RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY

SERVICE ACT OF 1990

TITLE 1, SUBTITLES C - H

Prepared by Voices for National Service Steering Committee:

Kelita Bak, Washington Representative, Service-Learning United
Karen Baker, Secretary of Service and Volunteering, CaliforniaVolunteers
Bill Basl, Chair, Association of State Service Commissions
Michael Brown, CEO and Co-Founder, City Year
Nelda Brown, Executive Director, National Service Learning Partnership
James Cleveland, President, Jumpstart for Young Children
AnnMaura Connolly, Senior Vice President, City Year
Jacqueline Johnson, Executive Director, Connecticut Commission on Service
Marguerite Kondracke, President and CEO, America’s Promise Alliance
Wendy Kopp, President and Founder, Teach for America
Marguerite Kondracke, CEO, America's Promise
Michelle Nunn, CEO, Points of Light Institute
Jason Patnosh, National Director, Community HealthCorps
Dale Penny, President, Student Conservation Association
Sally Prouty, President and CEO, The Corps Network
Michael Rubinger, CEO and President, Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Eric Schwartz, President and CEO, Citizen Schools
Paul Schmitz, President and CEO, Public Allies
Dorothy Stoneman, CEO, YouthBuild
Marty Weinstein, California AmeriCorps Coalition

President-elect Obama has articulated a bold vision in which all Americans are inspired to serve
their communities and country. Both the House and Senate introduced bills during the 110th
Congress that would create new pathways of service for Americans of all ages and backgrounds,
stimulate community volunteerism, and increase accountability and efficiency within the
administration of national service grants. Those bills engendered broad bipartisan support.
Service can play a critical role in getting our economy moving again, employing Americans in
productive work during difficult times. We need to reinvest in these programs and that starts with
reauthorization.

The National and Community Service Trust Act has not been reauthorized since it was signed into
law 16 years ago. Since that time, demand for service opportunities has grown and the real value
of the AmeriCorps Education Award has declined while the cost of higher education has
increased significantly. Changes in the Act have been implemented either through rulemaking or
through the appropriations process. Since 1993, we have learned a great deal about how to most
effectively support national service programs in meeting community needs, and we are grateful
for the opportunity to share our reauthorization recommendations based on our hands-on
experience running programs and managing grants.

Change will unleash program potential: Through reauthorization, Congress and the Obama
Administration will have the opportunity to make changes that will allow more Americans to serve,
stimulate community volunteerism, and increase the diversity of those serving. By increasing
investment in these programs, they can also address the need to offer adequate compensation
for service that will enable more Americans to pursue the dream of higher education, expose

1
more students to service-learning, and increase the number of senior volunteers, especially “baby
boomers.”

Demand is high: National service meets critical needs, civically engages Americans of all ages,
and helps unify Americans from all walks of life. Interest and participation in national service
programs is at a record high. But the demand exceeds the supply of positions. With strategic
investments and administrative streamlining, service can do even more to help address some of
our country’s most pressing needs.

Our recommendations are intended to attract new applicants and members by addressing several
key issues, including administrative simplification, changing funding formulas where appropriate,
modifying the way grants are awarded, and simplifying various reporting requirements.

Key themes and recommendations include:

• Increase and graduate the authorized appropriations levels for AmeriCorps, Learn
and Serve America, and the three Senior Corps programs: Over the past several
years, the national service field has struggled with a slow, but steady disinvestment in the
core programs administered by the Corporation for National and Community Service. To
expand service opportunities for Americans of all ages, the legislation must include
increased authorization levels, sending a signal to the appropriators that a minimum level
of support is required.

• Revise the formula for AmeriCorps assistance and approved national service
positions: The revised formula, included in the GIVE Act (HR 5563), merges the state
and national competitive funding streams. This change promotes merit-based
competition and ensures that federal resources are efficiently allocated across the
country in a fair and coordinated manner. States are given greater influence over which
programs are funded in their area, while multiple layers of grant administration and
administrative costs are eliminated reducing the burden on national nonprofit grantees.

• The need to simplify program administration: If AmeriCorps, is to grow, nonprofits and

state commissions must have greater flexibility to effectively administer the program.
Current requirements are burdensome and expensive, making AmeriCorps program
administration a challenge, particularly to small nonprofits. Reauthorization must reduce
the administrative burden that AmeriCorps places on its grantees and simplify the
program so that AmeriCorps can dramatically broaden its reach and flexibility, and more
effectively leverage all sectors (public, private and independent) to respond to pressing
local needs and support program growth.

• Expand use of Fixed Amount Grants: AmeriCorps grants impose a substantial amount
of paperwork on grantees; particularly on small community-based organizations that
typically lack the infrastructure and/or staff to handle the compliance requirements
AmeriCorps now requires. Providing fixed-price or fixed amount grant awards is a proven
approach to streamlining the federal grant-making process that will eliminate
cumbersome financial management requirements and free program staff to focus time
and energy on running high quality programs with strong members and service.

• Increase the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award to Keep Pace with Inflation: The
post-service AmeriCorps Education Award was established in 1993 and because the
formula for calculating it was set in statute, its real value has declined while the cost of
higher education has skyrocketed. The award should be indexed to the average cost of
tuition and fees for a full-time student at a 4-year public college or university and made
transferable to another individual.

2
 • Revise Member Management Reporting Requirements: The typical AmeriCorps
Member File that programs are required to keep is approximately 125 pages thick,
including paper timesheets, training sign-in sheets, multiple performance reviews, a birth
certificate and much, much more. All of this is required by CNCS to document member
eligibility and compliance with federal statute. As a point of comparison, the AmeriCorps
VISTA member files are under 10 pages. Current statute and regulations are overly
burdensome and require too many resources to be spent on monitoring and program
management instead of program and member development. Together, with the
Corporation for National and Community Service, we believe that alternate models of
time and member management should be piloted to reduce administrative burden and
cost, while preserving accountability.

The Corporation for National and Community Service constructed an analysis of member
file contents and streamlining opportunities (attached) specifically to reduce the amount
of paperwork required per member over the course of a term of service. We support all
the proposed efforts to reduce paperwork, and have additional comments. For example,
one issue not raised by the CNCS attachment is how to handle member status as it
relates to unemployment insurance or worker’s compensation. This qualification is not
clearly defined in statute, and defaults to individual states which results in differing
interpretations. The Committee should clarify that AmeriCorps members are ineligible for
unemployment insurance, which is not consistent with the program’s finite terms of
service; however, members should be covered by worker’s compensation to protect both
members and sponsoring organizations.

We believe that the Committee should charge CNCS with studying these, and other, cost-
saving and simplification measures and report back to the Committee, twelve months
after date of enactment, about their value. The Committee should also consider giving
CNCS the ability to pilot these proposals to test their effectiveness.

We are eager to work with Congress to enhance and improve the entire range of national service
programs. Below are our recommended changes to the National and Community Service Trust
Act, Title 1, Subtitles C-H.

SUBTITLE C – National Service Trust Program (AmeriCorps State and National)

Sect 121 Authority to provide assistance and approved national service positions

ISSUE: Sect 121(b) authorizes CNCS to enter into a contract or cooperative agreements with
Federal agencies to support national service programs carried out by the agency or another non-
profit. Under current law, the support provided to the Federal agency may include the transfer of
funds. Matching funds are not required. Congressional appropriators have added language to
recent Labor-HHS Appropriations bills prohibiting CNCS from providing funds to national service
programs run by other Federal agencies. We believe this blanket restriction needs to be revisited
as it also prevents CNCS from awarding other agencies AmeriCorps slots and education awards.

RECOMMENDATION: National service should be a shared responsibility among federal

agencies and not the sole responsibility of the Corporation. National service will always be
smaller if all service is housed within CNCS. Leveraging other department’s funds for national
service is one way to expand resources and tap into their vast networks of local and state
government partners and NGO intermediaries that could expand the reach of service far beyond
the Corporation’s 1000 grantees. These activities would not displace current employees or
supplant federal funds, but rather enhance and expand services to those most in need,
particularly during this difficult economic crisis.

3
In the past, before congressional appropriators placed restrictions on the transfer of funds, grants
were made on a competitive basis to federal agencies that applied for AmeriCorps funds to
implement an AmeriCorps program on a specific issue. To cite two examples: USDA had a
program working on child nutrition in rural areas and HHS used VISTAs to assist state public
health organizations to do outreach to families in pockets of poverty about childhood
immunizations. The funds for AmeriCorps programs operated by federal agencies were meant to
be ‘pump primers’ to get the department to implement a program and then move it to its operating
budget. After an initial phase of funding the programs directly, federal agency programs could
convert to Education Award Only programs with the departments assuming program operating
costs.

Other Federal agencies should be encouraged to take advantage of the existing AmeriCorps
structure, systems and legislative provisions and partner with the Corporation for National and
Community Service and AmeriCorps grantees. A strategy should be developed that would
empower other federal agencies to invest in, and leverage, the AmeriCorps to provide
programming at the local level. We recommend that the Corporation remove current barriers to
using federal funds as match so that other federal agencies could more easily support local,
regional, and national AmeriCorps programs. The Corporation should study whether there are
other barriers that inhibit federal agencies from partnering with national service programs and,
wherever practical, remove those barriers. Furthermore, the administration should encourage
federal agencies to bolster national service efforts across the country. The Corporation should
develop an inter-governmental office that forges partnerships between national service programs
and federal agencies engaged in similar activities to maximize efforts and leverage national
service resources to meet community needs.

ISSUE: Sect 121 (d) – (e) and other related provisions need to be amended to authorize CNCS to
move to a fixed price model for awarding grants. AmeriCorps grants management is one of the
most burdensome grant environments in the entire federal government. State commissions; state
agencies that administer AmeriCorps grants for state commissions; national direct grantees; and
particularly small community-based organizations implementing AmeriCorps programs, all agree
that the AmeriCorps grants impose more work and undue burdens. The burden is particularly felt
by small community-based organizations that typically lack the sophisticated systems or staffing
to handle the financial management that the complicated AmeriCorps model imposes.

These barriers have created great difficulties for commissions and/or national directs in placing
AmeriCorps programs with small CBO's and particularly with rural programs. In many instances,
programs choose to leave AmeriCorps because of the extensive administrative burden or after
audits reveal deficiencies in the organizations infrastructure which other federal grants enable the
organization to secure via higher administrative costs. These burdens are so well known that
they discourage organizations with otherwise good community programs from participating.

RECOMMENDATION: AmeriCorps grant making should be changed to provide fixed-price or

fixed amount awards, which focus management and measures accountability based on the
AmeriCorps members themselves. Fixed-price awards have been used for over a decade in the
highly successful AmeriCorps Education Award program and for years in the AmeriCorps Promise
Fellows program. They will help to solve many of the problems with grant making and
management. We urge the Committee to request further technical assistance from CNCS on this
recommendation. Voices for National Service has developed a set of principles that should be
incorporated into the design of a Fixed Price Grant program.

Why Fixed Price Grants?

• The AmeriCorps program has a built-in deliverable: Fixed price arrangements are
a preferred approach to federal grants or contracts when there is a clearly defined,
measurable deliverable. With AmeriCorps, that measurable deliverable is the
AmeriCorps member, a proxy for direct community service. The hours and time an

4
 AmeriCorps member is required to fulfill in order to complete service and earn an
education award are clearly delineated in statute and currently form the basis for
estimating and setting a ceiling on the federal cost of programs, i.e. cost per MSY
(Member Service Year).

• Grants will increase focus on quality of member management: The AmeriCorps

member remains the denominator for both cost per MSY and the fixed amount of
federal funds provided to a program. Because the funds are awarded solely on
member enrollment and retention, fixed price grants come with a clear incentive to
recruit and maintain members. The grant resources are focused on achieving
excellence in member performance and management and service, rather than
gathering data to support detailed costs.

• Programs already raise far more money than the federal share: The cost of
successfully implementing a full-time AmeriCorps far exceeds the federal dollars
provided. Currently capped at an average of $12,600 per member, federal dollars
provide less than the collective expense of a full-time AmeriCorps member living
allowance, FICA, workers' compensation and health care. The federal share does not
cover an organization’s staffing, recruiting, member training, or evaluation of member
activities. Focusing excessive efforts on gathering the actual data to support the
organization's expenses, developing cost allocation plans, in-kind match, staffing time
systems and other administrative changes is unnecessary, inefficient, and costly. Any
organization that participates in the AmeriCorps program must inherently commit a
large amount of resources simply to meet the program goals.

• OMB Cost Principles for Nonprofits applicability to fixed grants: OMB Circular A-
122 Cost Principles for Nonprofits states that the principles “do not apply to awards
under which an organization is not required to account to the federal government for
actual costs incurred” (2 CFR§ 230.24). It goes on to state the arrangements in which
costs are used in determining appropriate price, and in which the principles apply - for
budget review and establishing the final price but not thereafter during award. OMB
Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Higher Education (and other nonprofits), states that
“the principles (cost principles) shall also be used as a guide in the pricing of fixed price
or lump sum agreements” (2 CFR § 220.20). In effect, most aspects of the cost
principles do not apply to administration of the fixed-price or fixed amount grant.

• Fixed Grants have been tested and could be immediately implemented across
multiple program models. Because the Corporation for National and Community
Service has already tested the concept and practice of fixed price grants through the
Promise Fellows and Education Award Only programs, it has a proven track record of
applicability and will work for multiple program types. There is no need to pilot fixed
price grants’ impact on program effectiveness and sustainability because it has already
been demonstrated.

Fixed Price Grants Principles:

1) Fixed price grants should be used for all AmeriCorps awards as a method to reduce
unneeded red tape and reduce or eliminate the amount of government resources spent
on administrative burdens at all levels of program administration. This would free up
programs to dedicate a greater percentage of their time and resources to developing
strong members and service.

2) Fixed price grants would make AmeriCorps more accessible to CBO’s that serve small,
rural, and underserved communities CBO’s and broaden the types of grantees
supported by AmeriCorps.

5
 3) Statutory language regarding matching requirements for an increasing percentage for
the grantee over time, the administrative cap of 5%, and other legislated budget
requirements should be amended to provide authorization to use fixed price federal
amounts as the clear, definable focus of decreasing federal contributions over the 10-
year grant time frame for individual AmeriCorps programs.

4) Fixed price grants should be based on the average fixed price amounts for operating
an AmeriCorps program and authority should be given to CNCS, National Directs and
State Commissions to administer different fixed price amounts depending on program
size, design, geography or length of operation. Programs with high
need/disadvantaged youth may require a higher fixed price amount to provide the
necessary training and services to retain the member.

5) Any Fixed price amount should be indexed to allow for growth over time and/or if there
is change within a program’s design (e.g., new placement sites for an agency).

6) As there are base costs associated with operating an AmeriCorps program, CNCS
should allow for higher fixed amounts for the first 10 MSYs or 50% of members,
whichever amount is higher.

7) As there are recruitment, program planning and other startup costs associated with
AmeriCorps grants, fixed amounts should not be evenly disbursed throughout the
course of the year. Payments should be "front loaded" to account for these higher start
up costs to allow for smaller organizations to operate and prevent loss of costs
associated with members not retained.

8) If a member exits a program prior to completing over 50% of the term, CNCS, National
Directs and State Commissions should allow for slot conversions to refill these vacated
positions with half-time or part-time slots.

9) If a member exits a program and that slot is not refilled, the program’s grant award will
be adjusted according to the unspent remainder associated with that member.

10) CNCS should consider awarding summer awards to existing grantees as a means to
capture and fully utilize all member slots not filled or utilized by programs.

If the Committee cannot make the shift to Fixed Price grant making, other amendments to the
underlying statute will be required to make the current system function more efficiently and allow
it to respond to current challenges and the economic downturn. Voices for National Service can
offer more specifics, but these amendments would need to address:

• Sect 121 (d) Five percent limitation on administrative costs - Since AmeriCorps
grants do not cover all of the direct member costs, the cap on administrative expenses is
unnecessary and creates unneeded administrative burdens. At a minimum,
organizations with a federally approved indirect cost rate should be allowed to apply it
towards the administration of the AmeriCorps grant within the federal section.
• Sect 121 (e) Match fund requirement and Sect 140 (a) Limitation on the Federal
Share of the Living Allowance – Congressional appropriators have amended Sect 121
(e) and Sect 140 through the FY08 and 09 Labor, Health and Human Services
Appropriations bills, combining member support and operating costs into one overall
match requirement. This change should be included in reauthorization. Combining
match categories will eliminate duplicative record keeping requirements for grantees,
simply audits, and approve the utilization of funds.

6
 • Sect 121 (e) (4) Waiver - If a documented match requirement is maintained, the waiver is
not sufficient to keep struggling programs in the AmeriCorps portfolio. Because of the
economic downturn, grantees are experiencing fluctuations in match source and
availability. They need flexibility to make real time adjustments, request a waiver or
renegotiate their match mid-grant, to take effect immediately in the current year. CNCS
should be able to waive, freeze and even reverse the progressive match scale. Instead of
adhering to a rigid 10-year schedule, CNCS should give the economy a chance to
recover before raising match expectations for programs. The full impact the economic
downturn will have on the charitable sector is still unknown. We do not believe waiver
authority alone will give CNCS the flexibility to make match adjustments to protect the
entire program. The agency –which has rarely used its waiver authority – is unlikely to
begin using waivers to sustain a large percentage of their portfolio. Economic conditions
may demand that the agency have additional options at its disposal – such as freezing or
temporarily reversing the progressive match scale – to make sure all programs can
recover if matching funds are lost during the economic downturn.

Sect 124 Types of program assistance

ISSUE: Sect 124 (a) – Authorizes CNCS to provide assistance to applicants for planning a
national service program. The assistance may cover a period of not more than I year.
Some programs fail in their first grant cycle simply because the challenges of raising match funds,
recruiting and managing members and meeting fiscal and programmatic compliance
administrative issues are too complex to handle simultaneously. Planning grants (usually $25K-
$50K) support programs as they develop technical and financial systems, promote community
partnerships and refine desired outcomes; plan for sustainability; attend State Commission
meetings and become familiar with compliance issues; in preparation for a future operating grant.
Planning grants do not fund AmeriCorps members and have a minimal match requirement. As
such, they provide a cost-effective mechanism that helps new ideas emerge and develop directly
from local communities. They also offer a useful opportunity for vetting project readiness, both for
program planners and State Commission or parent organizations.

RECOMMENDATION: Language codifying the purpose, regularity and implementation of

Planning Grants would be productive in preparing prospective grantees for service. Such grants
could be incorporated under a separate subtitle. Some states are currently discouraged from
utilizing planning grants to develop new programs because they must achieve an average cost
per member service year (or MSY) across their portfolio. Planning grants should not be
considered when establishing an average cost/MSY. The GIVE Act sought to address planning
grants through a separate “Training and Technical Assistance” subtitle – Subtitle J – which
blended a provision for planning grants with training for future and current grantees. The
separate subtitle usefully establishes training as a funding priority, and helps states develop
potential grantees without impacting their aggregate cost per MSY.

Sect 126 Other special assistance

ISSUE: Sect 126 (a) authorizes grants between $125,000 and $750,000 to States to establish or
operate a State Commission on National and Community Service. The federal contribution may
not exceed 85 percent of the total cost to establish or operate the commission in year 1. The
share of federal support must progressively decline in years 2-4 and not exceed 50 percent of the
Commission’s costs in year 5 and subsequent years. This floor and ceiling for State Commission
Administrative support was established in 1993, and as a result, relying on fixed amounts has
constrained the growth of state commissions. Small and large state commissions are ineligible
for additional federal funds when appropriations increase. Alternatively, when appropriations for
this activity decrease, commissions in mid-size state are disproportionately affected. State
Commissions need to grow proportionally along with the programs they are charged to administer
and relying on numerical caps and floors prevent needed adjustments to inflation and growth.

7
RECOMMENDATION: This section should be amended to read: "Grants Authorized - From
amounts appropriated for a fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriation in section
12681(a)(4) of this title, the Corporation may make a grant in an amount between $200,000 or
1.3% of the total allocated administrative funds, whichever amount is greater and $825,000 or
5.5% of the total allocated administrative funds, whichever amount is greater." Using
percentages gives CNCS the opportunity to allocate funds equitably when appropriations
increase. Alternatively, if appropriations decrease, steps must be taken to make sure mid-size
states are not adversely affected disproportionately. The Committee should add language that
would allow for proportional reductions when available funding falls below what is required to
finance the increase in the minimum and maximum grant.

ISSUE: Given the state of the economy and state budget cuts, an alternative state commission
match requirement is needed.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend section Sect 126 (a) 2 as follows, “States that can demonstrate
hardship or a new commission can use an alternative match - $0-100k: 0 match, $100-200k: $1
non-federal for every $2 from CNCS, above $200k: $1 non-federal for every $1 from CNCS.”
The Committee should also add emergency waiver authority that would permit CNCS to waive
the match entirely. This would assist states that may lose their matching funds because of state
budget crises and prevent them from losing all AmeriCorps*State programming.

Sect 129 Provision of assistance and approved national service positions by

competitive and other means

ISSUE: Sect 129(a)-(g) establishes a formula for allocating AmeriCorps State and National funds
and positions that has limited the efficient growth of quality programs, stifled competition and
resulted in an inadequate grant making process. In July 2007, a working group representing state
service commissions and national organizations was formed to develop a better means for
allocating AmeriCorps dollars among state and national programs. A new methodology was
developed and later inserted into HR 5563, the GIVE Act, by amendment.

The new formula merges the state and national competitive funding streams. This change
promotes merit-based competition and ensures that federal resources are efficiently allocated
across the country in a fair and coordinated manner. States are given greater influence over
which programs are funded in their area, while multiple layers of grant administration and
administrative costs are eliminated for national nonprofit grantees. This new formula reduces the
number of funding streams from three to two (not including tribes and territories). It eliminates the
national direct stream and makes all AmeriCorps dollars available through competition to all
programs. The competitive stream will not establish caps or set-asides for any applicant or
categories of applicants. Instead the competition will be driven by the desire to fund the highest
quality programs throughout the country addressing the diverse problems, both urban and rural,
our country faces. The proposal also gives national programs the ability to manage their national
programs with one grant, reducing administrative burdens and allowing more efficient quality
control and growth.

Staff from the Corporation for National and Community Service was consulted in developing the
new funding allocation and the agency reports that the revised formula is feasible. The National
Governor’s Association also reviewed the amendment and found it consistent with official NGA
policy, helping to streamline and integrate programs into a comprehensible network.

RECOMMENDATION: Sect 129 should be amended to distribute AmeriCorps funds and slots as
follows, “1) 35.3% of funds will be distributed to states based upon a population formula. Small
states will receive at least $600,000 or .5% percent, whichever is greater; 2) 1 percent allotment
for certain territories and possessions; 3) 1 percent for Indian tribes; and 3) Up to 62.7% will be
available through one competitive pool for national and state programs.” The Corporation for

8
National Service should devise a mechanism to allow states to have input on multi-state
programs seeking to operate in communities within their states. National organization must
consult with State Commissions before applying to operation programs in their jurisdiction. The
agency must also solicit and consider the State Commission view prior to making grant awards.

The Committee should use report language to emphasize the principles that guided the
development of this new formula. It is important that future Administrations honor the careful
balance reached in this agreement which serves the interest of states and national programs
alike.

Within the competitive process, states will be able to provide input into the selection process.
States have a unique set of perspectives and can offer valuable information that should be
considered on program quality or a state’s particular priorities for both single and multi-state
programs. States could offer such guidance, for example, by ranking or scoring the programs
that wish to operate in the state or some other agreed upon standardized mechanism. Programs
that wish to operate in more than one state must consult, and coordinate activities, with each
state commission. This will foster more communication and collaboration among national
programs and state commissions and benefit the field. While we believe it is important for states
to have a meaningful role in the decision making process for this new combined State* and
National* competition, it should be noted that both national directs and commissions agree that a
state should not have the ability to unilaterally prohibit a national program from operating in that
state and that CNCS must weigh many factors in making grant decisions. Report language
should underscore this point. Ultimately, the final decisions rest with CNCS to fund the highest
quality program utilizing all the available information on an organization’s performance, efficiency,
program design, commission input and more. We think this new process will help CNCS make
good decisions, create more efficiency, and improve program quality for single state programs, as
well as multi-state programs.

ISSUE: Section 129 (a)(3) reserves at least 1 percent of funds for grant to Indian tribes. Other
parts of Section 129 include other set-asides for territories and disability grants. According to
CNCS, some flexibility is required to allow the agency to redirect funds if they do not receive a
sufficient number of applicants of adequate quality to justify those percentages. Setting floors is
not helpful if there is not enough need.

RECOMMENDATION: Include language through out the bill – Sect 129(a)(2) and (3), Sect 129
(d)(5) - that allows the agency to redistribute funds if they do not receive a sufficient number of
high quality applicants. Sect 129 (a)(3) should be modified to include nonprofit organizations,
acting with full written authority from tribes. Nonprofits should be eligible to compete on behalf of
tribes for the funds available in this section if those nonprofit organizations intend to operate on
Tribal lands and engage Tribal participants.

ISSUE: The Corporation for National and Community Service introduced the Education Award
Only program in 1997 under Subtitle H, as a means of making an AmeriCorps term of service and
benefits available to greater numbers of citizens and useful to more organizations. The EAO
program also provided a cost-efficient means of utilizing AmeriCorps resources, with a low per-
participant operating cost of $600 per member, and a working example of a "fixed price"
AmeriCorps grant. Over the past decade this initiative has flourished and now represents
approximately 33% of positions awarded, which are fielded by organizations such as the Corps
Network. The successful EAO program was developed and inserted into the GIVE Act, including
a provision to slightly increase the reimbursement per participant to $800, should the program
support at least 50% disadvantaged youth.

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the EAO program, as provided in GIVE (Section

129A) be included in Subtitle C of the statute as part of a balanced mix of full-time, part-time,
funded and EAO programs in the AmeriCorps portfolio. This codifies authority given in recent

9
appropriations bills. The EOA program requires waivers to Sect 121(d) and (e), 131(e), 132 and
140(a), (d) and (e) of the National and Community Service Act.

It is important that the Education Award Only Program should be used responsibly when trying to
reach specific enrollment goals. The Committee should use report language or a Sense of the
Senate to reinforce Congress’ intent that AmeriCorps must remain a mix of program models, both
stipended and unstipended. CNCS has been studying how the economic crisis is impacting
grantees and it reports that filling non-stipended slots is becoming increasingly difficult as
students can no longer afford to serve without having some income. It is important AmeriCorps
not scale up through an over reliance on the Ed Award Only program. The Education Award-Only
program should be used as appropriate to best meet the needs of program participants, rather
than for the purpose of increasing the overall number of slots at a lesser cost.

Sect 131 National service program assistance requirements

ISSUE: Section 131(b)(2) requires grantees to provide support service to members who are
school dropouts in order to assist them in earning a GED. The way the current law is written, it is
not clear whether participants must study while in service and to what extent grantees need to
provide support. Meanwhile, the practical result of requiring GED candidates to study while in
service is that, depending on program focus and structure, GED candidates cannot participate
fully in service term or training related to service, and miss important development opportunities.
Instead of being a requirement, GED study should be an optional part of program design, as
appropriate to the grantee's priorities and mission.

RECOMMENDATION: Change Sect 131(b) (2) to "Provide support services to participants who
are completing a term of service, such as assistance in accessing resources necessary to obtain
a GED or diploma, or making a transition to other educational and career opportunities". Strike:
"A) to those participants who are completing a term of service and making the transition to other
educational and career opportunities; and (B) to those participants who are school dropouts in
order to assist those participants in earning the equivalent of a high school diploma".

ISSUE: Section 131(f) and Sect 138 require amending. Since this legislation was enacted, the
Corporation has implemented the AmeriCorps on-line recruitment system that is very useful to
grantees. However, the requirement to select a portion of participants from a pool recruited by
the Corporation should be deleted, as program needs and participant recruitment can vary greatly
from program to program. Ongoing guidance from the Corporation should continue to encourage
grantees to take advantage of the web tool as a resource.

RECOMMENDATION: Strike Section 131(f) in its entirety. Amend Sect 138 (d) - Recruitment
and Placement - by inserting “ensure that programs have established a system to recruit
individuals and/or are utilizing the AmeriCorps on-line recruitment web tool” to clarify that
grantees are primarily responsible for recruiting and placing participants. Strike Section 138(e)
National Leadership Pool.

Sect 137 Description of Participants

ISSUE: Section 137 (a) (5) requires that participants be high school or GED graduates or agree
to obtain a high school diploma or its equivalent. Ascertaining that individuals have completed
high school requires obtaining copies of high school diplomas has become a needless
administrative burden on programs. Members should be able to self-certify their educational
status both when they apply to the program, and again when they set up their account with the
National Service Trust, on-line at the start of their term of service. In practical terms this means
that programs will not need to obtain a certification on a separate piece of paper from prospective
participants, prior to participants starting a term of service.

10
RECOMMENDATION: Strike Section 137 (a) (5) and add into Subtitle D, Section 146,
Individuals Eligible to Receive a National Service Educational Award From the Trust (a)(3)(A), by
adding: “based on the individual’s self-certification to inform the Corporation that he/she has
received a high school diploma or equivalent of such a diploma”; and retain the language
concerning waivers.

Sect 138 Selection of National Service Participants

ISSUE: Section 138(f) - Evaluation of Service - states that the Corporation shall issue regulations
regarding the manner and criteria by which the service of a participant shall be evaluated. The
current regulation is burdensome and needs to be amended. Under the regulations (45 CFR
2522 D. Member Training, Supervision and Support) item 6(a) requires programs to list final
hours on members’ final performance evaluations. Such a requirement is a technical impossibility
unless performance evaluations are completed in the last hour of the last day of a members’
service, but as written it emerges as an audit finding. The regulation should be amended to read
that final evaluations note that members are “on track to complete” by their scheduled exit date.

RECOMMENDATION: Insert “The Corporation shall establish practical and non-redundant

means of evaluating member service by issuing regulations regarding … et al.”

Sect 139 Terms of service

ISSUE: Sect 139(b) defines a term of service as an accumulation of hours, over a set period of
time. Revisions to this section were developed and later inserted into HR 5563, the GIVE Act, to
remove some of the term limits or conditions that proved in practical application to be
burdensome on both participants and grantees. These included (1) removing the floor for a full-
time term of service of 9 months; (2) removing the allowance of a 3-year span to complete a part-
time service term; and (3)(c)(1-2), for release authorization and approval of compelling
circumstances, permitting the program to make the determination, not the participant.

RECOMMENDATION: We support including the changes to Sect 139 (b) and (c) from HR 5563,
this includes: Sect 139(b)1 strike “less than 9 months and”. This clarifies that a full-time
AmeriCorps members serve not less than 1700 hours during a period not more than 1 year. Sect
139(c)(1) strike “as demonstrated by the participant” and insert “as determined by the
organization responsible for granting a release, if the participant has otherwise performed
satisfactorily and has completed at least 15 percent of the original term of service.” This gives
program discretion to release a participant from completing a term of service and certify their
eligibility to receive a prorated Ed award if the participant has performed satisfactorily and
completed at least 15 percent of the term. Sect 139(c)(2)(A) strike “provide to the participant that
portion of the national service educational award” and insert “certify the participant’s eligibility for
that portion of the national service educational award.” Sect 139(c)(2)(B) strike “to allow return to
the program with which the individual was serving in order.” This allows a member to temporarily
suspend service for up to 2 years (or longer if CNCS finds extenuating circumstances). They no
longer have to return to the program with which they were serving in order to complete the
remainder of their term and obtain the entire Educational Award.

ISSUE: A fundamental administrative burden related to timekeeping overall weighs heavily on

grantees, consuming disproportionate amounts of time, expense and effort to manage. Under
current law – Sect 139(b)(1) and Sect 146 (a-c) - AmeriCorps members must complete a set
number of hours, which leads to the need to preserve authorized records of all hours in member
weekly timesheets. It poses an inherent contradiction in how members are managed:
AmeriCorps utilizes “participants” who receive a set living allowance that is not based on an
hourly wage, yet AmeriCorps members must keep special time records that demonstrate hours
accumulation and activity. These hours must be further broken into service, training and
fundraising categories, to adhere to a 20% regulatory cap on training and education. The required

11
content of the timesheets is easily subject to interpretation. Lastly, the time records must be
retained for several years for audit purposes.

RECOMMENDATION: We join CNCS in recommending that provision be made to review the

current “member hours” model by comparing it to other national service programs that are not as
administratively burdensome. The “tour of duty” model used by VISTA could be amended to
become practical for AmeriCorps programs, i.e. still allowing members to hold outside
employment. We propose that CNCS be given authority to pilot different types of programs to
find a way that streamlines the administrative management of the grant, and be provided
authority to develop a centralized electronic citizenship verification system. We further
recommend that the 20% cap on member training and education hours be eliminated, which is
currently defined through regulation, not statute (CFR 2520.50). Instead, programs should review
training hour estimates as part of the application process. Programs are bound to a set of service
goals as deliverables and should be allowed to conduct training as needed. Because they have
specific outcomes they must meet, the need to monitor training hours is redundant and
burdensome.

Sect 140 Living Allowance for national service participants

ISSUE: Sect 140 (a) requires that full-time programs provide their members a living allowance
equal to or greater than the average annual subsistence allowance provided to VISTA volunteers.
The maximum allowance – except for professional corps – is not to exceed 200 percent of the
average annual subsistence allowance provided to VISTAs. The cap on the living allowance is an
unnecessary burden - especially for programs that enroll medical, educational, or legal
professionals as members - and should be eliminated. Some programs need to maintain slightly
higher living allowances to help them recruit and retain top talent. AmeriCorps members receive
a very modest stipend. Many are eligible for food stamps, hold a part-time job and/or receive
financial support from family or friends. The loan forbearance available to AmeriCorps members
covers only federally backed loans, which are capped. Because of the term limits on
participation, AmeriCorps is only an opportunity to serve. It is not a job. There is no risk that
removing the cap on the living stipend will create dependency on AmeriCorps.

RECOMMENDATION: The method of setting the living allowance should not be dependent on
VISTA. The VISTA formula is based on a number of factors unrelated to the cost of living in the
various localities in which State and National member serve. CNCS should annually establish a
living allowance based on a cost of living formula devised by the agency. In addition, the
Committee should strike Sect 140 (a) (3) eliminating the cap on the living allowance. Any
program that wants to pay their members more and can raise the required funds, should not be
prohibited from doing so.

ISSUE: Professional corps programs recruit and place qualified participants in positions as
teachers, nurses, police officers, early childhood development staff, engineers, etc. The statute
only allows professional corps programs to provide stipends above and beyond the AmeriCorps
maximum with non-AmeriCorps funds within the competitive and national direct pools. The
professional corps programs are precluded from receiving state formula funds.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Sect 140 (c) (2) allowing professional corps programs to compete
for formula and competitive funds. This legislative fix has been included in the FY08 and FY09
Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bills at the request of the Administration. The
change should be reflected in the statute.

ISSUE: Sect. 148 (d) Health Insurance continues to represent an increasing cost for grantees.
The pool of available providers is very limited, and state requirements vary.

12
RECOMMENDATION: Examine whether Health insurance for all full-time members could be
provided outside of the grants to enable CNCS to negotiate a national comprehensive health
plan. This would encourage more full-time members as the cost per MSY would be proportionate
to that of part-time members.

SUBTITLE D – National Service Trust and Education Awards

Sect 146 Individuals eligible to receive a national service education award from the
Trust

ISSUE: Although an individual may serve more than 2 terms of service, Sect 146(c) requires that
the member’s educational award be based on the first and second terms of service, regardless of
length. Members who serve less than full-time terms are unable to access the full benefit
available.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Sect 146(c) to allow an individual to receive the aggregate value
of two full-time education awards. This change will allow a senior citizen or a full-time enrolled
college student to serve multiple part-time terms in AmeriCorps until they accrue the hours for the
aggregate value of two full-time post-service awards.

ISSUE: Current statute does not define the organization’s role in confirming member eligibility
and satisfactory completion of term of service.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Sect 146(a) to clarify the organization’s responsibility for certifying
member eligibility and term completion to qualify the member for an Education Award. The GIVE
Act amends this language accordingly.

Sect 147- Determination of amount of national service educational award

ISSUE: Sect 147(a) sets the value of a full-time education award at equal to 90% of half the GI
education benefit for a two year enlistment (as in effect on July 28, 1993). This is $4,725 for a
full-time member. Since that time, the cost of attending an institution of higher education has
soared dramatically, outpacing the rate of inflation, increases in family income, and increases in
state and federal financial aid. As students and their families are being priced out of the college
market, the AmeriCorps Education Award has remained static at $4,725. The GI Benefit,
however, has increased dramatically over time to reflect the inflationary costs of education. If the
AmeriCorps benefit had been indexed at the same pace, it would be worth more than $13,000 per
full-time corps member today.

RECOMMENDATION: The AmeriCorps Education Award should be raised to reflect the

increases in the cost of higher education since 1994, and indexed so it holds its value over time.
We support the Dodd-Cochran bill from the 110th Congress - S.3037 – which increased the full-
time education award to $6185. S. 3037 also requires that the award be indexed annually based
on the average cost of tuition and fees (determined under section 472 of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll) for the preceding fiscal year for a full-time student at a 4-year public
institution of higher education. It is important that award can be prorated for part-time or reduced
part-time members.

The Serve America Act permits an eligible AmeriCorps member (50 years or older) to elect to
receive a reduced Education Award and transfer the post-service benefit to their child or
grandchild. The designated relative has a 15-year period to use the award for tuition and/or
repayment of qualified student loans. We recommend adding Education Award transferability to
this section.

Sect 148 Disbursement of national service educational awards

13
ISSUE: The FY08 and FY09 Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bills have
specified that the term “student loan” in Sect 148 means “any loan determined by an institution of
higher education to be necessary to cover a student’s cost of attendance at such institution and
made, insured, or guaranteed directly to a student by a State agency.”

RECOMMENDATION: The AmeriCorps Educational award should pay for expenses incurred in
enrolling in an educational institution or training establishment. The changes made through
appropriations should be reflected in the statute. Sect 148(b) should also allow education awards
to be used (1) at educational institutions eligible for GI Bill educational benefits; (2) to repay loans
made by State agencies and other lenders considered eligible under the Higher Ed Act (codifying
authority given in appropriations bills); and (3) for education expenses at a Title IV institution
outside definition of “cost of attendance.”

SUBTITLE E – National Civilian Community Corps

Sect 151 Purpose

ISSUE: Sect 151 establishes the NCCC as a residential full-time program based on the military
model. The NCCC has been a critical component of the US disaster mitigation, response, relief
and recovery efforts. The program creates highly motivated prescreened rapidly deployable
teams of American citizens trained in first aid, CPR, disaster relief, and firefighting who have
responded to every major disaster since 1994. NCCC logged 800,000 service hours in the Gulf
Coast recovery effort in 2006. To continue this disaster capability, the statute should be amended
to include the NCCC’s disaster response capabilities as a program priority.

RECOMMENDATION: Amend Section 151 to clearly define the NCCC role as a responder to
national priorities, including disaster services and community needs. Strike Section 151(4) that
asks whether the domestic service program can serve as a substitute for military service. When
the military faces its own recruitment challenges, we want to avoid appearances that we are
discouraging individuals for enrolling in the armed forces.

Sect 152 Establishment of the Civilian Community Corps Demonstration Program

ISSUE: The NCCC has proven to be a very successful program with a long track record working
in disaster relief. Their relief and recovery work is carried out in partnership with federal agencies
such as FEMA, State VOADs, and national voluntary organizations such as the American Red
Cross, Volunteers of America, the Salvation Army and Adventist Community Services.

RECOMMENDATION: Strike the reference to a demonstration program and rename the program
the National Civilian Community Corps. This the name commonly used for the program.

ISSUE: Section 153(b) Eligible Participants states that participant ages for the full time
program can be from 16 to 24. Due to the residential and independent autonomy of the team
based structure, NCCC members must be able to function independently of a parent or guardian.
Unless an individual has secured legal emancipation from his parents or guardians there are
certain circumstances he which he cannot be the authorizing official.

RECOMMENDATION: The statute should be amended requiring participants to be 18 years of

age at the time of entry into the full time program. Eligible participant ages for the NCCC summer
program should remain unchanged at 14 to 18.

SUBTITLE F – Administrative Provisions

14
 Sect 183 Rights of access, examination and copying

ISSUE: Sect 183 (a) addresses the rights of access, examination and copying. The GIVE Act
amended this section giving the Inspector General access to, and the right to examine and copy,
any books, documents, papers, records, and other recorded information that belongs to a grantee
and relates to the duties of the IG under the Inspector General Act of 1978. Grantees and states
need clarification on exactly what could be audited and exactly what the programmatic and
budgetary expectations are so that programs have a clear set of guidelines from which to
operate.

RECOMMENDATION: While we are not sure this is the proper place for inclusion, we
recommend that the Committee instruct the IG, in coordination with the grants and financial
offices at CNCS, to establish a set of standards for any IG audit.

New Subtitle – Training and Technical Assistance

ISSUE: In recent years, items such as the Administrative Grant Review Process and Program
Development and Training funds have been added into Subtitle C, meaning less of the available
funds go to programs and critical service such as training are minimized. Subtitle C funds should
be restricted to program funding and the National Service Trust, as needed. Training and
Technical Assistance should have its own subtitle and authorization.

RECOMMENDATION: Grantee Training and Development is critically important and requires

appropriate focus and dedicated funding. An example for how this can be approached is in
Subtitle J, Sect 199 (a) and Sect 199 (b) (1-6) of the GIVE Act.

15