUCSON/PIMA COUNTY AZ AVONDALE/MARICOPA COUNTY 94EZAZ0038 H94ECAZ0011 Kendall Bert Manuel Medina City of Tucson Avondale Social Services O Box 27210 1007 South Third Street Fucson. AZ 857267210 Avondale. AZ 85323 5027915093X 6029329440X CA FRESNO CITY AND COUNTY CA SACRAMENTO CITY & COUNTY H94EZCA0029 H94EZCA0075 Marlene Murphey John E. Molloy City of Fresno Sacramento Hsg and Redevel Auth 2600 Fresno Street. City Hall 630 I Street Fresno. CA 93721 Sacramento. CA 95814 2094984591X 9164401333 CA ANAHEIM CA BELL/BELL GARDENS/CUDAHY/HUNTINGTON PK H94ECCA0147 H94ECCA0026 Bertha Chavoya Annette Peretz City of Anaheim Comm Dev Dept Bell/Bell Gardens/Cudahy/Huntingto 20 Anaheim Blvd. 6330 Pine Avenue A... ..eim. CA 92805 Bell. CA 902011291 7142544320 2135886211 ezec contact list 1 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST EAST PALO ALTO CA LOS ANGELES(EASTSIDE.PICO UNION, WESTLAKE) 194ECCA0047 H94ECCA0176 erome Groomes Parker C. Anderson City of East Palo Alto Los Angeles City 415 University Avenue 215 W. 6th Street East Palo Alto. CA 94303 Los Angeles. CA 90014 158533100X3136 2134851617X CA LOS ANGELES(KOREATOWN.HOLLYWOOD.SCEN. 94ECCA0222 Parker C. Anderson City of Los Angeles 15 W. 6th Street LOS Angeles. CA 90014 134851617 CA LOS ANGELES/LA CO/LONG BEACH/COMPTON/LY CA NATIONAL CITY H94ECCA0068 H94ECCA0163 Parker C. Anderson Paul Desrochers Long Beach/Compton/Lynwood/LA Comm. Dev. Commission National 15 W 6th St 140 E. 12th ST. Suite B LOS Angeles. CA 90014 National City, CA 91950 134851617X 6193364250 CA RICHMOND. CA CA RIVERSIDE H94ECCA0212 H94ECCA0017 David Thompson Jennifer V. Blakely City of Richmond City of Riverside Hall PO Box 4046 3900 Main Street Richmond. CA 94804 Riverside. CA 92522 5106206546 9097825316 CA SACRAMENTO CA SALINAS H94ECCA0171 H94ECCA0157 ames Purcell David R. Mora Sacramento Hsg & Redev Agency City of Salinas 30 I Street 200 Lincoln Avenue Sacramento. CA 95814 Salinas. CA 93901 9164401333 4087587201 CA SAN BERNARDINO CA SAN FRANCISCO(CHINATOWN.TENDERLOIN) H94ECCA0096 H94ECCA0132 John Wood Gail Goldman City of San Bernadino Econ. Dev. A San Francisco Redevel Agency 201 N. "E" Street 3rd Fl. 770 Golden Gate Avenue San Bernardino, CA 924011507 San Francisco. CA 94102 9093845081X 4157492480X CA SAN JOSE CA SANTA ANA H94ECCA0130 H94ECCA0032 Susan Arpan Cynthia J. Nelson City of San Jose City of Santa Ana Comm. Dev. Agen 50 W. San Fernando Ste 900 20 Civic Center Plaza San Jose. CA 95133 Santa Ana. CA 92701 4082775880 7146475360 ezec contact list 2 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST A SANTA BARBARA CITY & COUNTY CA SANTA CRUZ 94ECCA0105 H94ECCA0110 ent Taylor Richard C. Wilson ounty of Santa Barbara City of Santa Cruz )5 E. Anapamu Street 809 Center Street inta Barbara. CA 93101 Santa Cruz. CA 95060 055683404X 4084293540X A SOUTH EL MONTE/EL MONTE/IRWINDALE/ROSEM CA STANISLAUS COUNTY 94ECCA0162 H94ECCA0181 aul Romero Robert H. Allaire outh El Monte Stanislaus County Dept of Mental He 415 North Santa Anita Ave. 800 Scenic Drive outh El Monte. CA 91733 Modesto. CA 95350 185796540 7205257444 O GREELEY/WELD CO/EVANS/GARDEN CO AURORA [94EZCO0057 H94ECCO0218 errie McKellar Carol Chapman ity of Greeley City of Aurora 000 10th Street 1470 S. Havana Street reeley. CO 80631 Aurora. CO 80012 033509781 6016957061X O COMMERCE CITY CO PUEBLO 94ECCO0118 H94ECCO0158 teve House James F. Munch ity of Commerce City City of Pueblo Planning Dept ( IX 40 211 E. "D" Street ommerce City, CO 80037 Pueblo. CO 81003 032893683X 7195436000 T HARTFORD FL FT LAUDERDALE/BROWARD CO/LAUDERHILL/PL {94EZCT0065 H94EZFL0013 alph Knighton Michael K. Parker ity of Hartford City of Fort Lauderdale 0 Prospect Street 350 SE 2nd St. 4th Floor Hartford. CT 06103 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 035438640 3054681526X L JACKSONVILLE FL BREVARD CO/MELBOURNE {94EZFL0073 H94ECFL0192 be Whitaker Bernice G. Jackson Downtown Development Authority Brevard Co. Board of Co. Commissi 28 E. Forsyth St Ste 600 2725 St. Johns Street acksonville. FL 32202 Melbourne. FL 32940 046301913 4076332007X FL DAYTONA BEACH FL GAINESVILLE H94ECFL0127 H94ECFL0051 anet R. Hamer Ralph Hilliard City of Daytona Beach Comm Dev D City of Gainesville 01 S Ridgewood Ave PO Box 2451 PO Box 490. Station 11 Daytona Beach. FL 321152451 Gainesville, FL 32602 042583175 9043342269X ezec contact list 3 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST GA DEKALB COUNTY GA MACON H94ECGA0013 H94ECGA0024 Raymond R. White Chester Wheeler DeKalb County City of Macon 300 Commerce Dr Rm 400 682 Cherry Street Ste 713 Decatur. GA 300303221 Macon. GA 31201 4043712155 9127517190 GA MACON IA SIOUX CITY H94ECGA0024 H94EZIA0015 CHESTER WHEELER Gary Duman CITY OF MACON City of Sioux City 582 CHERRY STREET PO Box 447 SUITE 713 Sioux City, IA 511020447 MACON, GA 31201 7122796341X 9127517190 A CEDAR RAPIDS IL PEORIA H94ECIA0023 H94EZIL0031 Mary Schoen Clark Michael McKnight Metro Area Housing Program. Inc. City of Peoria 93 9th Avenue. SE 419 Fulton Street Cedar Rapids. IA 52401 Peoria. IL 61602 3193653501X 3096728524X L ALTON/MADISON COUNTY IL CHICAGO(NEW ENGLEWOOD) H94ECIL0219 H94ECIL0151 Osborn Valerie B. Jarrett Ca, of Alton Department of Planning and Develop 101 East Third St 121 N. LaSalle Street Alton. IL 62002 Chicago. IL 60602 6184633580 3127444471 IL CHICAGO(WESTSIDE) IL COOK COUNTY H94ECIL0153 H94ECIL0159 Valerie B. Jarrett Saul Beck Department of Planning and Develop Cook Co. Dept. of Planning & Dev. :21 N. LaSalle Street 118 N. Clark Street Room 824 Chicago, IL 60602 Chicago, IL 60602 3127444471 3124434433 IL JOLIET IL KANKAKEE H94ECIL0198 H94ECIL0079 Kendall Jackson Tim Etzel City of Joliet City of Kankakee 150 W. Jefferson St 165 N. Schuyler Ave Joliet. IL 60431 Kankakee. IL 60901 8157402430 8159330506 IL MAYWOOD VILLAGE IL ROCKFORD H94ECIL0144 H94ECIL0169 Ralph W. Conner Diane Voneida Village of Maywood Econ. Dev. Dep Community Dev. Dept. City of Rock 115 S. Fifth Ave. 425 East State St. 2nd Fl. Maywood. IL 60153 Rockford. IL 61104 7084504897X 8159875696 ezec contact list 5 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST L WAUKEGAN TOWNSHIP IN GARY/HAMMOND/EAST CHICAGO {94ECIL0173 H94EZIN0079 Barbara Gordon Thomas V. Barnes ake County Comm. Action Project City of Gary 06 S. Sheridan Rd 401 Broadway Municipal Building Vaukegan. IL 60085 Gary, IN 46402 082494330 2198811301 N BLOOMINGTON IN EVANSVILLE H94ECIN0152 H94ECIN0142 Mike Davis Mariann D. Kolb City of Bloomington Dept of Metropolitan Dev. O Box 100 One NW M.L.K. Jr. Blvd. Bloomington. IN 47402 Room 306 Civic Center Complex 3123316406X Evansville. IN 47708 8124265580 N FORT WAYNE IN MUNCIE 94ECIN0115 H94ECIN0210 Elizabeth A. Neu Walter Berry City of Fort Wayne Dept Neigh Servs & Comm Devel 340 City/County Bldg 300 N. High Street Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Muncie. IN 47305 194271127 3177474825 N SOUTH BEND KS TOPEKA H94ECIN0113 H94ECKS0165 ic Hunt Al Bailey Comm & Econ Devel Dept City of Topeka 1200 County-City Building 515 S. Kansas Ave. 66603 South Bend. IN 46601 Topeka. KS 66603 192359371 9132953711 KS WICHITA KY LEXINGTON/FAYETTE COUNTY H94ECKS0120 H94ECKY0007 Misty R. Bruckner Bob H. Drakefold City of Wichita Lexington-Fayette Urban County Go 455 North Main St 200 East Main Street Wichita. KS 67202 Mayor's Off Of Econ Dev 3162684351X Lexington. KY 40507 6062583131X KY PADUCAH KY RICHMOND. KY H94ECKY0008 H94ECKY0097 Rhonda A. Lee-James Edward Worley City of Paducah City of Richmond 300 S. 5th Street PO Box 2267 PO Box 250 Paducah. KY 420022267 Richmond. KY 40475 5024448683 6066231000 LA LAKE CHARLES LA SHREVEPORT H94EZLA0041 H94EZLA0058 Noel Moss Dale L. Sibley Lake Charles City of Shreveport P.O. Box 900 1234 Texas Avenue Lake Charles, LA 70602 Shreveport, LA 71130 3 911440 3186737500 ezec contact list 6 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST A BATON ROUGE/PARISH E BATON ROUGE LA LAFAYETTE/LAFAYETTE PARISH 94ECLA0146 H94ECLA0006 Greg Brown Roger K. Hedrick. AICP City of Baton Rouge Parish of East B LaFayette Areawide Planning Comm. O Box 1471 PO Box 4017-C 705 W. University Baton Rouge, LA 70821 Lafayette, LA 70502 043895350 3182618000X A NEW IBERIA LA TERREBONNE PARISH 94ECLA0048 H94ECLA0155 Cliff Aucoin Lessa M. Foreman City of New Iberia S. Central Planning & Dev. Comm. -57 E. Main St. PO Box 846 New Iberia. LA 70560 Thibodaux. LA 70302 183692300 5044450514X MA BROCKTON MA CAMBRIDGE 94ECMA0044 H94ECMA0160 Nancy Savoie Mary Flynn City of Brockton City of Cambridge Comm Dev Dept 15 School Street 57 Inman Street Brockton. MA 02401 Cambridge. MA 02139 085807113 6173494600 MA CHELSEA MA FALL RIVER H94ECMA0103 H94ECMA0073 Robert Luongo Michael F. Neves sea Dept CD & Strat Plan Steeri Jobs for Fall River Inc. in Broadway One Govt Center City Hall Fall River. MA 02720 Chelsea. MA 02150 5086751497 6178890700 MA HOLYOKE MA LAWRENCE H94ECMA0197 H94ECMA0078 William H. Murphy Jay Donovan Ofc of Comm Dev Lawrence/Methuen Enterprise Comm City Hall Annex Rm 400 11 Lawrence St Bay State Bldg Ste 806 Holyoke. MA 01040 Lawrence. MA 01840 4135342230 5086816200 MA LYNN MA NEW BEDFORD H94ECMA0087 H94ECMA0214 Peter M. Deveau Denise J. Nunes Econ Devel Industrial Corp Office of Comm. Dev. 37 Central Square 133 William Street Lynn. MA 01901 New Bedford. MA 02740 6175819399 5089916365 MA WORCESTER MD HAGERSTOWN H94ECMA0172 H94ECMD0122 Stephen F. O'Neil George Andreve City of Worcester City of Hagerstown 455 Main Street 1 East Franklin St 4th Flr Worcester. MA 01608 Hagerstown. MD 21740 5087991400 3017398577X136 ezec contact list 7 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST MI BENTON HARBOR/BENTON TOWNSHIP MI GRAND RAPIDS H94EZMI0107 H94ECMI0081 Haroid Reid Kurt F. Kimball City of Benton Harbor City of Grand Rapids 185 E. Wall St 300 Monroe Ave. NW Benton Harbor. MI 49022 Grand Rapids. MI 49503 6169278405 6164563883 MI HIGHLAND PARK MI INKSTER H94ECMI0205 H94ECMI0035 DENNIS EVANS Clarence Oden Jr. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK City of Inkster Comm. Dev. Dept. 15840 SECOND AVENUE 2121 Inkster Rd Detroit. MI 48203 Inkster. MI 48141 3132522760 3135637717X MI JACKSON, MI MI KALAMAZOO H94ECMI0161 H94ECMI0005 Charles Reisdorf BARBARA GORDON Region 2 Planning Commission CITY OF KALAMAZOO. MICHIG 120 W. Michigan 241 WEST SOUTH STREET Jackson. MI 49201 Kalamazoo. MI 49007 5177884426X 6163378801X MI LANSING MI PONTIAC H94ECMI0191 H94ECMI0027 DENNIS J. SYKES OWEN WINNIE r Y OF LANSING CITY OF PONTIAC 1., N. WASHINGTON SQUARE 1600 WIDE TRACK DRIVE. WEST 2ND FLOOR PONTIAC. MI 48342 Lansing, MI 489331668 8108575664X 5174834060X MI ROYAL OAK MI SAGINAW H94ECMI0208 H94ECMI0029 Albert A. Bogdan Joseph Turner Charter Township of Royal Oak City of Saginaw 21075 Wyoming Ave 1315 S. Washington Ave Ferndale. MI 48220 Saginaw. MI 48601 8105530290 5177591472X MI TAYLOR. MI MI Z- DETROIT H94ECMI0049 H94ECMI0136 Susan Miller-Anderson WARREN G. NICKERSON Taylor N CENTRAL DETROIT GROWTH 23333 Eureka Rd. 1221 EAST LANTZ Taylor. MI 48180 Detroit. MI 48203 3133741350X 3138920608 MN Z- HENNEPIN COUNTY/BROOKLYN PARK MO JOPLIN H94ECMN0119 H94ECMO0045 Julie A. Jones JACK N. GOLDEN City of Brooklyn Park CITY OF JOPLIN, MISSOURI 5200 85th Avenue North P.O. BOX 1355 Minneapolis. MN 55443 303 EAST THIRD STREET 6124938052 Joplin. MO 648021355 4176246937X ezec contact list 8 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST 10 KINLOCH MO PAGEDALE {94ECMO0178 H94ECMO0016 VILLIAM H GILLESPIE CLAUDE L. HOMME INLOCH ST. LOUIS COUNTY ECONOMIC 990 MONROE ST 121 SOUTH MERAMEC INLOCH. MO 63140 4TH FLOOR 145213335 Saint Louis. MO 63105 3148897663X 10 ST. JOSEPH MS GULFPORT 94ECMO0200 H94EZMS0062 Brad Lau Marcia Miller City of St. Joseph Community Dev. Commission 100 Frederick Ave Rm 201 PO Box 59 Saint Joseph. MO 64501 Gulfport. MS 39502 3162714787X 6018645657 C ASHEVILLE NC DURHAM H94EZNC0044 H94ECNC0187 Marvin Vierra DWIGHT A. YARBOROUGH Community Devel Div CITY OF DURHAM PO BOX 7148 DURHAM CITY-CNTY PLGN. DEPT. Asheville. NC 28802 Durham. NC 27701 042595721X 9195604137X NC FAYETTEVILLE NC GREENSBORO H94ECNC0149 H94ECNC0186 , NP. SMITH MIKE COWHIG C.. Y OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY OF GREENSBORO +33 HAY STREET DEPT. HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEV. Fayetteville, NC 283015537 Post Office Box 3136 9104331990X GREENSBORO. NC 27402 9193732755 NC RALEIGH NC WILMINGTON, NC H94ECNC0175 H94ECNC0188 EILEEN BREAZEALE ARCELIA WICKER. SR. CITY OF RALEIGH CITY OF WILMINGTON P.O. BOX 590 P.O. BOX 1810 Raleigh, NC 27602 409 MARKET STREET 9198903170 WILMINGTON, NC 28402 9103414641 NC WINSTON-SALEM NE LINCOLN H94ECNC0106 H94ECNE0164 Allen Joines Wynn Hjermstad City of Winston-Salem Lincoln. Urban Devel Dept P.O. BOX 2511 129 N 10TH ST Winston-Salem. NC 27102 Lincoln. NE 68508 9107272741X 4024418211 NJ ASBURY PARK NJ ATLANTIC CITY H94ECNJ0138 H94ECNJ0211 David G. Roberts Kenneth B. Platt City of Asbury Park Dept Of Plan & Devel 1 Municipal Plaza 1301 Bacharach Blvd P ry Park. NJ 07712 Atlantic City, NJ 08401 9003025724 6093475404 ezec contact list 9 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST NJ EAST ORANGE NJ ELIZABETH H94ECNJ0128 H94ECNJ0137 Lorna K. Johnson WILLIAM O'DEA City of East Orange ELIZABETH DEVELOPMENT CO 14 City Hall Plaza 1045 EAST JERSEY STREET East Orange, NJ 07019 Elizabeth. NJ 07207 2012665142 9082890262 NJ NEW BRUNSWICK NJ PATERSON H94ECNJ0207 H94ECNJ0193 Glenn S. Patterson Donna Brightman City of New Brunswick City of Paterson Dept. of Comm. De 690 George Street - 2nd Floor 155 Market Street New Brunswick. NJ 08901 Paterson. NJ 07505 087455050 2018818777 NJ PLAINFIELD NJ TRENTON H94ECNJ0156 H94ECNJ0203 Henry C. Kita Alan Mallach City of Plainfield City of Trenton 515 Watchung Ave. 319 E. State Street Plainfield. NJ 07060 Trenton. NJ 086081866 087533227X 6099893504X NJ VINELAND NM LAS CRUCES H94ECNJ0201 H94ECNM0184 Linda Dechen JEROME L. TROJAN D rement of Administration CITY OF LAS CRUCES Se. nth & Wood Streets 200 N. CHURCH P.O. DRAWER CLC Vineland, NJ 083606102 Las Cruces. NM 88004 5097944144 5055260341X NY SYRACUSE NY AUBURN. NY H94EZNY0040 H94ECNY0091 Vito Sciscioli ViJay K. Mital Syracuse Dept. of Comm. Dev. City of Auburn 201 E. Washington St. 24 South Street Syracuse. NY 13202 Auburn. NY 13021 3154488700 3152554115 NY BINGHAMTON NY NEW YORK CITY/QUEENS(JAMAICA) H94ECNY0090 H94ECNY0095 RICHARD A. BUCCI Cathy Mickens BINGHAMTON Neighborhood Housing Services of J CITY HALL. FOURTH FLOOR 160-16 121 Avenue Binghamton. NY 13901 Jamaica. NY 11434 6077727028 7185252558X NY NEW YORK(SOUTH BRONX) NY NEW YORK(SOUTHWEST BROOKLYN) H94ECNY0094 H94ECNY0196 Anita Miller CEASAR CLAIO The South Bronx Corp Collaborative SOUTHWEST BROOKLYN INDUS 1155 Ave. of the Americas 16th Fl. 1 BUSH PLAZA New York. NY 10036 Brooklyn. NY 11232 2123542277X 7187682119X ezec contact list 10 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST NY NEW YORK(WILLIAMSBURG/BROOKLYN NAVY Y NY NEW YORK/BROOKLYN(BEDFORD STUYVESANT) 94ECNY0009 H94ECNY0099 ELIZABETH COLON Margo D. Butts BROOKLYN NAVY YARD DEVEL Bedford Stuyvesant Comm Conf LUSHING AVE. & CUMBERLAND ST. 1360 Fulton St BUILDING 292, 3RD FLOOR Brooklyn. NY 11216 Brooklyn. NY 11205 7186360003 '188525454X NY UTICA NY YONKERS 94ECNY0098 H94ECNY0100 Shawna Candella Steve Whetstone City of Utica City of Yonkers One Kennedy Plaza City Hall. Yonkers. NY 10701-3883 Jtica. NY 13502 Yonkers. NY 107013883 157920181X 9143776650X OH KENT OH WEIRTON/STEUBENVILLE H94EZOH0022 H94EZOH0045 A. Louis Zunguze JOHN R. BECK Dept. of Comm. Dev. BROOKE-HANCOCK-JEFF METR 319 S. Water Street 814 ADAMS STREET Kent. OH 44240 Steubenville. OH 43952 2166788108X 6142823685X OH CANTON OH CINCINNATI H94ECOH0084 H94ECOH0121 William E. McGeorge Charlotte Birdsall C of Canton City of Cincinnati 218 Cleveland Avenue S.W. 801 Plum Street. Room 104 Canton. OH 44702 Cincinnati, OH 45202 2164842501 5133522579X OH DAYTON OH EAST CLEVELAND H94ECOH0124 H94ECOH0050 Theodore J. Staton Venezuela Robinson City of Dayton City of East Cleveland P.O. Box 22 13601 Euclid Avenue Dayton, OH 45401 Cleveland. OH 44112 5132254695 2166812388 OH MANSFIELD OH TOLEDO H94ECOH0053 H94ECOH0111 Cynthia Baker PAUL HUBBARD City of Mansfield CITY OF TOLEDO. DEPARTMEN 30 N. Diamond Street ONE GOVERNMENT CENTER Mansfield. OH 44902 SUITE 1800 4197559795X Toledo. OH 43604 4192451400X OH URBANCREST VILLAGE OH WARREN H94ECOH0117 H94ECOH0052 VAUGHN E. HAIRSTON JACK FOLEY VILLAGE OF URBANCREST CITY OF WARREN, OHIO 3492 FIRST AVENUE 418 S. MAIN AVENUE URBANCREST. OH 43123 Warren. OH 44481 ???751279X 2168412595X ezec contact list 11 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST OH YOUNGSTOWN OK OKLAHOMA CITY H94ECOH0109 H94ECOK0069 GEORGE R. GARCHAR Michael C. Pugh CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN City of Oklahoma City Planning Dep 26 S. PHELPS STREET One N. Walker STH FLOOR CITY HALL Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Youngstown. OH 44503 40529722890000X 2167428842X OK TULSA OR EUGENE H94ECOK0104 H94ECOR0190 BRENDA K MILLER LEE BEYER CITY OF TULSA CITY OF EUGENE 110 SOUTH HARTFORD #200 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tulsa. OK 74120 72 WEST BROADWAY. SUITE 200 9185962600X EUGENE. OR 97401 5036875443 PA CHESTER PA ALTOONA H94EZPA0017 H94ECPA0039 Thomas Jackson JOSEPH F. WEAKLAND Chester Redevelopment Authority CITY OF ALTOONA - DEPT. OF PO Box 437 1501 11TH AVENUE Chester. PA 19013 Altoona. PA 16601 6104477853X 8149492470 PA BEAVER FALLS PA ERIE F' ECPA0061 H94ECPA0055 JAMES PALMER Michael J. Veshecco BEAVER COUNTY CORP. FOR E City of Erie 798 TURNPIKE STREET 626 State Street Beaver, PA 15009 Erie. PA 16501 4127288610X 8148701270X PA JOHNSTOWN PA LANCASTER H94ECPA0082 H94ECPA0065 W. Kenneth Gearhart Eric L. Hinderliter City of Johnstown City of Lancaster City Hall 401 Main Street 120 N. Duke St. PO Box 1599 Johnstown. PA 15901 Lancaster. PA 176081599 8145332001 7172914760 PA PHILADELPHIA (NORTH CENTRAL) PA PHILADELPHIA(GERMANTOWN.HUNTINGTON PA H94ECPA0080 H94ECPA0041 Carrie Turner TINA BROOKS Poplar Enterprise Dev. Corp. GREATER GERMANTOWN HOUS 1204 Melon Street 48 E. PENN STREET Philadelphia. PA 19123 Germantown. PA 19144 2157650960 2158436676X PA PHILADELPHIA(NORTH AMERICAN STREET) PA PHILADELPHIA(SOUTH CENTRAL) H94ECPA0063 H94ECPA0112 John McDonald Carolina B. Harris-Ramsue Impact Services. Inc. Christian Ambassadors Ministries Inc 124 East Indiana Ave. 630-32 McKean Street Philadelphia. PA 19134 Philadelphia. PA 19148 2 '391600 2152719545X ezec contact list 12 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST PA READING PA SCRANTON H94ECPA0060 H94ECPA0038 Ronald E. Miller George V. Lynett Reading Bureau of Development & I Scranton Tomorrow 815 Washington Street 321 Spruce St. 2nd Floor Reading. PA 196013690 Scranton. PA 18503 6106556099 7179635901 PA SHARON/FARRELL/HERMITAGE PA WASHINGTON COUNTY H94ECPA0070 H94ECPA0089 Dennis G. Puko Stephen S. Wiencek Mercer Co Reg Plan Commission Redev. Auth. of Washington County 94 E Shenango St 603 Courthouse Sq. 100 W. Beau St. Sharpsville. PA 16150 Washington. PA 15301 4129625787 4122286875X PA YORK RI PAWTUCKET/CENTRAL FALLS H94ECPA0074 H94ECRI0102 April A. Showers John McAlmont Office of Econ. Dev. City of York City of Central Falls A Marketway West 580 Broad Street York. PA 174011231 Pawtucket. RI 02863 7178492271 4017277480 SC COLUMBIA SC FLORENCE H94ECSC0101 H94ECSC0077 Chip Land Thomas W. Edwards, Jr. C of Columbia City of Florence 1--3 Laurel St. 180 North Irby Street PO Box 147 Florence. SC 295013456 Columbia. SC 29217 8036653113X 8037338343 SC GREENVILLE SC NORTH CHARLESTON H94ECSC0067 H94ECSC0199 AUBREY V. WATTS, JR. Stenson Lee CITY OF GREENVILLE City of North Charleston 206 SOUTH MAIN STREET 4900 LaCross Road P. O. BOX 2207 North Charleston. SC 294101906 Greenville. SC 29602 8035545700 EXT.5 8034674426X SC SPARTANBURG SC SUMTER H94ECSC0022 H94ECSC0135 Wayne Bowers John Brooks City of Spartanburg City of Sumter PO Box 1749 PO Box 1449 Spartanburg. SC 293041749 Sumter. SC 29151 8035962026X 80377333710000X TN KNOXVILLE TN CHATTANOOGA H94EZTN0053 H94ECTN0170 Larry Martin ANN COULTER City of Knoxville OFFICE OF ECONOMIC & COMM PO Box 280 101 CITY HALL ANNEX Knoxville, TN 37901 Chattanooga, TN 37402 6 712002 6157575065 ezec contact list 13 January 6. 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST TN JACKSON, TN TX AUSTIN/TRAVIS COUNTY H94ECTN0014 H94EZTX0019 Randall Nelson Dennis J. Campa City of Jackson City of Austin 111 N. Church Street PO Box 1088. Palm Sq. Bldg. Jackson. TN 38301 Austin. TX 78767 014258304X 5124734101 TX FORT WORTH / LAKE WORTH TX LONGVIEW/GREGG CO H94EZTX0006 H94EZTX0023 Mike Groomer Ed Rohner City of Fort Worth City of Longview 1000 Throckmorton Street 300 W. Cotton St. Fort Worth. TX 76102 Longview. TX 75601 3178716140 9032371071X TX ORANGE TX PORT ARTHUR H94EZTX0004 H94EZTX0048 Jerome Bassett Jimmie B. Lewis City of Orange Port Arthur PO Box 520 PO Box 1089 Orange. TX 77630 Port Arthur. TX 77641 4098831034X 4099838135 TX BEAUMONT TX BROWNSVILLE H94ECTX0028 H94ECTX0058 Brian Smith LARRY A. BROWN C of Beaumont CITY OF BROWNSVILLE (0595) P 3ox 3827 1150 E. ADAMS ST. PO BOX 911 Beaumont. TX 77704 3RD FLOOR 4098803763X Brownsville, TX 785220911 21054861500000X TX CORPUS CHRISTI TX DENTON H94ECTX0092 H94ECTX0043 Thomas W. Utter Frank H. Robbins City of Corpus Christi City of Denton PO Box 9277 215 E. McKinney Corpus Christi, TX 784699277 Denton, TX 76201 5128803232 8175668350X TX GALENA PARK TX HARLINGEN H94ECTX0031 H94ECTX0076 Bruce A. Austin JUDITH A. YBARRA Harris Co. Housing & Comm. Dev. CITY OF HARLINGEN 3100 Timmons Lane Suite 220 118 EAST TYLER-P.O. BOX 2207 Houston. TX 77027 Harlingen. TX 78551 7136265651X 2104278735X TX LAREDO TX LUBBOCK H94ECTX0030 H94ECTX0036 Cynthia Collazo James Bertram City of Laredo City of Lubbock 1110 Houston Street PO Box 2000 PO Box 1276 Lubbock. TX 79457 Laredo. TX 780421276 8067672013X 2 917364X ezec contact list 14 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST TX TEMPLE TX TEXARKANA H94ECTX0126 H94ECTX0040 Donna McClain Roger Burtchell City of Temple City of Texarkana 13 N. 2nd Street 220 Texas Blvd. PO Box 1967 Temple. TX 76501 Texarkana. TX 75504 8177705670X 9037940404X UT SALT LAKE CITY va RICHMOND H94ECUT0002 H94EZVA0055 Kathy Ricci Joseph J. James Capital Planning & Programming Di Office of Economic Devel 451 S. State St. Room 406 900 E. Broad Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Richmond. VA 23219 8015357119 8047805633X VA DANVILLE VA LYNCHBURG H94ECVA0182 H94ECVA0202 GERALD FISCHER William P. Scudder CITY OF DANVILLE City of Lynchburg P.O. BOX 3300 900 Church St. PO Box 60 Danville. VA 24543 Lynchburg, VA 24505 8047995261 8048471671X VA PORTSMOUTH VA ROANOKE H94ECVA0125 H94ECVA0072 Daniel A. Swanson John R. Marlles F mouth Redevel & Hsg Auth Dept of Plan & Comm Devel P. Box 1098 215 Church Ave. S.W. RM 162 Portsmouth. va 23705 Roanoke. VA 24011 8043995261X 7039812344 va SUFFOLK wa PIERCE COUNTY H94ECVA0204 H94ECWA0020 David S. Freeman James R. McDonald City of Suffolk Pierce County PO Box 1858 4916 Center St. Ste H Suffolk. VA 23439 Tacoma, WA 98409 8049256339X 2065917205X WA SPOKANE WA YAKIMA H94ECWA0174 H94ECWA0001 John V. Geraghty Jr. GLENN J. VALENZUELA City of Spokane CITY OF YAKIMA 4th Fl, City Hall West 808 129 NORTH SECOND STREET Spokane Falls Blvd. Yakima. WA 98901 Spokane. WA 992013333 5095756113X 5096256208 WI BELOIT WI KENOSHA H94ECWI0019 H94ECWI0154 Paul Rasmussen Ray Forgianni. Jr. City of Beloit Comm. Dev. Dept. City of Kenosha Dept. of City Dev. 100 State Street 625 52nd Street Beloit. WI 53511 Kenosha. WI 53140 6083646700X 4146534028X ezec contact list 15 January 6, 1995 URBAN EZ/EC TIER 3 COMMUNITIES LEAD CONTACT LIST WI LA CROSSE WI MADISON/MONONA. WI H94ECWI0042 H94ECWI0086 Lawrence J. Kirch Hickory R. Hurie City of La Crosse Planning Departme City of Madison 400 La Crosse St 215 MLK Jr. Blvd. Room 280 La Crosse. WI 54601 Maidson. WI 53710 6087897318X 6082670740 WI RACINE WV CHARLESTON, WV H94ECWI0025 H94EZWV0026 Thomas Wright Caldwell Davis City of Racine Business & Industrial Dev. Corp. 730 Washington Ave. 1116 Smith Street Racine. WI 53403 Charleston. WV 25301 4146369151 3043404253 WV PARKERSBURG WV WHEELING H94ECWV0108 H94ECWV0131 Jim Kinnett William Phipps Parkersburg Dev. Corp. Bel-O-Mar Regional Planning Counci PO Box 1638 PO Box 2086 631 1/2 Juliana St. Wheeling. WV 26003 Parkersburg. WV 26102 3042421800X 3044225650X ezec contact list 16 January 6. 1995 CONTENTS 1 CEB MEMBERS 2 EZ/EC PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3 APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS 4 URBAN EZ FINALISTS 5 RURAL EZ FINALISTS 6 ANNOUNCEMENT & IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 7 OUTREACH TO NON DESIGNATED CITIES 8 9 10 AND M A UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TIONALS USDA AMERICORPS PROJECTS EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES In its first year of operation, AmeriCorps the domestic national service program proposed by President Clinton and passed with bipartisan support by Congress engaged 25,000 Americans of diverse backgrounds in service that filled unmet human, environmental, educational, and public safety needs. In exchange for such service, AmeriCorps Members received an educational award that can be used to pay for college, job training, graduate school, or to repay student loans. The Corporation for National Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, has given preference to project applications from Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Champion Communities; thus many AmeriCorps projects are located in these areas. Most AmeriCorps projects are funded through state commissions appointed by each state's governor and managed by non-profit organizations and local government organizations most projects are not funded or managed directly by Federal agencies. However, a highly competitive process coordinated by the Corporation for National Service allowed a small portion of AmeriCorps positions to be managed by Federal agencies in tandem with local groups. In the first year of operation, the largest Federal agency award was granted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), allowing the Department to create unique public / private partnerships that sponsored 1,200 Members in over 300 mostly rural sites. These projects provided service focused on boosting rural development, fighting hunger, and improving the environment. The rural development projects were sponsored by four different USDA agencies: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest Service. Most of these USDA AmeriCorps rural development projects were placed in areas that were designated as either Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities. (List attached) Moreover, these projects targeted the most persistently poverty-ridden rural areas of the nation: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, the "colonias" on the U.S./Mexico border, and Native American reservations in the "Four Corners" (in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) area. During the first program year, AmeriCorps Members in USDA rural development projects achieved the following results: Secured new homes for 390 low-income families. Helped 3,484 families obtain running water and/or modern bathrooms for the first time. Provided early childhood development services to 4,670 children. Helped over 100 counties improve their emergency preparedness and response. Provided 867 families with assistance for health and safety hazard repairs in their homes. Educated 175 parents and children in parenting and family skills. Created after school programs, activities, and events that benefited 400 parents and students. Mentored and tutored 180 students. Helped save or create 1,000 jobs. Delivered technical assistance to 395 family farmers to help them continue to earn enough income to support their families and stay on their land. Taught entrepreneurship seminars attended by 285 citizens. Provided job training and/or vocational counseling to 509 citizens. All USDA AmeriCorps projects "got things done" while strengthening communities, expanding educational opportunity, and encouraging personal responsibility. For more information about the USDA AmeriCorps program, contact Joel Berg at 202-720-5746 or e-mail: "[email protected]" AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R02B CH 171 8 Lower Yukon Economic Development Council Anchorage AK R05A CH 2 1 Crowley's Ridge Development Council, Inc. Jonesboro AR R05B EC 20 1 Mississippi County, Arkansas EOC, Inc. Blytheville AR R05C CH 58 1 East Central AR Ec. Dev. Corporation - West Memphis Forrest City AR R05D EC 84 1 East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation - AR Brinkley Moro R05F CH 136 1 Mid-Delta Enterprise Community Helena AR R05C EC 183 1 East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation - AR Forrest City Forrest City R04A CH 18 1 City of Eloy Eloy AZ R04C CH 28 1 Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, Inc. Flagstaff AZ R04B EC 168a City of Douglas Douglas AZ R04D EC 168b 1 City of San Luis San Luis AZ R04E EC 168c 1 Nogales-Santa Crux County Economic Development Foundation Nogales AZ R06A EC 35 1 Imperial County Enterprise Community El Centro CA R06B CH 61 1 City of Shafter Shafter CA R06E EC 71 1 City of Watsonville Watsonville CA R06C CH 79 1 Kings Community Action Organization, Inc. Hanford CA R06F CH 153 1 City of Hollister Hollister CA R06D CH 207 1 County of Fresno, I-5 Business Development Corridor Firebaugh CA R12B EC 89 5 Marianna Chamber of Commerce Marianna FL R13A CH 157 1 QUOLA LC/CDC Valdosta GA R13B EC 211 1 Crisp/Dooly EZ/EC Coordinating Committee Cordele GA R13C EC 216 1 CSRA Regional Development Center Keysville GA R17A CH 198 1 City of Cairo Cairo IL R21C CH 70 1 Flat Woods Community-Based Development Corporation, Inc. Oneida KY R21B CH 90 1 Kentucky Communities Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. Barboursville KY P21D CH 165 1 Big Sandy Community Action Program/RECD Prestonburg KY The Service Connection R21F CH 165 1 KY (Big Sandy ADD) Prestonberg R21H CH 172 1 City of Bowling Green, Operation P.R.I.D.E. Bowling Green KY R21D CH TN127 1 Bell County Middlesboro KY R211 CH TN186 1 McCreary Co. Fiscal Court Whitley City KY R21A CH TN19 1 Cumberland Valley ADD London KY R22B CH 152 1 Southern Mutual Help Association, Inc. New Iberia LA R22A CH 160 1 St. Landry Economic Inducement District Opelousas LA R22C CH 164 1 St. Mary Community Action Agency, Inc. Franklin LA R22H CH 173 1 RECD Town of Cullen Cullen LA R22D EC 215 1 Macon Ridge Economic Development Program Ferriday LA R22F CH 221 1 Project Celebration, Inc. Many LA R28B CH 4 1 Town of Edwards Edwards MS R28A CH 14 2 Madison County Human Resource Agency Canton MS R28C EZ 45 3 Mid-Delta Empowerment Zone Alliance (MDEZA) Greenville MS R28R CH 108 2 Alcorn State University Lorman MS R28Q CH 203 1 Natchez-Adams County Economic Development Authority Natchez MS R37A CH 214b 1 Madison County Family Resource Center Marshall NC R35A EC 67 1 La Jicarita Enterprise Community Taos NM R35C CH 80 2 Eastern Plains Council of Governments Clovis NM R35B CH 98 1 NW New Mexico Council of Governments Gallup NM R42A CH 156 5 SW PA Heritage Preservation Commission Holidaysburg PA AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R45A CH 27 1 Denmark Community Outreach Enterprise Committee* Denmark SC R45C CH 83 1 Penn Center* St. Helena Island SC R45D EC 97 1 Williamsburg Enterprise Community Commission, Inc* Lake City SC R45B CH 99 1 Allendale-Barnwell Redevelopment Program Fairfax SC R48C CH 49 1 City of Luling Luling TX R48A CH 59 1 Middle Rio Grande Development Council Uvalde TX R48D CH 64 1 South Texas Development Council Laredo TX R48E CH 76 1 City of Gonzales Gonzales TX R48B CH 92 1 Dimmit County Commissioners Court Carrizo Springs TX R48F EZ 107 1 Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Mercedes TX R51B EC 218 VA Eastern Share Economic Empowerment & Housing 2 VA Corporation(VESEEHC) Nassawadox R53A CH 177 1 Grant County Community Action Council Moses Lake WA R54B CH 137 1 Mingo County Commission Williamson WV R54I CH 139 1 Marion County Extension Office (City of Fairmont) Fairmont WV R54C CH 184 1 P.R.I.D.E In Logan County, Inc. Logan WV R54F CH 185 1 Mountain Enterprise Community Webster Springs WV R54D EC 187 1 McDowell County Action Network Wilcoe WV R54J CH 196 1 City of Morgantown Morgantown WV R54H CH 205 1 Lincoln County Economic Development Authority, Inc. West Hamlin WV R54A CH 206 1 Barbour County Development Authority Philippi WV 87 WINNERS.XLS Page 3 of 5 Zone To assist the community of Douglas, Arizona implement Douglas's AZ Douglas RHCDS 168 Cochise strategic plan for economic development. AZ. Nogales RHCDS 168 Santa Cruz Assist with economic development activity specifically enterprise CA El Centro RBCDS 35 Imperial community strategic of Assisting rural communities providing the service of filling CA El Centro RHCDS 35 Imperial applications, for housing repairs loans and grants to the elderly and very low income families. Date: 2/21/95 Time: 10:14:25 Responsible for going into the rural communities and providing CA El Centro RHCDS 35 Imperial assistance with filling out applications for housing repair loans and grants to the elderly and very low income families. Provide outreach in order to determine housing needs of very low KY Somerset RHCDS EZ 159 Lincoln Pulaski Rockcastle Laurel Clinton income applicants and assist with application loan/grant processing. (File) Conduct activities as necessary to implement the strategic plan KY London RBCDS EZ 159 Laurell Clinton Wayne Jackson prepared for the Empowerment Zone Application. Performs full time service and accomplishes objectives and goals set LA Winnsboro RBCDS 215 Franklin Franklin Madison Concordia Richland forth in EZ/EC Strategic Plan, as submitted by rural LA applicants. Responsibility will be to perform full time service and accomplish LA Tallulah RBCDS 115 Madison Madison objectives and goals set forth in EZ/EC Strategic Plan. as submitted by rural Louisiana applicants. Breq leor :01 Page 2 WINNERS.XLS Page 4 of 5 The member will work with the program director in administering the Home Buyers Education Program in Sunflower County and HUD MS Indianola RBCDS EZ 45 Sunflower Program in LeFlore County: the primary focus is to provide technical assistance, supervisory assistance, and home ownership couns The participant will provide technical support to the Tallahatchie Housing Inc. staff SO that affordable housing for low and very low MS Webb RHCDS 140 Tallahatchie income residents and renovations for existing homeowners and provide counseling for first time home owners and apartment The member is currently researching all existing industry in the area, MS Stoneville RBCDS EZ.45 Washington conducting survey work with existing industries, etc. to develop a concise listing of industry types suitable for expansion or recruitment. The member is responsible for facilitating between community leaders MS Cleveland RBCDS EZ 45 Bolivar and organizations in planning projects for community and economic development. Date: 2/21/95 Time: 10:15:32 The member will make personal contacts in the community and organize formal and informal meetings between community leaders, MS Ridgeland RBCDS EZ 45 Holmes Humphreys Madison community businessmen, public officials and various funding sources to encourage the economic growth. Member will be providing outreach and assistance or community and OR Cave Junction RBCDS 85 Josephine economic development issues in the EC communities in Josephine County. Williamsbur My responsibilities include doing outreach for FmHA, and helping my SC Kingstree RHCDS 97 g EC accomplish their strategic plan goals. Williamsbur My responsibilities are performing outreach for Fml IA and helping my SC Kingstree RHCDS 97 g EC accomplish their strategic plans and goals. To improve the quality of life of SMART area residents by providing TN Oneida RBCDS 186 Scott McCreary them with improved health services. safety/security, and housing. From: To: Joel Berg Page 3 WINNERS.XLS Page 5 of To assist in the organization outreach to empower communities to develop local leadership and to accomplish community planning TX Edinburg RBCDS EZ 107 Hidalgo Starr Willacy Cameron activities necessary to assure the economic vitality and productivity of the designated Empowerment Zone areas. Providing outreach services to the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the surrounding communities/colonias of TX Edinburg RHCDS EZ 107 Hidalgo the availability of loans and grants for rural housing ownership. housing ownership. housing repairs, and water hookup servic Provide guidance and assistance to colonia applicants in obtaining TX San Benito RBCDS EZ 107 Cameron funding for water and sewer services to their dwellilngs. Rio Grande TX RHCDS EZ 107 Starr City 10:16:43 To be trained to perform needed services for the community in which TX Raymondville RBCDS EZ 107 Willacy Member is going to serve. TX Edinburg RHCDS EZ 107 Hidalgo My job is to help people in my community as well as the county by assisting them in any way that I can through the AmeriCorps program WV Wilcoe RHCDS 187 McDowell with help from the Council of Southern Mountains to ensure a brighter future for them and me. Responsibilities range from working out in the public with community WV Wilcoe RHCDS 187 McDowell based or civic organizations to interoffice duties. W Yakima RBCDS 116 Yakima A : Page 4 Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. EZ/EC June 1996 Volume 1, Issue 4 NEWS COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS Putting People First quiet act of conscience can topple these neighborhoods will be able even the mightiest walls of igno- to connect to each other and Message from rance, intolerance, and indifference. eventually to the rest of the planet. AL GORE Today we honor the memory Our goal is to infuse modern of Montgomery. We do so with meaning into the civil rights our words of course, but we also movement's timeless legacy. And Vice President pay respects in the more valuable we're applying the lessons of the coin of our Information Age Excerpts from Vice Presi- action to our push for dent Al Gore' White House By the end Henry G. Cisneros, Secre- changes in Conference Speech of 1996, we will tary, U.S. Department of neighborhoods connect every Housing and Urban Devel- and communi- opment in his "State of President Clinton offers Hannah Oakman of orty years ago, 80 people school in every ties Philadelphia a thumbs up on the Zone. F took a stand and changed Empowerment America's Communities" I'm proud HUD the world. In February Zone to the infor- address in April that the private 1956, Rosa Parks, Martin mation highway. sector has "America's cities are EZ/EC Heads Luther King, and 78 other With this historic stepped forward dedicated souls walked into the initiative, we are at a point of rebirth to help meet this for a Second and renewal. We have county courthouse in Mont- moving civil challenge. Round gomery, Alabama, and gave them- rights into cyber- been to the bottom of Instead of public selves up for arrest. Their offense: space. Forty years the well, and now values and pri- America's cities are uilding on the success on They were boycotting Mont- after Mont- vate actions the Empowerment Zone & gomery's buses because the city gomery, we are demonstrating that doing battle as Enterprise Community forced African-Americans to sit in stamping the val- they're capable of they did 40 years B effort, President Clinton the back. ues of Rosa Parks climbing back." ago in Mont- announced his proposal for That day, news of the dramat- and Martin gomery, today a "second round" of EZ/ECs at the ic encounter flashed across the Luther King onto the age of the they are joining hands - working February White House Conference world. From Nova Scotia to Netscape Navigator and Windows together in a public-private part- on Community Empowerment. Nairobi, people read about the 95. nership that demonstrates what we "I want this model to sweep Montgomery bus boycott and saw This is an extraordinary ini- can achieve when we all work the country. There are many other the faces of an earnest woman tiative. It means that every child together. rural and urban and Indian named Rosa and a 26-year-old man in every one of the 15 urban and And this effort could not national communities that I named Martin. And the world rural Empowerment Zones will be come at a better time. There is a believe deserve a chance," said learned something about our coun- able to connect to the Internet - digital divide in the country. For President Clinton. try that day: in America, a single and that students and teachers in continued on page 8 continued on page 8 Unions and EZ/ECs Team Up for Jobs ational and local unions Under the name AMERICA N are teaming up with the WORKS PARTNERSHIP, union Clinton Administration pension funds, private investors, and Empowerment Zone and public funds will be used to officials to create new offer economic development jobs and new investments in inner incentives through a series of cities - an example of the public revolving loan funds for home and private partnerships President buyers and businesses. Trade Clinton expected from the unions will also provide the job Empowerment Zone effort. skills training. Vice Prsident Gore shows a group of youngsters continued on page 6 the many uses of the Internet. HUD IN A CRIVE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA AMERICORPS PROJECTS EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES In its first year of operation, AmeriCorps the domestic national service program proposed by President Clinton and passed with bipartisan support by Congress engaged 25,000 Americans of diverse backgrounds in service that filled unmet human, environmental, educational, and public safety needs. In exchange for such service, AmeriCorps Members received an educational award that can be used to pay for college, job training, graduate school, or to repay student loans. The Corporation for National Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, has given preference to project applications from Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Champion Communities; thus many AmeriCorps projects are located in these areas. Most AmeriCorps projects are funded through state commissions appointed by each state's governor and managed by non-profit organizations and local government organizations most projects are not funded or managed directly by Federal agencies. However, a highly competitive process coordinated by the Corporation for National Service allowed a small portion of AmeriCorps positions to be managed by Federal agencies in tandem with local groups. In the first year of operation, the largest Federal agency award was granted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), allowing the Department to create unique public / private partnerships that sponsored 1,200 Members in over 300 mostly rural sites. These projects provided service focused on boosting rural development, fighting hunger, and improving the environment. The rural development projects were sponsored by four different USDA agencies: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest Service. Most of these USDA AmeriCorps rural development projects were placed in areas that were designated as either Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities. (List attached) Moreover, these projects targeted the most persistently poverty-ridden rural areas of the nation: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, the "colonias" on the U.S./Mexico border, and Native American reservations in the "Four Corners" (in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) area. During the first program year, AmeriCorps Members in USDA rural development projects achieved the following results: Secured new homes for 390 low-income families. Helped 3,484 families obtain running water and/or modern bathrooms for the first time. Provided early childhood development services to 4,670 children. Helped over 100 counties improve their emergency preparedness and response. Provided 867 families with assistance for health and safety hazard repairs in their homes. Educated 175 parents and children in parenting and family skills. Created after school programs, activities, and events that benefited 400 parents and students. Mentored and tutored 180 students. Helped save or create 1,000 jobs. Delivered technical assistance to 395 family farmers to help them continue to earn enough income to support their families and stay on their land. Taught entrepreneurship seminars attended by 285 citizens. Provided job training and/or vocational counseling to 509 citizens. All USDA AmeriCorps projects "got things done" while strengthening communities, expanding educational opportunity, and encouraging personal responsibility. For more information about the USDA AmeriCorps program, contact Joel Berg at 202-720-5746 or e-mail: "[email protected]" SUBJECT: Application for 1997 AmeriCorps Program Participation Due June 7, 1996. TO: Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) Communities (Designated and Champions) In our first two years, over two hundred Rural Development AmeriCorps Members successfully performed their 1700 hours of community service in over 100 rural communities. Housed in not-for-profit organizations, local units of government, and Rural Development field offices, the Rural Development AmeriCorps Members provided a tremendous variety of direct services to rural residents. Additionally, they coordinated thousands of local volunteers who contributed many more hours of service to improve their local communities. Because the Rural Development AmeriCorps Program has been SO successful in providing critical services to the nation's poor rural areas, we are pleased to announce our third year of participation with the Corporation for National Service's AmeriCorps Program. For those communities interested in participating in our 1997 program year an application packet is enclosed. The packet contains some background on the program, directions for application, an application form and supporting materials. Communities currently hosting an AmeriCorps Member have already submitted a pre-application. If they still are interested in participating, the enclosed application will have to be completed and submitted. Deadline for new application is May 31, 1996. If you have questions regarding the AmeriCorps Program in general, or this application process, please call your AmeriCorps State Program Director (a list is enclosed). Thank you for your interest in, and support of, this very special Presidential Initiative. Send a one copy of your application to the AmeriCorps State Program Director, c/o or your state Rural Development office. Please forward a second copy to: AmeriCorps - Office of Community Development Room 701, Reporters Building 300 7th & D Street SW Washington, DC 20023 Remember, applications must be received no later than COB June 7, 1996. 3 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment Title A Rural Development AmeriCorps Background B The Application Process C Rural Development/AmeriCorps - General Program Information D Instructions and Application E Prohibited Activities F Rural Development AmeriCorps State Program Directors G CNS State Commission Executive Directors list H CNS State Program Directors list 4 Attachment A - Rural Development AmeriCorps Background Program Authority The National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, Public Law 103-82, provides legislative authority for the creation of CNS and its oversight of national service programs. The USDA is involved in running three types of AmeriCorps programs; Anti-hunger Teams, Environment and Public Lands Teams, and Rural Development Teams. The total contingent of 1200 USDA AmeriCorps Members are working in rural and urban areas of the country. History For 1996 the Office of Community Development, in the Rural Development mission area of USDA, was awarded 125 AmeriCorps Member positions from the Corporation for National and Service (CNS). These Members were placed in not-for-profit organizations, local units of government, and Rural Development field offices around the country. The placements awarded to EZ/EC Designated or Champion communities were made on a competitive basis and totaled 86 Members. The AmeriCorps Members were to provide assistance in implementing the one or more components of the community's strategic plan These Members serve in 48 Champion Communities, 16 Enterprise Communities, and three Empowerment Zones. For 1997, the program will remain the same size. Rural Development Teams For 1997, Rural Development will continue sponsoring Rural Development Teams (RDTs) comprised of college or professional school graduates possessing specific skills that are needed by the community. The AmeriCorps Members are recruited and selected by the host community, with assistance from the Rural Development State Office. Rural Development sponsored Members are restricted to activities relating to, or in support of, those goals and objectives identified in the EZ/EC Strategic Plan or Benchmarks. Project Design There are several expectations for each AmeriCorps project. It is expected that each Member will receive sufficient training, education, and supervision for each service project performed. They will also be expected to learn general skills in citizenship and community development. It is expected that this training will teach Members to accept personal responsibility for improving their community, while rewarding them with increased opportunities for education or job training. AmeriCorps Members are required to give at least 1700 hours of service to programs or projects that provide a direct and demonstrable benefit that is of value to the community and reflects the USDA mission of Rural Development and help in the personal development of the Member. The Member's activity must result in a specific identifiable service or improvement that otherwise would not be provided with existing funds or volunteers, and that does not duplicate the routine functions of workers or displace paid employees (see Attachment D, 'Prohibited Activities'). These efforts must result in strengthened communities, bringing together both institutions and individuals to cooperate in creating lasting and constructive change. 5 Attachment B - The Application Process Application The enclosed application is as short and succinct as possible. It asks only for the minimum information necessary for the Rural Development's Office of Community Development to make an informed decision. Additional supporting information may be included with your application - at your discretion. In order to be considered for the 1997 AmeriCorps program year, the attached application must be submitted by June 7. Final decisions on awards will be made within two weeks of the deadline. Recruitment With graduation in May or June, many college graduates will shortly be making decisions about the coming year. In order to attract the largest pool of quality applicants possible, recruiting has to begin soon. Recruiting materials will be sent to you in the next couple of weeks. Please be advised that USDA has an ongoing recruiting process. The list of individuals who have already expressed interest in the program from your area can be requested from your AmeriCorps State Program Director at the state Rural Development office. Your community or office may want to begin some tentative recruitment locally or through universities and other educational institutions. Final decisions on placements will be made on June 7. The AmeriCorps Members themselves will not begin their service until September, 1996. Selection As with recruitment, selection will be a collaborative process between applicants and the USDA Rural Development State Office. Final selections can be made anytime after formal notification of award. Materials for use in interviews and selection will be included with the recruitment package. Since these AmeriCorps Members will be working primarily with EZ/EC communities, it is expected that the community will take charge of the process and make final decisions - with the concurrence of the Rural Development State Office. Each community will be considered for only one AmeriCorps Member. There may be situations where two or more Members can be placed in a community because of extraordinary circumstance, compelling need, or to comply with CNS requirements. Check with your State Program Director if you think your project would qualify. Members serve for a single year but can be considered for a second year, depending on the local situation. If you currently have an AmeriCorps Member, you may or may not elect to extend that Member for a second year. The decision on whether your current Member meets your future needs is up to the local community. If different skills are required for the second year, you will want to engage in this year's recruitment process. Contribution of Host The host community or office will be expected to provide office space, some administrative support, and supervision of work. After the Members begin their service, quarterly reports on work progress are required. Depending on the situation, host communities may be asked to provide liability coverage for the Members under their supervision. Your community must be prepared for this eventuality, but filling out this Application will in no way obligate you for this cost. Hosts will also provide whatever training is necessary for each Member to perform his or her specific duties. 7 Each host community will be expected to cover the cost of travel for its AmeriCorps program supervisor to the Rural Development state office for training about AmeriCorps. This will be no more than one to two days, and will cover all administrative and programmatic aspects of the initiative. Contribution of the Rural Development mission area The Rural Development mission area will provide assistance in recruiting and selecting AmeriCorps Members. Each state RECD office has a designated AmeriCorps State Program Director (formerly State Contact) who will provide overall program supervision for each state. They will be responsible for the program meeting USDA and CNS guidelines and regulations. The Rural Development mission area will coordinate and hold training sessions to meet CNS and USDA guidelines for minimum preparation for Members to function as USDA AmeriCorps Members. A limited travel and training budget for each Member will be administered by the Rural Development state office, as well as limited administrative support. 8 Attachment C - Rural Development/AmeriCorps General Program Information THE AMERICORPS NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM AmeriCorps was signed into law in September, 1993, and launched a year later. AmeriCorps Members perform a minimum of 9 months/ maximum of 12 months of service meeting critical human, environmental, public safety, and educational needs by providing direct, quantifiable services and benefits to citizens. Members serve at a variety of established Federal, State, local, non-profit, and private organizations. The present 20,000 AmeriCorps Members themselves come from every walk in life (although they must be at least 17 years old), have a variety of skills and educational backgrounds, and are serving in most areas of the country. During their season of service AmeriCorps Members receive a monetary stipend and certain benefits such as health care coverage and on-the-job training, as well as a $4,725 academic award upon satisfactory completion of their service. AmeriCorps Members are interviewed and selected by the supporting agency, and then work in assisting in the accomplishment of the mission of that agency. The Corporation For National Service (CNS) The national AmeriCorps program is run by the Corporation for National Service (CNS) which is a Federally-sponsored non-profit organization set up for that purpose. The CNS determines which Agencies and organizations may participate in the AmeriCorps program, sets uniform standards for program operations, provides training and materials (uniforms, buttons, banners, signs, etc.), evaluates overall performance, and provides miscellaneous assistance during the course of the program (fiscal) year, and program matching funds (see below). The CNS runs the AmeriCorps program in partnership with supporting non-profit, State, and Federal agencies. Agencies that wish to support AmeriCorps Members apply to the CNS and successful applicants receive matching funds and certain benefits such as child care payments (to qualifying Members) and the $4,725 academic award. About 85% of all AmeriCorps programs operate through State Commission for National Service offices, which are generally located in State capitals, and are referred to as "State" programs. The Executive Director of the CNS State Commissions is appointed by the Governor of the State and is a State employee. The CNS also has field offices in certain cities headed by a State Program Director. Lists of the State Commission Executive Directors and the CNS State Program Directors are attached. The other approximately 15% of AmeriCorps programs are run by larger national organizations, usually out of the headquarters of the organization involved, and are referred to as "national direct" programs. Given its national scope, the USDA/AmeriCorps program is a national-direct AmeriCorps program, run from the USDA national office in Washington. 9 Through its State Commission offices the CNS provides a variety of information, assistance, and guidance to all AmeriCorps programs, including the national-directs and the USDA/AmeriCorps program, operating within the States. USDA/AMERICORPS PROGRAM Overall direction to the USDA/AmeriCorps program at the Departmental level is provided by the Director of National Service, Joel Berg, and his staff. Within the USDA, the Director has final say on which USDA programs and which parts of those programs may participate in AmeriCorps. In the current 2nd year (FY96) of AmeriCorps, the USDA is supporting about 1,350 Members of 2,000 Federally-supported Members nationwide. USDA/AmeriCorps Members serve on one of three (3) teams, each of which addresses a particular area of need: Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Public Lands & Environment, and Rural Development The USDA Agencies participate in one or more of these program areas by "supporting" Members. Support in the context of USDA/ AmeriCorps means that each of these Agencies pays the following expenses of the Members serving with their Agencies: A $12,000 stipend, health benefits on the job training, and in-kind supervisory, administrative, and staff support The CNS provides child-support benefits to qualifying Members through its AmeriCorps CARE program which is administered by the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, as well as the $4,725 academic award to Members who satisfactorily complete a term-of-service. The USDA/AmeriCorps Agencies supporting Members during FY96 are: Rural Development the U.S. Forest Service the Natural Resources Conservation Service Food & Consumer Services, and the Farm Services Agency RURAL DEVELOPMENT/AMERICORPS PROGRAM Rural Development has supported approximately 125 Members in FY95 and FY96, and will maintain this level in FY97. Funding support for the Rural Development/AmeriCorps program is provided by the National Office and is accessed through normal administrative procedures. In the current (FY96) year, approximately: 10 80 Members are serving in EZ/EC Designated and Champion Communities assisting those organizations in accomplishing parts of their Strategic plan, and 39 Members are serving in Rural Development field offices and accomplishing outreach and application assistance for its grant and loan programs, and assisting community organizations (that are not EZ/EC Communities) pursuing a complementary mission to that of Rural Development. Rural Development intends to maintain this approximately 2/3 EZ/EC to 1/3 field office/community organizations placement ratio in FY97. EZ/EC Placements - Function Rural Development/AmeriCorps Members placed at EZ/EC Communities will assist those communities in the accomplishment of one or more of the strategic objectives set forth in that Communities' Strategic Plan and/or benchmarks which were submitted to the USDA Office of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. It is incumbent upon those communities that wish to receive an AmeriCorps Member to: Focus on specific strategic objective(s), or related activities in support of the strategic plan or bench marks, the accomplishment of which would be of direct benefit to the residents of that Community/Zone; Ensure that any proposed activities are not prohibited (see "Prohibited Activities" below); And Make certain that the Member can accomplish all their objectives during the course of their service. Rural Development Field Office Placements - Function In FY97 Rural Development would like to continue to place Members at field offices to perform community resource development and outreach for its grant and loan programs. The Members serving in field offices will: Perform Federal, State, private, and foundation resource searches for the community; Perform outreach for Rural Development grant and loan programs, especially for those that are underused; Organize and conduct the grassroots approach to rural development under the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP); Perform outreach for its grant and loan programs to individuals and groups that have been traditionally underserved; Help assemble application materials and documentation, and assist applicants in meeting all application requirements; Counsel applicants; and identify and assist in the application for other types of non-Federal assistance as appropriate for the client population; In offices where there are backlogs and/or a lack of funds in certain programs, AmeriCorps Members will emphasize programs that do have funding and do not have backlogs. In addition, in offices where outreach for its programs is not possible or practical, Members will research and outreach other forms of aid that is appropriate and available to its client population. Rural Development Community Organization Placements - Function 11 Rural Development/AmeriCorps Members have also been working with a variety of community groups and organizations that are pursuing either similar or complementary missions. The objective of these placements has been to allow the Agency to continue to assist rural communities in new and innovative ways in areas where program monies may not be available, or may not be available in sufficient quantity to meet identified critical needs. Partnerships with community organizations may be undertaken when: There is the commitment on the part of a local State Rural Development office to provide administrative support and supervision; And The local/State office has a long-standing relationship with the proposed community organization and is familiar with the organization, its goals, and its staff. In FY97 Rural Development would like to continue its partnerships with these types of organizations where possible and practical. Exact details of such a partnership depend on the circumstances, but all community organization placement Members should spend at least their first 2-4 weeks working at a field or State office under the direction of an Agency employee to learn about: The history, mission, and operation of the Agency; General philosophy of rural development, especially with regards to the local community; The part that the local Rural Development office and its programs plays in the region; The operational aspects of the office; Appropriate administrative tasks necessary to support the placement, such as reporting time & attendance, travel, sick & annual leave, progress reporting, and supervisory interaction. Following this orientation, and as circumstances dictate, the Member would then move to work full- or part-time directly with the organization. The Member could be based full- or part-time at the field office. Under either circumstance, the field office always has primary supervisory and administrative responsibility for the Member. Even if the Member is serving full-time at the organization, the Member must still report to the proximate Rural Development field office at least bimonthly for status meetings, signing time and attendance forms, etc. Rural Development has ultimate responsibility for the Member, and would have the final say on any decision to change or terminate the placement. AmeriCorps Member Recruitment & Qualifications The USDA/AmeriCorps National Office will publicize the USDA/ AmeriCorps program on a national basis. However, each Rural Development field office, community organization, and EZ/EC or Champion Community should advertise for candidates locally. The Rural Development/AmeriCorps National Coordinators will send recruitment information, applications, and forms to each State Program Director. Each office, community organization, and EZ/EC or Champion community has the responsibility for recruitment and hiring. That is, each placement site should recruit, interview, evaluate, and select their Member(s) according to their own program objectives. The State Program Director has oversight responsibility and must be involved in the process. This will ensure the Members hired best reflect the Agency mission and prevent problems with conflict of interest and/or nepotism. 12 An AmeriCorps Member must be selected according to normal Federal hiring guidelines with regards to equal opportunity, lack of discrimination, etc., and must be a U.S. citizen or a resident alien whose status has been verified. Training CNS requires that organizations accepting Members must allow them to spend up to 20% of their service time in training, as situations warrant. Setting aside time for training will improve the performance of the Member in accomplishing the mission of the Agency, provide the Member with support and information for their personal development, further the AmeriCorps program itself, and improve their services to citizens. Cluster Meetings The CNS requires all AmeriCorps programs to allow their AmeriCorps Members to meet periodically. Experience has shown that regular meetings between at least five (5) AmeriCorps Members in the same area (called a "cluster") are essential for morale and for effective AmeriCorps program operation. At cluster meetings, which should be held at least once every two (2) weeks, Members can discuss and improve their work, develop solutions to common problems, organize training, invite guest speakers and community leaders, plan group projects, etc. These cluster meetings do count as part of the time allotted for training, and should in fact be used for that purpose. Wherever possible, Rural Development/AmeriCorps Members should be placed within a reasonable travel distance to facilitate the interaction with other Rural Development Members in the region doing complementary work. That is, field office Members are in proximity to EZ/EC-placed Members so that the field office Members can provide additional program expertise and resources. USDA/AmeriCorps Clusters There are areas where clustering solely with Rural Development-connected sites is neither practical nor possible within a reasonable travel distance. In lieu of a Rural Development-only cluster, Rural Development/AmeriCorps Members can be clustered with Members from other USDA agencies, at their option. However, Rural Development-only clusters are preferred. In clustering with other USDA Agencies, the Agencies and Members involved should be pursuing similar missions to that of Rural Development. The State Program Manager should work with the coordinators of the other Agencies to arrange and schedule cluster meetings. Please contact the following offices in your State for further information on their AmeriCorps programs: Farm Services Agency (FSA), Food & Consumer Services Agency (FCS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and U.S. Forest Service Non-USDA Only Clusters There are also areas where clustering solely with USDA-connected sites is neither practical nor possible within a reasonable travel distance. In lieu of a Rural Development-only or USDA-only cluster, Rural Development/AmeriCorps Members can be clustered with proximate Members sponsored by non-USDA 13 agencies and organizations. However, this is not recommended because the SPD and the Rural- Development Members will have little or no control over the priority that will be given to cluster meetings, professional cooperation, etc. Rural Development-only and USDA-only clusters over non- USDA clusters are always preferred over non-USDA only clusters. In clustering with non-USDA organizations, the Agencies and Members involved should be pursuing similar missions to that of Rural Development. The SPM should work with the coordinators of the other organizations to arrange for the cluster meetings and other interaction. In order to find out about non- USDA AmeriCorps programs which are operating in your State, please contact the CNS State Office and the AmeriCorps State Program Directors listed on a separate attachment. NATIONAL OFFICE PROGRAM SUPPORT The Rural Development National Office will provide funding support the AmeriCorps program by paying for: Usual expenses associated with the Members such as the stipend, health benefits, "Miscellaneous" expenses incurred by the Member such as mileage, per diem, etc. And National rural development training for Members and State Program Directors. *up to a pre-specified limit. In FY95 and FY96 each Member was allocated $1,600 in miscellaneous expense support money. The per-Member miscellaneous expense allowance for FY97 has not yet been determined. Miscellaneous expenses in excess of this FY97 allowance must be covered out of State Office funds for the balance of the Member's service year. National Coordinators Rural Development will provide national coordination and logistical support in the form of two (2) National Coordinators. They will represent the Rural Development/AmeriCorps program within the USDA and provide guidance and direction to the program through regular contacts with the State Program Managers. USDA Office of National Service The USDA Director of National Service, Joel Berg, and his staff will provide a variety of assistance in the form of policy, directives, newsletters, and reports for recruitment, program operation, employee benefits, academic award, and other aspects of the AmeriCorps program. CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE STATE COMMISSIONS AmeriCorps is a national service program with Members serving in a variety of capacities in a great number of organizations in most States and regions in the country. Most States have a State Commission for National Service, as well as a CNS State Program Director, (both usually located in the capital city) to assist in the implementation and coordination of the various AmeriCorps programs and operations within the State. A list of the Executive Directors of the State Commissions and the Program Directors of the CNS State offices is attached. 14 To support their State programs, these organizations will often organize and sponsor training, meetings, conferences, rallies, days of service, etc. aimed at creating a program spirit and to assist Members in the accomplishment of their service objectives and the goals of the AmeriCorps program. Sponsoring organizations should allow their Members to attend these occasional activities, and actively support them - where possible. Each Rural Development/AmeriCorps SPM should contact their CNS State Commissions early in the service year to inform the Commission about their program, where their Members will be serving, what they will be doing, and what kind of training and/or organizational needs they might have. SPMs and Site Supervisors should feel free to contact the Commissions anytime during the year to discuss training and/or organizational needs, seek help to problems, request needed equipment (buttons, posters, etc.), and inform them of progress, activities, special events, and noteworthy successes. 15 Attachment D - Instructions and Application PART I: Background Information The first two pages of the application cover basic background information. Please be a precise as possible. You can use the form provided, or you may develop your own - following the same format. You are encouraged to put the application on 3 1/4 floppy disk (in any format) and submit it along with a hard copy. PART II: AmeriCorps Project Objective(s) Statement This section asks you to consider the following information in the conception and drafting of your AmeriCorps project objectives. Please refer to 'Attachment C' for prohibited activities for AmeriCorps Members. Objectives are statements of what your program believes will be the result of a year of effort by your AmeriCorps Member; a statement about what will change. Objectives should be measurable and address what work will get done. Objectives must be specific enough to allow determination of what changes will occur as a result of the efforts. A good objective describes both the desired change and the means of determining whether the change occurred. Multiple Objectives: Please be aware that you can have multiple objectives relating to a single overall goal. This is especially true if there will be activities taking place before, during, and/or after the accomplishment of the main objective which will result in measurable, direct services to local citizens For instance, a major issue in your community is the creation of a community center. One of your objectives would be to open a community center to serve 3,000 local residents. A supporting objective would be to put a new roof on a building, donated for this purpose, using 35 local volunteers. Another could be to paint the building using 10 volunteers. Yet another could be the training of local citizens in grant writing which results in the community receiving $35,000 to finish rehabilitating the structure. An objective after the community center was finished would be to develop a senior arts program to serve 40 local elderly citizens. When putting together objectives, you have to think strategically in imagining all of the measurable objectives that will have to be accomplished during the year even if you have one major objective in mind. Providing safe and affordable housing for 35 families is a great objective. A supporting objective, critical to its accomplishment, is helping 80 families fill out applications for 504 direct and guaranteed loans. A similar support activity after the families have obtained their homes is training 35 new homeowners in simple home repair and household budgeting. If you have more than one objective for your project, use a separate page for each. The objective(s) should be realistic in that they describe what a single AmeriCorps Member would likely be able to accomplish in one year (1700+ hours of service). The National Community Service Act prohibits Members from engaging in lobbying or advocacy work, religious proselytizing, political activities, labor organizing, or service which will directly benefit a single for-profit entity. 16 'Outcome' VS 'Process Objectives: Be sure that the objectives set out are 'outcome' objectives and not 'process' objectives. Process objectives say how work will get done - not what work will get done. 'Attending weekly staff meetings' is a process objective. 'Producing 15 units of affordable housing in year one' is an outcome objective. Specifying Objectives: Community service objectives should stay away from vague buzzwords such as "facilitating partnerships", "broadening public understanding", etc. Rather, the objectives should focus on how many trees will be planted, how many people will receive better housing, how much the recycling rate will be increased, how many new small-scale farms will be created, how many more people will receive running water, how many students will receive educational presentations, how many new businesses and jobs will be created, how water quality will be improved, etc. Each objective must realistically relate the service to be performed to the final goal. For instance, an objective cannot simply state that a Member will create a tourism plan for the area, and that such a plan will create 1,000 new jobs. The objective needs to explain precisely how the Member will not just plan, but actually help implement, concrete activities that directly create 1000 jobs. Measurement of Success: Each objective must define an impartial way of assessing the quality of the service to be performed. It is unacceptable to use vague language indicating that, somehow, everyone will be satisfied. Rather, if the objective relates to education, the objective should predict specific percentile increases in test scores on that topic. If the objective relates to recycling, the objective should predict the actual decrease in the number of tons of waste weighed-in annually at the county landfill. Lastly, each objective must state exactly how many community residents will receive the direct benefits from the service performed by our AmeriCorps Members. It is unacceptable to simply make the claim that an AmeriCorps project will somehow benefit everyone in a town or a county, and then list the total population of the town or county. The number cited should reflect a carefully thought out prediction of how many people will be concretely and directly aided by the service of-AmeriCorps. While we want these objectives to be as concrete and well thought out as possible, it is permissible to amend them in the future if the situation warrants. Objectives agreed upon prior to the placement of a Member can also be changed. Once a Member is performing service, the local situation will quite often change. These changes can be submitted for approval to your State AmeriCorps Program Director. Be sure to do a separate page of each work objective. Also, there must be separate objectives for each AmeriCorps Member requested. Part III: Quarterly Work Plan This part provides a guide to the types of activities which will take place throughout the year. It will also allow the National Office to understand the progression of activities. For instance, the first quarterly 17 report may have accomplished little in terms of the objectives. The Quarterly Work Plan would make it clear that most the first quarter's activities revolve around training and orientation. The Work Plan is also a useful tool in thinking out your project and the steps necessary to carry it out successfully. 18 Attachment D Continued - PART I USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT AMERICORPS 1996-97 Program Year Application Please answer the following questions: a) This is the actual organization with which 1. the AmeriCorps Member will serve. If this 2. application is being written by a different and/or sponsoring organization, do not put 3. Name of the that name here. The organization must be a not-for-profit, local unit of government, organization: or a USDA Rural Development Field Office. The organization does not have to 4. be the lead entity associated with an EZ/EC application, but must be associated 5. with critical elements of the original strategic plan submitted to USDA. USDA Rural Development Field Offices are exempt from this criteria. a) This must be the permanent 6. Address of organization: address for this project to which all 7. official correspondence will be 8. street, number, and P.O. (if applicable) directed. 9. b) 10. City State Zip a) b) Write the name of the person who 11. Name of Contact Person for the AmeriCorps project: has primary responsibility for a) overseeing this application. 12. a) Telephone and fax numbers of the 13. Telephone number: - - Supervisory. a) 14. Fax number: - - 15. a) A list of all eligible communities, 16. and the counties they serve, is included with these materials. For 17. Name of the designated Empowerment Zone/Enterprise USDA Rural Development Field Community or Champion Community associated with this Offices, write the name of all application: EZ/EC applicant entity(s), whether Designated or Champion, whose service area(s) fall within the 18. service area of your office. a) 19 b) Write in the city and county in 19. City or Town: which the AmeriCorps Member's office will be located. 20. County: 20 PART I Cont. a) This individual will be providing day 7. Name of person who will provide supervision for the to day supervision of the Member's AmeriCorps Member. service and oversee the work to be accomplished. b) This must be the permanent address 8. Address of Supervisor: for the supervisor to which all appropriate correspondence will be directed. street, number, and P.O. (if applicable) c) d) City State Zip e) Telephone and fax numbers of the 9. Telephone number: - - Supervisory. Fax number: - - f) Refer to the included list of EZ/EC 10. List all counties or parishes in which the proposed project will applicants and the counties they take place: serve. Some project work may be done in contiguous counties, but the majority of the Member's service must be in eligible counties. g) h) Indicate only the district(s). It is 11. Congressional districts in which the proposed project will not necessary to write the name of the representative(s). take place: i) 12. Total Number: Site ID# j) k) MemberNames If you had a project for the 1994-95 program year, please list the number of Members and their names. Include your Site ID # for 1995. 21 1) List all 1997 program year # of AmeriCorps projects, whether 13. Organization City CNS, State Commission, or USDA, Members within an approximate 50 mile radius from the Member's main worksite. This information can be obtained from your federal or state CNS representative or USDA office. A listing is included with these application materials. 22 PART II Description of Work Please answer the following questions clearly and precisely. You may use this form or create your own, following the same exact format. Please make copies for additional objectives. OBJECTIVE (Indicate 1, 2, 3, etc.): Statement of Work: A general statement providing background information, the current situation, and what you expect the AmeriCorps program to accomplish. I) The work to be done This is a succinct statement of what your program will accomplish as a result of a year of effort by your AmeriCorps Member II) The result of this work: What are the measurable results of this work. Express in numbers of miles, people served, acres planted, etc. III) The standard of quality or success: What are you going to use as a standard to measure the quality of the work? How will you measure how good. bad, or successful it is? 23 Objective (Indicate objective number) Cont. IV) Number of Service Recipients: This is the ultimate number of people who will be served by the work performed. Do not express in general terms such as 'families'. This may be the same amount as II. V) What resources will be required: Describe the resources which will be necessary to accomplish the objective described above. 25 PART III QUARTERLY WORK PLAN NOTE: You may use this form or create your own. 26 Quarter One: Activity 1: Please describe each activity to be accomplished, Activity 2: quarter by quarter. These will be the guideposts or Activity 3: milestones upon which to measure progress towards Activity 4: accomplishing the objective. Quarter Two Activity 1: Activity 2: Activity 3: Activity 4: Quarter Three Activity 1: Activity 2: Activity 3: Activity 4: Quarter Four Activity 1: Activity 2: Activity 3: Activity 4: 27 Attachment E - Prohibited Activities Because of the statute under which our program operates, many economic development activities are problematic for AmeriCorps Members -- e.g. grant writing and fund raising; assistance for for-profit businesses; and staff work focused on coordinating meetings, developing plans, producing economic development promotional materials, etc. Therefore, we request that you not include work objectives which incorporates these activities. It is understood that some of these activities may be a small part of the 'process' in which an AmeriCorps Member engages during his/her community service activities. In no case are they to be the focus of the work. In writing your objectives, do not focus on these activities. Instead, focus on the outcomes of the work.. If your Member is writing a grant to create a child care center, state your objective in terms of the numbers of children which will be served by the center - not the number of grants written or dollars raised for the project. Keep in mind: In no case should an AmeriCorps Member be involved in fund-raising for any organization. AmeriCorps Members may not assist individual businesses. They can serve a group of businesses in a classroom setting or by counseling. They may benefit the businesses of a community by setting up a revolving loan fund; but Members cannot perform services which benefit a single business to the exclusion of others. Members cannot be responsible for developing promotional materials. They can train a group of citizens this task, but not do it themselves. Likewise, a Member cannot spend the year planning a community celebration or festival. These are worthwhile activities, but the CNS requires a Member to be involved in more substantive efforts providing measurable, direct services to a community. Members may not spend their service year coordinating and attending meetings, doing clerical activities, or any other type of routine office tasks. Especially, they can not displace an employee or perform tasks that would normally be performed by an employee. AmeriCorps Members cannot spend their 1700 hours developing plans, writing feasibility analysis, or doing studies. These activities may represent a small portion of their time, but the objectives should focus on what direct services will be performed as a result. AmeriCorps Members are prohibited from engaging in lobbying or advocacy work, religious proselytizing, political activities, or labor organizing Applications containing these activities will be rejected, regardless of their other merit. 29 Attachment F - Rural Development State AmeriCorps Program Directors NAME OFFICE ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP COMMUNICATION Frank Muncy RECD State 634 S. Bailey, Ste 103 Palmer AK 99645-6330 Ph:907-745-2176 Office Fax: 907-745-5398 Shirley RECD State 700 W. Capital St. Little Rock AR 72203 Ph: 501-324-6284 Tucker Office P.O. Box 2778 Fax: 501-324-7351 Bonnie RECD County 2585 N. Grand, Suite 2 Nogales AZ 85621 Ph: 520-281-1068 Fricks Office Fax: 520-281-1460 Toni RECD State 194 West Main Street Woodland CA 95695-2915 Ph: 916-668-2025 Symonds Office Suite F Fax: 916-668-2055 Glen Walden RECD State 4440 N.W. 25th PI Gainsville FL 32614-7010 Ph: 904-338-3440 Office Fax: 904-338-3452 Donnie RECD State 355 E. Hancock Ave., Athens GA 30610 Ph: 706-546-2171 Thomas Office Stephens Federal Fax: 706-546-2135 Building Charles RECD State 1817 S. Neil Street, Champaign IL 61820 Ph: 217-398-5412 Specht Office Ste 103 Ext. 244 Fax: 217-398-5337 Louis Elliott RECD State P.O. Box 1227 Shelbyville KY 40066-3277 Ph: 502-633-0892 Office Fax: 502-633-0552 Richard RECD District PO 330 302 North Marksville LA 71351 Ph: 318-253-7528 Hoffpauir Office Monroe Street Fax: 318-253-4662 Bettye Oliver RECD State Federal Building, Ste 831 Jackson MS 39269 Ph: 601-965-5460 Office 100 W Capital SF Fax: 601-965-5384 Debra RECD State 4405 Bland Road, Raleigh NC 27609 Ph: 919-873-2042 Nesbitt Office Suite 260 Fax: 919-873-2075 John RECD State 6200 Jefferson St., NE Albuquerque NM 87109 Ph: 505-761-4960 Thomas Office Room 255 Fax: 505-761-4977 Bud Fisher RECD State 101 S.W. Main, Portland OR 97204 Ph: 503-414-3365 Office Suite 1410 Fax: 503-414-3386 Frank Lee RECD County 602 Evans City Rd., Ste Butler PA 16001-8701 Ph: 412-482-4888 Patterson Office 101 Fax: 412-482-4826 Greg White RECD State 1835 Assembly St. Columbia SC 29201 Ph: 803-253-3498 Office Room 1007 Fax: 803-765-5633 Lorraine RECD State Fed Bld Suite 102 Temple TX 76501 Ph: 817-774-1304 Clements Office 101 S. Main Fax: 817-774-1477 Jim RECD State 1606 Santa Rose Road Richmond VA 23229 Ph: 804-287-1554 Anderson Office Culpeper Bldg. #238 Fax: 804-287-1785 Mary RECD State P.O. Box 2427 Wenatchee W 98807-2427 Ph: 509-664-0215 McBride Office A Fax: 509-664-0202 3 James RECD PO Box 12310, 4510 Big Chimney W 25302 Ph: 304-965-2712 Anderson Pennsylvania Ave. V Fax: 304-965-2715 4 ERICOR A CORNICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE USDA AMERICORPS PROJECTS EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES In its first year of operation, AmeriCorps the domestic national service program proposed by President Clinton and passed with bipartisan support by Congress engaged 25,000 Americans of diverse backgrounds in service that filled unmet human, environmental, educational, and public safety needs. In exchange for such service, AmeriCorps Members received an educational award that can be used to pay for college, job training, graduate school, or to repay student loans. The Corporation for National Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, has given preference to project applications from Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Champion Communities; thus many AmeriCorps projects are located in these areas. Most AmeriCorps projects are funded through state commissions appointed by each state's governor and managed by non-profit organizations and local government organizations most projects are not funded or managed directly by Federal agencies. However, a highly competitive process coordinated by the Corporation for National Service allowed a small portion of AmeriCorps positions to be managed by Federal agencies in tandem with local groups. In the first year of operation, the largest Federal agency award was granted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), allowing the Department to create unique public / private partnerships that sponsored 1,200 Members in over 300 mostly rural sites. These projects provided service focused on boosting rural development, fighting hunger, and improving the environment. The rural development projects were sponsored by four different USDA agencies: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Forest Service. Most of these USDA AmeriCorps rural development projects were placed in areas that were designated as either Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, or Champion Communities. (List attached) Moreover, these projects targeted the most persistently poverty-ridden rural areas of the nation: Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, the "colonias" on the U.S./Mexico border, and Native American reservations in the "Four Corners" (in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah) area. During the first program year, AmeriCorps Members in USDA rural development projects achieved the following results: Secured new homes for 390 low-income families. Helped 3,484 families obtain running water and/or modern bathrooms for the first time. Provided early childhood development services to 4,670 children. Helped over 100 counties improve their emergency preparedness and response. Provided 867 families with assistance for health and safety hazard repairs in their homes. Educated 175 parents and children in parenting and family skills. Created after school programs, activities, and events that benefited 400 parents and students. Mentored and tutored 180 students. Helped save or create 1,000 jobs. Delivered technical assistance to 395 family farmers to help them continue to earn enough income to support their families and stay on their land. Taught entrepreneurship seminars attended by 285 citizens. Provided job training and/or vocational counseling to 509 citizens. All USDA AmeriCorps projects "got things done" while strengthening communities, expanding educational opportunity, and encouraging personal responsibility. For more information about the USDA AmeriCorps program, contact Joel Berg at 202-720-5746 or e-mail: "[email protected]" AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R02B CH 171 8 Lower Yukon Economic Development Council Anchorage AK R05A CH 2 I Crowley's Ridge Development Council, Inc. Jonesboro AR R05B EC 20 1 Mississippi County, Arkansas EOC, Inc. Blytheville AR R05C CH 58 I East Central AR Ec. Dev. Corporation - West Memphis Forrest City AR East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation - R05D EC 84 I AR Brinkley Moro R05F CH 136 I Mid-Delta Enterprise Community Helena AR East Central Arkansas Economic Development Corporation R05C EC 183 1 AR Forrest City Forrest City R04A CH 18 1 City of Eloy Eloy AZ R04C CH 28 1 Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, Inc. Flagstaff AZ R04B EC 168a City of Douglas Douglas AZ R04D EC 168b 1 City of San Luis San Luis AZ R04E EC 168c 1 Nogales-Santa Crux County Economic Development Foundation Nogales AZ R06A EC 35 1 Imperial County Enterprise Community El Centro CA R06B CH 61 1 City of Shafter Shafter CA R06E EC 71 1 City of Watsonville Watsonville CA R06C CH 79 1 Kings Community Action Organization, Inc. Hanford CA R06F CH 153 1 City of Hollister Hollister CA R06D CH 207 1 County of Fresno, I-5 Business Development Corridor Firebaugh CA R12B EC 89 5 Marianna Chamber of Commerce Marianna FL R13A CH 157 1 QUOLA LC/CDC Valdosta GA R13B EC 211 1 Crisp/Dooly EZ/EC Coordinating Committee Cordele GA R13C EC 216 1 CSRA Regional Development Center Keysville GA R17A CH 198 1 City of Cairo Cairo IL R21C CH 70 1 Flat Woods Community-Based Development Corporation, Inc. Oneida KY R21B CH 90 I Kentucky Communities Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. Barboursville KY P21D CH 165 1 Big Sandy Community Action Program/RECD Prestonburg KY The Service Connection R21F CH 165 1 KY (Big Sandy ADD) Prestonberg R21H CH 172 I City of Bowling Green, Operation P.R.I.D.E. Bowling Green KY R21D CH TN127 1 Bell County Middlesboro KY R211 CH TN186 1 McCreary Co. Fiscal Court Whitley City KY R21A CH TN19 1 Cumberland Valley ADD London KY R22B CH 152 1 Southern Mutual Help Association, Inc. New Iberia LA R22A CH 160 I St. Landry Economic Inducement District Opelousas LA R22C CH 164 1 St. Mary Community Action Agency, Inc. Franklin LA R22H CH 173 1 RECD Town of Cullen Cullen LA R22D EC 215 1 Macon Ridge Economic Development Program Ferriday LA R22F CH 221 1 Project Celebration, Inc. Many LA R28B CH 4 1 Town of Edwards Edwards MS R28A CH 14 2 Madison County Human Resource Agency Canton MS R28C EZ 45 3 Mid-Delta Empowerment Zone Alliance (MDEZA) Greenville MS R28R CH 108 2 Alcorn State University Lorman MS R28Q CH 203 1 Natchez-Adams County Economic Development Authority Natchez MS R37A CH 214b 1 Madison County Family Resource Center Marshall NC R35A EC 67 1 La Jicarita Enterprise Community Taos NM R35C CH 80 2 Eastern Plains Council of Governments Clovis NM R35B CH 98 I NW New Mexico Council of Governments Gallup NM R42A CH 156 5 SW PA Heritage Preservation Commission Holidaysburg PA AMERICORPS/USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN EZ / EC AND CHAMPION COMMUNITIES Site ID Status EZ/EC ID# # Mem Applicant Entity City State R45A CH 27 I Denmark Community Outreach Enterprise Committee* Denmark SC R45C CH 83 I Penn Center* St. Helena Island SC R45D EC 97 I Williamsburg Enterprise Community Commission, Inc* Lake City SC R45B CH 99 I Allendale-Barnwell Redevelopment Program Fairfax SC R48C CH 49 1 City of Luling Luling TX R48A CH 59 1 Middle Rio Grande Development Council Uvalde TX R48D CH 64 1 South Texas Development Council Laredo TX R48E CH 76 I City of Gonzales Gonzales TX R48B CH 92 1 Dimmit County Commissioners Court Carrizo Springs TX R48F EZ 107 I Rio Grande Valley Empowerment Zone Mercedes TX R51B EC VA Eastern Share Economic Empowerment & Housing 218 2 VA Corporation(VESEEHC) Nassawadox R53A CH 177 1 Grant County Community Action Council Moses Lake WA R54B CH 137 1 Mingo County Commission Williamson WV R541 CH 139 1 Marion County Extension Office (City of Fairmont) Fairmont WV R54C CH 184 1 P.R.I.D.E In Logan County, Inc. Logan WV R54F CH 185 1 Mountain Enterprise Community Webster Springs WV R54D EC 187 1 McDowell County Action Network Wilcoe WV R54J CH 196 1 City of Morgantown Morgantown WV R54H CH 205 1 Lincoln County Economic Development Authority, Inc. West Hamlin WV R54A CH 206 1 Barbour County Development Authority Philippi WV 87

nara / coll_wjc-ons / doc

USDA [Department of Agriculture]/AmeriCorps - Clinton Library Copies - Rural Development 1 [2]

ID: 348833831
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	348833831
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831
contentType	document
collections	Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration) AmeriCorps Files
iiifBase	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/311842741/311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/348833831
naId	348833831
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
otherTitles	311842741-20130661F-Seg3-074-002-2023
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context