Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
289844656
label
Cost/FTE and Match Reports – 1995 [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
289844656
contentType
document
title
Cost/FTE and Match Reports – 1995 [2]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
Shirley Sagawa's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
289844656
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
99905611-20130661F-Seg2-026-015-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d208aac5f0836bfa
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F (2)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
National Service
Series/Staff Member:
Shirley Sagawa
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24265
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Cost/FTE and Match Reports - 1995 [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
9
1
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
Final
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
-2-
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-3-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
-4-
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to 6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to 5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Reauthorization and Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 6, 1996
Reauthorization Strategy
We need to come to consensus, as quickly as possible, on a strategy that will enable AmeriCorps
to continue to thrive in 1997 and beyond. Our authorization expires at the end of FY 1996.
Some of the options we have considered are:
1. Pursue a "traditional" reauthorization, with a Senate-first strategy, with the Administration
submitting a reauthorization bill with only modest changes, or preparing a "statement of
principles" for discussion.
2. Pursue a reauthorization with no Administration bill, but asking a bipartisan group of
supporters off of the Labor and Human Resources Committee to introduce a bill and push the
Committee to take action.
3. Assume no reauthorization this year, due to election year politics and the short schedule, seek
an appropriation without an authorization, and work on a reauthorization bill next year.
4. Develop and unveil a "reform plan" that will inoculate the program against criticisms of
opponents. The plan may be either a legislative package that could be part of a FY 1997
appropriations deal, the basis for a reauthorization bill, or a set of administrative changes.
These strategies are not mutually exclusive. We are currently preparing for any of the above
options to unfold. We have reason to believe that our most vocal critic, Senator Grassley, would
be willing to endorse AmeriCorps if we could publicly agree to a reform plan that would limit
AmeriCorps costs. This memo lays out the core of a cost-cutting plan that could allow us to gain
Senator Grassley's support while enabling the program to grow more rapidly. We believe these
changes can be achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a
reauthorization proposal, appropriations deal, or reform package.
Cost-Cutting Proposals
1. Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not
more than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps
program would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per
Member cost would be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education
award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support, plus program support), and
Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable toAmeriCorps. The
GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher. See the options at the end of the discussion for
achieving this objective.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living
allowance paid to Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945.
For a 52-week program, that works out to a little bit more than $150 per week with the
Corporation share being a little more than $125 per week. However, due to the way the statute is
written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700 hours over 40 weeks
instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week-- this amount is
derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program.
We may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for
less than 52 weeks to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to
pay. The net effect would be that the Corporation's share of the living allowance would go from
$6,800 to $5,200 for those programs that are 40 weeks, and the Member's actual pay would go
from $7,900 to $6,100 for that period, unless the local program increases the match.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs
that is not used for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member
training, transportation, insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant
amount to cover program costs is about $5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this
amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat amount that the Corporation would
provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To ensure continued
participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups,
residential programs, etc.
Options range from a cap of $3,000 plus 10% in a hardship fund; to $5,000 plus no hardship fund;
to varying caps per type of program, with an average of no more than $5,000.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to
develop partnerships with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of
AmeriCorps from other sources, with the Corporation providing only the education award. We
-2-
might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free
of charge for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in
subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to
organize younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over
two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or
Jewish lay volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
The suboptions under this cost saving option are related to what percent of the total program is
comprised of such "cost share partnerships." The potential range is between 10-25%.
Summary of Potential Option for Meeting Corporation Cost-Cutting Goals
Average Corporation Costs Where Corporation Supports All Items
Member Costs
Current Program
Reform
Education Award
4,725
4,725
Living Allowance
6,800
up to
6,800
Other
1,800
1,800
Subtotal
13,325
up to 13,325
Program grant
5,500
up to
5,000
Recruitment, admin., etc. 2/
2,000
2,000
TOTAL
20,775
up to 20,275
Average, taking into account
cost share proposals/other items
19,000
15,000 1/
1/ By 1999. Assumes about 25% of program will be "cost share proposals," that living allowance
will be lowered an average of $1,000, and that program grants will be lowered an average of
$1,500.
2/ Rough calculation that includes administration, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
Latest draft OF Lettel To the Hill
at OTB for general
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
PHOTOCOPY
SERVICE
Dear
PRESERVATION
The Corporation for National Service is currently completing an in-depth survey of the
auditability of its financial statements and systems The survey is being carried out by two
independent accounting firms under contract to our Office of Inspector General. The
Corporation's Board of Directors is fully involved in this process, and 1 wanted to apprise you
of our progress to date.
The purpose of conducting the survey is to determine whether records of the Corporation
from fiscal year 1994 can be audited according to generally accepted accounting principles and
to assess the adequacy of internal controls. Twenty-three federal agencies are required by the
Chief Financial Officers Act to produce auditable financial statements each year beginning in
fiscal year 1996. In addition, the Corporation for National Service is covered by auditing
requirements of the Government Corporation Control Act. Since organization of the Corporation
for National Service was not completed until April of 1994, much of the audit work also covers
systems used by a predecessor organization, the former ACTION agency.
This financial statement review and management controls auditability assessment of the
Corporation was begun in May of 1995 under an Office of Inspector Genera! contract with
Williams Adley & Company, LLP in association with Arthur Anderson LLP. The review
identified significant issues related to the Corporation's accounting and recordkeeping activities.
Specifically, the review has concluded that the Corporation's financial statements from its first
year of operations are not auditable. and that the Corporation needs to take additional steps to
strengthen internal controls within the organization. The review did not identify any instances
of misuse of funds or of fraud. waste. or abuse.
The results of the review were not unexpected. The Corporation was formed
immediately upon passage of the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. initially
incorporating the Commission on National and Community Service and staff from the Office of
National Service. The former ACTION agency was merged with the Corporation in April 1994,
six months into the fiscal year. None of these components had been subject to the Government
Corporation Control Act. Each had its own accounting system and operations, and had not ever
been required 10 produce or had in fact ever produced an auditable financial statement.
201 New York Arcome NW
Wishongton, 08:20:25
Telephone 702-506-5180
Getting Dangs Done.
AmeriCorps National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Curps
03/07/96 THE 15:19 FAX 202 565 2780
CORP. NAT'I SVC
007
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
2 -
Organizational and financial consolidations with the Corporation, combined with a
demanding start-up for major new programs, severely strained the Corporation's limited financial
personnel and systems. Particular attention had to be focused on designing interim program data
and grant management systems; building a data base for over 20,000 AmeriCorps Members the
first year: creating an automated Trust Fund system to manage education awards for these
individuals: and modifying the Corporation's accounting and financial system, which was a
stopgap measure involving the system carried forward from the former ACTION agency.
Therefore, our accounting systems have yet to receive the intense and sustained remedial
attention that is needed.
While I understand what has brought us to these results. I am committed to resolving our
accounting issues and share Comptroller General Charles Bowsher's views, as noted in recent
testimony, that: "agencies have a critical need to greatly improve and modernize financial
management systems, which across government. are in abysmal shape today, and, in doing so,
to re-engineer financial management processes. while at the same time implementing new
accounting and financial reporting requirements."
The Corporation for National Service is re-engineering its financial management
processes to meet the challenges resulting from its expanded responsibilities. We appreciate the
work of the auditors in helping us to identify the short-term and long-term steps we need to take.
To address the findings as they have been identified. we have already taken the following steps:
Established a single point for approval. documentation of approvals, and periodic reviews
of approvals as a means of strengthening controls over access 10 the accounting system.
Improved cash receipts control by segregating duties related to the receipt of cash and
the entry of information into the accounting system.
Initiated a detailed cash reconciliation between Corporation and Treasury records for
fiscal year 1996.
Reconciled data between the payment system used for grants and the accounting system.
Provided for a second review of all investment decisions made by the Corporation.
Improved the comprehensiveness of procurement policies.
Enhanced the security of computer systems.
The Corporation is also securing additional independent expertise from prominent
accounting firms to augment our staff resources. The selected firms will focus primarily, over
the next twelve months, on resolving findings in the audit related to the Corporation's day-to-day
operations. Our goa! is to resolve all operational issues during this period and develop auditable
financial statements for fiscal year 1996 and thereafter.
03/07/96 THE 15:20 FAX 202 565 2780
CORP. NAT'I, SVC
V.
008
PHOTOCOPY
PRESERVATION
3 - -
On a longer term basis, a complete redesign of the Corporation's accounting systems will
he undertaken to modernize them and ensure they address both current and emerging needs.
This includes the possibility of a complete replacement of the Corporation's current accounting
system. Our belief is that while the present system may have been adequate in previous decades
for a far smaller organization, state-of-the-art systems are now required tor carrying out the
Corporation's broader legislative mandate. In this regard, it is important that sufficient funds
be appropriated for the Corporation's program administration budget to purchase and put into
place the new systems.
A permanent Chief Financial Officer will be nominated in the near future to carry out
these initiatives.
Finally, I would like to emphasize that the Corporation for National Service has made
an extraordinary record in the start-up of AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America while
continuing full support for established programs such as Senior Companions, Foster
Grandparents, the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program and VISTA Our Corporation is a
decentralized, diversified. market driven, public private partnership, based in the independent
sector. My primary aim has been and continues to have national service established in the
public mind as a non-partisan institution in which the American people can take pride. As we
move forward, the Corporation's emphasis On having a modern financial management system
will pay substantial dividends by improving our efficiency and effectiveness.
Thank you for your continuing incerest in the programs of the Corporation for National
Service.
Sincerely,
Harris Wotford
Cluer Executive Officer
DRAFT L atest
March 7, 1996
CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
*
SERVICE
135 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510-1501
Dear Senator Grassley,
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1996, and for the special concern for
AmeriCorps you have shown during the last year. I have appreciated our talks and the
constructive spirit with which you have worked with me, as you say, not to terminate but to
improve AmeriCorps. Working together with you and your colleagues in Congress, I'm
convinced we can make it a program in which all Americans Republicans as well as
Democrats -- take pride. I look forward to your being a partner in that effort, just as you are
with the senior programs of the National Senior Service Corps which the Corporation also
administers.
I also appreciate the emphasis you put on fulfilling President Clinton's original vision of
helping young people to pay for college by serving their communities. I would add my own
emphasis that this principle of reciprocity, like the G.I. bill's investment in veterans' education
after their national military service, is a longstanding ground for bipartisan agreement. As one
who paid for college through the G.I. bill after World War II service in the Air Force, I was
a beneficiary of that bipartisanship.
Though the Peace Corps was President Kennedy's favorite program and is his special
legacy, it earned -- and has maintained - strong bipartisan support. The same is true of the
Points of Light initiative of President Bush, which is retained as part of our national service
legislation. As you well know, the National Service Trust Act of 1993, through which
AmeriCorps was created, built on the first National Service Act signed by President Bush in
1990. Under that Act's Commission on National and Community Service, the same kind of
grants to support full-time and part-time national service were made, albeit on a smaller scale.
And the National Civilian Community Corps (now a branch of AmeriCorps) was created in 1992
with support from both sides of the aisle and was also signed by President Bush. That
bipartisanship in Congress and nonpartisanship in the country is the key to the success of
national service and community volunteering, and it is my goal to reclaim that tradition, even
in this inevitably partisan political year. I welcome your help in doing this.
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20525
Telephone 202-606-5000
Getting Things Done.
AmeriCorps, National Service
Learn and Serve America
National Senior Service Corps
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page two
March 7, 1996
Turning to the particular points and proposals of your letter to me of February 9, 1996,
and your letter to President Clinton of August 29, 1995, I want to assure you again that I am
committed to achieve the cost and performance goals set by the President and Congress.
Specifically, I am committed to reducing costs per full-time AmeriCorps member. This will
enable more corpsmembers to serve and to get help to pay for college or job training. We will
also take steps to increase substantially the contributions to the programs by the private sector
and by all nonfederal sources. This will enable us to decrease the proportion of federal dollars
going into program support and administrative overhead.
And, as you know, I am especially interested in your proposal that AmeriCorps increase
the number of programs where the Corporation provides only educational awards. I believe that
approach can be undertaken in a way that will benefit many nonprofit service organizations,
enabling them to increase the numbers serving in their programs and enabling more of those
serving in their programs to go to college, pay off their student loans, or receive approved job
training through the educational awards.
Let me report some of the steps we have been taking in recent months, which I think you
will find move AmeriCorps in the direction you favor. While I very much appreciate the
contributions made by your criticisms and proposals, I also want to underscore that these are
directions that I supported when I took this job. These directions, as you have noted, are also
consistent with President Clinton's original vision; and I am happy to report they are directions
that the Corporation, by its own trial and error process, has been quietly and diligently pursuing.
1. Reduce Member Costs
The Corporation has held itself out as a new kind of entity -- sensitive to the bottom line,
actively involved with our partners in the private and independent sectors, aggressively
promoting competition to achieve quality and economy. We are committed to producing the best
possible program at the lowest possible cost.
As you know, most start-up enterprises have high costs as investments are made in
infrastructure and system-building. Those costs come down as the investments pay off. The
Corporation for National Service has already reduced costs from our first year to now. Our
second year awards in the AmeriCorps state grant program represented an average real reduction
of about 7 percent per member when compared to first year costs, when accounting for inflation.
In the renewal process this third year, we are asking grantees whose grant costs exceed the
average to reduce their per full-time equivalent cost by 10 percent. We are also eliminating
funding for planning grants and for relocation costs for AmeriCorps members. Our goal is to
focus Corporation resources directly on corpsmember support, not on program overhead and
administrative costs. In addition, we have cut $7 million out of the Corporation's 1996
administrative budget -- $2 million in personnel and the rest in travel and other expenses.
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page three
March 7, 1996
Regarding the National Civilian Community Corps (AmeriCorps *NCCC), our residential
CCC program, we have taken significant steps to reduce our first year per member start up cost.
We closed the Aberdeen, Maryland, Campus for a savings of $1 million. We reduced members'
living allowance from $8,000 to $6,000 this year, and plan to reduce it further to $4,000 in FY
1997. By consolidating functions and making other structural changes, we cut headquarters staff
by 25 percent, and plan additional cuts in campus staff of 30 percent next year.
2. Eliminate Grants to Federal Agencies
In response to concerns raised by Senator Bond and others, we have notified our federal
agency grantees that we will no longer provide grants to federal agencies. Local nonprofits who
had been affiliated with the federal agency programs will be free to apply for funding on their
own to support AmeriCorps members utilized by those nonprofits.
3. Continue to Enforce Prohibitions Against Lobbying
We have also addressed concerns raised by Senator Bond and Representative Hoekstra
by again requesting that state commissions and national direct grantees firmly remind
AmeriCorps sponsors of all prohibited service activities, including lobbying and partisan political
activities. In their renewal requests, programs must now delineate specific actions they will take
to ensure that members do not engage in improper political activities. Such actions could
include programs signing a certification, highlighting prohibitions in a member training manual,
and adding a clause to the member contract. The Corporation will continue to investigate, on
a priority basis, every allegation brought to our attention. It is important to note, however, that
fewer than two percent of AmeriCorps programs have been accused of such activities. The
Corporation has investigated every case brought to its attention and, in the case of ACORN
Housing, acted quickly to terminate the grantee for improper activities.
4. Decrease Reliance on Corporation Funding
As a group AmeriCorps programs exceeded goals for private sector fundraising, raising
more than $41 million last year. To further encourage such private sector partnerships, in the
1996-97 renewal documents the Corporation makes it clear that all AmeriCorps programs should
secure some funding from nongovernmental sources. We are also increasing the matching
requirement for program support for which grantees are responsible from 25 to 33 percent.
5. Increase "Education Award Only" Programs
As you have urged, we are developing a plan to expand substantially the number of
sponsors who receive no direct funding from the Corporation, but whose members receive
education awards from the National Service Trust. This arrangement may have special appeal
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page four
March 7, 1996
for religious organizations, higher education institutions, and other organizations with alternative
sources of funding. The Act authorizes such awards, and we have piloted a program providing
such awards on a competitive basis to the nation's governors. Expanding this program will
increase the Corporation's cooperation with the larger world of nonprofit service organizations.
6. Increased Collaboration with National Nonprofit Organizations
We are strengthening and increasing our collaboration with national nonprofit service
organizations. Working with such groups as Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
the American Red Cross, and with a growing number of religious service organizations such as
the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur and the National Council of Churches, members of
AmeriCorps and of other programs of the Corporation such as Learn and Serve America and
the Senior Corps are contributing directly to the strengthening and expansion of the independent
civic and service sector of our society. Our special partnership with the American Red Cross,
for instance, is enabling hundreds of Red Cross trained AmeriCorps members to respond on call
by the Red Cross to serve as team leaders in natural disasters such as the recent floods along the
Susquehanna River.
When I recently visited AmeriCorps teams working to help the 10,000 families hit by the
flood in Pennsylvania, Red Cross officers emphasized the vital role they were playing in helping
to utilize effectively more than 2,000 local volunteers. Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for
Humanity, turned from skeptic to enthusiast for the work of AmeriCorps members by seeing
how their dedicated service in Habitat projects multiplied the number of unpaid volunteers
effectively used and the number of houses built. We intend greater emphasis on such
partnerships.
7. Increase State Autonomy
From the beginning, the Corporation has been a partnership between the Federal
Government and the states. Consistent with this outlook, we have informed the governor-
appointed national service commissions in each state that if they have instituted appropriate peer
review processes, the Corporation will no longer review their formula grant selections. As the
states enhance their capacity, further devolution will occur.
8. Improve the Grant Review Process
As you know, Senator Bond has expressed interest in the Corporation's grant review
process. Our Inspector General has recently completed an examination of that process. While
concluding that the Corporation acted within its discretion in those few instances when it
awarded grants to lower ranked applicants at the expense of higher ranked applications, the
Inspector General also finds some areas where we could strengthen grant competitions. We are
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page five
March 7, 1996
currently reviewing the Inspector General's draft recommendations regarding the improvement
of the peer review process and plan to implement quickly those that are workable. We will keep
you informed of the steps we take. We have identified other ways to improve this critical
process as well, and will pilot test them during our next review of new grant proposals.
9. Expand Efforts in Evaluation
The Corporation has taken seriously its commitment to make evaluation a central
component of the management of AmeriCorps. The evaluation system we have in place provides
valuable information about the impact of the program and encourages individual sponsors to
track their efforts. As AmeriCorps matures, however, our evaluation needs will change, and
as it becomes larger and more decentralized, we will be increasingly constrained in our capacity
to monitor and evaluate. Among our goals are to develop evaluation systems that make
increasing use of our network of service programs and their expertise, and to encourage and
work in close coordination with private and independent sector efforts to evaluate service
programs.
10. Increase and Strengthen Unpaid Volunteers
George Romney called full-time national service and traditional unpaid community
volunteering "the twin engines" for civic action that pulling together could solve some of our
critical educational, environmental, and social problems. A few days before he died George
proposed that the Act itself, when reauthorized, should be named the "National Service and
Community Volunteering Act of 1996". I agreed with him to propose that change and other
changes emphasizing the role of AmeriCorps members as recruiters, organizers, and leaders of
part-time, unpaid volunteers. I assured him I would do everything in my power within the
present law to see that in AmeriCorps projects, high priority is given to such assignments.
Many of the best programs in which AmeriCorps members work already do just that,
multiplying the number of community volunteers and the things that get done by the two forces
working together. In addition to the examples already noted of volunteer generation in our work
with such large nonprofits as Habitat for Humanity and the Red Cross, we are increasing the
number of projects in which AmeriCorps members organize and lead secondary school or
college volunteers in unpaid community service. We have now made this volunteer-generation
factor a priority in the 1997 competition for project renewals.
I should note that the AmeriCorps record in volunteer generation in its first year was
quite remarkable. In the fourth quarter, over three additional community volunteers were
recruited for every AmeriCorps member serving. From July 1, 1995, through September 30,
1995, it is estimated AmeriCorps members recruited at least 73,000 volunteers who contributed
over 700,000 hours of service to their communities, or an average of about ten hours for every
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page six
March 7, 1996
volunteer recruited. By further emphasizing this role we will increase the value added by each
AmeriCorps member and by each federal dollar invested in national service.
* * *
The President and the Congress intended that the Corporation for National Service evolve
to face changing situations with creativity, agility, and lack of bureaucracy. From the
beginning, we have been engaged in a process of continuous improvement to lower our costs,
to improve the ability of our partners to increase the share of costs they bear through
fundraising, to devolve responsibility to the states, to root ourselves squarely in the continuum
of service that runs from traditional volunteering to full-time service with living allowances and
education awards, and from school-based service to Senior Corps programs, to be nonpartisan
and firm in our policies against political advocacy, and to make our internal systems more
effective.
The items I have outlined above are some of the steps we are taking to achieve these
goals. These are steps we can take under the existing statute. These changes significantly
address concerns raised by our critics.
You have proposed increasing the private sector or nonfederal match, and have suggested
a specific cap on costs per AmeriCorps member. As you know, this is a complex matter and
we want to consider carefully any unintended consequences that would adversely affect rural
areas and economically disadvantaged urban communities whose access to the private sector may
be limited, or affect the autonomy of local nonprofit organizations and youth service corps
supported in part by state or local governments. Nevertheless, I believe an increase in the match
can be phased in, and per member Corporation costs can be further reduced and limited, whether
through a cap or other measures. I am committed to establishing measurable goals for private
sector and nonfederal match as well as per capita costs within the next 60 days.
In my Senate confirmation hearing, I said that I would put to leaders of major
corporations, foundations, and educational and nonprofit organizations the question: To what
extent can the private and independent institutions, including colleges and universities, and also
units of state and local government such as schools and police forces contribute more of the
resources and assume even more of the responsibility? I am pursuing that possibility actively
and will keep you up-to-date.
DRAFT
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Page seven
March 7, 1996
I am ready to sit down with you and other Members of Congress to consider all the
above -- and other -- ways to improve and strengthen the program.
I look forward to such
discussions with you about legislative or administrative changes that can be accomplished to
move us further along the lines you and I and the President favor.
Sincerely,
Harris Wofford
Chief Executive Officer
Poplest
free desk or
Sagawa, Shirley
From:
Heinaru, Peter
Sent:
Tuesday, March 05, 1996 5:44 PM
To:
Sagawa, Shirley
Cc:
Algra, Diana@CNCS MS Mail Serv
Subject:
RE:
Importance:
High
Nice presentation -- we can live with all this. The $15K CNS cost/Member will be difficult for many, but
achievable for most. Politically, anything higher doesn't sound like significant reform.
In your point #1, should we add "CNS" as an adjective for the $15K/ACM -- right now the language talks
generically of $15K though later it speaks of these really being CNS costs.
Thanks Shirley...p.s. -- on the cap, I do believe most can meet, and certainly anything over $20K sounds real
high to most people.
From: Sagawa, Shirley
To: Heinaru, Peter; Waldman, Steven; Russell, Terry; Kowalczyk, Gary; Sofer, Gene; Gray, Tracy@CNCS MS
Mail Serve; Jospin, Debbie@CNCS MS Mail Se
Date: Tuesday, March 05, 1996 5:28PM
Here is my revision of the paper I propose to send to OMB tonight.
Memorandum for Distribution
From: Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date:
March 5, 1996
In the last several months, we have undertaken a careful analysis of the AmeriCorps program with a view toward
reducing the AmeriCorps per Member costs. These cost reductions will enable the program to grow more rapidly
and also address the major concerns raised by Senator Grassley and others. We believe these changes can be
achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a reauthorization proposal, if it
makes sense to put an Administration bill forward.
1.
Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost of not more than $15,000, to be phased
in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps program would have a per Member cost
exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per Member cost would be calculated by adding the
budgeted Corporation costs of the education award, AmeriCorps grant (living allowance and Member support,
plus program support), and Corporation and State Commission overhead that is directly attributable to
AmeriCorps. The GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member cost in FY1995 was
$17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living allowance paid to
Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945. For a 52-week program, that
works out to a little bit more than $150 week, with the Corporation share being a little more than $125 week.
However, due to the way the statute is written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700
Page 1
hours over 40 weeks instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week -- this
amount is derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program. We
may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for less than 52 weeks
to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to pay.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs that is not used
to for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member training, transportation,
insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant amount to cover program costs is about
$5,500, although the range is signficant. To reduce this amount and simplify the program, we could determine a
flat amount that the Corporation would provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required.
To ensure continued participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups, residential programs,
etc.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to develop partnerships
with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of AmeriCorps from other sources, with
the Corporation providing only the education award. We might emphasize:
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors would receive a VISTA free of charge
for two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to organize
younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic lay volunteers, who do not want
to apply for grant money.
Page 2
Sagawa, Shirley
To:
Thompson, Avelina
Memorandum for Distribution
From: Harris Wofford and Shirley Sagawa
Re:
AmeriCorps Cost-Cutting Proposal
Date: March 5, 1996
In the last several months, we have undertaken a careful analysis of the AmeriCorps program with a view toward
reducing the AmeriCorps per Member costs. These cost reductions will enable the program to grow more rapidly
and also address the major concerns raised by Senator Grassley and others. We believe these changes can be
achieved without amending the statute, although they may also form the basis of a reauthorization proposal, if it
makes sense to put an Administration bill forward.
1.
Establish cost-savings goals.
We believe we could responsibly agree to an average per Member cost to the Corporation of not more
than $15,000, to be phased in by FY1999. In addition, we could agree that no AmeriCorps program
would have a per Member cost exceeding $20,000, to be phased in by FY1999. The per Member cost would
be calculated by adding the budgeted Corporation costs of the education award, AmeriCorps grant (living
allowance and Member support, plus program support), and Corporation and State Commission overhead that is
directly attributable to AmeriCorps. The GAO estimated that the comparable figure for the average per Member
cost in FY1995 was $17,629; we believe it is actually slightly higher.
2.
Living allowance
In order to achieve the above goals, we would need to review our policies relating to the living allowance paid to
Members. Under the existing statute, the standard living allowance is $7,945. For a 52-week program, that
works out to a little bit more than $150 week, with the Corporation share being a little more than $125 week.
However, due to the way the statute is written, a 40 week program (in which the Members serve the full 1700
hours over 40 weeks instead of 52 weeks), end up providing a living allowance of almost $200 a week this
amount is derived by dividing the annual living allowance of $7945 by the number of weeks of the program. We
may be able to save money by using our waiver authority to enable programs that operate for less than 52 weeks
to pay $150 per week, rather than the higher amount they are now required to pay.
3.
Program costs
There are several ways to reduce program costs (the amount of the grant provided to programs that is not used
for Member living allowances and benefits). Program costs cover staff, Member training, transportation,
insurance, recruitment, and other items. Currently, the average grant amount to cover program costs is about
$5,500, although the range is large. To reduce this amount and simplify the program, we could determine a flat
amount that the Corporation would provide per full-time Member and increase the matching funds required. To
ensure continued participation of high quality programs for whom the restricted grant amount would pose a
hardship, we might reserve a fund that could be tapped by rural programs, new start-ups, residential programs,
etc.
3. Cost-share partnerships
To bring down the average per Member cost, the Corporation plans to work aggressively to develop partnerships
with organizations that can pay the living allowances and program costs of AmeriCorps from other sources, with
the Corporation providing only the education award. We might emphasize:
Page 1
A.
VISTA cost share arrangements, in which VISTA sponsors receive a VISTA free of charge for
two years, but agree to pay the VISTA living allowance in subsequent years.
B.
Higher education part-time programs, especially those that use college students to organize
younger volunteers. Students would serve a minimum of 900 hours over two years.
C.
Programs operated by religious organizations, such as Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish lay
volunteers, who do not want to apply for grant money.
Page 2
Sagawa, Shirley
From:
Kowalczyk, Gary
Sent:
Wednesday, March 06, 1996 9:11 AM
To:
Sagawa, Shirley
Subject:
AmeriCorps Cost Cutting Proposal
Pam called. She is asking that we make three changes to the paper:
1.
Add a section in the beginning about reauthorization strategy. This could be as simple as what they had
or a slightly expanded version. She agrees that this would be the focus for the Panetta meeting.
2.
Can we do a table which shows the difference compared to the allowances today? I explained to her that
we purposefully had not done this because this is a goal, and we haven't specified exactly how we will get there.
She thinks Sperling will not be happy without a table, since he focused so heavily on your earlier table. She said
this could be illustrative. [I can try if you would like.]
3.
More specifics under the bullets. Specifically, say that the Corporation's share of the living allowance will
go from $6,800 to $5,800 for those programs that are 10 months, and that the Member's allowance would go
from $8,000 to $6,800 unless the program increased their match, which we would expect to occur.
I objected a bit to the process. We prepare a paper and they serve to critique, but not to generate their own
document for Panetta. She was insistent, however, that this needed to be done before a meeting was scheduled
with Panetta. When we finish, she will circulate and schedule a meeting.
Sorry.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM FOR HARRIS WOFFORD
FROM:
Shirley
RE:
Analysis of reform proposal
DATE:
February 16, 1996
A group of us spent some time analyzing the reform proposal. The following
represents our conclusions about the effect of the proposal and steps we should take to prepare
to implement it.
Our assumptions about the proposal are as follows:
o
The Corporation would provide $100 per week living allowance (or "field
fellowship') plus $100 per month in health insurance (and would foot all child care costs for
eligible members as under current law).
The Corporation would provide up to $5,000 per member in program costs,
provided on a one to one matching basis. (We understand that the exact formula might vary,
and discuss options later in the memo.)
The education award stays the same as under current law.
We would set a target for the number of education awards only Member we
would hope to enroll.
We assume that some of the goals of the proposal are:
To decrease the average federal cost per FTE for AMeriCorps Members
significantly below the GAO-reported average of $17,629 (Corporation costs).
To increase the proportion of federal funds going to Member support verses
program support.
Potentially, to decrease the average Member living allowance so that it is clear
that AmeriCorps Members are making a sacrifice.
o
To gain the support of a significant number of Republicans for the funding and
reauthorization of the program.
On the next page is a chart showing our current program and the reform program, as
we understand it. The chart is a little confusing because the current program numbers are not
1
the average costs, but rather, the "normal" costs assuming (1) a grantee provides the minimum
matching funds for Member support, and (2) the actual "average" program support grant.
Therefore, the numbers seem high relative to what we know to be the overall average per FTE
amounts. For state programs, the average per FTE amount is about $17,125 including all
Corporation costs. About 60% of that amount goes to members (this percentage increases to
about 66% if you exclude Commission and Corporation "overhead").
What the chart does show is that for the average program, the reform plan would not
pose a serious hardship, depending on what type of funding counts toward the match. The
implications of various match restrictions are discussed later in the memo.
2
Current program -- full time members
MEMBER COSTS
Corporation
Other
Total
Ed award
4,725
0
4,725
Living allowance
6,753
1,192 (+)
7,945 (+)
FICA*
516
92 (+)
608 (+)
Health care
1,020
180
1,200
Child care**
250
0
250
SUBTOTAL
13,264
1,464
14,728
Program grant
5,511
5,236
10,747
(state average)
State Commission
400
100
500
Corporation***
1,600
0
1,600
SUBTOTAL
7,511
5,336
12,847
TOTAL
20,775
6,800
27,575
Reform proposal -- 52-week full-time members (shorter programs
would have lower costs)
MEMBER COSTS
Corporation
Other
Total
Ed award
4,725
0
4,725
Living allowance
5,200
up to
5,200
up
to
10,400
FICA*
398
up to
398
up to
796
Health care
1,200
0
1,200
Child care**
250
0
250
SUBTOTAL
11,773
up to 5,598
up to 17,371
Program grant
up to 5,000
up to 5,000
up to 10,000
State Commission
400
100
400
Corporation***
1,600
0
1,600
SUBTOTAL
up to 7,000
up to 5,100
up to 12,000
TOTAL
up to 18,773
up to 10,698
up to 29,371
*FICA is calculated based on 7.65% of living allowance. Not all programs have
had to pay FICA, although currently most do. It is a legal determination. To
get an across the board exemption for AmeriCorps Members would require the
support of the Finance/Ways and Means Committees.
**Child care is calculated based on current total expenditures for child care
benefits divided among all AmeriCorps Members. In reality, some Members
receive a benefit of up to several thousand dollars, but most do not qualify
for this assistance.
***Corporation costs are a very rough calculation that includes federal
administration, t/ta, recruitment, evaluation, etc.
3
Policy issues related to this proposal:
Living allowance
Capping the living allowance at $10,000 would affect approximately 23 existing programs.
These programs tend to recruit higher skilled, more highly educated Members.
Lowering the minimum living allowance to $100 per week would possibly cause concern to the
youth corps community and labor unions, who have lobbied in the past for a minimum wage-
level living allowance.
Requiring amounts of the living allowance that exceed $100 per week to be raised by the
programs would increase the "match" burden for most current programs by about $1,500.
We have assumed that the Corporation would continue to pay most or all of a health care
policy and child care benefits. If these are eliminated, the effect of lowering the living
allowance would be more severe, and would effectively eliminate most single parents from
AmeriCorps.
Assuming that many programs end up dropping the living allowance to the minimum amount
by not augmenting it, there may be an effect on the demographics of the program; based on
current data, it is the middle class Members who say they are most likely to forego
AmeriCorps if the living allowance were lowered or eliminated.
Program support
Current program support grants range from almost nothing to more than $10,000 per member,
with the average being about $5,500. The reform proposal would have the effect of requiring
a larger match from most programs (currently about one-third programs are providing a 50%
or better match).
We are assuming that programs would be free to raise and spend more than the required
match, and that the proposal does not cap total available resources. If this is true, the effect
would mainly be that most programs would have to raise more funds than they are now raising
or lower costs significantly. (In a few cases, programs that want to maintain their current
levels of support from the Corporation would have the incentive to increase overall program
costs -- for example, Volunteer Maryland currently receives $5,224 per Member from the
Corporation and contributes only $3,723. Such a program might want to increase its
contribution so it could receive the maximum.)
Significant issues are raised around the administration of a challenge grant. If the challenge
works like a typical government match, in which the grantee says "I will go out and raise
$5,000 if you give me $5,000," with compliance being monitored after the fact, no such
problems arise. If, on the other hand, grantees must have the cash in hand in order to draw
down the corresponding amount of the grant, there would have to be a significant auditing
4
capacity put into place that does not now exist. When such challenge grants have been
proposed in the past, the Corporation has not been able to administer them in this fashion. If,
as City Year has proposed, we rely on an independent audit to verify that funds are indeed in
the bank, there would be a timing problem -- in many cases, it takes up to 18 months for an
audit to be completed. We are investigating other challenge grant systems (like the FEC) and
hoping to find a simple way to administer the dollar for dollar match.
A policy issue to be decided is what would count toward the "challenge." Federal agency
funds would presumably not count. Would the funds have to be in cash or could it be in kind?
Programs have an easier time with in kind, but could more easily "pad" an in-kind match.
Perhaps that matters less when the amount of the Corporation grant is effectively capped at
$5,000. If more than 10 - 15% of the match must come from nongovernmental sources, staff
predict a majority of programs would drop out.
The effect on the actual design of programs is hard to predict. Consider a few circumstances:
Rural programs tend to have high transportation costs, tend to use federal funds as their base
of support, and have more difficulty raising nongovernmental funds. Would we provide a
"rural supplement"?
Programs that exist primarily as national service programs tend to have higher overhead costs
attributed to AmeriCorps than those that are organized by entities that exist to carry out other
missions.
Geographically dispersed programs tend to have high travel costs. Many programs would have
to be redesigned to eliminate large group trainings and other events demanding that Members
gather together. Would this have an effect on quality (usually the trainings are conducted by
the substantive experts) and the sense of unity Members have? Could this be offset by more
local gatherings across programs, new training designs that do not require travel, and use of
technology (such as internet)?
Youth corps and other programs involving at-risk youth tend to rely heavily on federal funds.
Eliminating use of federal funds as a match (coupled with our cutting off of grants to federal
agencies) will cause a good portion of these programs to drop out.
5
Education award only issues
A key part of this proposal is that "education awards only" programs would become a
significant part of the AmeriCorps portfolio. Currently, the Corporation has 3 education
awards only programs in AmeriCorps*State and National and another 13 in which the
Corporation provides only minimal program support and no Member support. (In another 16
programs, the Corporation provides significant program support, but no Member support.) In
addition, there are currently 40 A*VISTA cost share agreements (covering 600 A*VISTAs).
Staff estimate that most of the current "ed awards only" and "cost shares" are supported by
federal funding. Concerns about ed award only programs in the past have centered on quality
and fit with AmeriCorps. For that reason, other than in the federal partnerships arena, we
have not worked aggressively to promote this option outside of the existing grantee universe.
A*VISTA on the other hand, has made it a priority to pursue these kinds of relationships.
Interestingly, as we learned in the meeting yesterday, most A*VISTA cost-shares were created
after an organization had had experience with fully funded A*VISTAs. This will be critical to
our marketing plans for cost-shares.
Does the field have the capacity to significantly increase the number of ed awards only and
cost share agreements? That depends on the assumptions about who will pay the related costs.
Here are options:
Federal programs: We have pursued these aggressively through the Office of Federal
Partnerships, which at one time had as many as 6 staff. We are down to 1 staff person in this
office and have determined that this is no longer a priority. However, this is the most likely
source of funding for additional cost-share arrangements.
State funding: State funding could be a fertile source of cost-share funds, especially if national
service can be positioned as a strategy to solving critical social problems targeted by states for
reform. State Commissions and state offices could pursue these arrangements more effectively
than Washington-based staff.
Higher education: Higher education institutions may be an excellent source of cost-share
funds, provided that we are comfortable with part-time Members. A review of our part-time
portfolio indicates that most of our part-time programs are higher education-sponsored
programs or those that use college students as Members. Issues to consider are the fact that
part-time programs have tended to be lower quality than full-time programs; implications of
providing education awards to unstipended part-time Members; whether we would be
effectively "displacing" current volunteers with AmeriCorps Members (by providing an
education award to those who would otherwise be regular volunteers); and whether we are
concerned with creating more situations in which individuals receiving ed awards are serving
alongside those who are not.
Local government funds: We have not fully explored whether school districts, police, and
munipalities might be a source of cost-share funds. Currently, municipal funds are the funding
source for a few education awards only programs. Note potential union issues (AFSCME has
6
been our closest ally among the unions up to now).
Existing service programs: Providing education awards to existing service programs could be
perceived as "displacing" current full-time servers (if we end up simply providing ed awards to
an existing corps or program for their existing slots). If we expect these programs to add
additional members, staff feel it is unlikely that many will want to participate due to the high
cost involved.
Non-profits: Given the costs of operating a program of a significant size (a program of 20
full-time Members would cost more than $100,000), staff believe it is unlikely that many non-
profits would be interested in paying for an education award only program similar to the
programs funded by AmeriCorps. Much more attractive would be a A*VISTA-style cost-
share arrangement for one or two Members. Either would have to be marketed strategically
and aggressively to achieve the large numbers contemplated.
7
Next steps
The issues identified in this analysis suggest several action steps that should be taken
immediately, if we are to pursue the reform plan.
We should firm up the specifics of the proposal and provide a memo to OMB for
review.
o
We should do a legal review to determine if legislative amendments would be needed to
implement any of the pieces of the plan.
o
We should develop a plan for consulting with our constituency groups and the staff
about the proposal.
o
We should consider differential matching rates or dedicated "pots" of funding for
certain types of programs and funding. For example, we might provide two dollars for every
private dollar (2:1), no dollars for each federal dollar (0:1), one dollar for each dollar of other
types of funding (1:1); we might also have a higher (2:1 or 3:1) matching rate for start-up
programs, rural programs; programs that have other kinds of hardships, etc. Providing these
kinds of incentives could mitigate against unintended negative effects on the portfolio of
programs.
We should develop a phase in for the plan.
We should come to terms with what kind of assignment appropriately constitutes an
AmeriCorps assignment.
o
We should develop a plan to market and manage more education award-only programs
and A*VISTA cost-share partnerships.
o
We should explore additional ways to support local programs' fundraising capacity,
including technical assistance, partnership agreements, the Partnership for National Service,
and new initiatives.
8
1770 COST /TIC
Ameri Corps State
are FTE cost (NS) for 364
$ 12,18$ programs
12, 600 '94
12, 200 195
106 of those are above
$13,800 - list attached
ASC- Competitive Progs
Are FTE cost - $12,137
ASC. - Formula Progs
Are FE Cost = $12,214
AmeriCorps Direct
44
are FTE cost (CNS) for 34
Nat'l Non Protts $10,071
25 of those are above $13,800
COMPETITIVE
Pacific
Subgrantee
City State
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
94ASCAK002
Alaska State Community Service Commission
Competitive
South Alaska Guidance Association Juneau
71.5
(SAGA)
AK
$950,001
$13,287
46%
64%
$1,317,355
Competitive Subtotal
71.5
$950,001
24%
45%
$1,317,355
Grantee Total Alaska State Community Service
71.5
$950,001
46%
64%
$1,317,355
94ASCAL001
Alabama National & Community Service State Commission
Competitive
Birmingham AIDS Outreach
13.0
AL
$174,457
$13,420
15%
39%
$60,759
Birmingham AIDS Outreach (BAO)
24%
45%
29.0
$399,817
$13,787
15%
39%
$140,848
AL
Competitive Subtotal
42.0
$574,274
24%
45%
$201,607
Grantee Total
Alabama National & Community
42.0
$574,274
15%
39%
$201,607
94ASCAZ003
Arizona National and Community Service Commission
Competitive
AZ Board of Regents / Rural Health
22.0
$322,588
$14,663
15%
42%
$135,492
Office / Univ of AZ
AZ
Competitive Subtotal
22.0
$322,588
24%
45%
$135,492
Grantee Total
Arizona National and Community
22.0
$322,588
15%
42%
$135,492
94ASCCA005
California Commission on Improving Life Through Service
Competitive
California Conservation Corps
Sacramento
117.5
CA
$1,646,894
$14,016
40%
52%
$1,429,166
County of Sacramento, Department
24%
45%
50.0
of Parks and Recreation
CA
$690,000
$13,800
15%
43%
$268,066
East Bay Conservation Corps
24%
45%
126.0
$2,240,000
$17,778
19%
35%
$896,929
CA
Kern County Superintendent of
24%
45%
28.0
Schools
$385,338
$13,762
25%
38%
$173,567
CA
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
24%
45%
142.0
$2,168,716
$15,273
17%
53%
$1,316,916
CA
Sacramento Child Abuse Prevention
24%
45%
22.0
$306,935
$13,952
20%
57%
$202,845
Council
CA
Competitive Subtotal
485.5
$7,437,883
24%
45%
$4,287,489
Grantee Total
California Commission on Improving
485.5
$7,437,883
23%
46%
$4,287,489
94ASCCO006
Community Partnership Office
Competitive
Volunteers of America Colorado
19.0
$208,343
$10,965
15%
25%
$44,047
Branch, Inc.
CO
Competitive Subtotal
19.0
$208,343
24%
45%
$44,047
January 18, 1996
Page 1
Southwest
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Community Partnership Office
19.0
$208,343
15%
25%
$44,047
94ASCCT007
Connecticut Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Bridgeport Police Department
34.5
$516,644
$14,975
15%
43%
$243,669
CT
Community Action for Greater
24%
33.0
$453,924
$13,755
15%
45%
43%
$179,123
Middlesex County, Inc.
CT
Leadership, Education and Athletics
24%
45%
$1,290,000
$15,542
40%
55%
$1,294,304
-
83.0
in Partnership
CT
Southend Community Services, Inc.
24%
45%
30.0
$400,022
$13,334
21%
40%
$161,754
CT
Competitive Subtotal
180.5
$2,660,590
24%
45%
$1,878,850
Grantee Total Connecticut Commission on National &
180.5
$2,660,590
23%
45%
$1,878,850
94ASCDE008
Delaware Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Delaware Parent Aide & Resource
20.0
$246,689
$12,334
15%
27%
$60,929
Mother Coalition
DE
Competitive Subtotal
20.0
$246,689
24%
45%
$60,929
Grantee Total Delaware Commission on National &
20.0
$246,689
15%
27%
$60,929
94ASCFL010
Florida Governor's Commission on Community Service
Competitive
Frostproof Care Center, Inc.
20.0
$279,404
$13,970
16%
54%
$161,868
FL
St. Petersburg Junior College
24%
45%
40.0
FL
$548,785
$13,720
15%
42%
$214,384
Competitive Subtotal
60.0
$828,189
24%
45%
$376,252
Grantee Total Florida Governor's Commission on
60.0
$828,189
16%
48%
$376,252
94ASCGA011
GA Commission on National and Community Service
Competitive
Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs
60.0
$828,000
$13,800
17%
50%
$441,707
GA
Hands on Atlanta, Inc.
24%
45%
77.0
$963,149
$12,508
15%
35%
$286,006
GA
YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc.
24%
45%
20.0
$269,373
$13,469
15%
41%
$101,281
GA
Competitive Subtotal
157.0
$2,060,522
24%
45%
$828,994
Grantee Total
GA Commission on National and
157.0
$2,060,522
16%
42%
$828,994
94ASCHI012
Hawaii State Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Hawaii Lawyers Care
22.5
$325,987
$14,488
20%
58%
$256,447
HI
24%
45%
January 18, 1996
Page 2
Pacific
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Competitive Subtotal
22.5
$325,987
$256,447
Grantee Total Hawaii State Commission on National
22.5
$325,987
20%
58%
$256,447
94ASCIA016
Iowa Commission on Community Service
Competitive
Des Moines Independent Community
20.0
$242,202
$12,110
17%
34%
$76,630
School District
IA
Mid-lowa Community Action, Inc.
24%
45%
25.0
IA
$259,774
$10,391
15%
31%
$60,319
Competitive Subtotal
45.0
$501,976
24%
45%
$136,949
Grantee Total
Iowa Commission on Community
45.0
$501,976
16%
33%
$136,949
94ASCIL014
Illinois Commission on Community Service
Competitive
Cornerstone Services, Inc.
20.0
$0
$0
100%
0%
$323,200
IL
Mid-America Chapter, American Red
24%
45%
26.0
$376,097
$14,465
15%
45%
$167,356
Cross
IL
Public Allies - Chicago
24%
45%
40.0
IL
$451,327
$11,283
59%
41%
$532,006
Competitive Subtotal
86.0
$827,424
24%
45%
$1,022,562
Grantee Total
Illinois Commission on Community
86.0
$827,424
58%
29%
$1,022,562
94ASCIN015
Indiana Commission on Community Service
Competitive
Marion County Family Advocacy
20.0
$251,272
$12,564
15%
52%
$122,203
Center, Inc.
IN
State Student Assistance
24%
45%
27.0
$343,073
$12,706
15%
67%
$270,707
Commission of Indiana (SSACI)
IN
Competitive Subtotal
47.0
$594,345
24%
45%
$392,910
Grantee Total
Indiana Commission on Community
47.0
$594,345
15%
59%
$392,910
94ASCKS017
Kansas Commission on National and Community Service
Competitive
Kansas State University
$355,296
42.0
$612,395
$14,581
22%
41%
KS
Topeka Youth Project
24%
45%
28.0
$417,364
$14,906
20%
45%
$220,954
KS
Competitive Subtotal
70.0
$1,029,759
24%
45%
$576,250
Grantee Total Kansas Commission on National and
70.0
$1,029,759
21%
43%
$576,250
94ascky018
Kentucky Community Service Commission
Competitive
Homeless and Housing Coalition of
40.0
$500,258
$12,506
19%
54%
$266,583
Kentucky, Inc.
KY
24%
45%
January 18, 1996
Page 3
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
City
Match in $$
State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Morehead State University
31.0
$427,800
$13,800
15%
69%
$427,690
KY
Northern Kentucky United Way and
24%
45%
20.0
$271,913
$13,596
15%
49%
$128,193
Community Chest
KY
Simpson County Board of Education
24%
45%
25.0
KY
$322,775
$12,911
15%
25%
$74,460
Competitive Subtotal
116.0
$1,522,747
24%
45%
$896,926
Grantee Total
Kentucky Community Service
116.0
$1,522,747
16%
49%
$896,926
94ASCLA019
Louisiana Serve Commission
Competitive
New Orleans Youth Action Corps
66.0
$2,000
$30
0%
0%
$0
LA
Competitive Subtotal
66.0
$2,000
24%
45%
$0
Grantee Total
Louisiana Serve Commission
66.0
$2,000
0%
0%
$0
94ASCMA022
Massachusetts National & Community Service Commission
Competitive
City Year Boston
308.0
$3,600,000
$11,688
15%
51%
$2,265,244
MA
YouthBuild Boston, Inc.
24%
45%
89.0
MA
$1,086,200
$12,204
33%
57%
$1,187,892
Competitive Subtotal
397.0
$4,686,200
24%
45%
$3,453,136
Grantee Total
Massachusetts National & Community
397.0
$4,686,200
24%
54%
$3,453,136
94ASCMD021
Governor's Commission on Service
Competitive
Action for the Homeless, Inc.
27.0
$328,304
$12,159
15%
49%
$138,629
MD
Maryland Conservation Corps
24%
45%
151.0
$2,200,000
$14,570
30%
39%
$1,190,410
(MD-DNR-Public Lands & Forestry)
MD
Maryland State Department of
24%
45%
30.0
$358,520
$11,951
15%
40%
$114,411
Education
MD
Montgomery County Government,
24%
45%
23.5
$374,889
$15,953
32%
54%
$300,620
Department of Police
MD
University of Maryland at Baltimore
24%
45%
$157,931
22.0
$320,937
$14,588
20%
45%
MD
Volunteer Maryland/Governor's
24%
45%
120.0
$1,655,265
$13,794
40%
41%
$1,114,463
Office on Volunteerism
MD
Competitive Subtotal
373.5
$5,237,915
24%
45%
$3,016,464
Grantee Total
Governor's Commission on Service
373.5
$5,237,915
25%
45%
$3,016,464
94ASCME020
Maine Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Portland West Neighborhood
20.0
$276,000
$13,800
18%
37%
$102,911
Planning Council
ME
Competitive Subtotal
20.0
$276,000
24%
45%
$102,911
January 18, 1996
Page 4
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Maine Commission on National &
20.0
$276,000
18%
37%
$102,911
94ASCMI023
Michigan Community Service Commission
Competitive
The Regents of The University of
32.0
$349,216
$10,913
23%
76%
$372,875
Michigan
MI
United Way Community Services
24%
45%
20.0
$261,661
$13,083
18%
34%
$85,509
MI
Competitive Subtotal
52.0
$610,877
24%
45%
$458,384
Grantee Total
Michigan Community Service
52.0
$610,877
21%
55%
$458,384
94ASCMN024
Minnesota Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
City of Saint Paul
63.5
$866,546
$13,646
16%
38%
$305,046
MN
Minnesota Department of Natural
24%
45%
77.0
$46,546
$604
96%
100%
$1,619,519
Resources
MN
Southeastern Minnesota Initiative
24%
45%
55.0
$716,400
$13,025
18%
27%
$197,343
Fund
MN
Competitive Subtotal
195.5
$1,629,492
24%
45%
$2,121,908
Grantee Total Minnesota Commission on National &
195.5
$1,629,492
43%
55%
$2,121,908
94ASCMO026
Missouri Commission on Community Service
Competitive
American Youth Foundation
43.0
$628,457
$14,615
18%
55%
$415,224
MO
American Youth Foundation
24%
45%
28.0
$378,460
$13,516
18%
60%
$269,585
MO
Grace Hill Neighborhood Services
24%
45%
20.0
$275,222
$13,761
15%
46%
$122,936
MO
Competitive Subtotal
91.0
$1,282,139
24%
45%
$807,745
Grantee Total
Missouri Commission on Community
91.0
$1,282,139
17%
54%
$807,745
94ASCMT027
Montana Community Services Advisory Council
Competitive
Montana Conservation Corps, Inc.
118.5
$897,500
$7,574
59%
72%
$1,738,071
MT
The University of Montana
24%
45%
5.0
$40,000
$8,000
100%
$76,656
63%
MT
Competitive Subtotal
123.5
$937,500
24%
45%
$1,814,727
Grantee Total
Montana Community Services
123.5
$937,500
79%
68%
$1,814,727
94ASCNC034
NC State Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
North Carolina State University
30.0
$410,349
$13,678
15%
42%
$180,089
NC
24%
45%
January 18, 1996
Page 5
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
The University of North Carolina at
35.0
$429,127
$12,261
25%
57%
$317,817
Greensboro
NC
Competitive Subtotal
65.0
$839,476
24%
45%
$497,906
Grantee Total
NC State Commission on National &
65.0
$839,476
20%
50%
$497,906
94ASCNE028
Nebraska Commission for National and Community Service
Competitive
Lincoln Action Progam
3.0
$0
$0
0%
0%
$0
NE
Competitive Subtotal
3.0
$0
24%
45%
$0
Grantee Total
Nebraska Commission for National
3.0
$0
0%
0%
$0
94ASCNH030
New Hampshire Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
NH Coalition Against Domestic and
32.0
$416,509
$13,016
15%
39%
$141,715
Sexual Violence
NH
Student Conservation Association,
24%
45%
20.0
$398,024
$19,901
15%
31%
$157,104
\
Inc.
NH
Competitive Subtotal
52.0
$814,533
24%
45%
$298,819
Grantee Total
New Hampshire Commission on
52.0
$814,533
15%
35%
$298,819
94ASCNJ031
New Jersey Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Edison Youth Service Corps, Inc.
5.0
$2,000
$400
100%
95%
$90,556
NJ
New Jersey Youth Corps
24%
45%
101.5
$1,475,245
$14,534
25%
51%
$938,521
NJ
Urban Schools Service Corps
24%
45%
144.5
$1,983,906
$13,729
15%
28%
$572,885
NJ
Competitive Subtotal
251.0
$3,461,151
24%
45%
$1,601,962
Grantee Total
New Jersey Commission on National &
251.0
$3,461,151
47%
58%
$1,601,962
94ASCNM032
New Mexico Commission for National & Community Service
Competitive
National Indian Youth Leadership
20.0
$288,802
$14,440
15%
25%
$71,685
Development Project Inc
NM
Competitive Subtotal
20.0
$288,802
24%
45%
$71,685
Grantee Total
New Mexico Commission for National
20.0
$288,802
15%
25%
$71,685
94ASCNY033
New York Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Aspira of New York, Inc.
83.0
$1,145,400
$13,800
15%
35%
$373,595
NY
City Volunteer Corps, Inc
24%
45%
120.0
$1,554,000
$12,950
19%
35%
$694,275
NY
24%
45%
January 18, 1996
Page 6
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
City State
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
New York City Police Department
43.5
$502,310
$11,547
49%
50%
$498,773
NY
New York State Corps Collaboration
24%
45%
132.0
$1,821,600
$13,800
18%
50%
$1,021,743
NY
RF/CUNY on behalf of New York City
24%
45%
12.5
$25,000
$2,000
0%
65%
$47,295
Technical College
NY
Rheedlen Centers for Children and
24%
45%
65.0
$698,074
$10,740
15%
57%
$273,493
Families
NY
The Institute for Human Services,
24%
45%
20.0
$275,991
$13,800
17%
65%
$227,091
Inc.
NY
Competitive Subtotal
476.0
$6,022,375
24%
45%
$3,136,265
Grantee Total
New York Commission on National &
476.0
$6,022,375
19%
51%
$3,136,265
94ASCOH036
Governor's Community Service Commission
Competitive
Greater Columbus Arts Council
20.0
$332,054
$16,603
29%
48%
$218,703
OH
Neighborhood Centers Association
24%
20.0
$264,898
$13,245
45%
15%
55%
$148,273
OH
Competitive Subtotal
40.0
$596,952
24%
45%
$366,976
Grantee Total
Governor's Community Service
40.0
$596,952
22%
51%
$366,976
94ASCOR038
Oregon Community Service Commission
Competitive
COCC (Central Oregon Community
Bend
18.8
$261,677
$13,956
15%
39%
$101,559
College Foundation)
OR
Forest Grove School District
24%
45%
16.0
$2,000
$125
0%
0%
$0
OR
Maple Elementary School/School
24%
45%
10.0
$2,000
$200
0%
88%
$15,308
District #19, Springfield
OR
Oregon Coalition Against Domestic
24%
45%
21.0
$332,114
$15,815
16%
26%
$87,586
and Sexual Violence
OR
Competitive Subtotal
65.8
$597,791
24%
45%
$204,453
Grantee Total
Oregon Community Service Commission
65.8
$597,791
8%
38%
$204,453
94ASCPA039
PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of Citizen Service
Competitive
PA Association of Colleges and
50.0
$794,901
$15,898
18%
26%
$222,837
Universities
PA
Competitive Subtotal
50.0
$794,901
24%
45%
$222,837
Grantee Total
PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of
50.0
$794,901
18%
26%
$222,837
94ASCPR040
Puerto Rico State Commission of Community Service
Competitive
Centros Sor Isolina Ferre, Inc.
20.0
$280,001
$14,000
15%
39%
$99,225
PR
Competitive Subtotal
20.0
$280,001
24%
45%
$99,225
January 18, 1996
Page 7
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
City State
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Puerto Rico State Commission of
20.0
$280,001
15%
39%
$99,225
94ASCRI041
Rhode Island Commission for National and Community Service
Competitive
City Year, Inc.
66.0
$839,300
$12,717
15%
46%
$458,422
RI
Public Education Fund
24%
45%
28.5
$440,000
$15,439
26%
51%
$294,366
RI
The Rhode Island Children's Crusade
24%
45%
32.0
RI
$494,525
$15,454
24%
34%
$201,466
for Higher Education
Competitive Subtotal
126.5
$1,773,825
24%
45%
$954,254
Grantee Total
Rhode Island Commission for National
126.5
$1,773,825
22%
44%
$954,254
94ASCTN044
Tenn. Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Memphis City Schools
18.3
$336,008
$18,328
15%
43%
$158,890
TN
Nashville Healthcare
24%
45%
40.0
$546,288
$13,657
16%
73%
$619,830
Partnership/Middle Tennessee
TN
NashvilleREAD, Inc.
24%
45%
21.0
$284,752
$13,560
15%
36%
$92,650
TN
Porter-Leath Children's Center
24%
20.0
$240,304
$12,015
15%
45%
$97,981
TN
The University of Tennessee at
24%
45%
20.0
$268,510
$13,426
15%
41%
$99,486
Chattanooga
TN
Competitive Subtotal
119.3
$1,675,862
24%
45%
$1,068,837
Grantee Total Tenn. Commission on National &
119.3
$1,675,862
15%
48%
$1,068,837
94ASCTX045
Texas Commission for National & Community Service
Competitive
American Institute for Learning
95.0
$1,306,250
$13,750
36%
56%
$1,287,317
TX
Children's Association for Maximum
24%
45%
20.0
$30,690
$1,535
0%
46%
$26,494
Potential (CAMP)
TX
City Year Inc
24%
65.0
$818,205
$12,588
15%
45%
$486,015
TX
Dallas Youth Services Corps
90.0
$746,287
$8,292
24%
25%
$229,740
TX
Greater Dallas Community of
24%
45%
43.0
$591,390
$13,753
17%
48%
$293,445
Churches
TX
Mental Health Association in Texas
24%
45%
84.0
$988,668
$11,770
15%
43%
$335,577
TX
Serve Houston
23%
24%
45%
109.8
$1,303,880
$11,873
30%
$475,338
TX
Workreation Inc
24%
45%
21.1
$297,056
$14,078
15%
41%
$112,933
TX
Competitive Subtotal
527.9
$6,082,426
24%
45%
$3,246,859
January 18, 1996
Page 8
Southwest
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Texas Commission for National &
527.9
$6,082,426
18%
42%
$3,246,859
94ASCUT046
Utah Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Association for Utah Community
18.0
$226,125
$12,563
25%
36%
$94,359
Health
UT
Competitive Subtotal
18.0
$226,125
24%
45%
$94,359
Grantee Total
Utah Commission on National &
18.0
$226,125
25%
36%
$94,359
94ASCWA047
Washington Commission on National & Community Service
Competitive
Department of Ecology
100.0
$59,300
$593
95%
100%
$2,005,048
WA
Employment Security Department
24%
45%
384.3
$3,495,007
$9,096
51%
36%
$2,794,841
WA
Kitsap Community Action Program
24%
45%
29.0
$363,402
$12,531
15%
32%
$104,941
(KCAP)
WA
Competitive Subtotal
513.3
$3,917,709
24%
45%
$4,904,830
Grantee Total
Washington Commission on National
513.3
$3,917,709
54%
56%
$4,904,830
94ASCWI051
Wisconsin National & Community Service Board
Competitive
Kenosha Voluntary Action Center II
11.0
$147,446
$13,404
28%
50%
$100,128
WI
Milwaukee Community Service Corps
24%
45%
37.0
$283,754
$7,669
34%
26%
$124,619
WI
Competitive Subtotal
48.0
$431,200
24%
45%
$224,747
Grantee Total
Wisconsin National & Community
48.0
$431,200
31%
38%
$224,747
94ASCWV050
WV Commission for National & Community Service
Competitive
West Virginia Research Corp
Morgandtown
13.3
$177,560
$13,317
46%
69%
$304,601
WV
Competitive Subtotal
13.3
$177,560
24%
45%
$304,601
Grantee Total
WV Commission for National &
13.3
$177,560
46%
69%
$304,601
94ASCWY052
Wyoming Commission for National & Community Service
Competitive
Wyoming Crime Victims
20.0
$274,891
$13,745
15%
25%
$65,474
Compensation Commission
WY
Competitive Subtotal
20.0
$274,891
24%
45%
$65,474
Grantee Total
Wyoming Commission for National &
20.0
$274,891
15%
25%
$65,474
Total 103 Programs
5,191.6
$63,009,020
24%
45%
$41,552,422
January 18, 1996
$12.137
per
Page 9
FTE- Compehhive programs
Pacific
FORMULA
Subgrantee
City State
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
94ASCAK002
Alaska State Community Service Commission
Formula
Nine Star Enterprises, Inc.
Anchorage
9.0
$144,707
$16,079
15%
34%
$48,583
AK
Rural Alaska Community Action
9.0
$155,620
$17,291
41%
42%
$110,954
Program, Inc.
AK
Formula Subtotal
18.0
$300,327
$159,537
28%
38%
Grantee Total
Alaska State Community Service
$159,537
18.0
$300,327
28%
38%
94ASCAL001
Alabama National & Community Service State Commission
Formula
Alabama Council on Human
20.0
$258,262
$12,913
15%
46%
$104,168
Relations. Inc.
AL
Montgomery YMCA
24.0
$324,252
$13,510
15%
35%
$103,361
AL
State Association of CASA
21.0
$189,168
$9,008
15%
29%
$54,579
AL
The University of Alabama
20.0
$77,521
$3,876
0%
39%
$49,503
AL
West Alabama Health Services, Inc.
20.0
AL
$220,725
$11,036
15%
31%
$54,534
Formula Subtotal
105.0
$1,069,928
$366,145
12%
36%
Grantee Total
Alabama National & Community
$366,145
105.0
$1,069,928
12%
36%
94ASCAR004
Arkansas Commission on National and Community Service
Formula
Arkansas Family Network
13.0
$165,902
$12,762
15%
27%
$38,311
AR
Southeast Arkansas Community
10.0
$150,225
$15,023
15%
38%
$56,204
Based Education Center
AR
Univ of Central Arkansas
24.5
$313,399
$12,792
15%
42%
$114,245
AR
Formula Subtotal
$208,760
47.5
$629,526
15%
36%
Grantee Total
Arkansas Commission on National and
$208,760
47.5
$629,526
15%
36%
94ASCAZ003
Arizona National and Community Service Commission
Formula
Arizona Center for Vocational &
Technical Skills
28.5
$340,459
$11,946
15%
70%
$357,545
AZ
AZ Council of Centers for Children &
24.0
$294,103
$12,254
15%
49%
$122,914
Adults (ACCCA)
AZ
City of Mesa, AZ
24.0
$287,621
$11,984
15%
44%
$94,718
AZ
Formula Subtotal
76.5
$922,183
$575,177
15%
54%
Grantee Total
Arizona National and Community
$575,177
76.5
$922,183
15%
54%
94ASCCA005
California Commission on Improving Life Through Service
January 18, 1996
Page 1
Pacific
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Formula
AD Care, Inc.
San Luis Obispo
29.0
CA
$352,633
$12,160
15%
35%
$101,107
Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium
52.0
$736,678
$14,167
28%
57%
$570,576
CA
Cal Poly Pomona Foundation, Inc.
13.3
$230,084
$17,365
15%
33%
$81,561
CA
California Conservation Corps
94.0
$823,327
$8,759
60%
62%
$1,301,828
CA
California Conservation Corps
41.5
$549,421
$13,239
20%
87%
$1,304,600
CA
California Conservation Corps
$2,042,750
119.0
$664,491
$5,584
82%
70%
CA
California Court Appointed Special
24.0
$347,723
$14,488
15%
25%
$83,076
Advocate Association
CA
Civic Center Barrio Housing
24.0
$349,580
$14,566
15%
25%
$84,149
Corporation
CA
Community Services & Employment
18.0
$228,515
$12,695
15%
45%
$78,060
Training, Inc. (C-SET)
CA
Constitutional Rights Foundation
22.0
CA
$325,823
$14,810
15%
49%
$157,017
EYE Counseling and Crisis Services
37.0
$638,722
$17,263
15%
28%
$183,540
CA
Imperial County Office of Education
$14,487
15%
37%
$134,328
27.0
$391,160
CA
Partners In School Innovation
14.0
$247,190
$17,656
53%
44%
$231,620
CA
Redwood Community Action Agency
21.0
$303,600
$14,457
18%
50%
$167,269
CA
Sacramento County Office of
21.5
$364,401
$16,949
17%
35%
$139,004
Education
CA
San Diego Consortium & Private
23.0
$337,338
$14,667
18%
35%
$122,985
Industry Council
CA
Sonoma County People for Economic
21.0
$304,640
$14,507
16%
25%
$73,257
Opportunity
CA
The June Burnett Foundation
48.0
$708,880
$14,768
19%
65%
$694,405
CA
Volunteer Center of San Francisco
24.0
$444,619
$18,526
45%
42%
$345,339
CA
Yolo County Superintendent of
30.0
$399,938
$13,331
16%
40%
$150,235
Schools
CA
Formula Subtotal
$8,046,707
703.3
$8,748,763
26%
44%
Grantee Total
California Commission on Improving
$8,046,707
703.3
$8,748,763
26%
44%
94ASCCO006
Community Partnership Office
Formula
Colorado Mountain College
24.0
$253,638
$10,568
24%
26%
$83,183
CO
Larimer County Employment &
17.0
$234,191
$13,776
15%
29%
$61,386
Training Services
CO
January 18, 1996
Page 2
Southwest
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Office of Rural Job Training
14.0
$189,173
$13,512
100%
40%
$297,273
CO
Sheridan School District #2
22.0
$288,696
$13,123
15%
71%
$283,066
CO
Formula Subtotal
77.0
$724,908
$965,698
39%
41%
Grantee Total
Community Partnership Office
$724,908
77.0
$965,698
39%
41%
94ASCCT007
Connecticut Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
City of Meriden, Connecticut
20.0
$193,900
$9,695
55%
46%
$201,886
CT
Volunteer Center of Greater
46.5
CT
$633,344
$13,620
15%
29%
$172,325
Bridgeport
Formula Subtotal
66.5
$827,244
$374,211
35%
38%
Grantee Total
Connecticut Commission on National &
$374,211
66.5
$827,244
35%
38%
94ASCDC009
D.C. Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Latin American Youth Center
Washington DC
17.5
$241,345
$13,791
15%
45%
$98,341
DC
The Community Partnership for the
0.0
Prevention of Homelessness
DC
$30,000
?
0%
56%
$38,930
Formula Subtotal
17.5
$271,345
$137,271
7%
51%
Grantee Total
D.C. Commission on National &
$137,271
17.5
$271,345
7%
51%
94ASCDE008
Delaware Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Dover Housing Authority
Dover
20.0
$274,000
$13,700
15%
29%
$73,128
DE
Formula Subtotal
20.0
$274,000
$73,128
15%
29%
Grantee Total
Delaware Commission on National &
$73,128
20.0
$274,000
15%
29%
94ASCFL010
Florida Governor's Commission on Community Service
Formula
Centro Campesino-Farmworker
22.0
$305,525
$13,888
16%
58%
$197,500
Center. Inc
FL
City of Brooksville
18.0
$254,520
$14,140
15%
25%
$60,984
FL
Escambia-Pensacola Human
15.0
$209,070
$13,938
15%
52%
$114,610
Relations Commission
FL
Greater Miami Service Corps
30.0
$402,796
$13,427
16%
47%
$195,623
FL
Lake County Board of County
13.0
$181,194
$13,938
19%
49%
$91,483
Commissioners
FL
Legal Aid Service of Broward County,
20.0
$324,932
$16,247
21%
29%
$110,768
Inc.
FL
January 18, 1996
Page 3
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City
State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Okaloosa-Walton Community College
20.0
$272,476
$13,624
15%
46%
$118,579
FL
The Center for Drug-Free Living, Inc
20.0
$304,010
$15,201
15%
25%
$74,379
FL
United Way of Martin County
20.0
$278,760
$13,938
40%
34%
$170,674
FL
United Way of the Big Bend
20.0
FL
$304,010
$15,201
16%
46%
$147,883
Formula Subtotal
$1,282,483
198.0
$2,837,293
19%
41%
Grantee Total
Florida Governor's Commission on
$1,282,483
198.0
$2,837,293
19%
41%
94ASCGA011
GA Commission on National and Community Service
Formula
City of Macon/ Police Department
20.0
$275,707
$13,785
16%
56%
$170,955
GA
Douglas/Coffee County Service
23.0
$309,701
$13,465
15%
71%
$340,117
Corps, Inc.
GA
Georgia School-Age Care
21.0
$293,670
$13,984
15%
51%
$162,520
Association, Inc.
GA
Metro Atlanta Task Force for the
22.0
$299,860
$13,630
24%
42%
$143,056
Homeless
GA
Mid State Children's Challenge
24.0
$324,178
$13,507
15%
39%
$116,669
Projects, Inc.
GA
Southwest Georgia Easter Seal
8.0
$100,952
$12,619
15%
50%
$45,134
Society, Inc.
GA
West Georgia Medical Center
20.0
$213,832
$10,692
16%
40%
$69,173
GA
Formula Subtotal
$1,047,624
138.0
$1,817,900
17%
50%
Grantee Total
GA Commission on National and
$1,047,624
138.0
$1,817,900
17%
50%
94ASCHI012
Hawaii State Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
AmeriCorps ACHIEVE Hawaii
17.0
$235,068
$13,828
15%
47%
$114,599
HI
DLNR Youth Corps
7.0
$68,732
$9,819
43%
65%
$108,664
HI
Formula Subtotal
$223,263
24.0
$303,800
29%
56%
Grantee Total
Hawaii State Commission on National
$223,263
24.0
$303,800
29%
56%
94ASCIA016
Iowa Commission on Community Service
Formula
Community Corrections Improvement
22.5
Association
$271,861
$12,083
15%
61%
$160,926
IA
lowa Coalition Against Domestic
20.0
$242,673
$12,134
15%
32%
$65,410
Violence
IA
lowa State University Extension
14.0
$213,069
$15,219
15%
48%
$135,294
IA
Formula Subtotal
56.5
$727,603
$361,630
15%
47%
January 18, 1996
Page 4
North Central
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Iowa Commission on Community
$361,630
56.5
$727,603
15%
47%
94ASCID013
Idaho Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
Idaho Department of Parks and
10.0
$123,818
$12,382
38%
69%
$139,553
Recreation
ID
Lewis-Clark State College
13.0
$172,440
$13,265
14%
60%
$118,004
ID
Formula Subtotal
$257,557
23.0
$296,258
26%
64%
Grantee Total Idaho Commission for National &
$257,557
23.0
$296,258
26%
64%
94ASCIL014
Illinois Commission on Community Service
Formula
Asian Human Services of Chicago,
0.0
Inc.
IL
$29,000
?
0%
25%
$9,667
Belleville Area College
22.0
IL
$280,267
$12,739
15%
25%
$65,131
Chicago Commons Association
20.0
$312,610
$15,631
15%
29%
$88,293
IL
City of Decatur, Illinois
24.0
$309,207
$12,884
15%
25%
$68,704
IL
Illinois Department of Corrections
0.0
IL
$29,828
?
0%
43%
$22,616
Illinois Department of Energy and
25.0
$13,957
27%
25%
$123,935
Natural Resources
IL
$348,925
Latino Youth, Inc.
15.0
$234,838
$15,656
16%
24%
$60,717
IL
Rend Lake College
20.0
IL
$246,420
$12,321
15%
25%
$57,574
Rend Lake College
25.0
$350,312
$14,012
15%
40%
$136,297
IL
Southern Illinois University at
20.0
$265,486
$13,274
15%
37%
$87,528
Edwardsville
IL
Travelers & Immigrants Aid
0.0
$28,699
?
0%
61%
$45,668
IL
United Way of Champaign County
$15,297
44%
$143,876
20.0
$305,931
16%
IL
Uptown Habitat for Humanity
9.0
$114,582
$12,731
15%
80%
$98,623
IL
Formula Subtotal
$1,008,629
200.0
$2,856,105
13%
37%
Grantee Total
Illinois Commission on Community
$1,008,629
200.0
$2,856,105
13%
37%
94ASCIN015
Indiana Commission on Community Service
Formula
City of Elkhart
18.0
$244,553
$13,586
26%
51%
$150,623
IN
Community Centers of Indianapolis,
20.0
$226,368
$11,318
15%
32%
$57,457
Inc.
IN
January 18, 1996
Page 5
North Central
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Fort Wayne Community Schools
10.0
$135,734
$13,573
15%
45%
$60,216
IN
Fort Wayne Parks & Recreation
11.5
IN
$152,088
$13,225
50%
65%
$224,401
Department
Hoosier Valley Economic Opportunity
10.0
$134,655
$13,466
16%
40%
$49,480
Corporation
IN
Martin University
13.5
IN
$185,671
$13,753
15%
25%
$47,080
Middle Way House, Inc.
10.0
$0
$0
0%
0%
$0
IN
Mt. Vernon Community School
10.0
$137,400
$13,740
17%
66%
$120,357
Corporation
IN
Telamon Corporation
8.5
IN
$131,842
$15,511
15%
38%
$48,441
Formula Subtotal
111.5
$1,348,311
$758,055
19%
40%
Grantee Total
Indiana Commission on Community
$758,055
111.5
$1,348,311
19%
40%
94ASCKS017
Kansas Commission on National and Community Service
Formula
Fort Hays State Univ
20.0
$229,000
$11,450
15%
47%
$100,866
KS
Mennonite Housing Rehabilitation
8.0
$115,849
$14,481
15%
25%
$27,220
Services Inc
KS
United Way of Wyandotte County
21.0
$253,000
$12,048
21%
48%
$132,253
KS
Wichita State University
0.0
$0
?
0%
0%
$0
KS
Formula Subtotal
$260,339
49.0
$597,849
13%
30%
Grantee Total
Kansas Commission on National and
$260,339
49.0
$597,849
13%
30%
94ASCKY018
Kentucky Community Service Commission
Formula
Christian County Public Schools
18.0
$238,847
$13,269
15%
47%
$97,200
KY
Community Action Council
$60,321
18.0
$238,848
$13,269
15%
28%
KY
Eastern Kentucky University
22.0
$267,597
$12,164
15%
71%
$260,800
KY
The Neighborhood Place
18.5
$240,806
$13,017
23%
23%
$73,006
KY
Formula Subtotal
$491,327
76.5
$986,098
17%
42%
Grantee Total
Kentucky Community Service
$491,327
76.5
$986,098
17%
42%
94ASCLA019
Louisiana Serve Commission
Formula
Mid City Redevelopment Alliance
40.0
$592,998
$14,825
15%
35%
$202,067
LA
January 18, 1996
Page 6
Southwest
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Shreveport Green
7.5
$125,000
$16,667
15%
59%
$99,326
LA
Tri-State Girls & Boys Club
0.0
$45,000
?
0%
27%
$16,400
LA
University of Southwestem Louisiana
19.0
$274,214
$14,432
15%
39%
$106,538
LA
Vernon Community Action Council Inc
6.0
$73,016
$12,169
16%
44%
$27,303
LA
Formula Subtotal
72.5
$1,110,228
$451,634
12%
41%
Grantee Total
Louisiana Serve Commission
$451,634
72.5
$1,110,228
12%
41%
94ASCMA022
Massachusetts National & Community Service Commission
Formula
Berkshire Training and Employment
11.0
$46,194
$4,199
75%
87%
$214,225
Program
MA
Cambridge Community Services
5.5
$75,327
$13,696
34%
61%
$81,582
MA
City of New Bedford
0.0
$25,000
?
0%
50%
$25,421
MA
Corporation for Public Management
8.0
$128,943
$16,118
55%
62%
$193,333
-
MA
Greater Holyoke Foundation, Inc.
18.0
$213,944
$11,886
25%
59%
$159,587
MA
Lawrence Youth Commission
30.0
$251,055
$8,369
37%
81%
$579,908
MA
Lowell YWCA
10.0
$60,000
$6,000
45%
93%
$165,530
MA
Old Colony Y Services Corps
24.0
$250,000
$10,417
29%
59%
$217,700
MA
ROCA Inc.
15.0
$151,519
$10,101
60%
70%
$300,007
MA
University of Massachusetts at
0.0
$25,000
?
0%
45%
$20,697
Boston
MA
University of Massachusetts Boston
9.0
$107,760
$11,973
15%
69%
$136,405
MA
Worcester Community Action Council
30.0
$221,958
$7,399
34%
79%
$289,042
MA
Formula Subtotal
$2,383,437
160.5
$1,556,700
34%
68%
Grantee Total
Massachusetts National & Community
$2,383,437
160.5
$1,556,700
34%
68%
94ASCMD021
Governor's Commission on Service
Formula
Anne Arundel Community College
Arnold
20.0
$315,798
$15,790
15%
35%
$136,417
MD
Frostburg State University
29.0
$427,409
$14,738
19%
31%
$140,113
MD
Salisbury State University
20.0
$241,311
$12,066
15%
28%
$60,281
MD
January 18, 1996
Page 7
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
University of Maryland at Baltimore
22.0
$320,937
$14,588
20%
45%
$157,931
MD
Formula Subtotal
$494,742
91.0
$1,305,455
17%
35%
Grantee Total
Governor's Commission on Service
$494,742
91.0
$1,305,455
17%
35%
94ASCME020
Maine Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Job Training Administrative Office
22.0
ME
$319,500
$14,523
39%
55%
$314,826
Formula Subtotal
$314,826
22.0
$319,500
39%
55%
Grantee Total
Maine Commission on National &
$314,826
22.0
$319,500
39%
55%
94ASCMI023
Michigan Community Service Commission
Formula
American Youth
21.0
$305,863
$14,565
18%
32%
$98,375
Foundation-Miniwanca
MI
Big Brothers Big Sisters of
16.0
$254,947
$15,934
18%
29%
$79,942
Metropolitan Detroit
MI
Eastern Michigan University
19.0
$222,005
$11,684
60%
58%
$314,989
MI
Ecumenical Project SAVE
20.0
$241,000
$12,050
16%
48%
$99,125
MI
Grand Rapids Service Corps
$262,739
$7,728
37%
84%
$356,123
34.0
MI
Marquette County Health Department
12.0
$169,145
$14,095
15%
25%
$40,393
MI
Michigan State University
8.0
$114,179
$14,272
15%
60%
$122,194
MI
Oakland University
20.0
$241,350
$12,068
15%
40%
$87,758
MI
SOS Crisis Center
20.0
$0
$0
0%
0%
$0
MI
United Way of Genesee and Lapeer
28.0
$320,099
$11,432
15%
57%
$159,152
Counties
MI
United Way of Saginaw County
$306,650
$9,583
43%
58%
$291,282
32.0
MI
Formula Subtotal
$1,649,333
230.0
$2,437,977
23%
45%
Grantee Total
Michigan Community Service
$1,649,333
230.0
$2,437,977
23%
45%
94ASCMN024
Minnesota Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Minneapolis Public Schools- Family
25.0
$281,272
$11,251
18%
69%
$222,842
and Community Education
MN
Minnesota Department of Economic
67.5
$0
$0
100%
100%
$1,390,838
Security
MN
Neighborhood House Association
24.0
$259,803
$10,825
29%
73%
$330,019
MN
January 18, 1996
Page 8
North Central
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Pillsbury Neighborhood Services, Inc.
26.0
$279,590
$10,753
35%
49%
$199,127
MN
Two or More, Inc.
25.0
$350,307
$14,012
15%
64%
$283,976
MN
Formula Subtotal
$2,426,802
167.5
$1,170,972
40%
71%
Grantee Total Minnesota Commission on National &
$2,426,802
167.5
$1,170,972
40%
71%
94ASCMO026
Missouri Commission on Community Service
Formula
Inter/Serv
$12,797
16%
41%
$122,047
23.3
$297,531
MO
Lincoln Univ
8.0
$110,204
$13,776
15%
36%
$38,819
MO
Southeast Missouri State University
27.5
$399,241
$14,518
15%
35%
$154,583
MO
YMCA of Greater Kansas
15.0
$204,060
$13,604
25%
61%
$180,087
MO
YouthNet of Greater Kansas City
24.5
$317,219
$12,948
46%
50%
$291,239
MO
Formula Subtotal
$786,775
98.3
$1,328,255
23%
45%
Grantee Total
Missouri Commission on Community
$786,775
98.3
$1,328,255
23%
45%
94ASCMS025
Mississippi Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
North Mississippi Regional Center
13.5
$143,046
$10,596
15%
41%
$43,023
(NMRC)
MS
Operation Shoestring, Inc.
27.0
$302,691
$11,211
15%
64%
$192,224
MS
Southern Coalition for Educational
15.0
$226,838
$15,123
15%
49%
$117,321
Equity
MS
Formula Subtotal
.
$352,568
55.5
$672,575
15%
51%
Grantee Total
Mississippi Commission for National
$352,568
55.5
$672,575
15%
51%
94ASCMT027
Montana Community Services Advisory Council
Formula
Missoula Aging Services, Inc.
23.0
$323,684
$14,073
15%
34%
$100,066
MT
Formula Subtotal
$100,066
23.0
$323,684
15%
34%
Grantee Total
Montana Community Services
$100,066
23.0
$323,684
15%
34%
94ASCNC034
NC State Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
AIDS Service Agency of North
66.0
$201,439
$3,052
15%
76%
$253,472
Carolina, Inc.
NC
City of Wilmington, Wilmington Police
14.0
$160,621
$11,473
17%
34%
$48,203
Department
NC
January 18, 1996
Page 9
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Day Care Services Association
22.0
$268,096
$12,186
18%
37%
$89,798
NC
Lutheran Family Services in the
21.3
$200,672
$9,407
15%
53%
$103,545
Carolinas
NC
NC Center for the Study of Black
17.0
$201,454
$11,850
15%
26%
$47,825
History
NC
NC Low Income Housing Coalition
22.0
NC
$286,147
$13,007
25%
73%
$338,192
The University of North Carolina at
$13,463
29%
49%
$226,760
24.5
$329,838
Chapel Hill
NC
University of North Carolina at
12.5
$94,903
$7,592
0%
33%
$47,280
Charlotte
NC
Formula Subtotal
$1,155,075
199.3
$1,743,170
17%
48%
Grantee Total
NC State Commission on National &
$1,155,075
199.3
$1,743,170
17%
48%
94ASCNE028
Nebraska Commission for National and Community Service
Formula
Community Action of Nebraska, Inc.
24.0
$335,400
$13,975
15%
25%
$79,265
NE
Indian Centers, Inc.
6.0
NE
$82,770
$13,795
15%
41%
$30,470
Formula Subtotal
$109,735
30.0
$418,170
15%
33%
Grantee Total
Nebraska Commission for National
$109,735
30.0
$418,170
15%
33%
94ASCNH030
New Hampshire Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Newfound Area School District
0.0
$20,000
?
25%
41%
$10,125
NH
Tri-County Community Action
23.5
$303,643
$12,921
15%
26%
$72,133
Program, Inc.
NH
Formula Subtotal
$82,258
23.5
$323,643
20%
33%
Grantee Total
New Hampshire Commission on
$82,258
23.5
$323,643
20%
33%
94ASCNJ031
New Jersey Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Catholic Community Services
16.3
$198,144
$12,193
15%
32%
$53,130
NJ
Community Agencies Corporation
23.5
$283,929
$12,082
15%
40%
$132,941
NJ
International Institute of New Jersey
20.0
$246,976
$12,349
15%
55%
$131,738
NJ
New Jersey Community Development
22.0
$336,620
$15,301
20%
29%
$111,340
Corporation
NJ
New Jersey Public Interest Research
22.5
$277,253
$12,322
19%
29%
$81,813
Foundation
NJ
Prevent Child Abuse--New Jersey
17.5
$290,943
$16,625
17%
29%
$88,274
Chapter
NJ
January 18, 1996
Page 10
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Rutgers University
20.7
$250,000
$12,097
15%
57%
$145,323
NJ
Union City Day Care Program, Inc.
20.0
$202,663
$10,133
15%
58%
$254,908
NJ
Formula Subtotal
$999,467
162.4
$2,086,528
16%
41%
Grantee Total
New Jersey Commission on National &
$999,467
162.4
$2,086,528
16%
41%
94ASCNM032
New Mexico Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
Siete del Norte Community
21.5
$319,170
$14,845
15%
32%
$100,633
Development Corporation
NM
Formula Subtotal
$100,633
21.5
$319,170
15%
32%
Grantee Total
New Mexico Commission for National
$100,633
21.5
$319,170
15%
32%
94ASCNV029
Nevada Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
Battle Mountain Band Council
Battle Mountain
0.0
$7,500
?
0%
25%
$2,539
NV
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran
10.0
$133,319
$13,332
15%
28%
$34,616
Church
NV
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
17.5
$234,581
$13,405
20%
43%
$98,814
NV
Formula Subtotal
$135,969
27.5
$375,400
12%
32%
Grantee Total Nevada Commission for National &
$135,969
27.5
$375,400
12%
32%
94ASCNY033
New York Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Bedford Stuyvesant Community
20.0
$276,000
$13,800
15%
38%
$103,368
Conference Inc.
NY
Bronx Youth Conservation Corps
35.0
$435,118
$12,432
38%
43%
$288,572
(BYCC)
NY
Clinton County Youth Bureau
15.0
$167,846
$11,190
15%
27%
$45,261
NY
Health Association of Niagara
20.0
$276,000
$13,800
15%
71%
$300,573
County, Inc. (HANCI)
NY
Monroe Community College
94.0
$1,136,845
$12,094
15%
51%
$473,294
NY
New York State Corps Collaboration
$313,240
50.0
$690,000
$13,800
16%
44%
c/o YRDC
NY
New York State Council on Children
20.0
$253,493
$12,675
15%
54%
$120,819
and Families
NY
Phoenix House Foundation, Inc.
91.5
$911,312
$9,960
24%
67%
$779,420
NY
YMCA of Greater New York:
20.0
$275,455
$13,773
29%
56%
$205,541
AmeriCorps Project
NY
Youth Resource Development
20.0
$275,865
$13,793
19%
28%
$80,569
Corporation (YRDC)
NY
Formula Subtotal
$2,710,657
385.5
$4,697,934
20%
48%
January 18, 1996
Page 11
Atlantic
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in SS
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
New York Commission on National &
$2,710,657
385.5
$4,697,934
20%
48%
94ASCOH036
Governor's Community Service Commission
Formula
Center for Alternative Resources
21.0
$360,995
$17,190
15%
47%
$194,972
OH
Community Resource Center
13.0
$166,838
$12,834
15%
25%
$38,282
OH
Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
31.0
$391,370
$12,625
29%
61%
$311,500
OH
I
Ohio Department of Youth Services
20.0
$300,741
$15,037
15%
53%
$174,687
OH
Ohio University
28.0
$388,803
$13,886
15%
49%
$183,158
OH
Riverview Behavioral Healthcare
16.0
$243,520
$15,220
14%
36%
$82,441
Services, Inc.
OH
The Vietnam Veterans of America
10.0
$152,346
$15,235
15%
70%
$159,792
OH
Toledo Area Private Industry Council
25.5
$306,068
$12,003
15%
59%
$162,794
OH
University of Dayton - SWEAT, Inc.
20.0
$340,659
$17,033
15%
41%
$148,404
OH
Youngstown State University
10.0
$115,996
$11,600
17%
33%
$31,624
OH
Formula Subtotal
$1,487,654
194.5
$2,767,336
17%
47%
Grantee Total
Governor's Community Service
$1,487,654
194.5
$2,767,336
17%
47%
94ASCOK037
Oklahoma Community Service Commission
Formula
Literacy Coalition for Metro Tulsa Inc
24.0
$264,620
$11,026
15%
68%
$178,087
OK
.
OK State Service Council - American
20.0
$201,382
$10,069
20%
66%
$119,832
Red Cross
OK
Rural Health Projects, Inc.
22.0
$344,185
$15,645
15%
42%
$148,416
OK
Formula Subtotal
$446,335
66.0
$810,187
17%
59%
Grantee Total
Oklahoma Community Service
$446,335
66.0
$810,187
17%
59%
94ASCOR038
Oregon Community Service Commission
Formula
Friends of the Children
Portland
20.0
$318,597
$15,930
15%
40%
$132,660
OR
Multnomah County District Attorney's
20.0
$232,917
$11,646
24%
26%
$76,232
Office
OR
OR Dept of Human Resources (DHR)
20.0
$246,104
$12,305
15%
24%
$54,494
OR
Formula Subtotal
$263,386
60.0
$797,618
18%
30%
January 18, 1996
Page 12
Pacific
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
City State
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Grantee Total
Oregon Community Service Commission
$263,386
60.0
$797,618
18%
30%
94ASCPA039
PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of Citizen Service
Formula
Appalchia Intermediate Unit 8-PA
52.0
$727,709
$13,994
15%
36%
$243,734
Mountain Service Corps
PA
Butler Regional Family Treatment
26.5
$392,860
$14,825
15%
27%
$115,009
Program Service
PA
City of Philadelphia, Fairmount Park
5.0
PA
$58,656
$11,731
41%
87%
$95,024
Commission
County of Allegheny Department of
20.0
$268,688
$13,434
15%
25%
$62,525
Federal Program
PA
Energy Coordinating Agency of
25.0
$344,221
$13,769
15%
66%
$294,609
Philadelphia, Inc.
PA
Keystone School District
31.0
$420,425
$13,562
15%
26%
$105,106
PA
Pennsylvania Campus
35.0
$583,764
$16,679
15%
35%
$213,928
Compact/PACU
PA
Union-Snyder Office of Human
21.5
$226,314
$10,526
15%
60%
$113,776
Resources
PA
Visions International, Inc.
50.0
$371,848
$7,437
42%
92%
$1,094,767
PA
YouthBuild Pittsburgh, Inc.
35.0
$477,966
$13,656
15%
25%
$114,683
PA
Formula Subtotal
301.0
$3,872,451
$2,453,161
20%
48%
Grantee Total PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of
$2,453,161
301.0
$3,872,451
20%
48%
94ASCPR040
Puerto Rico State Commission of Community Service
Formula
The Office of Arroyo Mayor
21.0
$273,080
$13,004
15%
30%
$73,854
PR
University of the Sacred Heart
20.0
$266,020
$13,301
15%
44%
$109,206
PR
Youth Service Center, Arecibo
30.0
$368,500
$12,283
15%
38%
$122,203
PR
Formula Subtotal
$305,263
71.0
$907,600
15%
37%
Grantee Total
Puerto Rico State Commission of
$305,263
71.0
$907,600
15%
37%
94ASCRI041
Rhode Island Commission for National and Community Service
Formula
City of Pawtucket
19.0
$300,000
$15,789
15%
39%
$116,522
RI
Formula Subtotal
$116,522
19.0
$300,000
15%
39%
Grantee Total Rhode Island Commission for National
$116,522
19.0
$300,000
15%
39%
94ASCSC042
South Carolina Commission on National & Community Service
January 18, 1996
Page 13
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
Match %
Match in $$
City State
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Formula
Benedict College
20.0
$235,740
$11,787
16%
26%
$54,948
SC
Lander University & Upper Savannah
16.0
$242,591
$15,162
14%
38%
$96,610
Cons. for Child & Family
SC
South Carolina Victim Assistance
24.0
$295,142
$12,298
15%
28%
$75,930
Network
SC
University of South Carolina
28.0
$315,483
$11,267
15%
43%
$145,346
SC
Formula Subtotal
$372,834
88.0
$1,088,956
15%
34%
Grantee Total
South Carolina Commission on
$372,834
88.0
$1,088,956
15%
34%
94ASCSD043
General Convention of Sioux YMCAs
Formula
General Convention of Sioux YMCAs Dupree
12.0
$161,919
$13,493
17%
25%
$43,603
SD
Formula Subtotal
$43,603
12.0
$161,919
17%
25%
Grantee Total
General Convention of Sioux YMCAs
$43,603
12.0
$161,919
17%
25%
94ASCTN044
Tenn. Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Applalachia Habitat for Humanity
8.0
$87,651
$10,956
15%
92%
$238,494
TN
Auxiliary Probation Service, Juvenile
25.0
$1,600
$64
0%
99%
$115,648
Court of Memphis & She
TN
Exchange Club Center for the
17.5
$268,670
$15,353
15%
61%
$298,539
Prevention of Child Abuse
TN
Knoxville-Knox County Community
20.0
$276,000
$13,800
15%
51%
$131,727
Action Committee
TN
North Tennessee Private Industry
20.0
$236,000
$11,800
15%
57%
$122,269
Council, Inc.
TN
TN Dept. of Mental Health/Health
5.0
$71,101
$14,220
15%
32%
$33,822
Retardation
TN
Upper Cumberland County
10.0
$117,545
$11,755
15%
54%
$70,800
Community Health Agency
TN
Vanderbilt University Medical
20.0
$276,573
$13,829
15%
50%
$137,108
Center/Center for Health Servi
TN
Formula Subtotal
$1,148,407
125.5
$1,335,140
13%
62%
Grantee Total
Tenn. Commission on National &
$1,148,407
125.5
$1,335,140
13%
62%
94ASCTX045
Texas Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
Armed Services YMCA
20.0
$260,667
$13,033
15%
25%
$59,309
TX
City Year Inc
0.0
$2,240
?
0%
47%
$2,000
TX
Middle Earth Unlimited Inc - Dba
26.0
$350,600
$13,485
15%
25%
$82,994
Youth Options
TX
January 18, 1996
Page 14
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Virginia Commonwealth University
20.0
$239,903
$11,995
15%
27%
$60,060
VA
Formula Subtotal
$399,431
95.0
$1,090,826
9%
33%
Grantee Total
Virginia Commission on National &
$399,431
95.0
$1,090,826
9%
33%
94ASCVT048
Vermont Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Lyndon State College
22.5
VT
$299,717
$13,321
15%
44%
$120,499
Formula Subtotal
22.5
$299,717
$120,499
15%
44%
Grantee Total
Vermont Commission on National &
$120,499
22.5
$299,717
15%
44%
94ASCWA047
Washington Commission on National & Community Service
Formula
Community Youth Services
32.5
$358,408
$11,028
20%
25%
$97,123
WA
Educational Service District 101
22.0
$322,379
$14,654
42%
43%
$236,707
WA
Neutral Zone
20.0
$244,203
$12,210
27%
39%
$114,390
WA
Pasco School District #1
20.0
WA
$276,824
$13,841
17%
47%
$133,975
YMCA of Snohomish County
20.0
20%
48%
WA
$259,494
$12,975
$131,100
Formula Subtotal
114.5
$713,295
$1,461,308
25%
40%
Grantee Total
Washington Commission on National
$713,295
114.5
$1,461,308
25%
40%
94ASCWI051
Wisconsin National & Community Service Board
Formula
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc.
0.0
$7,606
?
0%
75%
$23,116
WI
Community Adolescent Program, Inc.
16.0
$245,357
$15,335
22%
51%
$158,896
WI
Kenosha Voluntary Action Center
11.0
$153,481
$13,953
27%
50%
$101,193
WI
NorthCentral Technical College
27.0
$264,087
$9,781
16%
32%
$68,929
WI
Open Door Community Center, Inc.
12.0
$181,651
$15,138
15%
25%
$45,814
WI
Operation Fresh Start, Inc.
16.0
$173,064
$10,817
20%
75%
$128,658
WI
Western Wisconsin Private Industry
20.0
$217,028
$10,851
18%
25%
$53,793
Council. Inc.
WI
Formula Subtotal
102.0
$1,242,274
$580,399
17%
48%
Grantee Total
Wisconsin National & Community
$580,399
102.0
$1,242,274
17%
48%
94ASCWV050
WV Commission for National & Community Service
January 18, 1996
Page 16
South
Subgrantee
FTEs
CNS share
City State
Match %
Match in $$
CorpShare
per FTE
A% B-G%
Formula
Regional Family Resources Network
Charleston
15.0
(RFRN)
WV
$160,575
$10,705
16%
59%
$77,012
Southern Appalachian Labor School
15.0
$105,750
$7,050
44%
89%
$313,703
WV
West Virginia Coalition Against
12.0
$203,750
$16,979
17%
25%
$54,385
\
Domestic Violence
WV
Formula Subtotal
42.0
$445,100
$470,075
26%
58%
Grantee Total
WV Commission for National &
$445,100
42.0
$470,075
26%
58%
94ASCWY052
Wyoming Commission for National & Community Service
Formula
Laramie County Community College
11.3
$105,300
$9,360
0%
28%
$40,561
WY
Wyoming Congress of Parents and
20.5
$194,700
$9,498
15%
26%
$40,418
Teachers (dba Wyoming PTA)
WY
Formula Subtotal
31.8
$300,000
$80,979
8%
27%
Grantee Total Wyoming Commission for National &
$80,979
31.8
$300,000
8%
27%
Total 261 Programs
$67,599,853
$41,719,445
5,534.6
20%
45%
$12214 per FTE
Formula programs
January 18, 1996
Page 17