59

to stimulate service, Congress should amend the tax code to allow for tax credits
or increased deductions for those who donate their time and money. Congress
should reduce federal spending rather than creating a new entitlement program and
adding to the already huge national debt. Cor 3 should repeal AmeriCorps, a
program that awards taxpayers’ dollars to special interest, ideological, and political
organizations, and to bloated bureaucracies and falls far short of its intended goals.
For federal taxpayers, national service is an expensive venture with few, if any, net
gains.

Mr. SHAys. Thank you, Miss Tucker. Evidently, you don’t like
this program; it’s really clear. And we'll have a very good dialog
about that, and we'll see where we agree and disagree. Jill Lacey,
we welcome your testimony. You're going to need to really pull that
microphone up, and also lower it, if you would.

Ms. Lacey. Right about there?

Mr. Suays. Thank you.

Ms. Lacey. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JILL K. LACEY, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE,
CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER

Ms. Lacey. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee,
my name is dill Lacey, and I’m a research associate at Capital Re-
search Center, a nonprofit in Washington, DC, that studies philan-
thropy in the nonprofit sector. I’m honored to be asked to share
some of my personal observations that were drawn from my visits
to AmeriCorps projects.

Today I'd like to tell you about the AmeriCorps national dem-
onstration project I visited last year, called the Georgia Peach
Corps. The program was operated in two rural counties in Eastern
Georgia, funded with a $2.8 million grant from the Corporation for
National and Community Service. I was initially impressed with
the program. Peach Corps participants seemed to be working hard
and working as a team.

But as I spent more time with the Corps, I began to have more
and more doubts about its purpose and effectiveness. To begin
with, these workers were not volunteers, attracted by the urge to
serve. They were employees, paid a wage of $4.25 an hour, and
looking forward to the $5,000 tuition grant that they would receive
after their 9-month stint.

In addition to their salaries and tuition, the program had mas-
sive overhead costs for supervisory personnel, travel and training.
These costs, along with a high dropout rate—the Peach Corps
began with 140 members, but graduated only 80—combined_to
drive the real cost per praduate to over $35,000 per year. For this
expense, the country benefited from youngsters who worked 6
hours a day, 4 days a week, for 9 months.

The rest of the time in the program was spent in transit or train-
ing. While the public works projects that the Peach Corps com-

leted were of good quality, there was a catch. I was told that, by
faw, they cannot compete with private industry for contracts, and
their efforts cannot displace any government workers. This vir-
tually assures that the projects they're assigned will be of marginal
value to the community, and cannot rightly be considered cost sav-
ings.

TK case in point—the Corps replaced a roof on a Federal job train-
ing facility in Thompson, GA. The roof was well-done, easily pass-


123

=Jill Lacey

This statement is false. At the time of Ms. Lacey’s visit, the Georgia Peach Corps
was funded with a $2.3 million grant from the Commission on National and Com-
munity Service—established under President Bush—not the $2.8 million as she
claims. Moreover, Ma. Lacey fails to note that of the original grant, only $1.5 million
was actually expended in fiscal year 1994.

(42) “In addition to their salaries and tuition, the program had massive overhead
costs for supervisory personnel, travel, and training.”

ey
This statement is false. Of the original $2.3 million grant, nearly $2 million was
budgeted for participant support costs, $58,200 for training and supervision of the
participants, $50,748 for evaluation of the program, $43,500 for capital and operat-
Ing costs of the program, $115,000 for administrative costs, and $10,000 for other

costs.
(43) “The Peach Corps began with 140 Members but graduated only 80. . . [driv-
ing] the fea! cost per graduate to over $35,000 per year.” &
i

This statement is false and misleading. The facts are (a) that although the origi-
nal grant was $2.3 million, the program only expended $1,473,329 in grant fun
in fiscal year 1994, and (b) there were 120 corps members who began P m,
of whom 100 completed the program. Dividing the expended grant funds ($: a0 mil-
fion) by the aumber of peogle who completed the program (100) yields @ cost eer
Freduate of $14,733—less than half of the $35, cost Ms. Lacey asserted. Ms.

y's cost per graduate figure is wrong because she has divided the wrong grant
amount ($2.8 million) by the wrong number of corps members (80).

In addition, nowhere in her calculations does Ms. Lacey take into account the
value of accomplishments of the Members—even as she concedes that. the projects
of Peach Corps Members were “of good quality” and could easily pass for “the work
of professionals.”

(44) “[Members] worked six hours a day, four days a week, for nine months.”

—Jill Lacey

This statement is misleading. Ms. Lacey presents the Georgia Peach Corps as a
representative AmeriCorps Program, yet her observations were of a program operat-
ing under a different, 1990, pre-AmeriCorps legislative schema. As required by the
1993 act, every full-time AmeriCorps Member is required to complete a minimum
of 1700 hours over the course of 9-12 months. That obviously could not be done on
this schedule. Moreover, the Georgia Peach Corps currently complies with this 1700
hour minimum.

(45) “By law, [the Peach Corps) cannot compete with private industry for contracts
and their efforts cannot displace any government workers. This virtually insures
that ¢ the projects they are assigned will be of marginal value to the community.” *”

ill Lacey

This statement is misleading. Ms. Lacey offers no evidence to support this asser-
tion, and her logic is specious. AmeriCorps Members are not allowed to displace
pa employees or compete with private industry specifically to ensure that their ef-
forts are in fact valued by the community. It is axiomatic that if a task is already
being done, if a community need is already being met by the private sector, then
there is no need for an AmeriCorps program to perform that task. Concomitantly,
any need that is not being addressed, by definition, is not being addressed by “pri-
vate industry” or “government workers.” The needs of our nation’s communities are
not being met because in many instances no incentives exist for the private sector
to get involved; that does not mean that addressing those needs “will be of marginal
value to the community.” AmeriCorps is intended to fill the Bap.

(46) “The unglamorous truth is that this community was already strong without
the Peach Corps. Thomson played host to this national demonstration project be-
cause the community is a mode] one—a ‘five star community’—according to a state

—Jill Lacey
This statement is misleading. Ms. Lacey’s implication is that if a community is
a five star community, it must not have important needs to be met. On the contrary,
ymson was able to earn its status as a five star community in part because it

‘® Lacey Testimony, p. 1.
Lacey Testimon:

Lacey Testimony, p.
© Lacey Testimony, p. 1.
©" Lacey Testimony, p. 1.
Lacey Testimony, p. 2.



zed WIL

Friends of {Pp

Hermannf Park

May 16, 1995
Martin B. Cominsky

President and CEO

SERVE HOUSTON YOUTH CORPS

P.O. Box 3732
Houston, Texas 77253-3792

Dear Mr. Cominsky

‘As axcipient of AmeriCorps volunteer help through the Summer of Service
Project, the Friends of Hermann Park will be able to provide environmental
education and recreational services to mote than 200 inner-city children in the
‘Thied Ward area, a primaniy low.income, African-American commucity in
Houston, These children will not only leara about the environment and how they
‘can protect it, they will also special educational and tutoring services. 1Cthese
services were not available, many of the children selected would be home alone
‘without any adult supervision, with the program, they are ina safe, secure
ceavironment with the corpamembers acting as positive cole models
Corpamembers will also help construct « series of nature tals in woodland area
to inform children and the public about Houston's native flora and fauna.

‘We could not accomplish these important activities without the support of Serve
Houston and the AmeriCorps program. { hope that all members of Congress will
‘realize the need for uch services in communities ike ours all over the nation and
Will not lessen funding for these programs,

Sincerely,

Praupnie Flatte io

Executive Director


COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

ILEANA ROS.LEHTINEN, Florida

WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, JR, New Hampshire

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

JON D. FOX, Pennsylvania

RANDY TATE, Washington

DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADECG, Arizona

MICHAEL PATRICK FLANAGAN, Illinoie

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire

STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South
Carolina

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR., Maryland

CARDISS COLLINS, Minois

HENRY A. WAXMAN,

‘TOM LANTOS, Californi

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., South Carolina

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, New
York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia

GENE GREEN, Texas

CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida

FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)

James L. CLARKE, Staff Director
KEVIN SABO, General Counsel
JUDITH McCoy, Chief Clerk
Bud Myers, Minority Stoff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

MARK E. SHOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DICK CHRYSLER, Michigan

WILLIAM J. MARTINI, New Jersey

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

MARSHALL “MARK” SANFORD, South
Carolina

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
TOM LANTOS, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.)
THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
GENE GREEN, Texas

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

Ex OFFICIO

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania © CARDISS COLLINS, Mlinois
LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director
DEM! GREATOREX, Professional Sta/f Member
‘THOMAS M. Costa, Clerk
CHERYL PHELPS, Minority Professional Staff

an


119

(24) “The majority of these [AmeriCorps Members] work in federal or state bu-
reaucracies . . . or even political action organizations.”

—Allyson ‘Tucker

(25) “One quarter of [AmeriCorps’) personnel are assigned to assist in the work
of government bureaucracies.”**

john Walters
(26) “Nearly 2,800 of AmeriCorps’ first 20,000 members are assigned to federal
agencies.” 36
—John Walters
(27) “More than 2,800 AmeriCorps participants work in federal departments or
acies.

—Allyson Tucker

(28) learly 3,000 other members are assigned to state government or state-fund-
ed agencies.”

john Walters

All of these statements are false and misleading. First, the implication of all of
these statements is that AmeriCorps Members are not doing the direct service they
are required to do—that they are doing paperwork for bureaucracies or advocating
through political action organizations. That is not true. As stated earlier, the Cor-
poration’s regulations require AmeriCorps Members to do real work that directly

nefits communities. (See footnote number 23.) Second, AmeriCorps Members are
specifically prohibited by the Corporations regulations from engaging in ad

And third, AmeriCorps Members don’t work in Federal or State agencies; nor do
they do the work of Federal or State agencies. (They are specifically prohibited by
law from displacing paid employees. See footnote number 22.) Rather, some of them
work in AmeriCorps programs that are in whole or in part administered through
such agencies. By law, AmeriCorps Members placed through federal or state agen-
cies are not employees, and therefore do not receive employee health, pension, or
retirement benelits.*°

Just as AmeriCorps Members who work through national non-profit organizations
like Habitat for Humanity aren't sitting in headquarters doing paperwork, so too
are the AmeriCorps Members working through federal agency grants not working
in Washington headquarters. The Department of Energy, for example, received a

‘ant to help administer an AmeriCorps program called the Salmon Corps. Are
these Ameri Members doing paperwork in Washington, D.C.? No. In fact, they
are working in Washington and Oregon states helping to rehabilitate the Columbia
River to make it safe for spawning salmon—and to help protect the fishing industry
that is so vital to the economy of the Pacific Northwest. The vast majority of
AmeriCorps Members serve in small, local nonprofit organizations or in national
non-profits like the YMCA and Habitat for Humanity, and the federal agencies that
do help administer AmeriCorps programs constitute only 1/9 of total grants.

(29) “In San Francisco, the AmeriCorps ‘Summer of Safety’ program, organized 40
groups to rally against the federal crime bill’s ‘three strikes and you're out provi-
sion.

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is false. The Corporation \ promptly investigated the allegation after
it was made, and found that no one from the prgram organized, encouraged or was
known to have attended such a rally. Again, AmeriCo1 lations are very clear
on this: Advocacy and political activities aren't part of Ameri nS and funding may
be cut off if they occur. Most importantly, the program worked. The Corporation has
received letters from the city’s Mayor (a’ former police chie and its current Police
Chief, indicating that the effort helped reduce gang tensions and made the city
safer. (These letters are attached as Appendix H.)

racy. 39

34Tucker Testimony, p. 3.
35 Walters Testimony, p. 3.
36 Walters Teatimony, p. 3.
27 Tucker Testimony, p. 3.
38 Walters Testimony, p.
2°The Corporation's

‘regulations state that “some activities are prohibited altogether . .
(a) Any effort to influence legislation . . . (b) Organizing protests, peti-
tions, boycotts, or ; (6) Aasiating, promoting of deterring union organizing: (2) Impatring
tracts for services or collective bargaining agreements; (and] (e) Engaging in par-
1 activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an to

any pb office.” 45 CFR §2520.30. _
‘oIndeed, by law no AmeriCorps Member is considered an employee of the organization
considered to be

through whom he or she serves. The law states, “A participant shall not be
‘an employee of the program in which the participant is enrolled.” 42 USC 12511(17Xb).
‘“1TNucker Testimony, p. 3.


68

V1. CORPORATION RESPONSIBILITIES

A. General

1. The Corporation will work closely with the Commission to help assure the qual-
ity of the AmeriCorps programs and to reasonably accommodate the needs of the
Commission and the AmeriCorps programs for assistance.

2. The Corporation will provide access to technical assistance to the AmeriCorps
programs as agreed upon. Such assistance needs and provisions will be coordinated
with the Commission.

3. The Corporation will coordinate with the Commission, visits to AmeriCorps
sites, and assessments and evaluations of specific programs. Any problems or issues
with’ specific programs or national AmeriCorps activities will be coordinated by the
Corporation with the Commission and the AmeriCorps programs. Any corrective ac-
tions or changes necessary for an operating program will be implemented through
the Commission.

4. The Corporation will provide timely review and responses to requests for ap-
proval or issues that necessitate Corporation involvement.

VII. JOINT CORPORATION—COMMISSION ACTIVITIES

Within reason, the Corporation requires the Commission and its grantees to par-
ticipate with the Corporation and other funded programs in initiation or launch
ceremonies, meetings, other joint activities, etc. The purpose of these meetings may
be to build National Identity, promote AmeriCorps objectives or participate in mutu-
ally beneficial activities.

VII. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

A. Transfer of funds and change in number of participants

The Commission may not transfer available program funds or number of partici-
pants and corresponding educational awards from one program to another without
the specific advance approval of the Corporation.

B. Child care

The funds obligated for child care as part of the total Corporation funding are not
available for expenditure directly by the Commission or its grantees unless an ex-
ception is specifically authorized in this Cooperative Agreement. Child Care pay-
ments will be made directly to the child care provider for identified eligible partici-
pants. AmeriCorps programs will determine eligibility and notify the National Asso-
ciation of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). In addition to
making direct payments to qualified child care providers, NACCRRA is providing
direct assistance to programs and participants, when needed, in determining specific
child care needs, and counseling eligible participants on child care services and
available options.

C. Matching funds

1 The Commission and its grantees are responsible for meeting the matching
amounts in the approved and attached budgets. The Corporation’s statute requires,
at a minimum, the following matches:

Percentage of Base Costs

25% —Program Operating Costs (budget line items A-E)

15%—Other Participant Support Costs (budget line item F)

2. AmeriCorps programs that have not submitted a definitive plan to secure the
cash and in-kind match required in C(1) above must submit a definitive plan to the
Corporation along with their first Quarterly Report which is due by January 10,
1995.

D. Annual objectives

The grantees of the Commission, with the assistance of the Corporation im
Officer and the Commission, will develop or refine direct and demonstrable objec-
tives acceptable to the Corporation by October 31, 1994. Success at achieving objec-
tives will be an integral part of a year-end assessment.

E. Health care coverage

If the grantees of the Commission are providing health care coverage through an
existing policy, these grantees shall submit a summary of its coverage and costs to
the appropriate Corporation Grants Officer. The existing policy should demonstrate
compliance with the minimum requirements specified in the AmeriCorps applica,
tion. If grantees had health care coverage through the National Association of Serv-



79

Mr. Davis. OK.

Mr. WALTERS. I think you have to have a limited definition of
what government ought to do. And that is part of what I think is
the core of what reform ought to look like, not only at the Federal
level, but in terms of State and local government. And I believe
that partly reflecting on the experience of the expansion of govern-
ment bureaucracies at all levels, there is no question in my mind
that these primarily were done with the best of goals and objec-
tives.

The problem is that the independence and self-reliance and con-
trol and the vitality of these efforts in some areas—and I would
argue, the voluntary service area is one that should be absolutely
clear, which is why I so vigorously oppose this program—ought to
bea place the government doesn’t meddle. Now, that doesn’t mean
it’s always going to work perfectly. But I don’t think the Federal
Government can look at all its programs and policies working in
the country and say, well, we do things perfectly; everybody else
needs some help from us.

And I do think that in this time, we ought to be trying to estab-
lish more distinctions between what is a compelling Federal re-
sponsibility; what is a compelling government responsibility; and
what is an area where we ought to back out government—not be-
cause we hate government, or government's bad or we don’t need
any government, but because the best way to do it and to give peo-
ple the sense that they are responsible for things and they are de-
ciding things, are up to them.

They may not work as well, but part of giving people freedom is
allowing them to fail.

Mr. Davis. Well, John, that’s the whole budget and appropria-
tions process. We go through this every year. And it’s got to be a
dynamic process, because the country’s changing quickly and needs
change, but I don’t disagree with that. But basically, let me ask
you, you had referred—it’s not in your written testimony that I can
find—but you had talked about military service, and the benefits
from military service versus benefits from this. Can you amplify
that at all?

Ms. Lacey. I was just answering what had been an anticipated
question earlier, with Mr. Segal, where he said that this would in
no way adversely affect the recruitment of the military. But just
anecdotally, I can offer that example; that I did meet at least one
individual down there who was definitely diverted from joining the
Air Force by the Peach Corps education stipend.

Mr. Davis. OK. Thank you.

Ms. Lacey. I would also say, in answer to your earlier question,
I think it depends what level of government we're talking about.
I also saw, in Thompson, GA, where there was a very impressive
web of volunteer networks and local government that worked to-
gether. And these people are all nei Fors, and they know what
can best meet the needs of their neighbors—not a task force from
Washington.

Mr. Davis. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Suays. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Green.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walters—and I un-
derstand where you’re coming from because, in fact, the whole


15

20,000 national service participants that you have today funded out
of 1995 dollars or 1994 dollars?

Mr. SEGAL. 1994 dollars, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Mr. SEGAL. And the 20,000 and the $370 million—it’s a little
over $18—close to $19,000 per AmeriCorps member.

Mr. SHays. The larger you become as a program, your overhead
stays basically constant. If your opponents can keep you small,
then your per participant costs are higher. So you're saying, with
the 20,000 Participants you have today, you use 1994 dollars. And
that amounts to about $19,000, with all costs, per participant.

Mr. SEGAL. Absolutely.

Mr. SHays. So when they take 1995 dollars and divide it into
your—you’re not using 1995 dollars. The 1995 dollars should be di-
vided into the 33,000.

Mr. SEGAL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Mr. SEGAL. That assumes full funding.

Mr. Suays. And if you were at full funding with 33,000 with
1995 dollars, what would be the cost per participant.

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, of course we’d go to under $18,000.
We estimate it at $17,600.

Mr. Suays. The other thing I'd like to address is the AmeriCorps
participants health insurance. I had health insurance when I was
in the Peace Corps. Do you have to pay the health care of every
participant?

Mr. SEGAL. No, just those who don’t otherwise have health insur-
ance. And with respect to child care, it’s even more stringent.
Those who are eligible for child care must satisfy the income re-
quirements of State law, as required by the Congress in 1993.

Mr. SHays. You mean, most participants don’t necessarily have
children.

Mr. SEGAL. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Suays. OK. The ones that do, then have to meet certain cri-
teria.

Mr. SEGAL. That is correct. .

Mr. Suays. I remember when we were working on this program.
Originally these programs started out with a more national focus
and more national control. What's the ultimate danger of having
local communities make more of the decisions than States. Now
you have 50 commissions, and that’s kind of—the Republicans kind
of encourage you to do that. I can tell you the advantage.

The advantage is that we thought we would have more creativ-
ity; and we thought we wouldn’t have one size fits all; and we
thought, consistent with Republican philosophy, candidly, that we
thought States and local communities knew how to do it better.
But what's the down side in doing that?

Mr. SEGAL. Let me begin by saying that the up side was as you
predicted. I think the fact that there is much local initiative and
creativity is going ultimately to produce a better product. We al-
ready see it when we watch different communities exploring simi-
lar subject matter in different ways—some doing better, some doing
worse. Our responsibility is to find those little gems and grow those


74

different circumstances to determine whether the educational bene-
fit is being used, or what the costs per volunteer are, I understand
that, but that’s not solely a problem that’s caused by, I think, some
of the people looking at the program being either malicious or con-
fused because they were not competent.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walters follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW CITIZENSHIP
ROJECT

Amidst the national debate over the proper role of government, a remarkable bi-

artisan consensus has emerged. Liberals and conservatives stand united in the
jief that public policy, first and foremost, should protect and revitalize America’s
basic institutions—those rooted in the family and community life. Beneath thie con-
sensus, however, a stark contrast has appeared.

Conservatives argue that government must be re-limited in order to revitalize
civil society. Although liberals acknowledge that big government has become ineffi-
cient and even destructive, they believe that it cannot be dismantled. Instead, they-
claim that government can be expanded or reinvented to serve as an instrument of
community and individual empowerment. This argument has been forcefully made
in support of the newest extension of big government into the civic sphere, President
Clinton’s national service program, AmenCorps. And nowhere are the problems with
this top-down approach to revitalizing civil society more apparent. My interest in
AmeriCorps, ‘ang. that of my organization, arose because AmeriCorps was presented
as a model for reinvigorating federal activity. We believe this notion of the proper
role for the federal government is misguided. We have worked to explain why we
think it is misguide and sought to examine what AmeriCorps can teach about the
proper direction of government reform.

lo one doubts that some AmeriCorps members are doing worthwhile things in
local communities. But the brief against Amet Corps does not rest on the motives
of its members. It essentially boils down to this: Can a federal program that pays
“volunteers” really reinvigorate local communities and non-governmental institu-
tions?

. AmeriCorps is simply not necessary. Voluntarism in America is booming—
despite the fact that government social welfare programs have crowded out the tra-
ditional efforts of charitable institutions to feed the hungry and shelter the home-
less. According to Independent Sector, a philanthropic monitoring organization, in

993, 89.2 million Americans offered unpaid voluntary service. ugh this marks
a slight decline from 1981 when 93.1 million volunteered, the number of hours vol-
unteered has increased by more than 50%—from 12.7 billion to 19.5 billion hours
today.

Real_ voluntary service in communities is alive and flourishing; indeed,
AmeriCorps’ 20,000 members hardly comprise a ficant element of the voluntary
sector. Unpaid volunteers, who comprise more tl one-third of the Population,
serve especially through religious organizations, which have long been the backbone
of community service. The Labor Department, moreover, estimates that nearly three
million Americans from ages 18 to 25 (the principal age cohort for AmeriCorps) al-
ready serve as unpaid volunteers. And many organizations have expanded night and
weekend volunteer opportunities to better enlist the energies of working people and
students.

Second, paid “voluntarism” will have a corrupting effect on genuine charity.
AmeriCorps’ effort to bolster a successful prvate activity—voluntary community
service—with an infusion of federal tax dollars will further encourage community
organizations to become dependent on the federal government. Charitable organiza-
tions already receive one-fourth of their funding from government sources. As a re-
sult, local control often takes a backseat to government grant-seeking.

Third, though AmeriCorps was cesigned to aid community-based voluntarism,
over one-quarter of its personnel are assigned to assist in the work of government
bureaucracies. Nearly 2,800 of AmeriCorps’ first 20,000 members are assigned to
federal agencies, including Agriculture (1,200), Interior (525), the Environmental
Protection Agency (135) and the National Endowment for the Arts (60). Nearly
3,000 other members are assigned to state government or state-funded agencies.

Fourth, like all government bureaucracies, AmeriCorps costs too much. For 1,700
hours of work, AmeriCorps “volunteers” receive annual stipends of $7,400, plus up
to $9,450 over two years toward payment of higher education debts. That works out
to more than $7 per hour per “volunteer.” And this does not include the program’s
automatic health and child care benefits, the cost of its Washington-based bureau-



32

bility for recruitment purposes, as well. But it did a whole host of
other activities, as well. It was an information distribution mecha-
nism. It was an 800-number campaign, as well, in order to get and
distribute information.

It was in no way, shape or form an excessive amount of dollars.
It will be less in the years after the first year. The launch year re-
quired advising potential applicants, both for young people to serve,
and also for potential grantees to learn about the process. And the
funds that we used satisfied those obligations as well.

Mr. Suays. This is an 800-number that you advertise?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes, there’s an 800-number both for programs, for
public information, and for potential recruitment.

Mr. Suays. One of the things that fascinates me—one of the
other things that critics of AmeriCorps as national service is they
talk about the minimum wage and try to determine how much a
national service gets on an hourly basis. There’s one figure of $7
and something. Do national service volunteers, participants, only
work 40 hours?

Mr. SEGAL. On the contrary.

Mr. Suays. Let me ask this question, and be more specific. Do
you pay national service participants on an hourly basis, on a
weekly basis, or monthly basis?

Mr. SecaL. It’s an annual salary. I will assure you that the Con-
gress required, as a matter of law, that they work a minimum of
1,700 hours in the course of that year.

Mr. Suays. That’s the minimum?

Mr. SecaL. That’s the minimum. But as I travel around the
country, Mr. Congressman, the number is dramatically larger, as
a matter of personal choice. The number of AmeriCorps members
who will work beyond their responsibilities on Saturdays and Sun-
days, personally, around serve-a-thon events, is astonishing. It is
far more than 1,700 hours, which is the reason why using any kind
of hourly calculation really makes no sense, as a practical matter.

Mr. SuHays. What’s the biggest failure that you’ve had in the last
2 years, or certainly since the last 8 months, since the program
started?

Mr. SEGAL, I should answer none.

Mr. Suays. Well, you've had failures. But what would be the area
that you feel you need the biggest—what takes the most amount
of your time, other than having to defend your agency?

ir. SEGAL. I would say that the biggest challenge continues to
be to avoiding being an absentee grant-maker on the one hand, be-
cause we do think we're doing a lot more than just giving out
Frants: and being too prescriptive on the other. There is always a
lot of pressure, when you see something working right, to have ev-
eryone do it the same way. And I think we are trying as hard as
we can, Mr. Chairman, to avoid being too prescriptive, saying what
everyone should do.

I'd say that is one major challenge we have every day. A second
is national identity. We believe that national service needs to be
something more than the accumulation of all of its programs. There
has to be the same element of patriotism that is in p 4 with the
Peace Corps, serving one’s country in the military, and the Civilian
Conservation Corps. I think that is particularly hard to do when


103

thank you. The New York City Police Department wholeheartedly
supports this program, and we think other departments throughout
the Nation should follow our lead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Timoney follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN TIMONEY, First DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK
Crry Potice DEPARTMENT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity
to testify before you today.

First let me tell you how the AmeriCorps Cadet program works in New York City.
The NYPD National Service Police Cadet Program consists of 97 AmeriCorps Mem-
bers who attend college and work part-time during the school year and full-time
during the summer in cadet teams in 15 participating police precincts throughout
New York City. AmeriCorps Cadets are paid a salary and provided an educational
stipend.

meriCorps Cadets engage in community policing projects in selected high-need
police precincts in New York City, AmeriCorps Members also attend an internship
clinic conducted by faculty members of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice an
New York City Police Department officer trainers to develop creative problem-solv-
ing strategies that will contribute to reducing crime and fear of crime in New York
City. AmeriCorps Cadets are dedicated to addressing the public safety priorities and
neighborhood concerns raised in each community they serve. As an added benefit,
this program produces dedicated college graduates who enter the Police Department
with a proven track record and commitment to community service.

More than providing the Department with a diverse group of police officer can-
didates, we have found that this program is the best way to ensure that those who
serve the citizens of New York City closely mirror the many diverse communities
within the city. This diversity has contributed to their success in problem-solving
and crime prevention in a wide variety of New York City communities.

AmeriCorps Cadets are required to be city residents who attend four-year colleges
in New York City or in two adjoining counties. They must pass an arduous six-
month process of orientation and medical, psychological and character screening.
This is the same process that is required of every candidate for New York City po-
ice officer.

Specifically, AmeriCorps Cadets have had a noticeable impact an the quality of
life and fear of crime in the 15 participating police precincts as evidenced by the
following examples of their successes. These vignettes demonstrate a portion of the
substantive work performed by the Cadets:

MANHATTAN

In the Midtown North Precinct covering the Times Square/Clinton area (known
as Hell’s Kitchen) AmeriCorps Cadets contacted over 250 merchants in the midtown
area to inform them of the Department’s programs to deter vandalism and the sale
of alcohol to minors, persistent problems identified by community members and to
make the streets safer for vehicles and pedestrians.

To enhance student safety to and from school, the AmeriCorps Cadet team worked
with other local groups in Operation Safe Corridor. This project establishes a route
for students to traverse when traveling to and from school. AmeriCorps Cadets
helped to coordinate the staggering of dismissal times and to arrange transportation
to ease congestion and to alleviate the potential for criminal activity and disorder
in areas surrounding 17 New York City public schools.

One by-product of Operation Safe Corridor has been an gpening of lines of commu-
nication between the meriCorps members and students. Since both groups are rel-
atively young, many students feel comfortable talking with the AmeriCorps Cadets.
For example, information was recently received to prevent an imminent gang fight.
AmeriCorps Cadets, although not permitted to intervene in any potential criminal
situation, were equipped with radios, and were able to safely request appropriate

assistance.

Heights in Manhattan,
Unit to identify problems,
‘izens and youth. 2y also
produced pin maps to assist police officers in identifying crime trends. AmeriCorps
members developed programs including a Safe Corridor for 200 senior citizens, ac-
tivities for approximately 70 teenagers and after-schoo) programs for 50 six-year-
olds which have improved communication between the Police Department and these
groups.



39

is a smart investment—and Congress should focus on better ways to solve our mas-
sive budget deficit.
Sincerely,
PauL E. Tsongas.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DaviD C. JONES, GENERAL USAF (RET.)

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the oppor-
tunity to testify in support of AmeriCorps. I am especially gratified that you also
will hear testimony today from a dedicated and determined young man named Phil-
ip Wu. Philip is a U.S. Army veteran who is complementing his military service
with a hitch in AmeriCorps. He served as a telecommunications specialist in the
Amny, then used his G.I. Bill benefits to complete two years of college.

As an AmeriCorps member, Philip builds homes with the Miami Habitat for Hu-
manity program. He draws on skills learned in the military to recruit, train and su-
pervise volunteer builders. From AmeriCorps/Habitat, he has learned skills in all
aspects of home construction. And he'll use his education award from AmeriCorps
to finish college and get his degree (veterans earn AmeriCorps benefits without di-
minishing those they earned in the military).

Philip Wu’s example shows a common chord of spirit—a spirit that gets things
done—in the work of those who serve our volunteer Army and those who serve full
time in AmeriCorps. Of course, our men and women in uniform give all that a na-
tion can ask of its citizens, protecting freedom at home and abroad. Their’s is a far
greater sacrifice. Accordingly, AmeriCorps is designed so as not to impair military
recruiting, meeting its much smaller need by drawing from a larger recruiting uni-
verse that includes people of all ages, people with disabilities and others who don’t
meet the requirements for military service. In his 1995 annual report, Secretary of
Defense Perry confirms that a review of the impact of national service on military
recruiting showed “that success in one does not jeopardize the other.”

But just as our armed forces provide for the national defense, AmeriCorps is
mounting a national offensive here at home against problems that threaten our soci-
ety. This offensive involves 20,000 AmeriCorps members serving in locally-run pro-
grams, tutoring high-risk children, cleaning up our rivers and streams, working
with police to reduce crime, helping disaster victims rebuild. AmeriCorps provides
350 community programs with the best resource of all—Americans who want to
shoulder responsibility and serve our country.

Like our armed forces, AmeriCorps is mission-based. AmeriCot programs either
deliver results or lose their funding. Service builds character while it rebuilds com-
munities, and AmeriCorps members get a chance to give others a hand and get a
hand with education costs. But while AmeriCorps invests in the individuals who
serve, it makes a far broader investment in renewing our society and enriching our
economy. Our communities are leveraging every tax dollar that supports
AmeriCorps. For example, a 10-member team of the AmeriCorps*National Civilian
Community Corps worked with a Baltimore community to build an after-school edu-
cation and recreation program for high-risk kids. The AmeriCorps team restored a
local park, refurbished a nearby recreation center, organized and trained local resi-
dents to conduct activities and tutoring pro that give kids an alternative to
the streets and build their academic skills. With its job done, the AmeriCorps team
moved on to a new challenge, but left behind a center that serves 75 to 85 young-
sters, The team had also helped set up a homeowner and renovation program that
trains people to become first-time homeowners.

Other cases in point. An AmeriCorps member in rural Kentucky works every day
with children in a public school, teaching them to read so they can compete and
won't drop out, In Texas, more than 100,000 children have been immunized and will
never need public health services for treatment of a host of diseases, saving over
five dollars for every dollar invested. In Kansas City, Missouri, an AmeriCorps pro-

closes crack houses and gives youth alternatives to drugs and gangs. And in

with help from Philip Wu, families who once depended on subsidized hous-

ing will be paying mortgages on their first homes. These are major, long-term in-
vestments, both human snd financial.

‘AmeriCorps programs work. They show what we can accomplish when govern-
ment operates as a true partner of communities. And most important, they build
citizenship by enacting an old truth that the men and women in our armed forces
learn 80 well earn opportunity you must take responsibility for yourself and for
others.



Dept. of Energy (72)

HHS (220)

HUD (100)

Dept. of Justice (210)

Dept. of Labor (56)

Dept. of Interior (525)

Dept. of Navy (133)

Dept. of Transportation (60)
Dept. of Veterans Affairs (26)

STATE/LOCAL AGENCIES

* 2,934 “volunteers” are working for state agencies or groups like the various
state and local Conservation Corps that are largely/exclusively funded by state and
federal money

* In Washington state slone, 450 of the 522 AmeriCorps members are working
for state/state-funded agencies

AL Troy State Univ. (40)
Jackson State Univ.

AZ AZ Conservation Corps (52)
City of Mesa (20)

CA Imperial Co. Office of Education

CA Conservation Corps (43)
Hayfork, “ ” (85)
Sacramento, “ ” (157)

East Bay Conservation Corps (140)
LA Unified School District (80)

co Office of Rural Job Training (16)
Sheridan School District #26 (22)

cT City of Hartford

DE Dover Housing Authority (20)

FL City of Brooksville (14)

Broward Co. Sheriffs Office (30)
Escambia-Pensacola Human Relations Commission (15)
Lake Co. Board of Commissioners (16)
GA City of Albany (20)
City of Douglas (20)

ID ID Dept. of Parks & Recreation (10)
Lewis-Clark State College (26)

IL City of Decatur (20)

IL Dept of Public Aid (20)
IL Dept of Energy & Natural Resources (30)

IN City of Elkhart (20)

State Student Assistance Commission (22)

IA IA State Univ. Extension (82)

KS Fort Hays State Univ. (?)

KS State Univ. (120)
Wichita State Univ. (20)

KY Simpson Co. Board of Education (20)
Jefferson Co. Public Schools (22)
Morehead State Univ. (18)

LA City of Lake Charles

ME Workforce Development Centers (20)

MD MD Conservation Corps (154)

Bowie State Univ. (35)
Frostburg State Univ. (25)
Montgomery Co. Police (30)

MA __ North Shore Employment Training (21)
Berkshire Employment Program (11)

MI MI State Univ. (40)

MN City of St. Paul (76)

MS North MS Regional Center (20)


35

are taking any kind of cash contribution. And I would expect, even
before Congress takes a look at this in 1996, that percentage will
go down a lot more over time.

Mr. SHays. Now, I’ve concluded the questions I want to ask. Do
you have any statement you want to make? And then I might just
put us in recess for a few minutes.

Mr. SEGAL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure I could put
two things in the record, if I may. First, I was asked earlier about
the Federal agencies. We have a list of the nonprofit partners, the
local charities, that are working closely in partnership with the
Federal agencies. I hope you won't object if we submit to the record
for each one of those Federal agencies, the extraordinary number
of local nonprofits who are supporting them.

Mr. SHays. I'd also make, for the record, that we have the testi-
mony submitted by Michelle Engler, the wife of the Governor of
Michigan, and chairperson of the Michigan Community Service
Commission. Former Senator Paul Tsongas of the Concord Coali-
tion, and David Jones, of the U.S. Air Force Retired, also submitted
testimony.

(The prepared statements of Mrs. Engler, Hon. Paul E. Tsongas,
and Mr. Jones follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHELLE ENGLER, CHAIR, MICHIGAN COMMUNITY
SERVICE ComMISSION, First LADY OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to submit this testimo: nn what national and community service has meant to
Michigan—our communities and our citizens. I hope that my text will provide you
with three things to consider: first, what one state has been able to do to support
service and volunteerism, second, how these activities relate to AmeriCorps and the
other national and community service programs supported by the Corporation for
National Service, and third, why we believe that service and volunteerism are 80
important to the health and future strength of communities.

WHAT ONE STATE HAS DONE

The Michigan Community Service Commission was created by executive order in
1991 out of an idea that Governor John Engler and I had that we needed to find
more effective ways to promote and support service and volunteerism in Michigan.
Our efforts coincided with President rge Bush’s call to service through the
Points of Light Foundation, the National and Community Service Act of 1990, and
his words that, “No longer can the definition of a successful life not include service
to the community.” The Commission was designated as the state's lead agency for
administering programs under the 1990 Act, the predecessor to the National Service
Trust Act of 1993. Our activities, which received state support but always benefitted
from important federal support, encompassed more than the administration of feder-
ally funded national and community service programs.
ur mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem-
i service and volunteerism. The principle that guides our efforts at
that National and Community Service, Volunteerism, and Philan-
thropy are not bi-partisan ideas, they are non-partisan ideas. We believe that if we
are serious about promoting and supporting the nonprofit sector as a more effective
and efficient alternative to public sector run programs, then government must re-
spect and hold in the same esteem the principle of non-partisanship that is central
and essential to the success of the ‘ronprofit voluntary, and philanthropic sector.
From the start, the Governor and I have been committed to ensuring that the op-
eration and the public perception of the Michigan Community Service Commission
are strictly non-partisan. The value and success of this commitment was dem-
onstrated last summer when the Legislature established the Commission in law
with overwhelming bi-partisan support—passing the House 105-2 and the Senate

The Michigan Community Service Commission serves in three general capacities:
as a catalyst for positive community change, stimulating innovative programs that


67

ess cata Avilable

Compettve sab #—_Aplicant panics Sec stat ate roe dcr TAM ca. Unt verge
Formula Sub #
F-1 Community Ac- 23 FT Jan 1, 1995... Lorne Benson $318,622 $36,000 $282,622
tevos
Subtotal 318622 36.000 282.622
Total ..... 318,622 36,000 282,622

In conjunction with the grant number, the subaccount number should be used to
identify the specific program in the state with official documents and correspond-
ence. .

The identified Project Directors will not be replaced without specific Corporation
approval. If any Project Directors have not been yet selected, then their names and
resumes will be submitted to the Corporation for concurrence.

IIL, TOTAL CORPORATION FUNDING AND PARTICIPANT EDUCATIONAL AWARDS

Total Corporation Funds in the amount of $318,622 (Total of lines A-G of the at-
tached program budgets) are provided to support this state's programs.

Excluding child care funds of $36,000, available funds in the amount of $282,622
are obligated to the Commission for direct program expenditures. These funds sup-
Port the operation of your AmeriCorps programs as stated in each of the approved
applications,

in addition, the following total number of educational awards are provided for the

AmeriCorps participants:
FULL-TIME PARTICIPANT EDUCATIONAL AWARDS: 23 FT ($4,725 ea.)
PART-TIME PARTICIPANT EDUCATIONAL AWARDS: 0 PT ($2,363 ea.)
TOTAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS: 23 FTE

IV. PROGRAM LIAISONS

The following are the liaisons responsible for the administration of this agree-
ment.

Stacy J. Rosen, Grants Officer, The Corporation for National Service; Peter
Heinaru, Senior Program Officer, ‘The Corporation for National Service; Payette
Carpenter 402-471-6227, State Commission, Interim Executive Director; and Lorrie
Benson 402-471-3714, State Commission, Commission Member.

V. COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES

A. General

1, The Commission receiving this award agrees to be responsible for all aspects
of its programs including the management, ‘oversight, operation and evaluation of
the specified AmeriCorps programs. Commission will work closely with the Cor-
poration in implementing its ‘KmeriCorps programs.

2. The Commission will implement its AmeriCorps programs in accord with the
National and Community Service Act (42 U.S.C. 12501, et seq.), the Corporations
regulations (45 CFR 2510, 2513, et al.), the AmeriCorps State application and the
terms of this agreement. The Commission will not impose additional requirements
on its grantees without prior approval of the Corporation. This does not preclude
the Commission from gathering financial or other data, in accordance with their
needs or implementing other Commission procedures as long as such processes do
not preempt Corporation requirements.

B. Specific

1. The Commission will issue any grants under this agreement in accord with the
terms of this agreement and will administer these awards through the completion
of each of the AmeriCorps programs.

2. The Commission will request funds and transfers of such, through the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services’ SMARTLINK system. The Commission hereby
agrees only to est and transfer advance funds for their immediate cash needs.
In accord with OMB Circular A-110, the Commission shall provide advances to non-
profit organizations conducting AmeriCorps programs if their financial management
systems meet the standards for fund control and accountability.


104

THE BRONX

In the 43rd Precinct in The Bronx, AmeriCorps Cadets worked in cooperation with
Youth Officers to prevent truancy by escorting students to and from school. They
presented motivational speeches to groups of high-school students hoping to keep
them in school, deter youth violence and discourage drug use.

BROOKLYN

In the 63rd Precinct in Brooklyn, AmeriCorps Cadets addressed crime patterns
concerning auto theft and burglary. AmeriCorps members reviewed over 2,000 sto-
len vehicle complaints, 1,300 reports of recovered vehicles and 700 burglary com-
plaints. They also prepared pin maps to assist police officers in identifying crime
trends. Information was forwarded to the Auto Crime Division and the Detective
Squad for further investigation.

AmeriCorps Cadets also marked 300 vehicles with the Vehicle Identification Num-
bers and enrolled 225 in the Combat Auto Theft decal program. AmeriCorps mem-
bers lectured on burglary prevention to community roups at Crime Prevention
Seminars and conducted Crime Prevention Surveys of 75 merchants to determine
the reliability of burglar alarms.

The AmeriCorps Cadets’ presence at community meetings and Crime Prevention
Seminars reinforced citizens’ positive perceptions of a Police Department dedicated
to addressing community problems.

AmeriCorps Cadets were very active in gathering information on youth gangs and
have identified six gang-prone locations in the 72nd Precinct in the Sunset Park sec-
tion of Brooklyn. AmeriCorps members reviewed all crime reports originating from
these locations in order to assess gang activity.

AmeriCorps Cadets were also present at two local schools at dismissal time to
deter gangs from recruiting near the schools and have appeared before two commu-
nity groups to discuss gang-related crime issues.

arents of school children in this precinct appreciate the efforts of the AmeriCorps
Cadets to deter gang recruiting. Parents feel that AmeriCorps members are more
approachable than police officers to area youth. These youth are more willing to talk
to AmeriCorps Cadets. This makes AmeriCorps members an important source of in-
formation for community policing officers and a resource for community youth.

QUEENS

In the 105th and 113th Precincts in Queens AmeriCorps Cadets have been in-
volved in programs linked to the Department's auto theft reduction erime control
strategy. In many of the more residential precincts in the city, auto theft is one of
the primary concerns cited by residents, AmeriCorps Cadets have analyzed stolen
vehicle complaint reports and locations where stalen vehicles were recovered in
order to produce pin maps to strategically deploy precinct personnel to address this
problem, AmeriCarpe Cadets have aided the Departments auto thet prevention ef
foris by enrolling over 900 vehicles in the Vehicle Identification Number etching
program and 160 vehicles in the Combat Auto Theft decal program.

STATEN ISLAND

In the 120th Precinct in Staten Island AmeriCorps Cadets visited the Camelot De-
tention Center and the Vanderbilt Avenue Foundling Hospital’s teen delinquent
home and discussed perceptions of the police with 100 teenagers. AmeriCorps Ca-
dets later returned to the Camelot Detention Center and conducted a focus group
and survey of 15 teens to discuss the problems confronting them. AmeriCorps mem-
bers conducted an additional nine focus groups involving 54 teenagers at several
community centers and attended two meetings each month with high-school stu-
dents from the precinct’s Police Explorers program to discuss the young people’s
pressures, such as drugs and alcohol.

AmeriCorps Cadets have also VIN-etched over 450 vehicles at Staten Island Bor-
ough President Guy Molinari’s Crime Prevention Forums.

Approximately 200 community members were contacted in order to survey their
concerns about teenage problems and alcohol abuse in the area. The problems of
young people are a high priority issue in this precinct. The efforts of AmeriCo1
Cadets to discuss the concerns of teenagers at focus groups and meetings in
community helped to open up lines of communication between young people and
adults.

‘These are just a few examples of the tremendous and important work AmeriCorps
Cadets do in New York City. We consider our AmeriCorps Community Policing Pro-
gram a model for the nation. In fact many big city police departments have con-


126

{Note.—The appendices referred to below can be found in sub-
committee files.]

APPENDICES SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY
ERVICE

Ar-Allnen Tucker Aric

‘Amenicorpe Demographics

C—dill Lacey Article

D—1995 Cost Per Member

E—Omsha World Herald Editorial

F—John Walters Memorandum.

G—The Benefits and Costs of National Service: Methods for Benefit Assessment
with Application to Three AmeriCorps Programs”

H—Letters of Support from San Francisco Mayor and Police Chief

I-Excerpts from {Independent Sector Survey

JoIndependent Sector Open Letter

K—Ken Cook Letter

Mr. SHays. Thank you very much. I appreciate all those who
have testified, and the patience of everyone who has been there
today, and I adjourn this hearing.

TWhereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject
to the call of the chair.]

[Note.—The appendices referred to below can be found in sub-
committee files.)

APPENDICES SUBMITTED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

1—Legislative outline, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993
{]—Board of Directors, Corporation for National and Community Service
III—Chairman’s letter to the Corporation, Corporation response with attachments
IV—Heritage Foundation article and issue bulletin

V—Jill Lacey articles on AmeriCorps programs

VI—Appropriations chart, FY96 budget request and funding stream outline
Vii—AmeriCorps participant demographic figures

fe)


45

AMERICAN RED CRoss,
Washington, DC, April 21, 1995.
Hon. CHRISTOPHER BOND,
U.S. Senate,
Suite SR-293,
Washington,

Dear SENATOR BonD: The American Red Cross, a multi-service, volunteer based
community service organization, joins with our sister charitable agencies in writing
you on behalf of AmeriCorps.

‘We consider AmeriCorps to be a valuable addition to the traditional voluntary sec-
tor and a means of broadening the pool of citizens who will have experienced the
challenges and joy of community service. Stipended service neither undermines nor
takes the place of volunteerism. It adds to the capacity of charitable organizations
and is a means of attracting people into a lifetime of awareness of community needs
through participation in intense and long-term service opportunities. The many
former Peace Corps members who currently staff the Red Cross and other voluntary
organizations in both paid and volunteer capacities, testify to the fact that their 2-
year stipended service served as a stepping stone to further service.

‘At the American Red Cross, AmeriCorps members are working in disaster relief
and disaster prevention, and are instructing and being trained to instruct in health
and safety programs including CPR, Basic First Aid, Water Safety, and HIV/AIDS
education, especially Peer Instructor Training. They will pass on their skills and en-
thusiasm to hundreds of community residents and, by so doing, not only create safer
communities but also many new service providers, instructors, and instructor train-

ers.
‘The only way Ame:
National and Commu
not allow this to happen.
Sincerely,

communities will not benefit from AmeriCorps and other
Service programs, is if they are discontinued. Please do

KAREN GOODMAN,
National Chairman of Volunteers.

UNITED Way OF AMERICA,
Alexandria, VA, March 21, 1995.

Hon. Mark O. HATFIELD,

DeaR CHAIRMAN HaTFIELO: As you consider the package of rescissions which
passed the House of Representatives last week, we Tequest that you give careful
consideration to the $416 million reduction in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations
for the Corporation for National Service. This proposed reduction comes from the
account of $575 million for AmeriCorps USA, AmeriCorps NCCC, and Learn and
Serve America. With the proposed reduction of 72%, the AmeriCorps program effec-
tively ceases to function.

‘The 2,100 local United Ways and the approximately 44,000 agencies that they
serve are made up of tens of thousands of volunteers. The United Way system is
acknow] nationwide as the leader in volunteer service. Since the inception of
the AmeriCorps program, local United Ways in partnership with local agencies have
been able to increase volunteer activities through this program. Even though the
AmeriCorps program is lesa than a year old, it is having a demonstrable, positive
effect in our communities. United Way of America itself is the recipient of a grant
to provide technical assistance and training throughout the country.

As a system, we have demonstrated the value of volunteerism. The AmeriCorps
program allows individuals who might not otherwise be able to take advantage of
such opportunities, to learn and understand the value of volunteerism. These les-
sons, learned at an early age, usually influence activities throughout one’s lifetime.
We hope, ‘as you make your determinations on the rescission package, that you will

eep tl itive aspects of this am in mind.

P With best regards,

Nancy Mour KENNEDY,
Vice President for Government Relations.


87

Mr. SHays. Miss Lacey, when you visited Peach Corps, and I
want people to know I am meaning Peach, not Peace, what time
did you get there in the day?

is. LACEY. I got there first thing in the morning, which for
them, I think, was 8 a.m.

Mr. Suays. And you were there for how long?

Ms. Lacey. I was there for 3 days.

Mr. SHays. OK. And you earlier said that you had spoken to a
number of volunteers that said they would have been in the serv-
ice.

Ms. Lacey. Well, I said I——

Mr. Suays. And then you corrected it, and you said one. Was it
one, or was it a number?

Ms. Lacey. I spoke to one that I remember. I’m confusing wheth-
er another gentleman that I’m thinking of also agreed with that.
But there was definitely one.

Mr. SHays. And how many sites did you visit?

Ms. Lacey. I visited the sites, which were also under this Peach
Corps, in Vidalia, GA, and in Thompson, GA.

Mr. SHays. OK. At each site, how long did you spend?

Ms. Lacey. A day and a half at each.

Mr. SHays. You were just visiting with the volunteers and seeing
what they did?

Ms. Lacey. I interviewed, basically, all their supervisory person-
nel and a good representative sample of their Corps members;
probably the majority of their Corps members.

Mr. SHays. OK. When you think about the hours, did you make
an assumption that they only worked 40 hours a week?

Ms. Lacey. I don’t think they do work 40 hours a week. I think
they work roughly—or they’re paid for roughly 35,

Mr. Suays. OK. And it’s your testimony that they only work 35
hours a week.

Ms. Lacey. It depends on how you define work. Thank you for
using that term, work.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Ms. Lacey. They show up at a site; they do calisthenics; they
have a little morning meeting; and then they’re transported to
their job site. Then in the afternoon, there’s sort of a similar ritual.
That works out to be about 6 hours a day that they’re putting in
at their specific job sites.

Mr. SHays. And it’s your testimony that they don’t work on
weekends; they don’t work late at night; they don’t come in earlier?

Ms. Lacey. No, certainly not. As far as weekends, I was told that
there were one or two—there’s one that I can remember, a project
where they were handing out food in the community, where the:
were encouraged to come on a particular weekend. But it wasn’t
mandatory. And that was the only example that I was given.

Mr. SHays. We have 20,000 volunteers. How many of those vol-
unteers do you think would have qualified—national corps partici-
pants—how many of them would fave qualified for military serv-
ice:

Ms. Lacey. I have no idea. That’s a hypothetical question. I have
no idea.


8

it needs to be run on. Mr. Towns, thank you for your patience, the
ranking member.

Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Lan-
tos, I was happy to hear you say that you were still a Democrat.
When I saw you on that side, I got a little nervous.

Mr. LANTOS. Just a matter of physical confusion.

Mr. Towns. Oh, I see, you know, the way things are go
around here today. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, let me again than!
you for your leadership on this particular issue. There’s no question
about it—you’ve been in the forefront, not only today, but down
through the years. And I want you to know that we appreciate
that—you providing leadership along this issue.

This forum today, to consider the programs and performance of
the Corporation for National and Community Service, today’s over-
sight hearing is important because we share the concerns that this
agency not fall victim to the prevailing political prerogatives, but
be evaluated on its merits. Your personal history adds to the rel-
evance of our examination of this agency’s operation. While I like
to believe I come to this hearing with an open mind, I fully support
the concept of a national ethics of civic responsibility.

For me, for the administration, and for hundreds of national and
local volunteers, charitable and service organizations, colleges and
universities, schools, community health centers, and police and
sheriffs departments, the Corporation for National and Community
Service embodies that concept. In today’s environment of fiscal con-
servatism, it is unfortunate that the corporation cannot dem-
onstrate its true return of our investment or savings to our commu-
nities.

If it could, our oversight would be a much easier task. However,
the advantages of the national service program are tangible, even
if the arithmetic is cumbersome. In its year and a half of operation,
the corporation has broadened the pool of citizens engay in pub-
lic service. It has added to the quality and capacity of community-
based organizations; and very likely, it has influenced an ideology
of civic involvement among our youth that will last a lifetime.

I think that’s something that we cannot measure. But I can tell
you, just from my observation and seeing and talking, that is some-
thing that we should not take lightly. Much of my enthusiasm for
the corporation has to do with this decentralization of program au-
thority to the State and, ultimately, to the local communities. This
is no new Federal bureaucracy. Each State defines its needs, deter-
mines how it will use Federal resources, and make its own invest-
ment in its citizens.

For those of us in Congress who have been looking for workable
solutions for a more responsive, more efficient and less bureau-
cratic Federal Government, this is an alternative that should be
given some serious consideration. If we are going to be consistent.
with our rhetoric, this is something that we should do. Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to yield back the balance of my time.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Hon. EDOLPHUS TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, thank yu for providing us this forum to consider the programs
and performance of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Today’s


OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1995

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES AND
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, arsuant to notice, at 9:39 a.m., in room
2247, Rayburn House ice Building, Hon. Christopher Shays
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Chrysler, Davis, Fattah, Green, Lantos,
Martini, Morella, Shays, and Towns.

Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel;
Demi Greatorex, professional staff; Kim Cummings, document
clerk; Thomas M. Costa, clerk; Ron Stroman, deputy minority staff
director; and Cheryl Phelps, minority professional staff.

Mr. SHavs. I'd like to call this hearing to order, and to apologize.
I vowed that, as a chairman, I’d never be late to one of my own
hearings. And I had 450 students in three different groups, and all
of them were late. I would like to welcome all of you here today.
It’s been 8 months since AmeriCorps program began. This over-
sight hearing is the -first attempt by this committee, which has
oversight jurisdiction, to evaluate the performance of the national
service effort.

Our goal for this hearing is to take a balanced look at the imple-
mentation of National Service and Community Service Trust Act of
1993; to measure the benefits of national service in terms of the
tangible and intangible value of these programs to the participants,
the communities served, and our Nation; and to advance the con-
gressional debate over spending priorities, as we take the first step
on a 7-year path to balance the Federal budget.

Service to one’s community and country is not new. It transcends
the partisan politics of any aver era, and stands as an enduring

art of our national ethic. The Civilian Conservation Corps mobi-
ized citizens during the Depression. President Nixon signed the
Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970 and the Domestic Volunteer
Service Act of 1973. With bipartisan support, President Bush
signed the National Community Service Act of 1990. Again with bi-
partisan support, President Clinton’s AmeriCorps initiative was en-
acted in the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993.

All of these efforts are based on the belief that toil and the serv-
ice of one’s fellows men ennobles and enriches beyond estimate. I
am going to submit the rest of my testimony for the record, and

aM


42

of thousands of dollars behind the City Year effort. But that’s not enough—
AmeriCorps’ support has made the difference. It was their funds which helped lever-
age contributions, support and stability—the kind of stability which gets the private
sector organizations like my own to commit and young people to sign up. With
AmeriCorps we have reached many more people.

Now that the private sector has made its commitment, and young people have
made their commitment, it is astounding and outrageous to me, as a business lead-
er, community leader, private citizen annd, incidentally, a registered Republican,
that the U.S. Congress would actually withdraw its commitment.

To me, the Congress is acting like a bomber pilot gone off course—not only bomb-
ing innocent citizens, but stealing a chance for solving some of the toughest prob-
lems inner cities face. If the recommendation to eliminate AmeriCorps stands, it will
take away jobs and take away hope from people I have come to know in the City
Year Corps—like 19 year old Don Gladden. Don is a former peu member who has
pulled away from his gang to join the Corps. I asked him what he would be doing
if it weren't for the Corps—He said, “I'd be standing on street corners attacking peo-
ple, robbing people, beating them up, fighting with other gangs, you know, stuff ike
that Td probably be dead or lying in a hospital somewhere if it weren’t for City

fear”.

Hospitals are where I work. For twenty years, I’ve seen People like Don come into
our emergency. rooms because they've been shot or stabbed. Or I've seen the victims
of people like Don—who come in having been shot or stabbed. It’s expensive.

jefore I ran hospitals, | was a federal prosecuting attorney under a previous Re-
ublican administration. [ saw people like Don there too—arrested for armed rob-

Wy, or kidnapping. And | saw the victims of people like Don as well. It's expensive.

T know what hospitals do—it’s expensive. I know what courtrooms and prisons
do—it’s expensive and it often doesn’t work. Now I know what City Year and
AmeriCorps do—they save people like Don and help make them into productive citi-
zens. If Congress wants to save money, save AmeriCorps and City Year. They're not
as expensive—they save dollars and lives and careers. If you think AmeriCorps is
expensive, wait until you see the costs if you kill it.

A few months back, I was enthusiastic about much of what I saw in the plans

roposed fellow Republicans, including our Congressman and good friend
Joha Kesich, Tdidn’t realize that they planned to put outa contract to cut programs
like City Year and kill AmeriCorps. America’s strategic plan needs to be to build
healthy communities and simultaneously reduce violence. Everybody agrees with
that. And these are the programs that have the best chance to save our young peo-
ple and save our cities. programs are like preventive medicine—always better
and less expensive than the alternative. Now these great programs may be killed
or fatally wounded—cut off in mid-sentence—before the point has been made.

I challenge Members of Congress to visit programs, hold hearings such as this one
and get the facts. You will discover that a balanced bus is important—yet with-
out balanced human beings, no budget can work. Ameri works. City Year suc-
ceeds. They must be saved. Don Gladden and thousands of others are counting on
us. And they're counting on Congress.

ATTACHMENTS TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY

“Governors of both parties that I've spoken with have shared my enthusiasm for
jetting behind President Clinton and Eli Segal on National Service programs like
Gity Veur. City Year is the classic N.GA. program—regardless of party, it’s some.
thing we can call good thing.”
—Remarks by Governor William Weld (Massachusetts)
National Governor's Association
July 17, 1994
“Today is a great day for service in Michigan—the kick-off for Michigan—
AmeriCorps. Soon members of Michigan's AmeriCorps will be getting things done
to meet the important needs of our communities, demonstrating that our greatest
resource remains our people. AmeriCorps captures the promise found in all citizens,
young and old, who see problems in their communities and work together to solve
them. . . . You have come together, as have others in communities across the coun-
try, in the true spirit of service. Today, we celebrate the beginning of Ameri
and reaffirm traditions that we hold so dearly in Michigan—community, volunteer-
ism, and service to others.
—Remarks by Governor John Engler (Michigan)
to Michigan’s AmeriCorps Members
September 12, 1994


73

Mr. SHays. Just so we have it on the record, the document you're
referring to from Mr. Segal is what?

Mr. WALTERS. This was on the table when I came in. It’s covered
by an April 25, 1995, letter to Mr. Segal by you.

Mr. Suays. Is this in response to the questions that I asked—the
letter that I wrote?

Mr. WALTERS. The cover letter gives a list of questions; that’s
signed by you, as chairman of this committee.

ir. SHAYS. We wrote Mr. Segal some questions. So what page
arg you referring to?

ir. WALTERS. I’m referring to his return letter, dated May 4. It’s
the attachment, it’s right after his cover letter. There’s a break-
down in the middle of that page.

Mr. SHays. Yes, I see. 0

Mr. Wa ters. I think this is in some ways important and in
some ways, a secondary issue. I think it’s important because——
1 Mr. Suays. It’s just—it’s—OK, why do you think it’s important,

’m sorry.

Mr. "WALTERS. I think we need a true cost accounting of the
members. Some of this is going to be confusion that’s based on, I
think, no bad faith at all, in terms of what is counted as the base.
But obviously, the true cost per member ought to include, in my
judgment, the Federal Government contribution; the matching con-
tribution; the overhead figured in some reasonable way; as well as
if there are multiple cost sharing contributions by an agency and
by the private sector.

So you can get a sense of what resources each volunteer is con-
suming in a given area. Now, you may want to break it down by
types of programs. I recognize there’s an issue with the Alaska pro-

m, and the cost of operations in Alaska, versus other places. But
there ought to be reasonable accounting given. And if we aren't
producing an average, we ought to talk about how that is cal-
culated.

Mr. Suays. I’d like you to finish your testimony, and then we'll

get to—

Mr. WALTERS. I say that partly because I think the issue and
cost effectiveness is also, to what extent our resources being di-
rected—local resources—into an activity that much more costly
than other types of activities that could perform the same kind of
work. Second, since it was brought up here, the issue of cashin;
out benefits in the example of the Texas program that was featu
on the NBC Nightly News.

Let me just say two things about that, maybe heading out to
shorten some time with the questions. I recognize that there was
a folding in of VISTA in the program, and that the individuals
highlighted in that program may not have been operating under
the same guidelines as the current, or what’s usually referred to
as the AmeriCorps members. However, the immunizations that
were going on in that program, and the way that report was pre-
sented, suggest that NBC News showed up at the Lubbock, TX,
site, at the suggestion of AmeriCorps in Washington.

And the example of this immunization program has been used b:
AmeriCorps Washington as one of the examples they’re proud of.
So if there’s a confusion about different members working under


82

off time, to go see the President or anyone else? Of course they do.
The issue is whether or not government funds are being used to
provide a backdrop for a partisan political activity.

And I think that’s a serious issue, and we may not share——

Mr. Suays. No, I think that’s serious, but you’re under oath. Are
you alleging that Federal dollars were used to do that, under oath?

Mr. WALTERS, Well—

Mr. Suays. No, it’s under oath, now. This is—the day where you
can just throw out something—you are under oath.

ir. WALTERS. Look, Mr. Chairman, you several times have given
me a lecture suggesting I’m lying. I have a long career of testi-
mony. I have never been criticized for being disingenuous. I have
testified before—

Mr. Suays. Well, for the first time, you may be. You are under
oath now, and I am going to ask you a very specific question.
Under oath, do you have any evidence that says that AmeriCorps
has been used for political reasons? Government money used as a
backdrop for the President?

Mr. WALTERS. I want to be very clear about what I’m going to

say.

Xr. Suays. And take your time.

Mr. WALTERS. In my personal view, the assembly of these mem-
bers on time paid for by the government to orchestrate a political
attack for partisan purposes is a misuse of money. I don’t think it’s
necessarily a felony, and I recognize it’s a gray area. I’m arguin,
about appropriateness and right. I’m not arguing there’s Federal
fraud here.

Mr. SHays. OK. What is this even that you're specifically talking
about? What specific event are you talking about?

Mr. WALTERS. I'm talking about the event that Mr. Green re-
ferred to. The Earth Day speech in Maryland, actually, was where
it was given.

Mr. Suays. OK. Now, this was a political event, in your judg-
ment. The President of the United States was there on Earth Day.
And what was said at this political event that——

Mr. WALTERS. I don’t have a copy of the text. I’ll be happy to pro-
vide one.

Mr. Suays. Yes, but what, in general, what did you find objec-
tionable?

Mr. WALTERS. Well, and I would suggest not only me, but the
tone of the remarks, I think, both by the President and the Vice
President, were that the Republican Party was a danger to protect-
ing the environment; was threatening cuts that would harm the en-
vironment, was insensitive to the environment; and that the issue
of the day was designed to illustrate the danger of the opposition
party in a way that I think, by even, not just my view, but press
accounts of the speech, was a partisan attack.

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Suays. Mr. Davis?

Mr. Davis. Was that the same speech where Wayne Gilchrest,
whose been a leading environmentalist over on our side of the
aisle, was not permitted to sit on the stage?

Mr. WALTERS. I believe it was, yes.

Mr. Davis. I think that was the same one.


OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CORPORATION
FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

MAY 18, 1995

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

a

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
38-124 CC WASHINGTON : 1996

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402

ISBN 0-16-053670-7
3



108

As in any disaster, a lot of people showed up to help in those first
few days. But a week later, many of those volunteers were gone be-
cause they had to go back to work, to their homes, and their fami-
lies. But Brent and many of his AmeriCorps teammates are still
there. In fact, I talked with Brent before I flew in to Washington,
DC. And he and many AmeriCorps workers were in the Oklahoma
City area, picking up debris in a six-block area.

And, of course, that was some of the later things they were con-
cerned about. But they are now there doing those types of things.
They are still working with Feed the Children, getting local busi-
nesses to supply food and water for the victims, and also making
sure that donations from the other volunteer agencies are getting
to the people that really need them. They’re not going to leave the
site until the work is all done.

Brent is carrying on the tradition of service in our family that
started when his grandfather joined the Civilian Conservation
Corps, during the Great Depression. Our country is still benefiting
from the work the CCC did—the roads and bridges and the trails.
And we're watching it happen again today. Because what Brent is
doing is just a minute part of what AmeriCorps is doing across our
country,

AmeriCorps is also benefiting the people who serve. It seems like
we saved forever for Brent’s education. But the money ran out
quickly. Brent could not go back to college next year without his
AmeriCorps education award. AmeriCorps is giving Brent the op-
portunity to give back to his community, and to get the experience
he wouldn’t have gotten anywhere else.

It’s giving him the time that he really needs to make good deci-
sions about his future. And it’s giving him help paying for his col-
lege. But beyond the tangible achievements of national service,
these programs strengthen the character of American citizens. I’m
not going to tell you that Brent was a bad kid and AmeriCorps has
made him good. Because——

Mr. SHAYS. But was he?

Mrs. BLoom. Wait and see. My son has always been a good per-
gon. But Brent’s experience in AmeriCorps has made him into a
leader.

Mr. Suays. OK, fair enough.

Mrs. BLOoom. It’s made him the kind of person who walks into
a place of desperate need, instead of walking away from it; the
kind of person who stays with a problem until it’s solved.
AmeriCorps has taught Brent that, in exchange for the opportuni-
ties he’s been given in this world, he has a responsibility to help
his community. And I wish the people in Oklahoma City, who set
off that bomb, had learned that lesson.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bloom follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENIA BLOOM

My son, Brent Bloom, was born and raised in Tulsa and Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
Last year, he decided to take a year off of school to serve in AmeriCorps*VISTA.
That’s why, on April 19th, when the bomb exploded in the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, my son was one of the first people into the building to help.

Brent was at his service site, REST, a day center for homeless people, when he
heard the deafening explosion a few blocks away. He and his AmeriCorps team-
mates immediately drove over to help. Brent told the people on the scene that he
was trained in CPR and First Aid, and led his team members and other volunteers




109

through a maze of melted cars and smoke into the building to help get victims out
and emergency medical help in. He tells me that there was glass, debris and blood
everywhere. He worked until 2 a.m. the next morning, helping to set up the nearby
medical stations, carrying supplies for the FBI and FEMA, and working with Feed
the Children at a nearby emergency center.

As in any disaster, a lot of people showed up to help in those first few days. But
a week later, many of the volunteers were gone. It’s not that they don’t want to stay
and help—they just can’t afford to. They have to get back to their jobs, their homes,
their forailies. But Brent and his AmeriCorps teammates are still there. They are
still working with Feed the Children, getting local businesses to supply food and
water for the victims, and making sure donations make it from the volunteer agen-
cies to the people who need them. They’re not going to leave the site until all the
work ia done.

Brent is carrying on the tradition of service in our family that started when his
grandfather joined the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression.

r country is still benefitting from all the work the CCC did—the roads and the
bridges and the trails—and we're watching it happen all over again today, because
what Brent is doing is just a minute part of what AmeriCorps is doing all across
the country.

AmeriCorps is also benefitting the people who serve. It’s giving young people like
Brent the time end experience they need lo make good decisions about their futures,
and it’s giving families like ours who are feeling the drain of the expense some help
sending their children to college.

But beyond the tangible achievements of national service, these proj S
strengthen the character of American citizens. I'm not going to tell you that Brent
was a bad kid and that AmeriCorps made him good. My son has always been a good

rson. But Brent’s experience in AmeriCorps has made him into a leader. It’s made

jim the kind of person who walks into a place of desperate need instead of walkii
away from it, the kind of person who stays with a problem until it’s solved,
AmeriCorps has taught Brent that, in exchange for the opportunities he’s been
given in this world, he hes a responsibility to help his community. | wish the people
who set off the bomb in Oklahoma had learned that lesson.

Mr. SHays. Wow. Thank you very much. I am going to ask
Connie Morella if she would like to make any statement of ques-
tion.

Mrs. MoRELLA. | simply want to thank the three of you for giving
us each different facets of the success of the program. I’m curious,
Mr. Timoney, what kind of salary do your AmeriCorps cadets re-
ceive? I mean, do they go to college?

Mr. TIMONEY. Yes.

Mrs. MorgLLa. And they work part time and they get a salary.
_ Mr. TIMoNEY. They get—first year is $6.50 and hour; second year
is $7.50 an hour. When I think of my nephew, who is also in col-
lege, but he makes $13 an hour; so $6.50 isn’t an awful lot.

rs. MORELLA. No, it’s not.

Mr. Timoney. But it’s helping them get by. And then they get a
stipend of $1,000 the first year. So he pets $6.50 an hour, and they
work about 600 hours, all together the first year. They actually
work above the—they get paid for 600 hours, but we have them
doing quite a few volunteer things, above the required 600 hours.

Mrs. MorELLa. So they don’t get the $4,000, you know, that
amount. This is a different program. I’ve got one in my county, too.
I was curious about how it works. So is that funding all coming
from the Federal Government, or is it some coming from New York,
or does the locality work this out? Do you know anything about
that?

Mr. TIMONEY. My understanding is that the funding—and correct
me if I’m wrong, Joe—the funding is directly from Washington.
There’s a match, The city of New York pays about half, and then
AmeriCorps management service supplements it.



30

Mr. Towns. That is worth yielding for. [Applause.]

Mr. GREEN. I used up all your time.

Mr. Towns. As I yield back—that’s worth yielding for, I tell you.
I would like to also join you in thanking them for coming to Wash-
ington. And I’m hoping that, as a result of hearing your story and
as a result of seeing you, that maybe some of the members that are
sort of sitting on the fence will now get off the fence and recognize
the importance of this program. You make a tremendous state-
ment.

So thank you, Congressman Green, for sharing this with us. At
this time, I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. MarTINI. Thank you, Congressman, and good morning. And
Tm sorry I didn’t have the benefit of what you've testified to al-
ready, Mr. Segal, it is, right?

Mr. SEGAL. That’s correct.

Mr. MarTINI. But, and hopefully, this won’t be repetitive. I guess
one of the—in this whole discussion of the program and its merits
and its goals, we obviously are concerned in terms of the funding
level at a time when we have a serious national debt, and many
of us here feel that we have to look for ways to preserve and reduce
that debt. So we look at everything and. we ask questions as to
what’s working; what’s not working: and what is the ultimate goal?

And certainly, I don’t think many of us, if any of us, would dis-
agree with the need to create an environment in which we encour-
age community service to one’s country and national service. But
I just want to relate to you a small experience I had recently. And
maybe this is the way in which perhaps we can reconcile what I
see as the possible conflict here. And I have an open mind on this,
and as a new member, this will be my first time in really studying
the Program and its funding levels, et cetera.

But I had an occasion, on the break, to be at a Habitat for Hu-
manity site in my district. And it’s an urban district, and I went
there and visited there. And there were many volunteers there, and
then there were some AmeriCorps people there. And the good num-
ber of volunteers were without pay, no benefit, purely out of service
for the program of Habitat for Humanity. And then there were five
or six AmeriCorps people who were there; and obviously, receiving
compensation and benefits for their service.

And I thought, at that time, how does that work? It would ap-
pear to me, if I were one of the volunteers—I knew what
AmeriCorps was; I don’t think many other people understood. But
it would appear to me, if I understood that and I’m out there work-
ing that day, and people are volunteering their time after work and
the materials, and then they find out there’s another group that
are working but they’re getting a significant benefit or compensa-
tion for that, how do you reconcile that situation?

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Congressman, I thank you for that, and hopefully

yor circumstance this morning will allow you to wait a little bit
later on today. We actually have somebody who’s in AmeriCorps
from Habitat for Humanity in Miami with us today. And Rerbaps
he can even do a better job than I. But let me tell you that the
head of Habitat—a gentleman named Millard Fuller, in Georgia—
is such an enthusiastic supporter of AmeriCorps.


89

Mr. FaTTAH. Yes.

Mr. Suays. OK.

Mr. FattaH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be brief. But
my question is for Jill Lacey. How are you? You are a research as-
sociate; is that correct?

Ms. Lacey. That’s right.

Mr. Fattan. OK, now, you used this anecdotal information about
the one volunteer who said that they would have had perhaps gone
into the military.

Ms. Lacey. Yes.

Mr. FattaH. Do you have any what would be traditional re-
search?

Ms. Lacey. I’ve done no overall statistical research on that.

Mr. FartaH. You should not draw inferences from this anecdote.

Ms. Lacey. I was using that to refute Mr. Segal’s claim that it
would never affect military recruiting. 1 know of one example
where it has affected military recruiting.

Mr. FaTtan. OK. But I would assume, during the normal course
of research, you would not take an anecdotal situation and infer

from it.

Ms. Lacey. No, I specifically said it was an anecdote, if you re-
member from my testimony.

Mr. Fattan. OK. My real question is, Miss Tucker says that she
thinks that AmeriCorps would be comprised of basically children of
wealthy people on one end. And you have said, in a June 12 arti-
cle—

Ms. Lacey. I think that misstates her testimony.

Mr. FaTTAH. All right, well, let me get to your point, then, and
Ill come back to Miss Tucker. In an article that you wrote, titled,
“National Service, Just More Welfare,” that it’s unlikely—this is
your quote—“that it’s unlikely that many shining, white, middle-
class faces will be in AmeriCorps.” Is that your quote?

Ms. Lacey. I believe you’re reading it, yes.

Mr. Fattan. You believe that I’m reading it, or you believe that
is what you said in that article?

Ms. Lacey. I believe that is what I said. I don’t have it in front
of me to verify, but I'll take your word for it.

Mr. FattaH. OK. So exactly how many shiny, white, middle-class
faces would be needed in AmeriCorps?

Ms. Lacey. I’m sorry?

Mr. FaTTaH. I’m trying to understand how many shiny, white
faces you think should be represented in the AmeriCorps program.

Ms. Lacey. I would say that no faces of any kind should be rep-
resented in the AmeriCorps program, because I believe against it
so strongly; I’m so strongly opposed to it.

Mr. FATTAH. You're against it whether it was all white, all what-
ever:

Ms. Lacey. That’s correct.

Mr. FaTTAH. So the purpose of your comment in this article was
to make what point then?

Ms. Lacey. The purpose of that comment was—lI believe if you
would read it in context, it would probably show it—but to say that
there was a large emphasis on affirmative action in the program;


84

So again, when you say that they're involved in political activity,
Jet’s be specific, and I think the Chairman pointed out.

Mr. WALTERS. Wait a minute. I want to be clear, because the
Chairman’s made such a point of it. I did not say they were in-
volved in political activity. I said they were there, and I said that
there was a political and partisan speech given, in my judgment,
and that the participation of them as a backdrop in such an activ-
ity, I thought was inappropriate.

I did not assert fraud. I did not assert-—and I want—because you
asked me to be clear. I did not assert that they gave part of the
speeches. I did not assert any of that. What I said was, I think it’s
not appropriate to use people in this situation, paid for in part by
taxpayer dollars, as a backdrop for a partisan event.

Mr. SuHays. Gentlemen, first off, I think if you as a very honest
man, and I want that on the record. And when I say you're under
oath, what I'm trying to say is, what we're trying to do is get be-
yond beliefs and opinions of someone else and talk facts. You just
used the word use, and said the President used AmeriCorps. And
we know that it was right next door. We know that AmeriCorps
was involved in Earth Day activity.

And so I just want the facts, and there are going to be things
that embarrass the White House; that are going to embarrass sup-
porters like me, who support the program. But I just want to fi-
nally come to the real issue. I want to make sure that Mr. Chrysler
has a chance to go. But we have 10 minutes, and if you want to
take 5 minutes now.

Mr. CHRYSLER. I’ll be very brief. How do you—and this is for
Allyson Tucker. How do you arrive at the $30,400 per participant
cost for the AmeriCorps program?

Ms. TucKER. I think, if it’s what I’m thinking, I think we divided
the actual amount from the budget by the number of participants.

Mr. CHRYSLER. OK, even though they say it’s $17,600?

Ms. TucKER. I’m not 100 percent sure. I can go and find out ex-
actly where those numbers came from, and get back to you on that.
But I think that is where they came from.

Mr. SHAYS. Miss Tucker, ‘f just have to respond to that, if the
gentleman will yield.

Ms. TUCKER. OK.

Mr. Suays. This is your testimony. And if you're getting your tes-
timony from someone else, then I’d just as soon you invite them to
come and testify. But you are talking about something that is a
very important issue to this country. We're talking about
AmeriCorps, that some people like and some people don’t like.
We're just trying. to know the facts.

Ms. Tucker. I'll be glad to get you the facts.

Mr. SHays. The facts are, if you have taken and divided 1995
dollars into 1994 volunteers, then you have done an extraordinary
disservice. Have you heard anything in the testimony of Mr. Segal
that would suggest that it isn’t the number that he has given?

Ms. TucKER. I don’t think you asked him how he calculated his
number, did you?

Mr. Suays. We sure know how he did. What he did was——

Ms. TUCKER. All right. OK, well, I will make sure. I don’t remem-
ber exactly.


12

nearly two-thirds of those up three grades or more. Mr. Chairman,
the stories are legion already, both anecdotally and statistically.
The examples were echoed by an_ independent evaluation of
AmeriCorps by a firm headed by Republican Ed Aguirre, who
served in the Ford administration at a very senior level.

We've provided their random sample of AmeriCorps sites, after
5 months of operations. I want to give you just a few examples of
what that independent evaluation of just 1,500 of our 20,000
AmeriCorps members have accomplished after 5 months. Thanks to
them, 258 neighborhoods have block watches, or other safety pro-
grams. More than 550 homes, apartments and shelters have been
renovated. One thousand and one hundred children have been
screened for lead poisoning, and 1,500 people received emergency
medical help.

Over 200,000 trees have been planted. Thousands are receiving
schooling. These are a tiny fraction of the lives touched, the com-
Munities improved, the hard and vital work done by AmeriCorps
members in just the first 5 months. These are critical services, de-
livered with impact and accountability; and they wouldn’t have
been delivered any other way. I’m providing a more comprehensive
list, if L may, for the record.

Mr. Chairman, the Concord Coalition has been an early consist-
ent bipartisan voice in an effort to reduce the deficit and increase
local autonomy. Their plan for a balanced budget does not call for
cuts in national service. As the letter of cofounder Paul Tsongas
makes clear, balance requires judgment, as well as arithmetic. And
that means using scarce dollars well.

AmeriCorps is a smart investment. And Congress should focus on
better ways to solve our massive budget deficit. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and your colleagues, for showing balance in judgment;
and I welcome your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Segal follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELI Seca, CEO OF THE CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL
ERVICE

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you today. From the days in early
1993, when we began plans for AmeriCorps, your support for national service has
been unswerving and your counsel to us has been wise and even-handed. Your sub-
committee includes many friends of service, and I want to single out Congressman
Towns for his help and guidance.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
in the first Congressional hearing taking @ systematic look at the promise and per-
formance of national service. Although targeted by some for elimination, no fall
hearing has ever looked into whether this initiative works—before today.

Less than two years ago, Congress—with bi-partisan majorities—gave us a job to
do. With the possible exception of a handful of our most ideological critics, everyone
agrees that we’ve done what we were asked to do: today, half a million children are
becoming better students and better citizens, thanks to Learn & Serve America, half
a million older Americans are applying the experiences of a lifetime in service to
their communities through the Senior Corps, and—as we'll examine today—20,
AmeriCorps members are serving well over 1000 communities all over the country.

AmeriCorps’ supporters don’t claim it’s reached perfection. We should be held to
tough tests. They center on asking two big questions: Is the idea that motivated you
and your colleagues in 1993 wrong in 1995? And, is that idea working in practice?

‘The concept of national service—the underpinnings of AmeriCorps—came from a
few commonsense observations as true today as they were 20 months ago:

+ Americans want to help their communities fight crime, improve education, pro-
vide emergency and health services, help families find housing and restore the envi-
ronment.



54

And so I certainly respect you for your convictions. And we'll be
able to have an exchange. And you've heard testimony of the oth-
ers, and you can correct the testimony if you think it needs correct-
ing. And we'll pursue your documentation and your statistics. So
1 just really welcome you here, and I'll go in the order of my print-
ed document. I have Allyson Tucker first; Jill Lacey, second; and
John Walters, third.

I'm going to ask you to summarize your testimony, but I want
you to feel free—given you’re the only panel of critics—to make
sure that you have said everything you feel needs to be put on the
record. So Allyson Tucker, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF ALLYSON TUCKER, MANAGER, CENTER FOR
EDUCATIONAL LAW AND POLICY

Ms. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we're very happy to be
here today. We’re here today to discuss the fate of the AmeriCorps
program. In this time of congressional evaluation of expensive Gov-
ernment programs, it is clear that AmeriCorps should be among
the first to be eliminated. As with most government programs, the
rhetoric behind AmeriCorps is appealing. In proposing the pro-
gram, as you know very well, President Clinton declared that na-
tional service would be America at its best.

The reality, however——

Mr. SHAYS. Miss Tucker, if you could just lower the microphone
a little bit.

Ms. TUCKER. Sure.

Mr. SHays. Because when you look down, your voice travels that
way.

Ms. TUCKER. The reality, however, is that the AmeriCorps pro-

am is nothing more than an expensive Government jobs program;
that at least half the money spent on AmeriCorps ends up funding
bureaucracies and paperwork; that AmeriCorps does little to help
working families pay for college; and that AmeriCorps does little to
promote volunteerism.

It’s touching to sit here and listen to a lot of the stories and
things that these volunteers could do. But I think we have to get
back to what the program really is, and what it really is doing.
First of all, ‘AmeriCorps are not really volunteers; and we haven't
really talked about that much this morning. Despite the President’s
appealing rhetoric, and the rhetoric we've heard this morning, the
AmeriCorps is not a genuine community service or volunteer pro-
gram.

The program offers substantial subsidies, in the form of Federal
vouchers and ancillary benefits, for relatively little personal sac-
rifice. In fact, in many instances, the AmeriCorps jobs offer larger
financial compensation than these same young students could re-
ceive in private sector employment. Each AmeriCorps volunteer is
paid a $7,400 stipend, a $4,750 tuition credit; and these two bene-
fits together are worth approximately $7.27 an hour, plus medical
benefits and child care.

Beyond these taxpayer subsidies, the act permits States and
service organizations to supplement the Federal compensation
package. So they could be paid up to twice the minimum wage, of

8.50, and retain their eligibility for the education voucher. The


96

dinary number of new volunteers at a time when volunteering is
declining. Ten AmeriCorps members at GW generate 1,000 volun-
teers, and over 50,000 community service hours in the Shaw neigh-
borhood.

This story is repeated in some form in community after commu-
nity across the country, where local citizens of all ages are makin;
a difference in solving some social problem and meeting some social
ne My fourth point, AmeriCorps supports core values.
AmeriCorps is the embodiment of values and ideals that are fun-
damental to our self-understanding as Americans.

In a world where values and morals seem relics of an earlier,
more innocent age, and parents and prognosticators alike call for
rebirth of citizenship and civic ethic to rebuild the tattered cords
that bind us together, in that world, AmeriCorps promotes core
American values of community, opportunity and responsibility. Mr.
Chairman, the notion of providing an incentive for serving our
neighbors is neither new nor is it novel. It is as old as the chari-
table deduction, which is one of the oldest incentives in the tax
code for serving and meeting the needs of neighbors.

One of the most important features of AmeriCorps is that it is
open to all Americans. Roughly half of its members are Caucasians;
about a third, African-Americans; 14 percent, Hispanics; 3 percent,
Asian Pacific Islanders; and 2 percent Native Americans. Most
members come from working families, with a median income
around $30,000, while some are much less well-off; a few are better
off. But our society gains when they, from all spectrums of society,
from all walks of life, across lines of race and religion, learn to
count on each other; to work together; to get things done.

Ms. Bloom’s son, who will testify later, knew, in that split second
in Oklahoma City, that it was his moral duty to risk life and limb
to help others in need. Our society will only move forward if we
each take responsibility for our own actions, and in doing so, in-
spire others to follow us. AmeriCorps is creating leaders for the
next generation, and laying the groundwork for a more civil society.

It is making a difference in the lives of many, while at the same
time promoting what Alexis de Tocqueville, that often quoted, but
least read of our literary legacies—[laughter]—described as the
“habits of the heart” of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to working with you and this subcommittee in the years
ahead, and will be available whenever you deem it useful.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES A. JOSEPH, CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is James A. Joseph and
I am pleased to appear before you today as Chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Corporation for National Service. I am here to register my strong support of the
national service movement and the Corporation for National Service.

In addition to my volunteer role as Chairman of the Corporation for National
Service, ] serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Founda-
tions, an association of more than 1,300 grantmaking foundations and corporate BS
ing programs whose members hold over $100 billion in assets and gave away $5.9
billion for various charitable purposes in 1993, the last year of record. Council mem-
bers come from all fifty states and are engaged in a wide variety of efforts to protect
the environment, enhance the quality of education, improve public safety and meet
human needs. We have welcomed the formation of the Corporation with open arms,
and have served as enthusiastic partners, both locally and nationally.


“

crats, or the $1.7 million AmeriCorps national ad campaign, which cost twice what
the Inspector General recommended.

In this vein, NBC Nightly News’ Lisa Myers uncovered numerous questionable
grants made by the Corporation for National Service, including an environmental
project in Alaska that costs taxpayers $42,000 annually per member and a $140,000
seed grant which, rather than funding community service, went to pay officials at
Northeastern University to develop “a plan to compete for more AmeriCorps money
next year.” Similar questionable planning grants include $100,000 for a “volunteer
corps in the Virgin Islands ‘and $200,000 to the Council of Great City Schools
(CGCS). Like Northeastern U., the CGCS doesn’t have a single volunteer; according
to AmeriCorps’ own literature, the CGGS is devoted to the “advancement of edu-
cation in inner-city public schools through public and legislative advocacy.”

Moreover, even under less controversial nts, there is reason to believe that
AmeriCorps is not spending taxpayers’ dollars effectively. Though the program's
motto is “getting things done,” AmeriCorps members spend one-fifth of their time
in “training, education, and other non-direct service activities.” These activities run
the gamut from self-esteem classes to GED trai . When not in “training,” these
“volunteers” provide gang resistance presentations Mesa, Arizona and condom
education to youngsters in Baltimore; offer “non-traditional career opportunities to
young women” in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; and “prevent juvenile delinquency and
uplift community pride using arts as a medium” in Puerto Rico. I do not believe
these are an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer resources, particularly with the
current state of federal finances. And AmeriCorps expenditures, as this committee
is aware, come in addition to the $1.3 billion that the federal government doles out
each year in twenty-three other service programs,

For all these reasons and more, I applaud the House for rescinding the 55 percent
budget increase that had been awarded the Corporation for National and Commu-
nity Service this year. The 104th Congress realizes that to tame the federal deficit,
it can no longer fund programs, which, however well-intentioned, have inherent per:
nicious effects. But this step is a necessary lesson on the road to reinvigorating citi-
zenship and challenging apathy. Citizens and the institutions that they control
should become self-reliant.

Voluntary community service is not the business of government. And overpaid,
Washington-created “volunteers” are destructive of genuine charity. Abolishing
AmeriCorps, the newest extension of welfare-state liberalism, will be an important

ling back big-government liberalism and opening the way to truly reinvig-

Mr. SHays. Mr. Walters, I’m going to invite Mr. Fattah to ask
you a question. But I just want to ifustrate a point. I’m not con-
fused. I’m not confused at all. You use words like suggest and
imply and so on. You're the one who has been spewing out all this
data. And we are checking it each time. And then we come to real-
ize that you sometimes bring in people who are VISTA volunteers
and sa’ they're getting cash, when they are, in fact, VISTA volun-
teers. There's no confusion.

The law says, if you’re a VISTA volunteer, you are able to cash
it out. If you are an AmeriCorps volunteer, not part of VISTA, you
don’t. No confusion at all. The confusion is, you use the data inter-
changeably and confuse us, or attempt to, and then we have to sort,
it out. AmeriCorps is not confused; the law is not confused; and we
don’t want you to confuse us. We’re clear on one thing—we’re clear
that some volunteers who are VISTA volunteers can cash it out.
That’s the law; maybe we should change it. And the others can’t.
Mr. Fattah.

Mr. FATTAH. Does that mean that that’s concluded and I can go

Mr. SHAYS. You can ask any questions of any witness. And we're
going to—

Mr. FattaH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just ask one of the
panelists a question, and then return it to the gentleman.


36

meet real community needs through service, as a convener of diverse individuals
and ps, building community through shared efforts and common goals, and as
a broker of ideas and resources, encouraging collaboration and entrepreneurial ap-
proaches to service and volunteer program development. Through these capacities,
we serve as a facilitator and conduit between the public and nonprofit sectors.

e Michigan Community Service Commission has established six priorities: 1)
building ms and expanding resources based on local community needs and in-
terests, 2) enabling youth and community volunteers to be a part of the design and
development of programs and policies, 3) promoting successful volunteer and service
programs that represent the diversity of communities, 4) encouraging strong part-
nerships among public, private, and nonprofit agencies, 5) developing a state-wide
information clearinghouse on programs and training in the best practices of vol-
unteerism, service, and service-learning, and 6) enhancing service and volunteerism
through rewards, incentives, and recognition.

Michigan, with its rich volunteer tradition, has as resident resources many na-
tionally ized nonprofit and philanthropic institutions and leaders. These in-
clude the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the
Council of Michigan Foundations, the Michigan Nonprofit Forum (our state’s equiva-
Tent to the Independent Sector), the United Way of Michigan, and the inspirational
leader of much of the national volunteer movement in the last thirty years, former
Governor, George Romney. With the help of these leaders, our Commission has tried
to keep its focus on the whole picture. For us this means that we promote and sup-
port individual volunteers, service and volunteer programs, and public/private part-
nerships that meet important community needs. We try to employ the best entre-
preneurial practices of the nonprofit field to support our mission. We consistently
seek out new opportunities and partnerships to support and promote sustainable,
community-driven models of service and volunteerism.

Here are just a few examples of our most recent activities. We have been partners
in the Michigan Volunteer Center Networks’ Campaign for Volunteerism. We con-
vene a regular meeting of state and nonprofit agencies to support information shar-
ing. We promote collaboration, not just, as is too often the case in government,
among public agencies, but among public and nonprofit agencies. We support a
state-wide youth leadership council that helps provide us with a reality check as we
consider programs and activities that affect youth. With private sector support we
administer the Governor's Community Service Awards Program and a youth volun-
teer recruitment campaign. We have been fortunate enough to have received two
foundation grants to help us support collaboration closely with the Michigan Non-
profit Forum to coordinate activities, reduce needless duplication of services, and
collaboratively assist communities increase their capacity for service and volunteer-
ism. In partnership with the Nonprofit Forum and Governor Romney, we are cur-
rently in the early stages of planning a series of state strategic planning meetings
on the changing relationships among the public, private, and nonprofit sectors in
response to corporate and government reengineering.

HOW OUR ACTIVITIES RELATE TO NATIONAL SERVICE AND AMERICORPS

Without the funding support of the Corporation for National Service and its pred:
ecessor, the Commission on National and Community Service, we would not have
been able to do as much as we have to support. of service and volunteerism. One
thing our experience has shown us in the last few years is that we can help the
nonprofit sector by being strategic broker and capital investor. National and commu-
nity service programs, including AmeriCorps play an important role in building ca-
pacity for service and volunteerism in Michigan.

‘National and community service builds Social Capital by providing volunteer sup-
port to the kinds of Nonprofit Sector institutions that must grow stronger if govern-
ment is to successfully define a more limited social serving role for itself. National
and community service is part of a continuum that ranges from traditional part-
time volunteers to full-time stipended volunteers. AmeriCorps and other national
service programs serve as excellent devices for building the capacity of communities
to define and meet local needs through service and volunteerism. AmeriCorps pro-
vides an opportunity for atates and communities to invest in new community part-
nerships that hold the best chance of building in local communities sustainable
means for improved community problem-solving through service and volunteerism.

Government is clearly not the only answer to the problems facing our commu-
nities and citizens. However, government can work in a partnership with the Social
and Private Sectors, through programs like AmeriCorps, to enable citizens to find
their own solutions. Government should serve as a resource for helping communities
learn from the successes of others. An American, on average, volunteers three-four



48

college. It will be too early to say definitively what it is, but it’s
at less than 10 percent at this point.

Mr. SHays. Thank you. So the record will say it’s less than 10
percent, and you anticipate it will be at that amount.

Mr. SEGAL. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Suays. Let me just say to you, Mr. Segal, that I have been
astounded by your willingness to work with people on both sides
of the aisle so graciously. And I also have been very impressed by
your willingness to have to deal and create a pi 1m, and at the
same time defend it from extinction. And you’ve done it with tre-
mendous patience and good nature.

And I can’t predict what will happen the next 2 years, but I just
have to say I have never met anyone quite like you. You're an ex-
traordinary man.

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. It is an honor to serve
in this role. Having started many businesses, nothing has been as

atifying as this, despite the obvious ups and downs. I often say
that democracy is a lot harder than capitalism, but it’s a lot more
rewarding, too. Thank you very much.

Mr. SuHays, Thank you. Mr. Witt, I’m sorry to—and I’m going to
ask you, if you might, to really focus ‘your testimony on the use of
national service participants and AmeriCorps participants. And we
need to be clear as to how they interact with your agencies. I mean,
are they employees? I don’t want to split hairs here; I really want
to have a sense, ultimately, of what they are and what they do.

Mr. Witt. OK.

Mr. Suays. So if you could do that, that would be very helpful
to us.

Mr. Witt. This kind of work requires unique talent, expertise
and a commitment to be in that community for the duration of the
recovery period. This type of community service that AmeriCorps
was designed to do.

Mr. Towns. Mr. Witt, could you pull the microphone down?

Mr. SHaYS. Yes, just pull it down, as you look down.

Mr. Wirt. OK. Let me kind of summarize the rest of this.

Mr. SuHays. Yes, I would appreciate that. I realize that when
you're prepared to read a statement, it makes it a little more awk-
ward. Lord knows, I messed up my written statement when I start-
ed, so youre iven some latitude.

Mr. Witt. My experience with AmeriCorps has been unique in it-
self because we rely on a lot of disaster reservists to work for
FEMA in the field, when we have a disaster; because we only have
2,300 FTE’s in our agency.

Mr. SHays. How many?

Mr. Wirt. 2,300.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Mr. Witt, And it dates back to the Northridge earthquake in
California. AmeriCorps supported FEMA in helping those commu-
nities to recover. They also support the Red Cross. They also sup-

rt the Salvation Army. And I think it was very, very visible in

louston, where we had 24 AmeriCorps members thr ugh the Serve
Houston group, that came in and helped individuals, elderly, and
people, that needed help, to clean 1,300 homes that had been
looded.


117

screenings for infants would need to keep records of those infants, and an
AmeriCorps Member who was teaching would probably need to keep attendance.
Other types of administrative work, however, do aot constitute direct service and
are prohibited.

Finally, it should be noted that Ms. Tucker's figures are internally inconsistent.
On the one hand, she states that AmeriCorps’ cost per Member is $30,400 (see
quotation number 1, above). On the other hand, she asserts (a) that administrative
costs total $16,000 per Member, and (b) that participant benefits total $20,000 per
Member (see quotation number 7, above). If true, this necessarily would imply a per
Member cost of at least $35,000—$4,600 more than her initial claim. As we have
seen, however, none of these assertions is true.

(15) “Despite a ($] 1.7 million public relations budget . . .”2*

G8)” the $17 million AmeriCorpe national ad campaign."
Lee ! n AmeriCorps national ad campaign.”
—John Walters pa

These phrases are false. AmeriCorps has neither a $1.7 million public relations
budget nor a $1.7 million national ad campaign. The contract to which Ms. Tucker
and Mr. Walters are referring—awarded by the former ACTION agency on Septem-
ber 30, 1993 after a competitive bidding process that took place prior to the Cor-
poration’s existence—includes a number of other tasks such as recruiting Members
and responding to hundreds of thousands of public information requests. By com-
parison, the Department of Defense spends 1,000 times that amount to recruit ten
times the members.

(17) “An Omaha World-Herald editorial reported that Nebraska had received a
grant of $457,622 to recruit just 23 AmeriCorps members ($19,987 in bureaucratic
overhead per recruit).”26

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is misleading, and the World-Herald’s assertion is false. (The
Omaha World-Herald’s editorial is attached as Appendix E.) The Nebraska commis-
sion spent less than $1,000 total on AmeriCorps recruitment, or about $50 per Mem-
ber. The $457,622 represents the amount of money they spent on everything having
to do with AmeriCorps Members in the state—living allowances and education
awards for Members, support for all of their AmeriCorps program costs, and start-
up costs for their Commission, which oversees a number of service initiatives that
are not part AmeriCorps and ‘that involve thousands of participants. It should be
noted that this false claim was first picked up, distorted, and widely distributed in
Washington, Pe in a memorandum by Mr. Walters. (The memorandum is attached
as Appendix F.

Mr. Walters stated in a January 18, 1995 “Memorandum to Conservative Reform-
ers” entitled, “The Threat of Bureaucratic Populism,” that “the Omaha World-Her-
ald recently reported that the state of Nebraska received an AmeriCorps grant of
$457,622 to recruit 23 AmeriCorps members, that is, nearly $20,000 just to sign up
each ‘volunteer’.” This is technically incorrect. The editorial, published on September
14, 1994, actually simply said that the Nebraska State Commission “has received
$456,622 to recruit 23 young people into the corps.” It did not say that the money
was an AmeriCorps grant. Nor did it say that the money wasn’t also used for other
purposes. Nor did it state that $20,000 was spent to sign up each volunteer. All of
these statements were misrepresentations of Mr. Walters.

(18) “A $140,000 seed grant . . . went to pay officials at Northeastern University
to develop ‘a plan to compete for more AmeriCorps money next year.’”2?

—John Walters

(19) “Educrats {sic] at Northwestern [sic) University, for example, were given
$140,000 to develop ‘a plan to compete for more AmeriCorps money next year’”24

—Allyson Tucker

These statements are misleading. The $140,000 planning grant that went to
Northeastern University did not go to develop “a plan to compete for more

communities in which service is performed. Such activities may include, but are not limited to,
clerical work and research. However, a participant may engage in such activities only if the per-
formnance of the activity i inadental tolthe participants provision cf-a service that does provide
1 direct benefit.” 45 CFR §2520.20.

Tucker Testimony, p. 5.

36 Walters Testimony, pp.

2 ‘Testimony, p.

37 Walters Testimony,

28 Qucker Testimony,



53

Mr. Witt. We had Salvation Army, Red Cross. We had the Bap-
tist men groups. We had Mennonites come in and help us at dif-
ferent times. A lot of different volunteer organizations that set up
food services, do a lot of other things. But these young people that
worked with us, and have worked with us in several disasters now,
help us in outreach, which makes a big difference.

Mr. Davis. So do you need some sort of special training? They
brought a particular niche to this effort that would have been hard
to replace.

Mr. WITT. Yes, yes, it would have.

Mr. Davis. OK. Did they get special training for that, before they
were sent in?

Mr. Witt. Red Cross has done a tremendous job in helping us
train. We also train, as well. Red Cross trained in mass care and
donated goods efforts. So it’s a kind of a combined effort in training
these young people. But I think the most important thing is, they
get a lot of on-the-job training—working and mentoring with people
working with them. And I think that makes a big difference.

Mr. Davis. When you take a look at this particular group, is mo-
tivation higher than the normal? I mean, the fact that they’ve
joined AmeriCorps to begin with, and now they're put in tough sit-
uations—talk about their morale a little bit.

Mr. Wrrt. I don’t think I have ever seen a group of young people
take any more pride than what they have taken in helping us in
help communities and individuals get their lives back together. I
had young people from AmeriCorps come up to me in Houston and
say, you know, this has been the most fantastic experience that I
have been able to have; it has really made a difference in my life.

They’re not only learning, but they’re learning about life. They’re
learning about helping communities, and value in their life. It’s in-
credible.

Mr. Davis. That will stay with them a long time, I mean,
through a lifetime.

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. Davis. It would be hard to put a price tag on that, I guess.

Mr. WITT. It is.

Mr. Davis. Yes. All right, thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. Suays. I thank the gentleman. I thank you, Mr. Witt, for
your testimony. And I appreciate that you were here to give it.

Mr. WITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHays. We'll B0 to Panel III, and I would sincerely like to
thank our three panelists—Allyson Tucker and Jill Lacey and John
Walters—and invite them to come and present testimony. I apolo-
gize to all three of you; I probably should have just asked you to
remain standing, and we can begin the process of swearing you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. Says. I’m pong. to repeat a point I made earlier, before in-
viting you to testify. All three of you know that I am a strong sup-
porter of this program, there is no program I believe in more. I un-
derstand if you feel a little awkward, coming before me as a com-
mittee chairman, but we will be very fair to you. And I will say
that I know that each of you believes, just as passionately as I be-
lieve, you believe as passionately, I’m sure, because you have all
been very vocal.


49

I personally was there, went to a house where AmeriCorps volun-
teers were working. They were scrubbing the walls; they were
scrubbing dishes; they were cleaning the floors, to help this elderly
couple to get their lives back together. That’s the kind of service
these groups are providing in assisting FEMA in communities, and
helping us to rebuild communities. This elderly couple, I never will
forget them.

e gentleman had just had surgery, he was 70-something years
old. They had 12 children and 38 grandchildren; and he told me his
whole family story. And they were so proud of this group of young
people in there helping them. But this is the type of assistance that
they have been able to help us in the communities that have been
hit by disasters. They're helping us in Louisiana right now, in that,
terrible flood we just had.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Witt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE Wit, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Good _morning. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before today to tell you
about FEMA's work with AmeriCorps. 1 believe! my friend Eli Segal hes provided
terrific leadership and it’s been a great help to FEMA—and I hope it’s been a useful
experience for the AmeriCorps members who have participated. But the greatest
benefit of the FEMA/AmeriCorps partnership has been to the American public.

When President Clinton asked me to become director of FEMA, he gave me very
clear orders. He told me that he wanted his administration to respond quickly and
efficiently to help people and communities impacted by disasters. He wanted to
make sure that other agencies in the administration which had skills and resources
to help would work with us to improve how we deliver assistance in a disaster and
how we help people recover from their losses.

think the record of this administration, in dealing with Moods, earthquakes, fires
and the recent tragic bombing in Oklahoma City, shows that we have approached
disaster response and recovery as a full team effort. We have worked hard to show
the American public that when disaster strikes and they need our help, they can
count on us to be there. And one of the most critical members of that team has been
AmeriCorps.

FEMA’s job in a disaster is twofold. We have the authority and resources to ac-
complish thia mission under a Presidential declaration. But delivery of assistance
is only one part of the job, Because that delivery of help has to be done in accord-
ance with community needs.

When a disaster strikes, FEMA receives a great deal of help from many quarters.
We count on the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and other voluntary organizations.
But the real key to responding effectively is to get people out, as soon as possible,
into that community who know that community.

These are the people who will work with individuals and local governments to as-
sess their needs and to start the recovery process. These people are needed to work
with disaster victims to apply for assistance where needed, to feed and shelter those
left homeless by the disaster, to clean up homes and businesses so that they can
reopen, to work with the special needs of the elderly and other segments of the com-
munity.

In each disaster, we learned again and again that community outreach makes the
critical difference in moving a community toward recovery and economic stability.
This kind of work requires unique talents, expertise, and a commitment to be in
that community for the duration of the recovery period. It’s the type of community
service that AmeriCorps was designed to do.

In disaster after disaster, AmeriCorps members have made the difference in how
quickly we have helped individuals and whole communities recover from the social
and economic impacts of the disaster. And this difference has led to a more efficient
and cost-effective Federal response.

My experience with AmeriCorps dates back to the Northridge earthquake in Cali-
fornia. They gave FEMA great support for our response and recovery efforts. Our
relationship was strengthened during the flooding in Houston last October and No-
vember when we got together with “Serve Houston”, the local sponsoring group, to
set up the program.



78

Mr. Davis. Let me try to get into the larger philosophical issues.
And I think you’ve made some interesting testimony on the cost-
effectiveness of this program. And I don’t think we should ever be
afraid to examine the cost-effectiveness of every program. That’s
our job, to oversee that, no matter how noble of a purpose the pro-
gram. And I appreciate what you've given.

But let me ask, if we could ask a more global question. There are
a lot of problems out there in the country that the government,
can’t solve by themselves. It’s not cost-effective to do that. Instead
of affecting a government program, shouldn’t there be some mecha-
nism to try to use the innovation of the private sector, the dedica-
tion and commitment of the volunteer sector, and maybe the re-
sources of the government sector, all working in the same direction,
as opposed to just having the government try to do it?

I mean, there is a role here, and there is a role for coordination
between the branches, and does this program try to effectuate that
and maybe go too far? Or is there a way to restructure this or
make this program do those kind of things—get everybody working
on the same team in the same direction, recognizing that govern-
ment’s role, by itself, is not the answer? Let me just throw that out,
philosophically.

Ms. TUCKER. Philosophically, I think the government should
come in and do things that the private sector is not already doing.
The things that we're talking about, that go on through this pro-
gram are things that are already occurring in the private sector,
without any government support. And they're working. So why fix
it’

Mr. Davis. Let me just ask, more than just sit back and say,
well, what’s the private sector and what's the volunteer sector
doing, maybe look at some coordination between the elements. I
know I was in local government for 15 years, prior to this. And we
found a great role for the local government, not to be doing the job,
but many times to be working with the volunteer organizations and
the private sector.

You get them around the table and say, how can we coordinate?
And sometimes the government could put in a little sweetener to
help make that go, that otherwise the projects—nothing was going
to happen. Because for volunteers, it was too dirty or ugly a

roject; and for the private sector, there was no way to turn a dol-
lar.

Ms. TUCKER. There is a role for that type of project. But I don’t
think that’s happening through this particular program. There is
a role to have government—FEMA—go in and train the volunteers
and show them how to get things done; go in and clean the wom-
an’s house that was flooded that we were talking about—the elder-
ly couple’s house. There is a role for that, but this program doesn’t

lo it. You’re takin, een kids off the street, that you're importing
from Tulsa and Ok! dhioma City to hand out kneepads.

I think that probably there are some volunteers in Oklahoma
City that might have been able to hand out those kneepads also.

Mr. Davis. OK. Anybody else want to respond?

Mr. WALTERS. Can I respond, because actually, this gets at the
issue that I’m most concerned about with regard to this program
and reform.


88

Mr. SHAYS. No, it’s not a hypothetical question. I mean, you have
to be a certain age, and you have to have a high school degree and
you have to—there are just a lot of other factors.

Ms. Lacey. How many do I think?

Mr. SHays. Were any of the volunteer participants that you saw,
were they all under 25, or what were the ages?

Ms. Lacey. Certainly the vast majority of them were under 25.
I believe there were, out of the 80 or so that were there when I
visited the program, I think there were five who were senior serv-
ice. The young man that I spoke to, though, that I am referring to
in this anecdote, seemed to be of good health and was the right

age.

Mr. Suays. Right.

Ms. Lacey. And from what I could know by speaking with him,
he seemed like he would have qualified.

Mr. SHays. Thank you. Mr. Walters, in your testimony, you
make reference to the fact that you give us very specific testimony
in the problems that you have. You say, “Fourth, like all govern-
ment bureaucracies, AmeriCorps costs too much.” We can get into
that issue, but I think we’ve dealt with that issue. Then you talk
about AmeriCorps national ad campaign, which cost twice what the
inspector general recommended. What inspector general?

Mr. WALTERS. My impression is, it’s the inspector general that
governs the Corporation for National Service. I got this information

om Senator Grassley’s office.

Mr. SHays. So you don’t have any firsthand knowledge? You
haven't seen any inspector general's report?

Mr. WALTERS. No, I have not personally seen the inspector gen-
eral’s report.

Mr. SHays. OK. You don’t know if it was AmeriCorps; you don’t
know what inspector general? You just know you got this from Sen-
ator Grassley. I’m beginning to think I should have Senator Grass-
ley here. And your testimony is that there’s this national ad cam-
Paign. Would you tell us about this national ad campaign?

ir. WALTERS. Tell you what about the national ad campaign? I
Mean, my impression is, there was some——

Mr. Suays. My problem is impression. But it’s something you're
critical of, and I’m just interested to know if you can tell me about
how much this national ad campaign cost; what it was used for,
and so on. You're critical of it.

Mr. WaLTeRS. Again, I’m not sure how to respond. I have not
seen all the national ads. All I’m doing is saying that there was a
publicity firm, as I understand it, engaged. I think Mr. Segal re-
ferred to it in his testimony. The amount, as reflected in my testi-
mony and the comment on the amount, why the inspector general
governing national service, was a statement of circumstance. I re-
ceived information from Senator Grassley’s office. I can’t tell you
more than that.

Mr. SHays. OK. So you don’t know how much was spent; you
don’t know what inspector general; you don’t know how the money
was used?

Mr. WALTERS. I don’t. I have not seen a report, and I obviously
am not privy to the internal operations of AmeriCorps.

Mr. Says. Do you have any questions, Mr. Fattah?


43

“AmeriCorps USA, California's new national service program, is another signifi-
cant part of the state’s service movement. In California alone there are over 2500
AmeriCorps members, engaged in service, who will be d a wide range of work,
from reducing juvenile crime, and providing service participants valuable skills an
experience to encouraging adult and youth role models to mentor and tutor students
at risk of dropping out of school or academic failure and encouraging preventive ap-
proaches to meeting unmet human needs.”
—Letter from Governor Pete Wilson (California)
to Attendees at California Conference on Service
and Volunteerism
January 26, 1995
“While balancing the budgets, fighting unfunded mandates, and streamlining gov-
ernment, | am committed to this community service program for Montana commu-
nities and citizens. If we can be as creative and constructive with other federal dol-
lars in Montana as we are with our community service efforts, Montanans will in-
evitably win.”
—Letter from Governor Marc Racicot (Montana)
to State Rep. Dick Green
February 24, 1995
“I am enthusiastic and impressed with the work of the (Border Volunteer Corps]
and all the other AmeriCorps programs in Arizona. ‘AmeriCorps is not govern-
ment as usual, but rather an investment in local programs—building public/private
partnerships and delivering measurable, tangible results.
—Letter from Governor Fife Symington (Arizona)
to Mr. Richard H. Carter, Executive Director
Border Volunteer Corps
May 9, 1995

NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE COALITION,
Washington, DC, April 6, 1995.

Dear MEMBERS OF CONGRESS: As representatives of the nation’s volunteer organi-
zations we write to express our support for the National and Community Service
Trust Act of 1993.

Our organizations are engaged in meeting community and individual needs across
the country every day. We are proud of our tradition and the work that we do. We
are disturbed by recent attacks on the national and community service program,
and are especially concerned about the suggestion that this program undermines the
work of voluntary organizations or subverts the volunteer spirit of the American
people.

On the contrary, we have found the national and community service program, in-
cluding AmeriCorps an enormously beneficial addition to the traditional voluntary
sector. This program has not undermined our position, rather it has enhanced our
efforts and strengthened our institutions.

In the short time the national and community service program has been operat-
ing, we already have seen its positive impact. It is building low-income housing,
teaching students to use computers, creating playgrounds from vacant lots, and
cleaning up our rivers and streams. The national and community service pi 7m.
has been a source of talented, enthusiastic, energetic people, who might not have
otherwise had the chance to serve. It has helped many small community-based orga-
nizations expand the quantity quality of the services they offer. It is instilling a na-
tional ethic of civic responsibility among Americans of all ages. And perhaps most
important, rather than replacing volunteers or diminishing volunteerism, we are
finding over and over again that national service participants are helping draw
more volunteer service in communities across the country.

We all share the goal of helping to rebuild society and revitalize our commu-
nities—and we believe that the national and community service program is an im-
portant part of that effort. We urge you to join us in supporting this program.

NANCY EVANS,
President, "Association of Junior
Leagues International.
THoMAS M. MCKENNA,
National Executive Director, Big
Brothera/Big Sisters.
BisHop Roy L, H. WINBUSH,
Chairman of the Board, Congress of
National Black Churches.



113

AmeriCorps began. They’re now required to put in uncompensated
volunteer hours, on top of the 1,700 hours. That’s now a program
requirement. This is a program that’s been praised by Senator
Nunn, among others, for what it gets done. Why? She talks about
Thompson County, and she says this work wasn’t needed because
it was already a model community-——

Mr. Suays. I'd like not to get in too much—I just want to make
sure the specific pieces of information.

Mr. ALLEN. She indicated that Thompson County did not need
the work because it was a model community. It was a model com-
munity on the basis of its identification of needs. Those are the
needs that AmeriCorps members are meeting. In fact, the count;
put up its own money to bring the Peach Corps in, and to matcl
us. And that was highly desired by them.

So these are, I think, a few indications of the sorts of things that
we have been chasing down over all of these months. Anecdotes or
assertions are raised; we investigate; we disprove them. And either
they continue to be repeated, despite the fact that we’ve informed
our opponents and others; or leaving it aside, they move on to the
next assertion, which is equally false. I think that, when ye put
up against those issues, people like Brent Bloom, Phillip Wu and
others, you see what the reality of AmeriCorps is.

d we thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, for
having that opportunity.

Mr. SHAYs. Now, for the record, you had mentioned that Miss
Tucker had 16 misstatements. And I don’t want to go through
them, but I don’t want to leave it at that. I'd like you t-—

Mr. ALLEN. I'll submit them for the record.

Mr. SHAys. For the record.

{The information referred to follows:]

FALSE AND/OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS IN THE TESTIMONY OF JILL LACEY, ALLYSON
‘TUCKER AND JOHN WALTERS

On May 18, 1995, Jill Lacey, Allyson Tucker and John Walters testified in opposi-

tion to the AmeriCorps national service program before the Subcommittee on
Human Resources and Intergovernmental Affairs of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, United States House of Representatives. This document enu-
merates the 50 false or misleading statements that were included in their testi-
mony.
"The purpose of this document is two-fold: (1) to highlight the inaccuracies and dis-
tortions that appear in the testimony of Ms. Lacey, Ms. Tucker and Mr. Walters,
and (2) to provide the underlying facts so that Congress may engage in an informed
debate on the merits of the AmeriCorps national service program.

False or misleading statements have been numbered and organized by topic.

THE AVERAGE COST OF AN AMERICORPS MEMBER

This statement is false. The Corporation's budget for the average AmeriCo1
Member is $18,800 in fiscal year 1994 and—assuming that no fiscal year 1995 fun
are rescinded—will be $17,600 in fiscal year 1995. This figure was obtained by di-
viding the total fiscal year 1994 AmeriCorps appropriation ($376 million) by the
number of AmeriCorps Members (20,000). The resulting figure of $18,800 per Mem-
ber is a complete total that includes Members’ living allowances, post-service edu-

Tucker, Allyson, “Testimony Before The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
‘Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. House of Represent-
tives,” May 18, 1995, p. 3. (Hereinafter referred to as “Tucker Testimony”).


122

ple volunteer is because they are asked to.57 AmeriCorps Members do some of the
asking. As only one example, over the last year, Volunteer Maryland's 55
AmeriCorps Members recruited and en 7,500 volunteers who provided services
valued at over $4 million, And the leaders of Habitat for Humanity say AmeriCorps
has helped them attract, train and supervise 5000 additional volunteers. Jerry Bass
of Habitat says, “We can’t do it without them.” On average, for every AmeriCorps:
Member, a program has attracted an additional 12 volunteers—which means that
because ‘of 20,000 AmeriCorps Members, nearly a quarter of a million people are
now volunteering. At the Corporation, we believe that is why the most prominent,
volunteer organizations in America—including Habitat for Humanity, scores of
United Ways and YMCAs, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Amer-
ican Red Cross—participate in and staunchly support AmeriCorps. And so do their
fellow charities, including those not receiving AmeriCorps funds—from the Girl
Scouts of America to American Association of Retired Persons.

Independent Sector, the organization that Mr. Walters most often cites as the au-
thority on charity, has stated that “charities cannot fill the gap that substantial cuts
in federal funding of social programs would create.”5* (An open letter released by
Independent Sector, with 116 member organizations as signatories, is attached as
Appendix H.) And according to Independent Sector, private charities actually receive
30 percent of their funding from government, not the 25 percent that Mr. Walters
asserts. Far from crowding out charitable organizations, AmeriCorps continues a
tradition of public/private partnership to help meet our nation's needs. Independent
Sector states, “Since the 1960s, charities and government agencies have often
worked as partners in addressing critical social needs.”®° That's why Independent
Sector—and the charities that are its members—supports AmeriCorps.

THE GEORGIA PEACH CORPS DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

Ms. Lacey based the bulk of her testimony on a visit she made in January of 1994
to the Georgia Peach Corps program. All references to “the program” in this section
denote the Georgia Peach Corps.

(40) “Iam delighted to share some of my observations, drawn from my visits to
Aner

cey

This statement is misleading. Ms. Lacey opens her testimony by referring to her
“visits,” attempting to imply that she has a detailed and intimate knowledge of
AmeriCorps. And in her oral testimony, she claimed to have spent three days at the

orgi Corps. In reality, although Ms. Lacey may have spent some of
consecutive days in Georgia, ‘she spent very Jittle time at the Peach Corps, and is
certainly not an expert on the Bregram. Ken Cook, the director of the Peach Corps,
has written in a letter to Rep. Chris Shays, the following:

Ms. Lacey misrepresented to your Subcommittee the amount of time she de-
voted to her observation of our Corps . . . she devoted no more than six hours
to interviewing staff and while the opportunity [to do more] was there, she vis-
ited only one of our forty Corps project sites. Clearly, it is impossible to assess
the service impact of 120 Corpsmembers, in two separate communities where
hundreds of different projects involved dozens of different sites, in a visit that
lasted less than one day.®!

In that letter, Mr. Cook provides a detailed account of exactly how Ms. Lace
spent her time, and it is clear that she had very little opportunity to interact wi
Members or to observe program activities, and that she didn't take into account
community opinions of the program’s worth. (Mr. Cook’s letter is attached as Appen-
dix K.) Equally important, she visited the program in January, 1994, nine months
pefore the launch of AmeriCorps. (This is explained in answer to quotation number

44.)
(41) “The program was funded with a $2.8 million grant from the Corporation for
National and Community Service.” ®

®7 Independent Sector Survey, p. 93.

8 This citation is from an open letter released on February 7, 1995 by Independent Sector.
Over 116 charitable organizations are signatories, and they include The American Lung Aasocia-
tion, Camp Fire Boys and Girls, Cancer Care, Inc., Children’s Aid International, Girl Scouts
of the Dimes, National Council of Catholic Women, National Council of Churches
of Chriat in USA, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Second Harvest, United Way of Michigan,

and, YMCA of the USA, among many others. (Hereinafter referred to
te

‘Lacey Testimony, p. 1
1 Cook, Ken, “Letier to Rep. Chris Shays,” May 19, 1995.
Lacey Testimony, p. 1.


CONTENTS

dearing held on May 18, 1995 ...
3tatement of:

Allen, Rick, chief external affairs officer, Corporation for National and

Community Service

Bloom, Eugeni:

Joseph, James A., chair, board of directors, Corporation for National
Service .......0 94

Lacey, Jill K., research associate, Cs | Research Center .. 59

Segal; Eli, CEO, Corporation for National and Community Service 9

Timoney, John, first deputy commissioner, New York City Police Depart-
ment

Tucker, Allyson, manager, Center for Educational Law and Policy .. 54
Walters, John P,, president, The New Citizenship Project ... 61
Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency 40

Wu, Jr., Phillip, member, AmeriCorps ..
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record
Bloom, Eugenia, erpared statement of ....

Chapman, Erie, ), U.S, Health, prepared statement of 41
Engler Michelle, chair, Michigan Community Service Commission, First
‘ady of Michigan, prepared statement of ... 85

False and/or misleading statements in the testimony of Jill Lacey,

Allyson Tucker and John Walters .. 113
Green, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas,

prepared statement of 20
Hesburgh, Rev. Theodore M., president emeritus, University of Notre

Dame, prepared statement of ... 99
Jones, David C., General USAF (( ), prepared statement of 39
Joseph, James A., chair, board of directors, Corporation for National

Service, prepared statement of ..
Lantos, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress

fornia, prepared statement Of... eee 5
Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from

of Maryland, prepared statement of ... 93
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, a Representative in

of Vermont, prepared statement of ..... 6
Segal, Eli, CEO of the Corporation for

ment of 12
Shays, Hon. , pI

of Connecticut, prepared statement of 2
Timoney, John, first deputy commissior

ment, prepared statement of 103
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Rey

of New York, prepared statement of . 8
Tsongas, Paul E., letter dated May 16,

‘concerning AmeriCorps 38
Tucker, Allyson, manager,

pared statement of 56
Walters, John P., president of the New Citizenship Project, prepared

statement of .... 14
Witt, James Lee, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, pre-

pared statement of 49
Wu, Jr., Phillip, member, AmeriCorps, prepared statement of 107

am


106

emotion that was felt by all there that day, when she saw a home
that she was going to own, and she saw them first walls go up. And
I personally know, I heard about the Georgia Peach, and I know
them personally. We just came from Americus, GA, where we built
101 homes. Over 200 AmeriCorps workers built 10 homes in the last
5 days.

I just returned Sunday from that. And I was personally super-
vising, and a crew leader for many of the Georgia Peach
AmeriCorps members that worked from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m, that’s sun
up to sun down, to make sure that those families could be in that
house by the end of that week. We built 10 homes in 5 days. And
those are AmeriCorps workers. And that’s not a skill that you can
just go out there and do.

That's something you have to know, be prepared, be trained, and
be ready to do; and take those volunteers and just crew-lead those
volunteers into a specific task. And so it’s not something that—it’s
easy for me to come up here because it’s real for me. ‘And it’s some-
thing that’s really happening in our lives. And I have an oppor-
tunity in Miami to see hundreds of volunteers come in, and I have
never once heard an objection to seeing that AmeriCorps, we
shouldn’t be paid.

They know that we’re out there, doing a job, when they can’t be
there. And the average volunteer only comes out every other
month. But we're there, completing the job. And they're like, hey,
we can’t be out there; and I’m glad to see that someone else can
be there while we’re not here. And when they do come, they know
that they’re ready for a specific task—to get the fullest—the maxi-
mum potential out of their experience. So it’s something that’s real
in my life.

I van’t put into words how I win, because I got a skill. Six
months ago, I didn’t have a skill to build homes; and now I have
a skill. Habitat has encouraged me to not only learn, but to lead,
direct. It’s given me purpose. I see that I can be able to work with
youngsters.

And I want to be able to turn around and say, hey, I learned how
to build homes; I can teach you how to do that. My community
wins because it pulls us all together. We’re building a 90-home
community; and it’s a site where everyone’s working together.

Not everyone is going to be able—not any element is going to
come into that community and do what it wants to do. People have
worked months upon months, blood, sweat and tears, in that com-
munity. I’m there; I’m part of Miami. They know my face. Commu-
nity wins; Habitat wins because they get a skilled Jeader. It’s just
an all-around good thing that’s going on. And I would hate to see
it not given the opportunity.

So I guess that’s really all that I have to say. I’m just asking for
the opportunity. It brings a lot of hope for us young persons. I’ve
met thousands of college students that say, hey, I like AmeriCorps;
it brings hope, and that’s hope for the future. And that’s all that
I can ask for. I thank you again for inviting me.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]


66

got a program and they were supposed to get 23 people to work in
that program. Now, and objection was made that——

Mr. SHAYS. The other thing is, it could simply be untrue.

Mr. WALTERS. Well, I'll get to that.

Mr. Suays. No, but that’s important. It’s important. If you think
it’s true, and you have facts that make it true, please testify under
oath that it is. But don’t have someone else present evidence that
May or may not be true.

Mr. WaLTers. OK. I have seen, personally, documentation and
the agreement between the State of Nebraska and AmeriCorps for
this program. That states that, among other things, the State of
Nebraska received $318,622 for the 23 participants in the project.
Tll be happy to provide this document. I don’t have it with me at
the moment, but I'll have to—and I probably should provide it for
the record, under the circumstances.

(The information referred to follows:]

CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE AND NEBRASKA STATE COMMISSION
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 94ASCNE028

Effective August 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995

Authority: This agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority of the Na-
tional and Community Service Act of 1990 as amended (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.).

Total Competitive Funding: $0

Total Formula Funding: $318,622

TOTAL CORPORATION FUNDING: $318,622

Purpose: This agreement provides support for the conduct of an Americorps® pro-
gram with the principal goals of “getting things done”TM in communities, strength-
ening the ties that bind communities together, and developing the citizenship and
skills of participants.

This agreement consists of these two pages and the attached Cooperative Agree-
ment Terms, the AmeriCorps*USA—Direct and State Grant Provisions the Budget

‘orms.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed Cooperative Agreement No.
94ASCNE028.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO BY: Michael Kenefick, Director of Grants and
Contracts, on 9/29/94, for CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL and COMMUNITY
SERVICE, 1100 Vermont Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20525; and Fayette C: ater,
Interim Executive Director, on 9/29/94, for NEBRASKA STATE CO! ION,
State Capitol, 6th Floor, West Side, Centennial Mall, Lincoln, NE 68509.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT TERMS
1. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Nebraska State Commission, which for purposes of this document includes
Alternative Administrative Entities and Transitional Entities, in cooperation with
the Corporation for National Service (the Corporation), hereby agrees to implement
and oversee the below selected AmeriCorps programs.

This program shall be conducted in accord with the Commission's original pro-
posal submissions and revisions and in accord with the attached program budgets.

UL, PROGRAMS AND FUNDING

The following specific AmeriCorps programs are being funded under this agree-
ment for the number of participants and Corporation funding specified:


52

Mr. FatTaH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me open up by com-
plimenting your work and your agency’s work in the most recent
circumstance in Oklahoma. But you have done a tremendous job at
FEMA. Let me ask you specifically about the AmeriCorps program.
And as you know, it has been marked up for the Budget Committee
to eliminate all funding for this program. How would that have an
impact in either the Northridge situation or the Oklahoma situa-
tion, in your estimation?

ir, Witt. What we would have to do, Congressman, would be to
bring in more reservists to support our outreach programs and help
support our donated goods programs, and also to help cleanup
homes after a disaster. So it would cost us more dollars.

Mr. FattaH. So the corporation—its decentralized approach, in
terms of having these national service workers out in the field, do
you think that has a real impact at the ground level?

Mr. WITT. Yes, sir, because these young People know that com-
Munity that we're working in. They live in that community, and in
some cases, know the families. So it makes a tremendous difference
for these young people to be there to support those efforts to re-
cover.

Mr. FaTTaH. I want, just to clarify, I think I know the answer
to this, but just so we can get it on the record, this program—the
national service corporation—does indeed conserve, in your esti-
mation, Federal resources that would be expended by other agen-
cies, such as your own?

Mr. Witt. There’s no doubt. Just in Houston alone, cleaning
1,300 homes, and then being able to move these families back in
these homes much faster saved several thousands of dollars in tem-
porary housing from us.

Mr. FattaH. Thank you, Mr. Director.

Mr. SHays. Thank you. Mr. Davis. You know, everybody has a
phone today. I don’t know what’s going on, but it’s driving me
crazy.

Mr. Fatrau. I don’t have a phone, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHayYsS. Not everybody, excuse me.

Mr. Davis. That was for you, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.] I note
from your testimony that originally, a number of the AmeriCorps
volunteers came from St. Louis?

Mr. WITT. Yes.

Mr. Davis. To Oklahoma City. And later they were spelled by the
locals. Were the locals active during that time period as well?

ir. Witt. I don’t know how many locals were active there. I
think the locals pot after the group came in and started working,
and then they relieved this group. Because it was a very emotional
time, you know.

Mr. Davis. I see.

Mr. Writ. Very high stress. And even our Fairfax County Search
and Rescue Team, who did a fantastic job—every 2 hours, we had
to pull them out to counsel. So it was a very difficult situation.

Mr. Davis. What other volunteer groups would have helped with
this? I don’t mean these are volunteers, but what other groups
helped, besides the AmeriCorps groups and some of the fire and
rescue people from around the country, in the Oklahoma City dis-
aster?


101

and I would just like to take about 2 or 3 minutes to highlight that
testimony.

Mr. Suays. That would be appreciated, thank you.

Mr. TIMONEY. Great. Let me first tell you how the AmeriCorps
cadet program works in the New York City Police Department. The
program began in June 1994, with 97 young men and women. And
they've been assigned to 15 high-need precincts throughout New
York City. They attend John Jay College 1 day a week, for special-
ized training. The program produces dedicated college graduates
who enter the police department with a proven track record and
commitment to community service.

We have found that this program is the best way to ensure that
those who serve New York City closely mirror our diverse city. This
diversity has positively contributed to the program’s success in
problem solving and crime prevention in a wide variety of New
York City neighborhoods. We believe so strongly in the value of
this Brogram, that we would like to model our entire cadet program
based on this program. As a matter of fact, 1 am such a fan of this
program because it mirrors, somewhat, a program that I entered
in 1967, upon leaving high school—the police training program.

And I spent 2% years as a police trainee before becoming a full-
fledged police officer, and then rising through the ranks to a four-
star chief, and now as the first deputy police commissioner, which
is the second in the command of the 45,000 strong NYPD. But the
AmeriCorps cadets have benefits that I didn’t have as a police
trainee. In addition to attending college, AmeriCorps cadets learn
the value of community service.

This experience not only makes them better police officers, but
better citizens as well. The cadets have made a noticeable impact
on the quality of life in New York City. Their presence has helped
reduce assaults in parks and other public spaces, and the cadets
have also helped to reduce violence through participating in conflict
resolution and other educational programs about violence preven-
tion. Let me just give you some of the examples.

In Manhattan, the cadets have been involved with at least 250
merchants and businessmen in the midtown, north Hell’s Kitchen
area, giving lectures on the department’s vandalism prevention
programs; and also particularly with the bars in the midtown area,
on sale of alcohol to minors. The cadets have also participated in
Operation Safe Corridor, which provides safety routes to and from
school for some of the—particularly vulnerable high school students
within New York City.

These efforts have helped alleviate the potential for criminal ac-
tivity in the area surrounding a total of 17 high schools in New
York. The cadets’ participation in Operation Safe Corridor has re-
sulted in enhancing communication between the cadets and the
students. Many of the students feel more comfortable talking with
the cadets, as opposed to a full-fledged police officer. For example,
recently, information was received regarding an imminent gang
fight. The cadets were able to safely request the appropriate re-
sponse from the nearby precinct. And this helped alleviate and pre-
vent a very explosive incident that probably would have occurred.

In the Bronx, the cadets in that borough are working close with
the local precinct’s youth officers in a very effective truancy pro-


wey 17-98 20:38

The Mayor's Coaltion for Literacy

Mayor Bob Lanier

Mveatralive ice
15380 Gnags Roa. 67
Houston, Texas 77021-3715
13) 228-1401

Luter Helin

713) 228-1800

President
‘nay L. Dodso0
‘Whatabumpes. ne.

Vice President
arenda Sanzone
LaPorte nigh Senoot

Treaeurer
‘nog Burka
Frstitersate Bank oT:
Honorary Members
Sanwa Busn

Gordon 8. Banteta

‘Greate Houston Coalsce
for Educatoral Excelene

Fichara 2¥, oman
Houston Chronicia

leaner Tsey
Houten Cty Counc

Execuuve Director
Margaret Dougnty

26

May 17, 1995

Mr. Marin Cominsky
President and CEO

SERVE Houston Youts Corps
P.O. Box 3732

Houston, TX. 77253-3732

Dear Marin:

‘The Houston READ Commission, the Mayor's coalition for literacy
appreciates the gift that twenty Serve Houston AmeriCorps members have
{Ben to adult learners and thet fares at 10 coramusuty 0 based programs
{in our coalition throaghout the 1994-95 AmeriCorps year of service.

We are so forunate w be working with such a flae group of young minds
that want to give back to their community with so much love and energy.
‘The work that these youth have performed served to suppor literacy
programs that would struggle without the help of volunteers. The comps
members bave been a tue blessing to these programs. Once again we thank
them on behalf of approwmutely one million adults in our m ian area
who need wo improve bei skills +0 that hey are able co get jobs and help
‘heir children in their school work.

‘The United Way has estimated the value of each volunteer hour 10 be $10.

‘The value of the corps members time is much greater. There is no dollar
figure w estimate bow rbuch itis worth,

Sincerely,

Literacy AmeriCorps Director


GETTING THINGS DONE,

Honotary Chaupersons:
Mayor £ Mee Bob Lanier
ceva rowen

BOARO OF RECTORS
Executive Commitee:

victor Samuels
Gos Sn Conor

veechavtenan
‘Bae Gorentsen Friedman

Dawa L. Benson
Sic arom Wanca Low

Martin B. Cominsny
ceo stave nouston

Setar,
Xavier Lemond

sesuee
Doraine Staughter
Tose Soonem Uemetay

MEMBERS:

‘Teacey Conwell
roel toa Cone

Judith Craven
‘Unie ny ot Tense Gt Coast

Larry Gunn
sat Yana pte Comat

Stephen M. Kaukman
Evneenacines

‘Sharon Michael
roan ugg 4 Pe

Imogen Papadopoulos,
Anhur L. Scheenter

W. Harry Sharp.
Savane

v9 Ana Ssaneey

To Eugene Sofer
Corporation for National Service

From Marin B Cominsky
SERVE HOUSTON YOUTH CORPS

Date. May 17, 1995

Subj Background for Eli's Testimony on S

Sixty AmeriCorps members of the SERVE HOUSTON YOUTH
CORPS are getting things done in Houston wath the generous
matching support from more than 20 leading Houston-based
businesses National Service works in Houston when

= The Shell Oil Company Fouadation Team of ten AmeriCorps
members provides tutoring (0 200 students who might otherwise fail
their standardized tests at a muddle school ranked among the City's
lowest in test scores, With the energy of AmeniCorps members, scores
have improved deamaucally and truancy has been reduced
Additionally, the Shell team engages middle school students in
organizing and matntaining a community garden which provides a
source of nutrition for hungry netghbors 1n the community

1 The Tenneco Gas Team of nine AmenCorps members provides an
after-school alternative with the YMCA to 80 low-income elementary
school students who previously went home to empty homes. Now
wath a nomework club, followed by supervised arts, sports and
recreation, these elementary students are improving their schoo!
progress in a safe and nurturing environment. The Tenneco Team
also repairs homes for the low-income elderly enabling them to stay
safely and fonger in their own neighborhoods

{ The Panhandle Eastern Corporation Team of nine AmenCorps
members provides literacy training with the Houston READ
Commission in ten low-income neighborhoods to adults who cannot
tead or write The program is designed to support family hteracy so
that adults can be better parents and assist in the learuung development
of they own children. More than 200 adult learners and 400 children
are assisted by this team

SERVE HOUSTON 1s another example of how national service
works

0, BOK 3132 > MOUSTON.“X 77263-3732 a 17131656.8600 0 Far (712) 666-7488


105

tacted us to learn more about this successful program. We were proud to describe
the AmeriCorps, program to police executives from around the country when they
met recently in Houston at the Annual International Association of Chiefs of Police

a -

The New York City AmeriCorps Cadets have had a noticeable im on crime
and fear of crime in New York City. Our experience with the AmeriCorps program
has been extremely positive. This program is an investment in young people which
provides and enormous benefit to al) who live and work in New York City.

‘The NYPD wholeheartedly supports AmeriCorps and hopes this program will con-
tinue to be funded and supported for many years to come,

Mr. Suays. I thank you, Commissioner. Both of our next two wit-
nesses have very short testimonies, and you’re more than welcome
to read it, or you’re more than welcome to just speak from the
heart, whichever. Your testimony is from the heart as well, so you
have your options. It’s rare when I have someone who comes and
testifies with a one-page statement. Mr. Wu.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP WU, JR., MEMBER, AMERICORPS

Mr. Wu. Yes, sir. Thank you vey much for having me here
today. As you know, my name is Phillip Wu, and I’m a Miami
Habitat-er. I’m a construction site supervisor. And just some of the
questions that I'd like to say, divert from this, is that when the vol-
unteers come out and they see an organized leadership and they
see people in place, ready to put them into action, and there’s no
standing around, and there’s no, well, we’re going to rake and we're
oing to do this today, it’s like they feel a whole lot more com-
fortable about what they’re doing.

And their work is a whole lot more effective when they see that
they have organized leadership in place and ready to get the job
done. Some of the things I'd like to tell you about—

Mr. Suays. If AmeriCorps was smart, they would take that state-
ment and spread it around the world.

Mr. Wu. I served my country as a communications sergeant for
4 years, so I’m a veteran. And I went to school under the GI bill,
though I didn’t finish. I’m also a Christian, and I converted my life
2¥2 years to serve God. So God filled me with a spirit to serve.
But it was Habitat and AmeriCorps that gave me the skill to do
it and the expertise. See, it allowed me to put my faith into action
in my community.

en I first joined AmeriCorps, I knew it was right. We led over
5,000 volunteers over the last 6 months, building 31 houses. We
also framed another 40 houses. That’s 31 families that were per-
sonally affected for generations to come, moving right into the
houses; and another 40 that are near completion by the end of the
year, according to how finances run with Habitat. But they're
there, and the families are working side by side. So it brings the
community a whole lot closer together.

The students that came down during Collegiate Challenge—it
was an alternative spring break, and they came down over the last
2 months—were 1,500 in total. And the way we interacted, by
building the houses and putting their volunteer experience to the
fullest potential, we framed another 41 houses and also completed
another 15 to where they’re at the stage where they’re just toward
the inspection stages.

When I first saw—the first day I worked on Lilliana’s house,
who’s my homeowner in Miami, FL, you can’t put into words the


34

Mr. SHays. The old one was what you inherited, in a sense.

Mr. SEGAL. That’s correct.

Mr. Says. OK.

Mr. SEGAL. That’s correct. Over time, we expect that the more
flexible alternative personnel system will survive—not only sur-
vive, but will prevail. We think it’s not only better in terms of sim-
plification, but I think it gives us a lot more opportunity to reward
performance, which I think is really at the heart and soul of what
we like a government program to do.

Mr. Suays. | have continually said that AmeriCorps volunteers
get a stipend, and they get an educational grant that they can only
use in education. However, someone found a program where you
are actually giving them a cash credit. And when we investigated
it, it turned out it was the challenge dealing with VISTA volun-
teers. Can you explain that?

Mr. SEGAL. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The legislation that created the
Corporation for National Service also folded in the organization
called VISTA.

Mr. Suays. That’s Volunteers In Service To America.

Mr. SEGAL. The differences between VISTA and what we call
AmeriCorps-VISTA and AmeriCorps-USA are essentially nonexist-
ent, except for the fact they have a different legislative origin. One
of those modest differences is, the VISTA volunteer—who we now
call AmeriCorps-VISTA members—is given an option that
AmeriCorps-USA is not given. AmeriCorps-USA is only given an
educational award if he or she finishes his 1,700 years of service.
(Laughter.]

Mr. Suays. You said years.

Mr. SEGAL. Oh, I’m sorry, hours of service. VISTA is given a
choice, based on their own legislation, of a cash-out of about $100
some dollars a month for each month served, or the educational
award. I should report that, as time goes by, a much higher per-
centage of the AmeriCorps-VISTA’s are taking the educational
award. And as 1996 kicks in, and we have to look at reauthoriza-
tion, I think it would be fair for the Congress to establish whether
they want to have two different reward systems or whether they
want to have AmeriCorps members——

Mr. SuHays. That's by law. In other words——

Mr. SEGAL. That's correct.

Mr. SHays. Even if you chose to just have it be an educational
award, Congress made that decision.

Mr. SEGAL. And I’m happy to report that a significant Percentage
now are taking the educational award, to be consistent with the
overall objective.

Mr. SHays. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer, we worked ba-
sically at minimum wage, but we worked more than 40 hours a
week. And we were given something when we concluded our 2
years’ experience. It was a cash payment; nothing to write home
about. But the bottom line is, you had to fold in both agencies. So
when the critics say, wait a second, AmeriCorps is being deceitful
because they say it’s an education credit, but theyre giving cash
payments, it’s by law and it’s under the old system.

ir, SEGAL, And I would say, Mr. Shays, that overall, less than
10 percent of the AmeriCorps members who graduate, at this point,


115

amount of the AmeriCorps education award is set, by statute, at 90 percent of the

vernment share of educational benefits available under the G.I. bill.!° It should

noted that many veterans are eligible for far more than the statutory minimum

against which the riCorps education award level is calculated.

(7) “The total AmeriCorps (benefits) package is worth nearly $20,000, more than
the income of 39.3 million working Americans.” 11

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is false. The typical full-time AmeriCorps Member receives a living
allowance of $7,640 (about $600 per month, which is below the poverty line), an av-
erage of $1,200 for health and child care, and an education award of $4,725 only
upon completion of service. That sums to $13,565, $6,435 less than Ms. Tucker
claims. For the record, Ms. Tucker’s quotation above i pignificantly closer to the
truth than a very similar statement she made in a widely cited article that a
peared in The Hill on March 29, 1995. (Ms. Tucker's article is attached as Appendix
A.) In that article, she made the further false claims (a) that the AmeriCorps bene-
fits are tax-free (they are not), and (b) that the value of AmeriCorps benefits exceeds
the median income level of workers in the private sector (AmeriCorps benefits are
more than $10,000 less than the median income).!?

AMERICORPS AND WORKING FAMILIES

(8) “AmeriCorps does little to help working families pay for college.” !5

—Allyson Tucker

(9) “‘{AmeriCorps] does not accomplish its stated goal of “expanding educational
opportunity.”

—Allyson Tucker

These statements are false. Full-time AmeriCorps Members earn an education
award of $4,725. Part-time Members earn an education award equal to half of that
amount. The median family income of AmeriCorps Members is $28,000; over 80 per-
cent of AmeriCorps Members come from working class families with annual incomes
of less than $50,000; and less than 3% come from families with annual incomes over
$100,000. (Charts depicting AmeriCorps Member demographics are attached as Ap-

ndix B.)

Granted, the 20,000 AmeriCorps Members do not constitute a large percentage of
the college population, and the education award certainly is not enough to pay for
an entire education, but for many working class AmeriCorps Members, the edu-
cation award will make the difference between going to college or not. That is prob-
ably why there are more than 10 interested Americans for each AmeriCorps Mem-
bership. Clearly, for the AmeriCorps Members, the program is “expanding edu-
cational opportunity.”

Equally important, the work that many of the AmeriCorps Members do directly
expands educational opportunity for younger students. Some of them are teachers;
some are tutors; some provide safe corridors to and from school; some work in Head-
Start programs; and some teach conflict resolution techniques in schools. All of
these activities expand educational opportunity by increasing the probability that
at-risk youth will stay in school, learn more effectively, and go on to college.

(10) “The children of wealthy and influential people can elbow out poor students
for participation in the program.” 1°

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is misleading. This sentence also appeared in Ms. Tucker's March
29 article in The Hill. In that article, Ms. Tucker explicitly stated the false implica-
tion of this sentence. She asserted there that “the majority of students recruited

1The formula for the amount of the AmeriCorps education award is as follows: “90 percent
of (2) one-half of an amount equal to the aggregate basic educational assistance allowance pro-
vided in section 3015(bX1) of Title 38 (as in effect on July 28, 1993), for the period referred to
in section 2013(aX1) of Title 38 (as in effect on July 28, 1993), for a member of the Armed Forces.
who is entitled to such an allowance under section 3011 of Title 38 and whose initial obligated
period of active duty is 2 years; less (2) one-half of the aggregate basic contribution required
wo be made by the member in section 3011(b) of Title 38 (as in effect on July 28, 1993).” 42
USC 12603(a).

11Tucker Testimony, p. 2.

12Ms. Tucker stated, “The total, non-taxable income of an AmeriCorps ‘volunteer’ exceeds the
median income of workers in the private sector.” Tucker, Allyson, “AmeriCorpe: Rhetoric vs. Re-
ality,” ‘The Hill, March 29, 1995. (Hereinafter referred to as ker Article”).

3 Pucker Testimony, p. 2.

Tucker Testimony, p. 2.

os Testimony, p. 3.


58

when they are threatened with eviction from public housing), was awarded 44
Americorps volunteers, costing the U.S. taxpayer $959,900 plus an additional
$1,242,784 in “matching funds”. In San Francisco, the Americorps “Summer of Safe-
ty” program organized 40 groups to rally against the federal crime bill’s “three
strikes and you're out” provision.

‘More than half of the Americorps appropriation is spent on administrative costs
and paperwork. At least $15,000 per Americorps participant goes for overhead and
administration. For instance, an Omaha World-Herald editorial reported that Ne-
braska had received a grant of $457,622 to recruit just 23 Americorps members
($19,987 in bureaucratic overhead per recruit). Some projects are even more expen-
sive. According to a NBC Nightly News report by Lisa Myers, an environmental
project. in Aleska coste taxpayers $42,000 annually per volunteer. Similarly,
educrats at Northwestern University, for example, were given $140,000 b:
Americorps to develop “a plan to compete for more Americorps money next year,’
without funding a single “volunteer”. Americorps also gave bureaucrats a $160,000
planning grant to study a volunteer corps in the Virgin Islands and gave the Coun-
cil of Great City Schools, which is devoted to the “advancement of education in
inner-city public schools through public and legislative advocacy,” a $200,000 plan-
ning grant. Again, none of this money went to help students pay for college.

Americorps does not promote volunteerism. The generosity of the benefits of the
new federal Americorps program also sends a mixed message about volunteering.
Taxpayers do not need yet another program to do what millions of Americans are
already doing. Private sector community service is thriving. At least 94 million
Americans currently participate in volunteer service activities. A 1990 Gallup poll
found that 54 percent of Americans participated in volunteer activity of one sort or
another. There are already numerous state- and city-level volunteer programs that
idealistic young people may join. Surveys by the Gallup Poll and Independent Sector
show that in 1! Sr Bs 2 mallion Americans age 18 and over volunteered in some ca-
pacity, with an average of 4.2 hours a week. These Americans were not moved not

yy the lure of a lucrative government job, but by a spirit of true volunteerism and
genuine service.

The Labor Department estimates that there are currently three million unpaid
volunteers between the ages of 18 and 25, most of whom work for religious organiza-
tions, the backbone of community activism. Campus-based volunteer student grou)
are already expanding. More schools are also encouraging students to volunteer by
expanding their regular curriculum to include service jobs.4 The Federal Commis-
sion on National and Community Service is calling on schools and colleges to en-
courage more students to perform volunteer work.® And almost every college and
University in America already gives students opportunities to earn school credit for
Participating in community service activities. For example, Rutgers University, the
site chosen by Mr. Clinton to announce the Americorps Program, already integrates
community service into the undergraduate curriculum, Civic Education and
Community Service Program. The coursework includes a combination of traditional
academic disciplines related to volunteer services performed in the communities
at are home to Rutgers campuses.®
Similarly Loyola University in Chicago features programs designed to inspire stu-
dents to help improve Chicago’s urban blight. The university sponsors partnerships
with area schools and a community policing project for criminal justice and sociology
students. Other academic programs attract students to service-oriented careers,
such as social work and nursing.

Even Sidwell Friends School, the private school Chelsea Clinton, the President’s
daughter, attends at a cost of $10,885, requires community service. At Sidwell, there
are campus student work programs and voluntary service projects on and off cam-
pus for all grades, mandatory service projects for ninth-graders, and 30 hours of off-
campus community service required for graduation, according to a Sidwell brochure.

CONCLUSION

Despite a 1.7 million public relations budget, the laudable goals of Americorps do
not match its reality. If the goal is to expand educational opportunity, the
Americorps budget would be better spent on direct aid to students, If the goal is

3J. Peder Zane, “As Social Need Rises, So Does Volunteerism,” New York Times, Jan. 6, 1992,
p.Al.

‘Mary Jorden, “Hot Course on Campus: Volunteerism 101," Washington Post, Mar. 2, 1892,
Pow 1al and Community Service, tk.

Jim Zook, “Clinton Foresees Enlisting 100,000 Youths in His National Service Program by
1997,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 10, 1993, p. A27.

5 What You Can Do For Your Country,” Commission on Nation:


112

land, because of the work done by AmeriCorps members and others
on the Chesapeake Bay. In other words, the President came to
them to see what they had done, rather than them going to some
political rally.

Mrs. MORELLA. The record should show that Mr. Gilchrest is one
of our leaders in the environment.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Mrs. MoRELLA. And we certainly need him on this side.

Mr. ALLEN, Yes, I would certainly agree with that. Additionally,
Mr. Walters—one of the panelists, sorry, it was not Mr. Walters—
said that it’s inappropriate to take green kids and have them do
disaster work. But the fact, what Director Witt testified, is that the
AmeriCorps members who serve on the disaster teams, have spe-
cific training, both by FEMA and the Red Cross. So they are highly
skilled in this respect.

Ms. Davies made a number of assertions, which are false and
misleading. She gave an anecdote of a single, unnamed Peach
Corps member, and put it up in terms of the impact of AmeriCorps
and military recruiting, against the two ranking civilians, the Sec-
retary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary, and all of the uni-
formed officers in charge of personnel, and against the common
sense of what AmeriCorps membership looks like, as against the
military recruiting model.

But then she went on, in talking about the Georgia Peach Corps,
to quote a visit—an article written on a visit—which was done be-
fore AmeriCorps existed; and before changes in the Georgia Peach
Corps occurred, which are entirely significant because they abso-
lutely controvert what she was arguing.

Mr. Suays. I’m unclear about that part. Is your testimony, under
oath, that this program that she was viewing at the time—and you
know the date—was before it was AmeriCorps’ program? I’m not
clear about that. .

Mr. ALLEN. Georgia Peach Corps has existed for a number of
years. It is now an AmeriCorps program.

Mr. Suays. OK.

Mr. ALLEN. When it became an AmeriCorps program—and as
you know, AmeriCorps was launched in September 1:

Mr. Suays. Right.

Mr. ALLEN [continuing]. Which is after her visit date. When it
became an AmeriCorps program, they had to make a number of
changes to their program.
pat, Suays. First off, is it Miss Lacey? It’s Miss Lacey, not Miss

avies.
is ALLEN. I'm sorry, that’s exactly right. Jill Cunningham

ey.

Mr. Suays. So, for the record, it’s Miss Lacey?

Mr. ALLEN. That's correct. I apologize. These were done on the
basis of relatively quick notes during the course of the testimony.
She indicates that the Georgia Peach Corps members worked 6
hours a week. In fact, they now have to work 1,700 hours a year
to meet their AmeriCorps requirement. They have stretched out
the service day, and the service provided.

But they’ve also made a change that I would have thought she
would have applauded, if she'd gone back to see the program after


16

Mr. Suays. And we can even turn off the clock.

Mr. FaTTAH. Miss Tucker, you started out your written testimony
saying that among all of the things that we should cut, this should
be the first, or one of the first. This is one of the worst things that
the government is involved in. And you say, firstly, that we already
have a number of programs that help kids go to college.

Ms. TUCKER. Right.

Mr. FaTTaH. Do you support those programs—the Pell Grant pro-
grams and the student loan subsidies?

Ms. Tucker. Yes, I do.

Mr. Fatran. OK. You think that’s a worthwhile investment.

Ms. TUCKER. | think it is.

Mr. Fatrau. OK. In the conclusion of your testimony, you talk
about the AmeriCorps supporting left-wing liberal agenda type or-
ganizations through these grants. And do you think that’s a pat-
tern among the AmeriCorps grants?

Ms. TucKER. I don’t know. I don’t know as much about
AmeriCorps as some of the other panelists up here do.

Mr. FaTTaH. But you specify the ACORN——

Ms. Tucker. Right, the ACORN Housing Corp. program.

Mr. Fatrau. Is that the only group that you are aware of?

Ms. TUCKER. Again, I do not—I’ve not Seen on the ground like
my two colleagues who have a much better feel. We deal with
macro policy issues.

Mr. FaTTAH. This is your written testimony.

Ms. TUCKER. Right, this is my written testimony.

Mr. FattaH. The last sentence says, sCongress should repeal
AmeriCorps, a program that awards taxpayer dollars to special in-
terests, ideological and political organizations.”

Ms. TUCKER. There are examples of that, yes.

Mr. FaTTAu. Is the ACORN the only example that you can point
out?

Ms. Tucker. Off the top of my head right now, yes it is. But I’m
sure there are others out there.

Mr. FaTtaH. Now, AmeriCorps gives grants to Habitat for Hu-
manities, Red Cross, the YMCA, United Way, Big Brothers, Big
Sisters, I Have a Dream Foundation, law enforcement, church-
based ups, Greater Dallas Community of Churches, the Lu-
theran Family Services in North Carolina, Notre Dame.

Mr. SHays. I need to interrupt the gentleman. I’m going to allow
the clock to turn over, as long as there’s no members. But I’ve been
informed that we have committee rules that I need to follow. You'll
turn on the clock for 5 minutes. I’ll allow the gentleman to rollover
once. We'll guarantee that every member gets time to question; if
that’s without objection. OK.

Mr. FATTAH. Do you consider these groups part of this liberal,
left-wing —

Ms. TUCKER. Mr. Congressman, every single program—we're in
a time of fiscal—my main complaint with AmeriCorps is this is a
country we're in a time of fiscal constraints.

Mr. FatraH. This is your written testimony before the commit-
tee.

Ms. TUCKER. This is my written testimony. It does g-—

Mr. FatraH. That sentence is your sentence?


\4

Jo

YMCA
of Greater
Houston

‘Associauon Office
1600 Lousiana
Martin Cominskey 20. Bon 3007
Serve Houston Youth Corps nous Texas 77283-2007
2.0. Box 3732 7:37859-5368
Houston, Texas 77253-3732 Fax 719/659-7240

May 16, 1995

Martin:

Let me take this opportunity to thank AmeriCorps
and ServeHouston for your great work in collaboration
with the YMCA of Greater Houston.

As you know, the YMCA is committed to a community
development strategy which will be “successful in its
effort to serve less advantaged communities when each
branch has a program characterized by: a. a long-term
commitment to a specific neighborhood, b. efforts to
involve volunteers in the program, and c. activities
that empower residents to maxe decsions about their
community needs.”

Because of AmeriCorps work, the YMCA now has long
term presence in both tke Gulfton and near Northside
communities in Houston

In Gulften, ameriCorps serves 90 children a day
in after-school recreation, tutorial, and fine arts
programs in three low-income apartment complexes.
Secause of your commitment, the Cultural Arts Council
of Houston, the city of Houston, and the Gulfton
Area Neighborhood Organization are all helping with
this program and developing new ones such as youth
soccer leagues as well.

In the near Northside, AmeriCorps volunteers serve
80 children a day in a similar program at Robert E. Lee
Elementary school, the oldest schooi in the Houston
Independent School District.

This summer ameriCorps volunteers will be serving
Gulfton and the near Northside in a very unique way.
After undergoing extensive training and preparation,

YMCA Mission
To put Judee-Crnstan
rnciples into practice
though aragrams that
burg Reatiny Bey ming
fr apt fora

eae


94

program are now promoting peace and friendship while fighting hunger and poverty
in developing nations.

It is my understanding that my state of Maryland has more Amerit members
per capita than any other state. In Maryland, 854 people participate in 18 different

rograms.
per my own district of Montgomery County, Maryland, the Community Year Pro-
gram was an early model of the National Service initiative. Students between the
ages of 17 and 23 work on various Projects ‘around the county. In exchange, each
stadent receives a $5,000 scholarship’ Young people from diverse backgrounds, from
college graduates to at-risk youth, work together in teams toward a common goal,
building mutual respect and learning tolerance for diversity.

Are the programs under the auspices of the Corporation for National and Commu-
nity Service too expensive? Do these programs promote educational opportunities for
our nation’s students? I look forward to discussing these issues with our distin-

ished witnesses, and I appreciate their willingness to share their expertise about

e National Service Program.

Mr. SHays. I thank the gentlelady. We're going to combine the
next two panels. We're going to invite James A. Joseph, who’s
chairman of the board of directors, because I understand he has an
appointment. And we're going to invite Mr. Joseph to testify first,
and also invite John Timoney and Phillip Wu and Jeanie Bloom to
come and testify as well. So we'll have four on this panel.

_I did it again. 1 should have kept you standing. I’m sorry, I apolo-
gize. If you would all raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]}

Mr. SHays. I’m sure our other panelists do not mind, Mr. Joseph,
to give you the opportunity to testify, as the chairman of the
board you actually aren’t of AmeriCorps, it’s a more official title,
board of directors, Corporation for National Service. And it’s won-
derful to have you here.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. JOSEPH, CHAIR, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members
of the committee. My name is James A. Joseph, and I’m pleased
to appear before you as chair of the board of directors of the Cor-
poration for National Service. In addition to my volunteer role as
chairman of the Corporation for National Service, I serve as presi-
dent and chief executive officer of the Council on Foundations, an
association of more than 1,300 grantmaking foundations and cor-
porate giving programs, whose members hold over $100 billion in
assets, and gave away $5.9 billion for various charitable purposes
in 1993.

The members of the council come from all 50 States, and many
have welcomed the formation of the corporation with open arms,
and have served as enthusiastic partners, both locally and nation-
ally. In addition to my role with the corporation, I continue to serve
on the board of directors of the Points of Light Foundation, to
which I was appointed by President George Bush. I worked very
hard to develop and maintain the Points of Light Foundation as a
nonpartisan effort to encourage Americans to engage in voluntary
activities to address serious social problems.

As chair of the board of the corporation, I’m committed to the
same nonpartisan approach, and welcome the opportunity to help
engage Americans of all backgrounds in community-based service.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to submit my full testimony for the record, and
to use a very brief time to summarize four major points I would


9

Oversight Hearing is important because we share the concern that this agency not
fall victim to the prevailing political prerogatives, but be evaluated on its merits.
Your personal history of volunteerism adds to the relevance of our examination of
this agency operations. . .

While I'd like to believe I come to this Hearing with an open mind, I fully support
the concept of a national ethic of civic responsibility. For me, for the administration,
and for hundreds of national and local volunteer, charitable and services organiza-
tions; colleges and universities; schools; community health centers; and police and
sheriff departments, the Corporation for National and Community Service embodies
that concept.

In today’s environment of fiscal conservatism, it is unfortunate that the corpora-
tion cannot demonstrate its true return on our investment or savings to our commu-
nities. If it could, our oversight would be a much easier task. However, the advan-
tages of this national service program are tangible, even if the arithmetic is cum-

rsome.

In ite year and a half of operations, the corporation has broadened the pool of citi-
zens engaged in public service, it has added to the quality and capacity of commu-
nity-based organizations, and very likely, it has influenced an ideology of civic in-
volvement among our youth that will last a lifetime.

Much of my enthusiasm for the corporation has to do with its decentralization of
program authority to the States and ultimately to the local communities. This is no
new Federal bureaucracy—each State defines its needs, determines how it will use
Federal resources, and makes it’s own investment its citizens.

For those of us in Congress who have been looking for workable solutions for a
more responsive, more efficient, and less bureaucratic Federal Government, this is
an alternative that should be given some serious consideration.

Finally, allow me to mention the authorship of a few testimonials that the cor-
poration has received in support of its activities. and request that, if it is available,
we enter this correspondence in the record of today’s hearing:

* The National and Community Service Coalition, which includes the American
Association of University Professors; Big Brothers and Big Sisters: the AARP; and
the National Council of Churches among others;

« The American Red Cross, and the United Way of America; and

¢ Several State Governors, including Governor Weld of Massachusetts, Engler of
Michigan, and Wilson of California.

Mr. Chairman, I join you in welcoming our witnesses here today. However, I
would like to especially acknowledge First Deputy Commissioner Timone:

New York City Police Department. His description of the Americorps Cadet Program
will, | am sure, be meaningful to all of us here looking for answers to reducii
crime in our communities. lives of many of the residents of the Brooklyn's 63:
precinct have been improved because of the community policing efforte of the
Americorps Cadets. I can think of no better success story.

Mr. Suays. I thank the gentleman. And for those who are testify-
ing today, you're Probably grateful we haven’t had more members
show up, or we'll never have this hearing start. I thank you for
your patience, and I'd like to call on Eli Segal, someone who I have
tremendous admiration for. I’m going to ask you to stand, and, as
you know, we swear in all our witnesses. Could you raise your
right hand, please?

jitness sworn.]

Mr. SHays. Thank you. Please be seated. Mr. Segal, you could
probably keep us here for days, talking about your AmeriCorps pro-

am and national service. I’m going to request that yu try to
limit your comments to about 5 minutes, and then we'd like to ask
you some questions.

STATEMENT OF ELI SEGAL, CEO, CORPORATION FOR
NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and it’s a pleasure to ap-
pear before you today.

Mr. SHays. Could I—sorry to interrupt—ask you to move that
microphone a little closer?


7

Ms. TUCKER. There are examples of it going to special interest
groups. That is one that I know of.

Mr. FatTaH. And you know of no other?

Ms. TUCKER. I’m not an expert on the subject.

Mr. FattaH. And you don’t associate these groups that I
read——

Ms. Tucker. I wrote a paper on it, back when the bill was being
analyzed, back in 1993. And I set out my concerns with the pro-
gram as a bill back in 1993, and have written a few other things
on it. I am not an expert on this program.

Mr. Fattan. I’m sorry, but that’s not responsive. I’m just trying
to deal with what you said.

Ms. TUCKER. Off the top of my head——

Mr. FattaH. ACORN is the only group that you can name.

Ms. TucKER. Legal Services also is a lot of people—

Mr. FaTTAH. On, you'd like to add Legal Services to that list.
Any of these groups that I listed here, would you add to that list?

Ms. TucKER. I have no problem with any of those groups.

Mr. Fatran. OK, so these groups are fine? Do you think that we
should award these grants based on what groups’ political view-
points are, their parent organizations? Or based on what the kids
are going to be doing, what these young people are going to be

loing?

Ms. Tucker. My problem—I think you're misconstruing my prob-
lems with the program. It is a problem with who the grants go to.
My primary concern with this program is that it’s very expensive;
that it doesn’t get our kids in col lege, which is what it says it’s
going to do; that we really can’t afford this kind of unnecessary
program right now. We need to start evaluating what this country
is doing, and how we're doing it. And this is just sort of a fluffy,
extra, additional program.

Mr. Fata. I’m not trying to—I’m reading from your testimony.

Ms. TUCKER. Right.

Mr. Fatrau. And you can understand how I can infer from your
sentence—

Ms. TUCKER. Exactly.

Mr. FaTTAH [continuing]. That you had a long list of groups that
you felt were part of this——

Ms. TuckER. I listed the groups that I know of in my testimony
and I can supplement them, after I talk to my colleagues, in writ-
ing if that would be helpful.

ir. FATTAH. OK, but we're clear now that you are speaking spe-
cifically about ACORN and Legal Services.

Ms. TucKER. The two I mentioned in my testimony, exactly. But
I can supplement those and do more research if that would be help-
ful to the committee.

Mr. Fatrau. And do you think that these grants, if they were to
continue, should differentiate between groups, based on their politi-
cal philosophies?

Ms. Tucker. I think the Federal Government should not be giv-
ing taxpayer money to political organizations.
rm ir. FATTAH. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SS.
ir. SHAYS. Mr. Davis.


83

Mr. WALTERS. I can’t testify personal knowledge.

Mr. Davis. I think that’s the one that got a lot of play in the
local area. I mean, it’s always, I’d guess, a debate whether some-
thing is political or not political. It certainly was, from the press
reports, it would be my opinion—but that’s an opinion issue over
what’s legitimate news.

Mr. SHays. And your testimony is that AmeriCorps volunteers
were told they needed to be there?

Mr. WALTERS. I just said they were there.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Mr. WALTERS, I said if they were there under——

Mr. SHays. Can we let the record stand, then, and just say that
AmeriCorps volunteers were at an event on Earth Day, in which
the President spoke. But under oath, I'm just saying that I want
you to be more careful. And we'll just deal with the facts, and go
from there. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me continue with
some specifics about that event. And I’m not cognizant of Mr.
Gilchrest, because I’m concerned about that if he wasn’t allowed,

articularly if it’s his own district. But from what I understand, the
location of it was right next door to the AmeriCorps site in Mary-
land. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. WaLTERs. I understand there were some of the AmeriCorps
members present were working at a site near there.

Mr. GREEN. To their base next door.

Mr. WaLters. I also understand from correspondence I got from
Mr. Allen that some of them happened to be in the Washington
area from, I think, either North or South Carolina, and drove over
to this from some training exercise they had here, as well.

Mr. GREEN. OK. From what I’ve seen from memos, AmeriCorps
was going to be praised at that speech on Earth Day, and obvi-
ously, their commitment and their work that they’ve been doing
with cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. And it was next door to the
base of the AmeriCorps in that location.

Mr. WALTERS. Well, it may have been.

Mr. GREEN. I guess that’s what bothers me about the testimony,
not just of you, Mr. Walters, but the three of you, because again,
and I think the Chairman has pointed that out. We have a lot of
generalizations. And that’s sometimes our job in Congress—we can
talk generalizations, but then we get down to specifics. And I'd like
to see the specifics. If you say it was a political event on Earth
Day, when I know we've had Earth Days for 12 years under Demo-
crat and Republican Presidents.

And I would dare say, if I went back and checked the text of the
speeches, I could probably find a little political tinge to some of the
speeches of President Bush and President Reagan.

Mr. WALTERS. I have no objection to that.

Mr. GREEN. And frankly, if there had been any volunteer groups
who had showed up there and said, by the way, we’re going to
honor department of drug policy employes today on—and this is
a good program to be at; you might e able to take off from work
to go over there. And that wouldn’t just be AmeriCorps partici-
Pants, that would be actual Federal employees there, maybe part
of it.


5

AmeriCorps members in disaster relief efforts. Mr. Chairman, I am
nothing short of appalled at this attempt, at a time when our com-
munities and our families are being destroyed, to see this frontal
assault on one of the most ennobling, significant, community-build-
ing operations in our Nation.

T find it particularly intriguing that the very eople who, with
great enthusiasm, embrace a document called the ntract with
American Families, which tends to impose a very narrow view of
what the American family is on 260 million diverse individuals, si-
multaneously are rejoicing at tearing down what, in many ways, is
the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps, admittedly, one of the
most successful American ventures in over a generation.

In my own congressional district, AmeriCorps funds provide pro-

ms in both San Mateo and San Francisco counties for over 200
‘ull-time AmeriCorps members, who work with community-based
organizations in reducing crime, improving child care, working on
affordable housing, running substance abuse awareness programs,
and in general, helping American families who desperately need
elp.

It turns one’s stomach, it certainly turns my stomach, to see this
Congress provide the Benedict Arnolds in the economic sphere—
who have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and are trying to
escape their income tax liability—allowing them to duck their in-
come tax liability by declaring themselves to be citizens of the Ba-
hamas, but not allowing young men and women, driven and moti-
vated by community service, to do something for their fellow citi-
zens.

We sure have a value crisis in this country, because the values
of the arrogant, breast-thumping group, which seems, in the as-
cendancy, are so skewed from anything that is typical of the values
that built this country, as a bumper strip I noticed coming to work
clearly indicated, the Christian Right is neither. And I think it’s
important for us to stand up for this most significant program.

Now, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, it’s easier for me, as a Democratic
member of this body who used to chair this committee, to say
strong things about this program that Mr. Segal heads. And again,
in closing, I want to pay tribute to you, who has always risen above
partisanship. And when you and I worked this committee, it was
a truly bipartisan operation. And I hope, in terms of protecting
these programs, we will again be able to function in a Bipartisan
manner. request permission to enter my full statement in the
record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Lantos follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Hon. Tom LanTos, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1 would first of all like to commend you, Chairman Shays, for your unwavering
and longstanding support of national service. You are one of the true champions in
the Congress of volunteerism. I applaud you for holding this hearing at such a criti-
cal juncture in the political debate over the future of Corporation National and
Community Service.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican Rescission bill makes drastic cuts in the Corpora-
tion for National and Community Service funding. The Corporation's FY '95 $575
Million appropriation would be cut by $210 million. I oppose these cuts and urge
President Clinton to follow through on his veto threat and veto this legislation.


il

to talk about AmeriCorps in the first systematic way we’ve had, in
the course of this, or the previous, Congress. And it was interesting
today, because you heard the reality from the field, as well as some
opposition from the beltway. I think that Phillip Wu is an extraor-
dinary young man; Brent Bloom, Mrs. Bloom’s son, an extraor-
dinary young man. But in many ways, they're rather typical
AmeriCorps stories.

What we heard in terms of criticism was also typical. It rep-
resented continued misstatements, despite the fact that we have
provided information to our opponents on many occasions. Let me
tick off just a few. In Mrs. Tucker’s written statement, there are
15 false statements or misstatements. And we've been chasing
these phantoms for quite some time. Mr. Walters, today, in his tes-
timony, for the first time, admitted, in fact, that his assertion that
$457,000 was paid to recruit in Nebraska wasn’t accurate.

But he said it was something related to the technical definition
of recruitment. Mr. Walters’ statements, in the past, have called
that the money not only to recruit, but he followed that up by say-
ing, “just to sign up.” False statement. Mr. Walters indicated, at
the end of his testimony today, that it was difficult to get cost num-
bers for AmeriCorps because the number of participants may vary
over time. While that’s an accurate statement, the inference he
draws is entirely false.

If there are dropouts in an AmeriCorps program, the payout on
the grant drops. We obviously don’t fund salaries for people who
are no longer there. And people who are no longer there don’t qual-
ify for an education award. So it isn’t the case that the math is dif-
ficult. You did it yourself, Mr. Chairman, accurately—$370 million,
divided by 20,000 AmeriCorps members, gives you $18,800. The
cost per AmeriCorps member will be $17,600 in 1995, if there is no
recision of funds.

Mr. SHays. There’s 33,000 —

Mr. ALLEN. Thirty-three thousand members. Mr. Walters and
members of this committee engaged in lengthy discussion about the
Earth Day event. Let me just clarify two matters. One, the
AmeriCorps members who were present that day were there on
their own time. The time they spent listening to the President’s
speech and being honored for the work which they had performed
on the Chesapeake Bay for a year, was on their own time; it does
not count to their 1,700 hours.

And that event, in fact, did have Republicans present, and non-
partisan elected officials who were also present. It was not a politi-
cal event. Mr. Walters asserted —

Mr. SHAYS. With all due respect, every event is a political event,
so I mean—

Mr. ALLEN. It was not—the AmeriCorps members’ participation
was not remotely political. They were there to hear their work
praised, and it should be praised.

Mrs. MorELLA. If the gentleman would yield, did I hear some-
body say that Mr. Gilchrest was not invited to join the President?

ir. ALLEN. It was a question by Mr. Davis. I don’t know one way
or the other if that’s the case. It was not an AmeriCorps event, so
I can’t speak specifically to his participation. I do know that there
were Republicans there. It was an Earth Day celebration in Mary-


81

in political activities on the Federal payroll. And that bothers me,
whether they’re liberal, conservative, Democrats or Republicans.

You talk about the Earth Day activities, and particularly the ac-
tivities here in Washington—the Earth Day rally that the Presi-
dent and Vice President was at. And that same Earth Day, that
same AmeriCorps project group—one of their projects had been
cleaning up Chesapeake Bay. And to say that it was a political ac-
tivity for Earth Day, I thought Earth Day was bipartisan. In fact,
a lot of my chemical plants in Houston also celebrate Earth Day,
and they obviously wouldn’t be for the President right now anyway.

But is that what you consider a political activity? Celebrations of
Earth Day?

Mr. WALTERS. Well, it wasn’t just a celebration of Earth Day, it
was a—they were brought in. th press report was clear on this,
that they were there. Now, whether they—how far they traveled,
and I gather from communications I've had with Mr. Allen of
AmeriCorps, some of them were close by; some of them happened
to be in the area from farther away. But the long and short of it
is, these AmeriCorps members were assembled for what the press
reports—and I’ve read the text of the speeches—what was univer-
sally reported as an extremely partisan speech not just about Earth
and conservation, but an attack on one party by the President, of
another party.

Now, these people might differ about that——

Mr. GREEN. The President of the United States.

Mr. Watters. Right. And——

Mr. GREEN. We don’t have a president of the Democratic Party.

Mr. WALTERS. No, I said a President of another party. I’m sorry
if I was misunderstood. Now, reasonable people may differ about
the appropriateness of that. But I think some people, and the peo-
ple I share the view of, is that if a kind of program like this is
going to work, it has to be separated from partisan politics. And
participants in this program ought not to be used as a backdrop for
a partisan attack.

I mean, a general speech about Earth Day, people working in the
area from anywhere—I don’t think anybody has a problem with
that.

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield just 1 second?

Mr. GREEN. We have had Earth Day in the Presidents—whether
it was President Bush, President Reagan, President Clinton—and
I don’t know how long we’ve had Earth Days, because I’ve only
been in Washington 3 years. I guess we've had them for many
years. But they have had speeches by Presidents at prior Eau

ays.

Mr. Suays. I wonder if the gentleman would just yield a second.
1 will give you the time. I’m having a difficult time understanding
the concept that when a President of the United States comes
somewhere, that people wouldn’t want to see him. And does that
mean that we should eliminate the Army, when soldiers come and
see their President? I’m having a difficult time with that one.

Mr. WALTERS. Well, I guess I would have a problem, too, if the
President of the United States assembled the U.S. military to make
a partisan attack on the opposition party. I mean, if you're saying,
do people in AmeriCorps or in the Army have the freedom, on their


107

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILLIP WU, JR., MEMBER, AMERICORPS

1 served as a communications specialist ip the US. Army for four years, 1 went
to school on my GI Bill, but didn't finish. Two and a half years ago, I converted
my life to Christianity. [ now serve as a minister of the Gospel of Christ to troubled
ypu and homeless people in Miami. God gave me the mind and the heart to serve.

fabitat for Humanity and AmeriCorps have given me the skill and expertise.

When I first joined AmeriCorps, | knew it was right. But I never imagined it
would lead me to the experience I’m having. The 23 AmeriCorps Members in Miami
have built 31 houses and 40 more are completely framed. We'll finish 90 homes this

year.

In addition to that, we provide leadership for over 1,500 student volunteers. In
February, college students take their spring break to help Habitat build homes. But
they would not be able to do it without AmeriCorps, because many are unskilled
and those that are skilled are not familiar with the strict coding in South Miami.

Pil never forget my first day on Lilliana’s house, the first house | led all y myself,
from dirt to finish. 1 became friends with her, and with Vicki and Ruth and
so many other people ve worked with in AmeriCorps. Just last week, several hun-
dred AmeriCor lembers put all our skills together to build 10 homes in 5 days
in Americus, Georgia. Seeing Isiah, my homeowner in Americus, shed tears as.
Walls went up reminded me of Lilliana and confirmed that what I am doing in

iiami is right.

In AmeriCorps, everybody wins. I win because I get a clear and concrete skill, I
get a direction and purpose, a chance to earn a living, and when I’m done serving,
a chance to & w col , a hope for a better life. Habitat wins because they're get-
ting a trained, skilled leader to help them use their volunteers better. Lilliana wins
because she’s getting a solid home for herself and her two kids. And the community
wins because it gets closer from everybody working together.

I see AmeriCo: bridging a gap between the young people who want to be a part
of this nation and contribute to society yet can’t find a way to fit in and a society
which is in need of skilled leadership in all areas. 1 can only serve in AmeriCorps
for two years. But the skill and the awareness and bringing people together . . .
Tl always keep that throughout my life.

Mr. Suays. You hit a home run.

Mr. Wu. Thank you.
Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Bloom.

STATEMENT OF EUGENIA BLOOM

Mrs. BLoom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here. My
name is Jeanie Bloom, and my son, Brent Bloom, was born and
raised in Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK. Last year, he decided to take
a year off of school to serve in AmeriCorps-VISTA. That’s why, on
April 19, when the bomb exploded in the Murrah Federal Building
in Oklahoma City, my son was one of the first people into the
building to help.

Brent was at his service site, which is REST, a day center for
homeless people, when he heard the deafening explosion a few
blocks away. He and his AmeriCorps teammates immediately drove
over to help. Brent told the people on the scene that he was trained
in CPR and first aid, and he led his team members and other vol-
unteers through a maze of melted cars and smoke into the build-
ing, to help get victims out and emergency medical help in. He tells
me that there was glass, debris and blood everywhere.

He worked until 2 a.m. the next marning, elping to set up the
nearby medical stations, carrying supplies for FEMA and the FBI,
and working with the Feed the Children eee, also Salvation

Army and American Red Cross. And I might add, that on the day
of the memorial services, many of the AmeriCorps workers, includ-
ing Brent, were out helping with the families, with the traffic,
handing out American Red Cross brochures, thank you notes for
blood donations, and et cetera.


92

you really be certain of the documentation. Editorial boards are not
always accurate.

Candidly, when I’ve asked Senator Grassley where he’s gotten
some of his information, he’s gotten it from you all. And that’s why
you're here. And I'm trying to find where, finally, I can get that
source. Because it’s my understanding they spent about $1,000, not
$457,000. Would any of you just like to make a last comment, be-
fore we get to our next panel?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, let me just say one thing about the discus-
sion, given the tone. And I take your point about philosophic dif-
ference on broader issues not being the point you want to argue
here. And I agree with it. But I do think that, and I'm willing to
argue that sometimes we have not—that I have not felt as com-
fortable with some of the data as I would like. But I would say that
I’m not sure that I was able to convey the problem in some of the
costing issues, like the one you refer to, which is not simply a mat-
ter of recruitment, but a matter of getting precise cost numbers,
and comparing apples and apples.

During the recess, I talked to Mr. Allen in the hallway, from
AmeriCorps. And of course, there’s now a large and maybe yet un-
determined number of participants in the program that are not
full-time, that are part-time. Some of them are getting stipend;
some of them aren’t getting stipends. The cost per volunteer obvi-
ously will vary, depending on what overhead costs you include—
whether it be bargaining stipends, what percentage you're giving
stipends, how muc matching money is involved, how many people
actually finish and qualify

lon’t.

If there’s a difference, a fundamental difference, between the cost
per member at 20,000 or 18,000 or 15,000 and 30,000 or 40,000,
we ought to get to the bottom of that. And obviously, that’s going
to require numbers that even the information AmeriCorps has pro-
vided so far is going to have to be looked at in terms of the comple-
tion of the first year of service. I assume the GAO report is going
to get to that.

d just like to say, since there’s been some tension on this point,
I have not tried to distort the costs here. I’ve tried to gather infor-
mation, and the program was new; a lot of the information wasn’t
out there. And I've tried to use press reports where I thought there
was a credible press source, in the case of the Omaha World Herald
example. I don’t think this is uncommon.

I mean, I watch C-SPAN and see Members of Congress address
the floor and quote press reports because we don’t have the staff
to be everywhere and witness everything ourselves. But I want to
just emphasize, because I feel that there’s some question about
whether or not our big views cause us to be dishonest in some of
the subarguments. I have not tried to be dishonest in this area.
And my staff and I, although we are small, have tried to gather
the best information we can, and to cut this different ways.

It has been difficult. And I suspect some of that difficulty is be-
cause AmeriCorps itself is trying to pull information from a lot of
diverse sites, at the beginning of a program. But | think, obviously,
and maybe unfortunately for them, the budget situation has put
the life or death of this program on the line at the time it’s being

for education benefits and how many


60

ing for the work of professionals, but the facility is little used,
much to the frustration of the instructors there. While I was there,
only one student, flanked by two instructors, worked on one of the
four brand new computer systems. He was playing Wheel of For-
tune.

I noticed that 12 brand new dictionaries lay untouched in the
corner, with their spines unbroken. The effort to assemble a Corps
that, in the words of President Clinton, “looks like America” has
also been a struggle. According to the program director, Ken Cook,
young white men were not so keen on the idea of working for the
Government. He said, “White males are generally able to go on to
college, or saw this as a Federal giveaway program, and not so

The Peach Corps, therefore, made a concerted effort to divert po-
tential recruits from their college track, in order to fulfill their own
affirmative action goals.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m going to request you say Peach, instead of Peace.
I get very sensitive when you say the Peace Corps. I’m teasing.
Yes. Peach Corps. Every time I read it—I’m sorry.

Ms. Lacey. Right. And as an aside, I’d also mention that I did
meet some volunteers down there who specifically told me, when I
asked them what they'd be doing if they weren’t with the Peach
Corps, that they had opted for the Peach Corps, over the military,
because of the educational benefit that they would receive. And for
all the talk of civic awareness, it’s hard to argue that the Peach
Corps is an integrated part of the community.

Only $5,000 of its hefty $2.8 million budget came from local busi-
nesses in the Thompson area. Beyond a few public works projects
scattered throughout the county, the Peach Corps will not leave
much of a legacy. I was told that funding would not be assumed
by local entities once the Federal money ran out.

Were there any positive, measurable results for the Peach Corps
members themselves? Project director Ken Cook told me that, “out
of the 80 kids, we probably have 20 percent going on to do some-
thing that they more than likely wouldn’t have.” One kid is going
on to an apprenticeship program; several are going to vo-tech
school; some are fein into nursing. I think the taxpayers are right
to question whether getting 16 youngsters to do something t
they “more than likely wouldn’
million investment.

Did Peach Corps involvement develop their work ethic or a com-
mitment to volunteering? The unglamorous truth is that this com-
munity was already strong without the Peach Corps. Thompson
played host to this national demonstration project because the com-
munity is a model one—a five-star community, according to a State
panel—which offers its citizens good schools, low taxes, a low crime
rate, and a high standard of living.

The work was high quality because the participants already have
skills and a good work ethic. In Thompson, many families are still
intact, and the influence of the church lingers. They haven’t waited
for the Government to teach them to volunteer—50 percent of the
citizens already do so in some fashion. In fact, many of the Peach
Corps participants voiced surprise and disappointment to me that,

t have,” is a fair return on their $2.8


56

reported that Nebraska received a grant of $457,622 to recruit just
23 AmeriCorps members, which is $19,987 in bureaucratic over-
head per recruit.

Some projects are even more expensive. And according to an
NBC Nightly News report by Lisa Myers, an environmental project
in Alaska cost taxpayers $42,000 annually, per volunteer. Simi-
larly, educrats at Northwestern University, for example, were
given $140,000 by AmeriCorps to develop “a plan to compete for
more AmeriCorps money next year,” without funding a single vol-
unteer.

AmeriCorps also gave bureaucrats a $100,000 Planning grant to
study a volunteer corps in the Virgin Islands, and gave the Council
of Great City Schools, which is devoted to “the advancement of edu-
cation in inner city public schools through public and legislative ad-
vocacy,” a $200,000 planning grant. Again, none of this money
went to help students pay for college.

AmeriCorps also does not promote volunteerism. The generosity
of the benefits of the new Federal AmeriCorps program sends a
mixed message about volunteering. Taxpayers do not need yet an-
other program that will do what millions of Americans are already
doing on their own. Private sector community service is thriving.
The Labor Department estimates that 3 million unpaid volunteers,
between the ages of 18 and 25, most of whom work for religious
organizations, are the backbone of community service.

t least 94 million Americans currently participate in volunteer
activities. Schools are also encouraging students to volunteer, by
expanding the regular curriculums to include service jobs. And in
my written testimony, I go through some of the examples of this
type of thing. In conclusion, despite a $1.7 million public relations
budget, the laudable goals of AmeriCorps do not match its reality.

If the goal is to expand educational opportunity, the AmeriCorps
budget would be better spent on direct aid to students. If the goal
is to stimulate service, Congress should amend the tax code and
allow for tax credits or increased deductions for those who do do-
nate their time and money. Congress should reduce Federal spend-
ing, rather than creating a new entitlement program, and adding
to their already-huge national debt.

Congress should repeal AmeriCorps, a program that awards tax-
payers’ dollars to special interests, ideological and political organi-
zations, and to bloated bureaucracies, and falls short of its in-
tended goals. For Federal taxpayers, national service is an expen-
sive venture, with few, if any, net gains.

(The prepared statement of Mrs. Tucker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALLYSON TUCKER, MANAGER, CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
Law anbD Poticy

INTRODUCTION

We are here today to discuss the fate of the Americorps program. In this time
of congressional evaluation of expensive federal government (Prgrams, it is clear
that Americorps should be among the first to be eliminated. As with most govern-
ment programs, the rhetoric behind Americorps is appealing. In proposing the pro-
fam. President Clinton declared “National service will be America at its best—

uilding community, offering opportunity, and rewarding responsibility. National
service is a challenge for Americans from every background and way of life, and it


18

If they win a competition, if their program will get things done
we believe that is one way of leveraging the mission of the Federal
Government as well. But if you went out and saw AmeriCorps
workers who exist by virtue of a competition of Federal agencies,
you would in no way, shape or form define them as Federal work-
ers. They don’t dress with jackets and ties; they're wearing their
uniforms, and they’re doing the work that we want, whether it’s in
literacy, whether it’s in health, whether it’s in education.

They're doing the work that the communities want, not the work
that the Federal Government directs.

Mr. Suays. I’m going to ask the gentleman to yield again. I don’t
want to be splittin hairs, but for the accuracy of the testimony,
they in fact do work under the direction of a Federal agency em-
ployee.

Mr. SEGAL. Sometimes, yes; usually not, Mr. Chairman. Usually
not. Usually it is a supervisory role only. There’s some modest
training provided by the Federal agency. But for the most part,
they're working onsites, usually with nonprofit organizations that
have been put together in furtherance, perhaps, of the mission of
the Federal agency. Very modest oversight. There has to be over-
sight, otherwise, in fact, the Federal agency is not going to achieve
its objectives, which—

Mr. Suays. Our second panel, consisting of our director of FEMA
is going to testify. So we can probably get into that. I am sorry to
interrupt a second time.

Mr. Towns. I think you’re right. We want to make the record re-
flect it because there’s a lot of things out there that I think we
want to make certain. Let me just sort of ask one more real quick
question. You always hear about the politics of the situation. Let
me see if I can unscramble that. AmeriCorps is really out there to
advance the liberal agenda.

Now, recognizing that this is something that really—the evo-
lution of it started under the Bush administration, so how did peo-

le sort of get to that? Is that true? Is it just to push forward a
iberal agenda, or is it really to try to help people?

Mr. SEGAL. If there’s any ideology involved in the Corporation for
National Service, Mr. Towns, it’s as you suggested earlier. It’s an
ideology of citizen participation. It’s not a hberal agenda; it’s not
a conservative agenda. This is about service. In fact, I want to con-
firm once again, the legislation prohibits anything approaching ad-
vocacy in our programs.

‘and t think it’s the reason why, frankly, we have so much bipar-
tisan support in America; why so many Republican Governors and
Republican mayors are so supportive of the underlying principles.
We are little more than a delivery system to get things done that
local communities need.

Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. Let me just ask this one here.
I'm just trying to deal with some of the rumors we hear out there.
How do you ensure that the funds are spent on those that are most
in need? How do you—in terms of the accountability—how do you
ensure that?

Mr. SEGAL. | want to point out that our role is really to monitor
decisions made locally. The Federal Government—the Congress of
the United States said that there would be national priorities for


47

AMERICORPS COMMUNITY PARTNERS

The following is a partial list of national and ocal volunteer, charitable and aerv-
ice organizations through which AmeriCorps is getting things done in over a thou-

sand communities across the nation.
4-]
Albany Police Department
American Red Cross
Arctic Village: Tribal Council

ington Police Department
SPIRA

Audubon Society

Big Brothers/Big Sisters

Big Horn Police Department

Boy Scouts of America

Boys and Girls Clubs

Camp Fire Boys and Girls

Casper Police Department

Catholic Charities

Chambers of Commerce

City of Decatur Police Department

Clearwater Police Department

Coalition of 100 Black Women

Confederated Tribes and Bands of
Yakima

Dallas Police Department

DARE.

Ft. Worth Police Department.

Girl Scouts of the USA

Girls, Inc.

Goodwill Industries

Habitat For Humanity

Hart County Police Department

Head Start Programs

Humane Society

I Have a Dream Foundation

Independent Sector

Indianapolis Police Department

Jewish Family Services

Jubilee Housing

Junior League

Kickpoo Tril

Lincoln County Sheriffs Department

Lions Club

Liter Volunteers of America

ibal Council

Meals on Wheels

Metropolitan Police Department of St
1

es
Mid-Atlantic Network of Youth and
Family Services
Navajo Nations
National AIDS Fund
National Center for Family Literacy

National Council of Churches of Christ

in
National Council of Educational
Opportunity Associations
National Council of LaRaza
National Council of Non Profit
Associations
National Endowment for the Arts
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Organization for Victim
Nelghborheod Green Co
ei een Corps
New York University
NezPerce Tribe
Northeastern Universit}
Quzinkie Tribal Council
Parents Ano! us
Philadelphia Bar Association
Pinelas Sheriffs Department
Points of Light Foundation
Pompano Beach Police
Public Allies
Public Education Fund Network
Rotary Club
Salvation Army
Seattle Police department
jone-Bannock Tribe
Sierra Club
St. Petersburg Police Department
Sunflower Girls
Teach for America
Tuntutulkia Traditional Council
United Cerebal Palse’
University of Texas, Austin
it fay of America
Urban League
Visiting Nurses Association
Volunteer Centers
Wealln Govaty Shonils Depart
in County ri ment
YMCA of the USA
YWCA
Dozens of colleges and universities
Dozens of community health centers
Dozens of police and sheriffs

departments
Hundreds of elementary, junior and high
schools

Mr. SHays. Any information—and that goes for anyone who is
testifying and would like to submit followup information, based on
testimony here today—you’re more than welcome to.

Mr. SEGAL. And my one last one, Mr. Chairman-——

Mr. Suays, Yes, sir.

Mr. SEGAL [continuing]. Is I'd like to clarify that when you asked
me a question about dropout rate, I wanted to make clear that we
believe our dropout rate is, and will continue to be, substantially
lower than the dropout rate of the Peace Corps, the military, and


51

Thanks also to you and the members of this subcommittee for your support of
FEMA over the last few years. 1 would be pleased to answer any questions you
might have.

Mr. Suays. Just clarify for me—they are working under your di-
tection. Are they part of a community program in these various
communities, and then they have been mobilized to help? Are they
under some nonprofit organization that is in charge of their activi-
ties? Exactly what are they doing, and how are they connected to
you?

Mr. Witt. They’re under the—like the Serve Houston nonprofit
corporation that works under Eli Segal. They come in an assist us
in the disaster. They have allocated 24 people in Houston to help
us. In the Oklahoma City bombing——

Mr. Suays. Yes.

Mr. WITT {continuing). We had 60-something AmeriCorps people
come from Tulsa. We didn’t ask; they came to see if they could help
that group. They helped with one of the most fantastic donated
goods systems that has ever been put together. Because we had do-
nated goods from all over the country, and the effort in Oklahoma
City itself was just fantastic.

ut they helped set up donated goods systems. They helped
make sure that those donated goods got to the victims and the res-
cue workers. They worked in the area where we had all of our res-
cue workers, handing out kneepads for rescue workers; handing out
clothing and gloves, because the clothing had to be changed fre-
quently and the gloves wore out very fast, as well as the kneepads.

0 they’re a tremendous asset to not only the communities, but to
us in our efforts to help a community get their life back together.

Mr. SHays. Now, they didn’t replace any volunteers. 1 watched
fairly closely what happened in Oklahoma, and you had paid fire-
men, you had volunteers, you had a whole host of different organi-
zations that were involved.

Mr. Witt. They supported those organizations, and assisted and
helped us in that recovery. It was tremendous, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHays. Now, you do not have a unit within FEMA that are
national service employees within your organization?

Mr. Witt. No, sir.

Mr. Suays. These are national service participants who work for
nonprofit agencies in the areas that you end up having to go. And
they help mobilize activities, involved under your direction. How
does that last part work? Is it under your direction, or is it-——

Mr. Witt. They will come in to assist us in outreach programs,
which we have outreach programs, and we got them in that.

Mr. SHays. I’m going to interrupt you. 0 ultimately controls
a site, when you go into a place like Oklahoma? Are you assisting?
Are you providing background help? Do you take over control of the
site? How does that work?

Mr. WITT. No, sir. Our job and our role and responsibility is to
provide the resources and assistance to support the State and that
local community.

Mr. SHays. Thank you. I'd just like to welcome two members—
Mr. Davis of Virginia, and Mr. Chaka Fattah, who is from Philadel-
phia, PA, and is invited to ask any questions he'd like to.



80

panel, that we have to re-evaluate government and where we're
going, particularly in the effort to try and reduce the deficit and
the budget. And 1 guess coming from different angle—I would
much rather have volunteerism encouraged, whether it’s a core
group that’s being rewarded and other people being involved.

And I know the examples you used, there may be 100 people out
on a given project on Saturday in Houston. Twenty of them may
be AmeriCorps, but those 20 are there, plus they're supplementing
the volunteers who are there, because of the commitment to their
community. And I would think that we would look at the Federal
Government and say, well, wait a minute now, we're leveraging our
tax dollars much better for the projects like AmeriCorps, than we
are with some other program.

I enjoyed your example, and I start with, Mr. Walters, I think,
the same idea as you do—that there’s waste in bureaucracy, wheth-
er it’s city, county, State, Federal. And I notice from your vitae that
for 12 years, you were a part of that bureaucracy in various posi-
tions. Xnd in particular the last one, the Office of National Ted
Control Policy, in charge of supply reduction. And I guess if we
looked at the results of what AmeriCorps is doing after 18 months,
because it was signed in September 1993.

I know we got our first grants in Texas for the 1994 years. The
results—we would probably look back on the 3 years or 4 years you
were there and say, well, wait a minute, I don’t think the supply
reduced during that time, either. And I know we can make that ar-
pument about every government program. I can go to schools—we

ad 40-some kids here this morning who are getting an education
in an inner city school, where last year in that school, very few of
them passed our Texas, our TOS test, our State test for fifth grad-
ers.

Those kids now have a 90 percent pass ratio—99 percent. I think
there was one child who was not passing. And so we see the good
results. Granted, there’s probably and awful lot of other problems
with it, but let me talk about some of the things you brought up
and also some of your testimony, other than just saying, sure, we
need to evaluate every Federal program. And for 12 years, you
were part of the bureaucracy, whether it be at Department of Edu-
cation or at Endowment for Humanities or at the National Drug
Control Policy office, in director or deputy director of supply reduc-
tion.

So I guess we could look at that and say, that’s almost like say-
ing in the other testimony about we need to cut—we’re limiting vol-
unteerism. Well, in that case, every preacher in the country should
be there for free. And we do have a lot of people who pastor for
free. But I would dare say, from our richest churches to our me-
dium-sized churches, they probably wouldn’t have a lot of pastors
there who, if they didn’t get something to encourage them to be
there. And I have a brother-in-law who's a pastor, who works for
very much less than I think he should.

jut again, when you look at the amount that AmeriCorps gets,
compared to the service that they are providing, I know in my own
district. Let me talk about the Nebraska, although that was gone
over—let me go on and talk about the Earth Day. In a memo that

I saw that you wrote on April 15, that AmeriCorps had taken part


13

* These challenges may sometimes require experts, but there is also much that
others, especially young adults, can do if they are trained and supervised—and if
they dedicate a year or more to the task. .

‘© The country can come together to solve large probleme—whether it’s the war-
time efforts that led to victories we celebrated this month, or peacetime initiatives
like the Depression-era CCC, praised by the President and the Speaker alike.

¢ National efforts don’t need to be gigantic to have far-reaching results—look at
the Peace Corps, which the American people cherish as a perfect blend of individual-
ism, idealism and government support. Federal support of service didn't used to be
a partisan battleground—in fact, Republicans in Con; together with a Repub-
lican President—made the most recent federal involvement in civilian, domestic
service possible by passing the National and Community Service Act of 1980.

« That Act and what followed in 1993 aimed at creating a domestic Peace Corps—
a focus on our urgent problems here at home. National service would reflect the les-
sons of the last 30 years: the power of competition; the advant of decentraliza-
tion and local decision-making; the collaboration of all elements of society.

« Established non-profits with proven track records should be the backbone of the
effort. If they got more full-time help, they could use the good intentions and occa-
sional help of traditional volunteers more effectively, and get a lot more done.

‘* Unless you wanted to use only the super-rich, those providing full time service
can’t afford 40 do it for free. And you could help sslve ancther huge American prob.
Yem—the cost of college—if a part of the reward for service came as a scholarship
or loan repayment—given only after completion, to make sure that responsibility
came before opportunity.

« And having people of different backgrounds serve ther to solve common
problems Provi the surest route to rebuilding community in an increasingly po-

larized world.

After about a half a year of AmeriCorps’ operation, the American people—as many
as 90% of them, in some national polls—not only agree with the concept, but ap-
plaud the performance of national service. And they call killing AmeriCorps going
in the “wrong direction” by ever-increasing Tusjorities stronger opposition than to
any other Congressionally-proposed cut, including better known targets like Big
Bird and school lunches.

Why? They know that AmeriCorps, even though brand new, is doing its job, They
know that the structure is smart and that it works. Look at the elements that Con-
gress designed:

Ist, fierce competition. Non-profits—most of them local charities—compete for
funding, and even in our start-up year, the competition was touch.

‘2nd, real oversight. States don’t just select the bulk of AmeriCorps Programs —
they also have a major responsibility to oversee the winners, backstopped by out-
side, national evaluations. That's why Governors of both parties applaud
AmeriCorps. I submit for the record what five Republican Governors from widely
differing states have said, as illustrations. And at every level, programs that don't
produce won't get further funding.

rd, loca) operations. Most AmeriCorps members serve with local non-profits, As
the federal government shifts social responsibilities out from Washington, these
charities have made it clear that they can’t do it alone. And with more Americans
working longer and harder than ever, it’s no wonder there’s less time to volunteer—
and a greater need to make that help effective. That’s what AmeriCorps does:
AmeriCorps members are the trained, full-time human capital that charities say
they most need. I have provided for the record the written support of twenty five
of the country’s leading charities and non-profits, including, the YMCA and the
YWCA; Big Brothers and Big Sisters; the American Red Cross and the Junior
League; the Girl Scouts and the United Way—some organizations which receive
AmeriCorps’ support and a majority that don’t. Karen Goodman, the Red Cross’ Na-
tional Chairman of Volunteers, sums up their sentiment this way: “We consider
AmeriCorps to be a valuable addition to the traditional voluntary sector and a
means of broadening the pool of citizens who will have experienced the challenges

and joy of community service .. . The only way America’s communities will not
beneht from AmeriCorps and other national and community service programs is if
they are discontinued.”

4th, private sector involvement. We require local matching funds to prove commu-
nity support and to get the kind of validation neighbors can best provide. And busi-
ness has stepped up to the plate, from Microsoft and Nike and Time-Warner and
The Home Depot to local Chambers of Commerce and the corner print shop and the
local lumber yard. I provide for the record a listing of just some of the ripgest of
these partners. And I also note the written testimony of Erie Chapman, CEO
of U.S. Health Corporation, a Republican who served on Budget Chairman Kasich’s


55

total AmeriCorps package is worth nearly $20,000 annually, more
than the income of 39.3 million working Americans. In fact, the
AmeriCorps benefit package is close to the median income of work-
ers in the private sector, which is $20,500 for females, and $29,400
for males, including those with years of experience.

The educational benefits, when you take into consideration that
the military has to pay back a certain portion, exceed those avail-
able to veterans. Thus, participation in AmeriCorps is hardly a per-
sonal sacrifice. Also, AmeriCorps does little to help American fami-
lies pay for college, and does not accomplish its stated goals of ex-
panding educational opportunity.

Despite a 1993-94 price tag of $1.55.5 million, about one-tenth
of 1 percent of the 16 million students enrolled in post-secondary
education participated in AmeriCorps. Even if Congress expands
the program to 150,000 participants by 1997, as the Clinton admin-
istration has requested, less than 1 percent of American students
will be able to participate. In contrast, the Federal Government
currently helps 3.9 million students pay their education expenses
through the GSL—Guaranteed Student Loan—program; and pro-
vides Pell Grants of up to $2,300 to over 2 million students.

Combined Federal grant and loan programs cost the American
taxpayer roughly $25 billion in 1993, or $4,181 per student. These

rograms served over 6 million students. The AmeriCorps program,
if you divide the money, costs the taxpayer roughly $30, per
student, per year, or a total cost of roughly $60,000 for 2 years of
service. But only a small portion of this money—$4,750 for each
year of participation—will actually go to meeting educational ex-

penses.

At least half the money spent on AmeriCorps also ends up fund-
ing bureaucracies and paperwork. In 1993 and 1994, AmeriCorps
employed, as we've heard, 20,000 volunteers. The reality, however,
is that the majority of these volunteers work in Federal and State
bureaucracies, government-funded programs, or even political ac-
tion organizations. For example, more than 2,800 AmeriCorps par-
ticipants work in Federal departments or agencies, including 1,200
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; 525 in the Interior Depart-
ment; 210 in the Department of Justice; 135 in the EPA; and 60
at the National Endowment for the Arts.

AmeriCorps are also awarded ACORN Housing Corp., which is
the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—a
radical, left-wing group that advocates change by “grabbing hold of
the reins of political power’—42 volunteers, at the cost of
$1,143,000. Similarly, the federally funded Legal Services Corp.,
the chief litigator of the welfare state, which, for example, rep-
resents drug dealers when they are threatened with eviction from
public housing, was awarded 44 AmeriCorps volunteers, costing the
U.S. taxpayer close to $959,000, plus an additional $1,242,784 in
matching funds.

In San Francisco, the AmeriCorps Summer of Safety program or-
panized 40 groups to rally against the Federal Government's crime

ill’s three strikes and you're out provision. More than half the
AmeriCorps appropriation is also spent on administrative costs and
paperwork. And a great deal of this money goes to overhead and
administration. For instance, an Oklahoma World Herald editorial


2

just welcome those who are going to be testifying here today. We’re
pleased to have the CEO of the Corporation of National and Com-
munity Service, Eli Segal, with us today. Other witnesses testifying
on corporations programs are James Witt, Director, Federal Emer-
gency Management Agency; James Joseph, chairman of the board
of the Corporation for National and Community Service; deputy
commissioner John Timoney of the New York City Police Depart-
ment; Phillip Wu, an AmeriCorps member; and Eugenia Bloom, the
parent of an AmeriCorps participant.

Also with us today are Allyson Tucker of the Heritage Founda-
tion; Jill Lacey of the Capital Research Center; and John Walters,
of the New Citizenship roject. They take a critical view of na-
tional service.

It’s nice to have the opportunity to see and hear from those who
run the corporations programs; those who feel they are benefited
by it; and those who take a critical view. We look eagerly to ana-
lyze the views of all of those who will testify.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Welcome. Today—one and a half years after the creation of the Corporation for
National and Community Service, and eight months after the AmeriCorps program
began—this oversight hearing is the first attempt by this committee to evaluate the

formance of the national service effort. .

Our goals for this hearing: To take a balanced look at the implementation of the
National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. To measure the benefits of na-
tional service in terms of the tangible and intangible value of these programs to the
participants, the communities served and our nation. And, to advance the congres-
sional debate over spending priorities as we take the first steps on a seven-year
path to a balanced federal budget.

The idea of service to one’s community and country is not new. It transcends the
partisan politics of any given era, and stands as an enduring part of our national
ethic. The Civilian Conservation Corps mobilized citizens daring the Depression.
President Nixon signed the Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970, and the Domes-
tic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. With bi-partisan support, President Bush signed
the National Community Service Act of 1990. Again with bi-partisan support,
dent Clinton’s AmeriCorps initiative was enacted in the National and Community
Service Trust Act of 1993. All of these efforts are based on the belief that toil in
the service of one’s fellow men ennobles and enriches beyond estimate.

My own belief in the value of such service is grounded in personal experience.
During the 1960's, President Kennedy appealed to young people throughout the na-
tion to help make the world a better, stronger and safer place through a new pro-
gram called the Peace Corps. My wife, Betsi, and I wanted to become a part of that
vision. The two years we spent as Peace Corps volunteers changed our lives, and
the lives of those we se1 .

I hope and pray that each generation of Americans has that same opportunity to
serve at home or abroad. So today we ask if service programs like AmeriCorps meet
the high standards set by our history and our duty to tomorrow’s participants.

In this inquiry, the Corporation for National and Community Service will be held
accountable to the same standards and measures we have pplied to other federal
programs and agencies. Candidly, I think we can hold it to a higher standard. Now
that the Corporation has had the opportunity to launch its AmeriCorps program and
combine other federal national service programs under its administration, the ques-
tion must be answered: Is the Corporation for National and Community Service ful-
filling its mission in the most effective and efficient manner possible?

In the coming months both the General Accounting Office and a private research
group, Kormendi-Gardner Partners of Washington, D.C., will be completing evalua.
tions of the Corporation and its programs. Both reports promise to provide further
insight on the costs and benefits of national service programs, and this subcommit-
tee looks forward to reviewing their findings.

In preparation for this hearing, I directed certain questions to the Corporation re-
garding program costs and expenditures. My letter of inquiry, and Mr. Segal’s re-



72

Mr. SHays. What is the amount again?

Mr. WALTERS. $318,622. And it also received a $139,811 grant for
administering the AmeriCorps program in fiscal year 1994.

Mr. Suays. OK. You are presenting, under oath, that this is what
is happening.

Mr. WaLTERs. That seems to be the basis for the $457,622 re-
ferred to in the Omaha World Herald editorial.

Mr. SHays. Oh, no. I don’t want to know what you think. I want
to know what your testimony is.

Mr. WALTERS. No, all right.

Mr. Suays. No, please. I want to be very fair to you, but I don’t
want—editorial writers are going to write what they want to write.
I can’t invite the editorial writer to come before us. You are the
strongest critic. You must have evidence on your own, and, under
oath, tell us what your evidence is, and then we'll pursue it and
we'll admit the facts.

Mr. WALTERS. All right. My evidence is that the State of Ne-
braska received the two grants in the amounts I just summarized.

Mr. Suays. $318,00 and § $319,000.

Mr. WALTERS. Two grants. The first grant I described is
$318,622. The second administration grant is $139,811. In addition,
the State of Nebraska provided $64,356 to support the project, and
AmeriCorps will provide another $108,657 for educational awards
to participants in the program. This means that, for the 23 re-
cruits, divided into the totals—both the Federal Government totals
and the moneys committed in this contract for the State—each vol-
unteer would cost $27,455.

Now, I understand that this program provides different costs, dif-
ferent matching ratios for different members. And I understand
that in some cases, what you're going to find is that the totals are
different. For example, from previous documents we got in connec-
tion with the information for AmeriCorps, as my testimony states,
the annual stipend has been calculated in different ways. In writ-
ten testimony, you'll see the annual stipend listed as $7,400.

Mr. SHAYS. Over a 2-year period.

Mr. WacTeERs. That’s the annual stipend, that’s not the edu-
cational benefit. That has been revised, in subsequent material
from AmeriCorps—and I have no doubt that some of this is a mat-
ter of getting more detailed information over time, and I don’t

uestion that anyone is trying to mislead anybody—to $7,225. In
the associated materials that Mr. Segal, I see, put in the record,
in response to some questions about this issue of funding, he
used—you began by talking about using fiscal year 1994 and Bscal
year 1995 moneys appropriately against the various years and
numbers of volunteers estimated.

His estimate of the portion of funds suggests, on page—I guess
it's the first attachment of his letter back to you with the ques-
tions—that the 1995 annual stipend would be $6,200. Now again,
I suspect that the GAO report that——

Mr. Suays. I’m confused by that number. Suggests or says?

Mr. WattTeRs. Says. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that there
was any—I suspect that the best accounting that’s going to be pro-
vided here will be


27

Communities IN SCHOOLS HOUSTON

May 17, 1995

Mr. Martin 8. Cominsky
President end CEO

SERVE HOUSTON YOUTH CORPS
P.O. Box 3732

Houston, Texes 77283-3732

Deer Mr. Cominsky:

We st Communities In Schools Houston (CISH) are very pleased to
have the opportunity to wark in partnership with Serve Houston Youth
Corps (SHYCI.

Our partnership has been both productive and effective. The at-risk
children served by the CISH/SHYC partnership at Austin High Schoo!
and Edison and Jackson middle schools have greatly benefited from
the services SHYC has provided.

The students at thoso schools heve s great need for the intensive.
individualized tutoring that SHYC participants have provided. So many
of the students have struggled with poor academic performance. The
individuelized, regularly-scheduled tutoring sessions with SHYC
members are helping the students both improve their scademic

vemewe performance and view thelr educations es the key to their futures.

Sera enen These young people are also developing appropriate communications
suncroxew and social skills through the workshops and after-school activities
aden sponsored by SHYC members. They are learning better ways to
snaeytmne —'M&NAGE Conflict and how to work with others to reach a common

Gomd@ Grain goal.
20 Ane Crime

Communities in Schools would not be able to reach es many of the
children at these schools who need help without the support of Serve
vwaweames Houston Youth Corps. We are very grateful for our partnership with
Aomon Comarne -YOUF Organization,
(Nt Eewnrd #. Const
Kubeone 8, Oobsiman —-Sincetely,
Aaverend Lawton

acurme Dueeton
Conte Che Bige

Exeoutive Director

Communes in Benoos HOUSTON, Inc. 100) Fanta Sue 1616 MoueroM, Toxa 770021212) 664-7646 Fax (799) 656-1302


70

SEP 13°96 03:200n CORPLNITY SVE Corn 422/471-6206 P?
‘ease etach the Budget Narave to thie pace. Istrucne for tl form ao oe page BS
Nee pity Action of Nebrask
ict ane —aeguide Tosh Wislatee PeeteGtiar
Sate B Program
Carperton hare (CNCS) Grates thary wat
Pande Requested Otter FelerY/Sute/ Total rogram
‘A rancor support costs, fromthe Carparton —taal/PrvateFunds — Panding
‘Training md Education —10,000_ __ + __0._. __10,000
Teavel/Motel/Per Diewier 3,300 n 3500.
suet ___13,500 ° 13,500
osu ‘Salaries 27,000. 13,500 40,500
Benefits 3,590 1,080) 670
‘Trdsbee 126007 1.000. #00
Ober
suyoul 22.200 15,580 49,970
OPERATIONAL Fmt 109 tta
ee ‘Transporation 2s ~ 3471 152196
pte “210. 00 eno
re ° o “o
hb ee tame Ott wae Lizz rma
Soboot 21797 154193 __ 364990
©, UeTORUL,EVALHATION MONTORE 94500 9 94500
 aommsreanon 14131 0 1
arenes
Smartt
twueream Tot [92,318] * (_ 30,779 ] * (123,081 |
bs + 25% = __ 100%

(Copan nahnen 186 + Cant ntahas 356+ 1000

BUDGET FORM AMERICORPS STATE APPLICATION


63

expanded night and weekend opportunities for community volun-
teers to better engage energies of working people and students; and
have done so successfully.

The second argument that we have made, and I would make here
today, is that paid volunteerism will have a corrupting effect on
genuine charity. AmeriCorps’ effort to bolster successful private ac-
tivity, that is, voluntary community service, with an infusion of tax
dollars, will further encourage community organizations to become
dependent on the Federal Government. Charitable organizations al-
ready receive one-fourth of their funding from government sources.
In some cases, as a result, local control often takes a back seat to
government grantmaking.

Let me just say that this corruption is in two directions. Some
of it’s been referred to—and you asked questions about it in an ear-
lier panel—of whether or not there is somewhat of an unhelpful dy-
namic created when people who don’t get paid work side side
with AmeriCorps volunteers. And my colleague who testified before
me, raised the issue of what people expect and how they under-
stand service, as a result of this experience.

Td also say there’s another dynamic, and in this regard I would
say some of the documents provided by Mr. Segal cut two ways.
And that is, they raise the question of whether or not actual pri-
vate charitable organizations have now become active lobbyists for
the continuation of Federal money for this program. And I think
those letters suggest some of them have.

The corporations that have supported AmeriCorps have no doubt
done that for noble reasons. But if the corporations directly sup-
ported the private philanthropic energies of the other signers of
some of these letters, you would have no need for the Federal Gov-
ernment to serve as an intermediary here. It’s already been re-
ferred—the position of AmeriCorps personnel, members, volunteers
in Federal agencies has already been referred to by you and by oth-
ers. I have it detailed in my written testimony.

I'd like to also enter into the record another list, which, using
AmeriCo1 State by State data, we have compiled, showing the
number of State agencies and State grants that have been provided
to State government or State government-funded agencies. This
means that, in addition to the 2,800 of AmeriCorps’ 20,000 mem-
bers of this year that are now afhliated—and I’m not sure if I un-
derstand, even after your questioning, how they're affiliated with
Federal Government agencies—there are an additional nearly
3,000 that are members assigned to State governments or State-
funded agencies.

(The information referred to follows:]

AMERICORPS IN THE FEDERAL AND STATE BUREAUCRACIES

Of the 20,000 AmeriCorps “volunteers” in the field today, well over a fourth—
5,731—are working in the federal or state bureaucracies or for programs largely
funded by the federal government and/or the states.

FEDERAL AGENCIES
* 2,797 have been assigned to the federal agencies
EPA (135)
NEA (60)

Dept. of Agriculture (1,200)


20

fectiveness of the program, and you're a small part of it, but an im-
portant part.

These 48 youngsters would not have this program in Northside,
Houston, without contracting with national service. And I thank
my colleague from New York to recognize these 48 young people.
They are going to be the leaders of tomorrow and Members of Con-
gress, and hopefully, the President. And we're training them today
in schools in Houston. And I'd just like to—I’m glad they were able
to come in today.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Gene Green follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the Chairman for the oppor-
tunity today to discuss the merits of the National Service Program. I appreciate the

thairman’s vocal and visible support for this program and I hope that we can work
to save this valuable contribution to our society.

National Service helps build a sense of citizenship, committment and community
in our young people all over our country. It is a program, passed with bipartisan
support, that rewards service to our country and teaches the young that, as citizens,
we not only have rights but responsibilities.

Critics say that National Service aims to replace private charity and unpaid com-
munity service. Not at all. National Service helps fund many existing community
service organizations, enabling them to extend their reach, to accomplish more, to
supplement limited resources.

jational Service is the model of what smart devolution of responsibilities back to
the local entities is all about. The organization in Washington does not plan, man-
date, or control activities. It merely requires a minimum set of standards that all
programs must meet. The real action takes place at the state and local levels and
the priorities are set locally as well.

To show you what National Service makes possible in Houston, I would like to
recognize two young men and the kids they teach at Garcia Elementary School. Mi-
chael Feinberg and David Levin are teachers with Teach For America, a National
Service program. With funding from National Service, these two young men were
able to start a program for forty-eight fifth graders and their parents called KIPP
(Knowledge Is Power Program).

To join KIPP, these 10 and 11 year olds must voluntarily sign a Committment
to Excellence Form on which they pledge to spend 652 hours more in the classroom
than is required. That is an increase of 67% of instruction time. They arrive an hour
before school starts and stay till 5:00. They work on Saturdays too. In the class-
room, they work to improve their skills and prepare themselves for the academic
challenges of middle school and beyond.

The teachers and the parents also make a written committment to KIPP to pro-
vide the support and instruction that is necessary for the kids to learn and grow.

The KIPP kids range from non-readers to giftedttalented; from those with unsatis-
factory conduct to excellent; from all of HISD’s main ethnic and cultural groups.

To illustrate what they have accomplished, last year 50% of the kids failed to pass
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills exam. This year they expect 90-100% to
pass. This year they took the National Gifted and Talented test and 50% scored in
86% percentile or better and only 2 scored below the mean. Next year, 50% will at-
tend magnet schools.

This is what can be accomplished when kids make a committment to their edu-
cation, and when adults make a committment to their kids. [ think it would be a
terrible tragedy if the government withdrew the resources that are helping us to
achieve these kinds of results.

Mr. Chairman I would like to submit for the record, several letters testifying to
the work that other groups affiliated with AmeriCorp, like ServeHouston, have been
doing in my hometown. I would also like to submit an editorial written by the Hous-
ton Chronicle in support of Serve Houston.



37

hours a week. Since this figure is an average, it does not reflect the irregularity of
weekly volunteer service. And how many people do you know who have the time
to give that many hours every week, fifty-two weeks a year? It takes one full-time
volunteer service provider to do what ten average volunteers can in the same period
of time. A full-time service provider may not only provide direct service, s/he may
also recruit, coordinate, and supervise the work of limited-time volunteers. A full-
time volunteer service provider, like an AmeriCorps member, will be able to maxi-
mize the impact of four hours of service of the limited-time volunteer.

fichigan’s AmeriCorps represents the programs administered by the Michigan
Community Service Commission. Operating through local partnerships involving
more than 100 community non-profit and social service ncies, Michigan’s
AmeriCorps currently operates in eight communities: Detroit, Grand Rapids, Flint,
Saginaw, Ypsilanti, nsing, Shelby, and Pontiac. This year, ichigan’s
AmeriCorps, which receives $2.3 million from the Corporation for National Service,
will involve 271 full- and part-time volunteers who will provide 325,000 hours of di-
rect service and generate more than 1,500 new non-stipended volunteers. This is the
kind of public/private investment that can build a future rich with volunteers.

WHY SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM DESERVE PUBLIC SUPPORT

Governor George Romney and I wrote in a recent article that there is “no free
lunch when it comes to volunteerism . . . The volunteer tradition is not somethi
we should take for granted. Like all important traditions, it requires practice an
commitment. Volunteerism doesn’t just happen, we must make it happen. Vol-
unteerism is just not a nice thing, it is a serious thing that can address the serious
problems facing our communities. Policy-makers from across the political spectrum
should start taking this resource seriously. The Left must recognize that in light of
the limits of government-run solutions the work of volunteers provides an important
alternative. The Right must stop lauding the virtues of volunteerism without rec-
ogniaing tl that volunteers require support and resources from both the public and pri-
vate sectors,’

In a recent paper, Harvard University Professor, Robert Putnam affirmed the
opinions of social observers in America since Alexis de Tocqueville. He found that
voluntary networks, associations, and organizations reinforce the formal civic and
governmental institutions of democracy. The standards and norms that are formed
rough these self-regulating voluntary associations, a kind of Social Capital, sup-

rt ractices that are necessary for self-government.

Social Capital is generated by the voluntary associations and shared social stand-
ards of people who volunteer and commit to serve more than just themselves. With-
out Social Capital communities suffer because they lack the mechanisms for people
to work together voluntarily for the good of the whole. Service and volunteerism are
essential ingredients of Social Capital.

The Independent or Nonprofit Sector, which includes service, volunteerism, and

hilanthropy is something better named the Social Sector. As the Public and Private
Bectors work in some combination to develop economic and physical capital, the So-
cial Sector works to generate Social Capital. Internationally respected management
consultant Peter Drucker has argued that the Social Sector wil) play and increas-
ingly more prominent role in the new American high technology society.

e Social Sector will carry greater responsibilities in ly meeting social
needs as government downsizes and society moves to de-centralized business and in-
dustry models. Accordingly, the Social Sector must transform itself into an orga-
nized and equal contributor to social policy-making.

Healthy communities are vital to ensuring strong government and productive
business therefore, government and business share an interest in investing in the
formation of the Social Capital. Government should contribute to this effort as a
forum and catalyst for the Private and Social Sectors to collaborate in the develop-
ment of strong communities. All sectors must view their roles in a new light: as
enablers of citizen driven solutions, not as the source of professionally provided eolu-
tions.

Volunteer development is an essential element of Social Capital formation, Volun-
teers do not come free. They require an investment. If a community of volunteers
makes for a healthy community, then it is a worthy public investment. The over-
whelming majority of citizens who volunteer in their retirement report that they
have done so because of a volunteer experience in their youth. Yet the mmapority of
youth say that if they do not volunteer it is because they are not asked. [f we do
‘not invest in efforts to support and promote service and volunteerism now, we will
not be able to count on these same individuals to volunteer later in life when they
have more disposable time to do so.



57

values something far more than money.”! The reality, however, is that the
Americorps program is nothing more than another expensive government jobs pro-
gram, that at least half of the money spent on Americorps ends up funding bureauc-
Facies and paperwork, that Americorps does little to help working families pay for
college, and that Americorps does little to promote volunteerism.

Americorps workers are not volunteers. Despite the President’s appealing rhetoric,

the Americo1 rogram is not a genuine community service or volunteer program.
The program offers ‘substantial subsidies, in the fore of federal vouchers and ancil-
ary

nefits, for relatively little personal sacrifice In fact, in many instances, the
Americorps jobs offer larger financial compensation than these same young, students
could receive in private sector employment, Each Americorps “volunteer” is paid a
$7,400 stipend and a $4,750 tuition credit, worth approximately $7.27 per hour, plus
medical benefits and free child care. Beyond these taxpayer subsidies, the Act per-
mits the states and service organizations to supplement the federal compensation

rage. Service workers could be paid up to twice the minimum wage, $8.50, and
still retain their eligibility for the education voucher.

total Americorps package is worth nearly $20,000 annually, more than the

income of 39.3 million working Americans. In fact, the Americorps benefit packa;
is close to the median income of workers in the private sector, wl is $29,400 for
males and $20,500 for females, including those with years of experience. The edu-
cational benefits also exceed those available to veterans. Participation in the
Americorps program is thus hardly a personal sacrifice.

Americorps does little to help American families pay for college. Americorps does
little to help working families pay for college and does not accomplish its stated goal
of “expanding educational opportunity.” Despite a 1993-94 price tag of $155.5 mil-
lion, ‘about one-tenth of one percent of the 16 million students enrolled in post-sec-
ondary education Participate in Americorps. Even if Congress expands the program
to 150,000 participants by 1997 as the Clinton Administration has requested, less
than one percent of students will be able to participate. In contrast, the federal gov-
ernment currently helps 3.9 million students pay their education expenses through
the Guaranteed Student Loan Program and provides Pell Grants of up to $2,300 to
2,582,911 students. Combined government grant and loan programs cost the Amer-
ican taxpayer $25,086,000,000 in 1993, or $4,181 per student. These programe
served 6,020,000 students. The Americorps program costs the taxpayer $30,; Ber
student participant per year (including administrative costs), or a total of $60,
for two years of “service.” But only a small portion of this money—$4,750 for each
year of participation—will actually Po to meeting educational expenses.

Recognizing the small number of students who would benefit from this expensive
government Program, colleges and university officials are quick to call the

mericorps a “work Program”, not student aid. Jim Appleberry, president of the
American Association of Colleges and Universities (AASCU) said that it is a
“mistake and error” to construe the Americorps as a move to increase access to col-
lege education. Rather, he argues, the Americorps proposal is “to encourage people
to take care of one another.”?

Finally, the Americorps Brogram is not means-tested. Thus, the children of
wealthy &nd influential people can elbow out poor students for participation in the
program. As Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) noted on the Senate floor, in-
stead of sending one Americorps participant (who may or may not need financial
assistance) to college, five needy students could qualify for Pell Grants.

‘At least half of the money apent on ‘Americorps ends up funding bureaucracies
and paperwork. In 1993-1994 Americorps employed about 20,000 “volunteers” who
the Clinton administration promised would be working as teachers, doctors, and
lice officers to help improve communities. The reality, however, is that the majority
of these highly paid “volunteers’ work in federal or state bureaucracies, government-
funded programs, or even political action organizations. For example, more than
2,800 Americorps icipants work in federal departments or agencies, including
7,200 in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 525 in the Interior Department, 210
in the U.S. Department of Justice, 135 at the Environmental Protection Agency, and
60 at the National Endowment of the Arts. Americorps also awarded ACI (Asso-
ciation of Community Organizations for Reform Now), a radical left-wing group that
advocates change by “ abbing hold of the reins of political power,” 42 volunteers
at the cost of $1,143,411. Similarly, the federally funded Legal Services Corporation,
the chief litigator for the welfare state (which for example, represents drug dealers

1 Mark Pusch, “Clinton Launches Sales Campaign for Service Plan,” Education Week, Volume
4, March 10, 1993, p. 1
tional Service is Not Student Aid, Higher Ed Coalition Says,” Education Daily, April 21,



23

mey-17-98 wen 15:5: iNTeRrarty sinister Pie

May 17, 1995

Martin Cominsky, President and CEO
SERVE Houston Youth Comps

2525 Murworh

Houston, Texas 77054

Dear Martin.

Ina city the size of Houston, Interfaith Ministries for Greater Houston could not
continue to provide its direct service programs, education, and edvocaty to create &
more just society without collaborating with initiatives such as the SERVE Houston
Americorps.

‘The vitality and originality ofthe dedicated young men and woman who comprise
te Corps have impacted greatly oa IM Huogec Coalition programs this pas year

‘Corps members have asaited eight community gudens in growing food forthe
‘bungry by restoring abandoned gardens, initiating new gardens, and increasing the
productity of existing gardens though volunteer recruitment and training

Corps members have oa many occasions intelligently represented IM at public
functions with incredible enthusiasm and knowledge of hunger issues.

‘Currently, corps members are engaged in a project "Faces of Hunger” which wall
document via 35mm black and whie photos and additional video footage, the Broad

swath that hunges cuts through out coramunity. They are interviewing and
seseurching the effects o€ hunger on various Cemographic groups throughout the
city. Corps members report that their understandings of hunger have increased
_reatly because ofthis project

Tomotrow, corps members will be asvstng at out “Breakfast With Champions" at
Gregory Lincoln Education Center to increase the awareness of childhcod hunger
and fs impact on teaming and cognitive development.

‘tis with gseat appreciation that we thank the SERVE Houston Amencorps for ite
‘dedication and hard work in bringing many of our projects to fruition We look
forward to a Long and mutually benehcis) partnership.

Sincerely,

Executive Director

INTERFATTHMINSTHES Fk GREATER HOUSION + SEIT Mowe Bing, + Houston, TX 7OW63580 + (713) 3529995 + Fac 21395204869


90

that it wasn’t necessarily—whereas I believe the Peace Corps re-
cruited their members based on specific skills for specific jobs.

T have seen it said from AmeriCorps representatives—and I can’t
quote specifically right now where—but my memory is that I’ve
seen them say tl ngs along the order of we want this to be 70 per-
cent minorities. And I think that whenever you go into a program
deciding that-——

Mr. FatraH. Someone from AmeriCorps said this, or national
service?

Ms. Lacey. That’s my recollection.

Mr. FaTTaH. OK, could you share with the committee the specif-
ics of that statement?

Ms. Lacey. I'll be glad to do that in writing. I can research that,
and provide that for you in writing, yes.

Mr. FaTtaH. OK. Now, do you know the demographics of these
20,000 volunteers? The racial demographics?

Ms. Lacey. I don’t know them intimately. No, I don’t. I remem-
ber reading that Summer of Service was 70 to 75 percent minori-
ties.

Mr. Fatran. OK. About 50 percent are not.

Ms. Lacey. Currently?

Mr. FaTTau. Fifty percent happen to be shiny white faces. Is that
a good thing?

is. LACEY. Again, my objection to the program is the program,
not the component therein. My only point is——

Mr. Fatrau. I think that would be logical, except that you said—
one of the points that you made in this June 12 article, which you
said you wrote, is that “it is unlikely that many shiny, white, mid-
dle-class faces.”

k Ms. LACEY. Would you be kind enough to read that all in context
for us?

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I don’t have the whole article.

Ms. Lacey. You just took the quote.

Mr. FatraH. But I’ve asked you to tell us why you raised the
point.

Ms. Lacey. Again, that this is not a program of just volunteers
going out. It’s a program of the government deciding that we're
going to have this program, and this is exactly what the makeup
of the program is going to be.

Mr. FatTau. OK, thank you. Now, Miss Tucker, you said you had
some concerns about my opening pretext to my question. You stat-
ed in a March 1995 article that most AmeriCorps members come
from wealthy households.

Ms. TUCKER. No, my comment on that article was that the pro-
gram was not means tested. I had no information at the time to
say where they come from. I really don’t know where they come
from. Again, I’m not an expert on the way this program runs cur-
rently. In theory, though, in the legislative battle, there were a
number of amendments to the legislation that were offered to
means test the program, and they were all turned down. They did
not want this to be means tested.

Mr. FaTTAH. In your testimony today, you said——

Ms. TucKER. In my written testimony today, I did not mention
economic status of the participants at all.


44

Mary Rose Main,
National Executive Director, Girl
Scouts of the USA.
GENERAL MICHAEL J. DUGAN,
USAF. Retired, National Multiple
Sclerosis Society.
Davip R. MERCER,
Executive Director, YMCA of the
USA.
Horace B. DEETS,
Executive Director, American Asso-
ciation of Retired Persons.
Mary Burcan,
General Secretary, American Asso-
ciation of University Professors.
DANIEL W. MERENDA,
President & CEO, National Associa-
tion of Partners in Education, Inc.

Tommy P. BAER,
President, B’Nai B’Rith Inter-
national.

Dr. Joan B. CAMPBELL,

General Secretary, National Council

of Churches in the U.S.A.
Patricia RENNER,
President, National Association of
RSVP Directors, Inc.
Sara MELENDEZ,
President, Independent Sector.
RICHARD FrrzPaTRICK,

Executive Director, National Coali-

tion for Homeless Veterans.
Gorpon RaLey,

Executive Director, National Collabo-

ration for Youth.
ANN MITCHELL,

Executive Director, National Council

of Non-Profit Associations.
RICHARD SCHUBERT,

President and CEO, Points of Light

Foundation.
PREMA MarHal-Davis,
National Executive Director, YMCA
of the U.S.A.
PauLa VAN NEss,
President, ‘National AIDS Fund.
Maccie Focarty,

Assistant Executive Director, Catho-

lic Network Volunteer Services.
Katie BURNHAM,

Executive Director, Society of Non-

profit Organizations.
Mary Louise ScHWEIKERT,

President, National Association of
Foster Grandparents Program Di-
rectors.

JOHN PRIBYL,

President, National Association of

Senior Companion Directors.
Justin A. WIEBERS,

Executive Director, National Colle-

giate 4-H.


85

Mr. SHays. What he did, what you do is, you take the number
of participants now—20,000—and you divide them into the 1994
dollars, because the 1994 dollars pay for the 1995 volunteers. And
then you don’t take the 1995 dollars and do it, because the 1995
dollars are going to pay for the 33,000. And that’s where you'll get
your number. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do it. Where
the problem is, is when people mix the two numbers.

Ms. TUCKER, I don’t think we mixed the two numbers. Let me—
TM go back and find out for sure and supplement my testimony.

ir. SHAYS. You know what I’m going to ask you to do? I’m going
to ask you to do that right now, and I’m going to recess the com-
mittee. I’ll let the gentleman continue, I’m sorry. And when we go
to recess, then you can come back with your numbers. It’s your tes-
timony. I’m sorry, the gentlemen from Michigan.

Mr. CHRYSLER. Reclaiming my time. I just want to very quickly
ask all three of you, AmeriCorps program—keep it or get rid of it?

lyson?

Ms. TUCKER. I think it should be gotten rid of.

Ms. Lacey. I would agree?

Mr. CHRYSLER, Get rid of it?

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, I would close the program.

Mr. CHRYSLER. Thank you.

Mr. SHays. We're going to recess this hearing. And I look for-
ward to getting your numbers.

S 8..

Mr. Suays. I'd like to call the hearing back to order again. And
Miss Tucker, I need to explain something to you. I am frustrated
with two elements of this. It is not the philosophy of it, because we
can all disagree. I ust want witnesses who come before us, who are
going to present facts and statistics to be comfortable with their
facts and statistics, and to know how they got to them.

Now, I'd like to know from you, what you believe the cost of
AmeriCorps volunteer is, in this year of 1995, the 20,000 volun-
teers. What is the cost?

Ms. TUCKER. Thirty thousand and four hundred dollars is the
number that Senator Charles Grassley has provided as the cost per
AmeriCorps member. His staff derived this number, based on the
cost per volunteer that APT Associates, a Cambridge, MA, consult-
ing firm, offered as the cost per completed graduate in the Summer
of Service program. That is where that number comes from. If you
doubt my veracity, you can talk to Senator Grassley, because that
is where it comes from.

Mr. SHAYS. No, I’m going to talk to you. Now, we're going to talk
to you. How many volunteers are there in AmeriCorps?

Is. TUCKER. There are 20,000 volunteers.

Mr. SHays. OK. What is the budget of AmeriCorps?

Ms. TUCKER. The budget is $370 million.

Mr. Suays. OK, and when you divide that in——

Ms. TucKER. That equals $18,500. We're talking cost per com-
pleted volunteer, not cost for people who are there for a few
months. The GAO—

Mr. SuHays. I don’t want you to talk so quickly. You’re going to
have as much time as you need.

Ms. TuckER. OK.


62

not associated with it—ought to be reduced and the resources they
consume, returned to communities and citizens.

fe thought that was an important issue. We had a particular
view; we favored the latter position, and have sought to try to enter
and make arguments to advance reform in that direction.
AmeriCorps was presented at this time as an example. In fact, it
was used 24 the administration and some of its backers as the ex-
ample of what the Federal Government could do that’s right in the
direction of reform, in empowering communities and working in
local areas.

We then began a process of writing and research on AmeriCorps
to meet that argument on the ground in which it was being most
discussed; that is, the direction of reform, using AmeriCorps as an
example. It’s not the only work we've done, but it has been one of
the areas, as I think I can say from this morning’s testimony, that
has gotten some notice. I’ve heard some of our arguments re-
sponded to, and I suspect we'll have a discussion about some of
them.

Let me also begin by saying I don’t think any of us doubts that
there should be people serving their communities and serving
America. And all of us salute people who do that every day, no
matter where they do it. And I also think that we salute the young
people in AmeriCorps and the people who run AmeriCorps, who are
trying to serve the country.

The issue is not our running down honest people who are doing
serious work. The issue is whether or not this program, in my
mind, is well conceived; is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money;
and whether or not it should be continued in the current environ-
ment of reform and the current environment of the Federal budget
and financing. I believe AmeriCorps is, first of all, not necessary.

For reasons that some of my colleagues have referred to, I think
it is clear that volunteerism is booming in America, despite the fact
that some people believe—and there is considerable evidence
here—that Federal social welfare programs have crowded out tradi-
tional charitable efforts and institutions that were designed to help
the poor, in particular, but also young people.

According to the Independent Sector, a philanthropic monitor or-
ganization, in 1993, 89.2 million Americans offered unpaid vol-
untary service. Though this marks a slight decline from 1981 in the
number of people, when 93.1 million volunteered, the number of
hours has increased by more than 50 percent over that period, from
12.7 billion to 19.5 billion hours. In short, my argument here is, it
ain’t broke and it doesn’t need this fix.

In addition, if it was broke, 23,000, 33,000 or even 50,000
AmeriCorps volunteers would not make a significant difference, if
there was a fundamental problem. You might want to look at other
solutions, whether they're local or national, to increase volunteer-
ism. But this would not even be a drop in the bucket, given the
magnitude of the effort nationally.

As some of my colleagues have referred to, there are over an esti-
mated 3 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 25—which
was given as the principal cohort for AmeriCorps earlier on—who
already serve as unpaid service providers in their communities, as
volunteers are usually described. Many organizations have already


86

Mr. Suays. You're going to have as much time as you need.

Ms. TUCKER. The General Accounting Office is in the process of
finding out exactly what the cost per volunteer is. And we will
know that number as soon as they reach—when they come out
with the publication. And they will spell out the details of the ac-
tual cost, depending upon how you calculate it.

Mr. SHayS. It’s just important that we make sure we don’t mix
the senior program of a half a million and the Learn and Serve of
a half a million students. And we talk about AmeriCorps, it’s
375,000, it’s 20,000 employees. It amounts to close to $18,000

t—

Ms. TucKER. But again, I’m talking cost per completed volun-
teer—cost per person who finishes the year out, graduates from the

program.

Mr Suays. Slow down a second. I just need to understand some-
thing. We’re appropriating $370 million a year to this program.

Ms. TUCKER. Right.

Mr. SHays. There are 20,000 volunteers.

Ms. TUCKER. Bractly.

Mr. SHays. OK. Now, when you say cost, you mean going
through 2 years?

Ms. TuckER. Cost of completing 1 year, when they're done with
the program. It will be—we don’t know that number yet. Nobody
knows for sure. The only thing we know is we can compare it to
the Summer of Service. We do know what the amount was spent
per child.

Mr. SHays. Do you have any dispute that we appropriate $375
million?

Ms. TUCKER. No, I do not.

Mr. Suays. Do you have any dispute that there are 20,000?

Ms. TUCKER. No, I do not.

Mr. Suays. Thank you. I'd like to just ask you a few more ques-
tions and then proceed with our other witnesses. You have a philo-
sophical problem with AmeriCorps. And so we can have our dif-
ferences there. Philosophy is simply going to be your opinion and
my opinion and so on. Bur do you think, if it is $18,000 a year, that
it’s too expensive?

Ms. TucKER. I don’t think it should exist at all. I don’t think we
should be paying our young students to volunteer. Volunteer means
not being paid. Once you start paying somebody, it becomes a jobs
Program. And that’s my philosophical problem with the program.

ir. SHays. We have a voluntary Army.

Ms. Tucker, Right.

Mr. SHays, Should we have them——

Ms. TUCKER. We don’t consider them volunteers; we consider
them members of the military.

Mr. Suays. I consider national corps participants national corps
participants. I was called a Peace Corps volunteer. Should I have
received any payment? Or do you oppose the Peace Corps, too?

Ms. TUCKER. I personally don’t think the Peace Corps—I mean,
I don’t think that is a role that our Federal Government should be
playing right now.

Mr. Suays. OK. But I was called a Peace Corps volunteer.
Ms. Tucker. Right.


121

they have no reason to believe that AmeriCorps is harming military recruiting; and
1 (the first of operation for AmeriCorps) was the third best year in history

is not affecting military recruiting is simple: very few
AmeriCorps Members (about 5000) meet the prime military recruitment profile of
being able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 24 with high-school diplomas.
AmeriCorps includes 64 percent women, 38 percent over 24 years old, 11 percent
without high school degrees, and 4% who are disabled. (See Appendix B.)

AMERICORPS AND VOLUNTARISM.

(33) “At least 94 million Americans currently participate in volunteer service ac-
tivities.”4®

Allyson Tucker

(34) “Over half of all Americans . . . volunteer time each week in the quiet serv-
ice of others.”

—Jill Lacey

These statements are speculation, and the inference is misleading. In reality, there
are no current, 1995 or 1994 data available. The most recent data available, for
1993, show that 89.2 million Americans volunteer.59 As evidence for her assertion,
Ms. Tucker cites a correct statistic from a comprehensive Independent Sector sur-
vey, stating “that in 1991, 94.2 million Americans age 18 and over volunteered in
some capacity.”®! She fails to note, however, that the same survey found that vol-
unteering, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of total population, has
been trending steadily downward since 1989. In 1989, 98.4 million ericans, or
54.4 percent of the civilian population 18 years or older volunteered; in 1991, these
numbers fell to 94.2 million and 51.1 percent; and in 1993 these numbers fell again
to 89.2 million and 47.7 percent. (Excerpts from the Independent Sector survey are
attached as Appendix I.)

(35) “Private sector community service is thriving.”52

lyson Tucker
(36) “Voluntarism in America is booming.”®°
lohn Walters

These statements are misleading. Volunteers have always played a vital role in
meeting the needs of this nation, and millions of people do in fact volunteer. But
even as the population of the United States has risen dramatically, and the needs
of the nation have increased, the number of people who volunteer is dropping. If
this dropping trend in voluntarism from 1989 to 1993 has continued into 1995, there
currently would be 84.6 million people volunteering—representing only 44.3% of the
population. In short, if trends have continued, over the last six years the absolute
number of people who volunteer has fallen by nearly 14 million people, and the per-
centage of the population volunteering has fallen by 10 percentage points.

(37) “AmeriCorps does not promote volunteerism." TM

meriCorps is simply not necessary.”

—John Walters

(39) “Paid ‘voluntarism’ will have a corrupting effect on genuine charity.
AmeriCorps’ effort to bolster a successful private activity—voluntary community
service—with an infusion of federal tax dollars will further encourage community
organizations to become dependent on the federal government. Charitable organiza-
tions already receive one-fourth of their funding from government sources. As a re-
sult, local control often takes a backseat to government grant-seeking.” 5

—John Walters

These statements are false. The simple truth is that the vital needs of our nation
are not currently being met—and that AmeriCorps helps fill the gap. It helps not
only by providing direct service, but by increasing and promoting voluntarism. The
Independent Sector survey on voluntarism found that the single biggest reason peo-

*° Tucker Testimony, p. 4. ;

Lacey, Jill. “Testimony of Jill K. Lacey before the House Subcommittee on Human Re-
sources and Intergovernmental Relations.” May 18, 1995. (Hereinafter referred to as “Lacey Tes-
ti ).

SomGiving and Voluntesring in the Unived States: Findings from.s National Survey.” Inde-
pendent Sector, 1994, p. 23 (Hereinafter referred to as “Independent Sector Survey”).

‘8 Tucker Testimony, p. 4.

62 Tucker Testimony,
*3 Walters Testimon;
‘4 Tucker Testimony,
5 Walters Testimony, p. 2.
% Walters Testimony, p. 3.



124

conducted a comprehensive needs assessment that identified specific shortcomings
in five areas of community development and suggested strategies for addressing
them. Thomson is a model community not because it doesn’t have problems, but _be-
cause it is committed to recognizing its problems and implementing solutions. Part
of the solution they su was the Peach Corps—before there was AmeriCorps.

(47) “Only $5,000 of [the Peach Corps’) hefty budget came from local businesses
in the Thomson area.”

—Jill Lacey

This statement is misleading. The implication is that the local community is not
behind the program, when in fact, the City of Thomson and the McDuffie County
Board of Commissioners have invested more than $30,000 in the Peach Corps.

(48) “The Peach Corps, therefore, made a concerted effort to divert potential re-
cruits. {rom their college track to fulfill its own affirmative action goals.””°

ey

This statement is false on two counts, First, the Peach Corps encourages all of its
Members to go to college. That is why they receive education awards. Second,
Peach Corps does not have affirmative action goals, and Ms. Lacey has presented
no evidence that it does.

(49) “These workers were not attracted by the urge to serve.” .

(50) “Many of the Peach Corps participants voiced surprise and disappointment
to me, tha in addition to their paid work, more genuine unpaid service wasn’t ex-

ted of them.”

(51) “It is clear to me that the emphasis of Americorps are the so-called volunteers
not the pulations they purportedly serve.” 7!

ill Lacey

These statements are unsubstantiated and subjective. Ms. Lacey, as explained in
response to quotation number 40, has had only minimal exposure to the Peach
Corps. Moreover, in her oral testimony, she first stated that a number of Members
she spoke with had chosen the Peach Corps instead of the military, but later re-
canted when she was reminded she was under oath and admitted that she only re-
membered speaking with one. Therefore, the Corporation feels that any of her sub-
jective assertions about how the Members felt should be viewed with extreme cau-
tion.

More importantly, it is clearly inappropriate for Ms. Lacey to be making sweeping,
false generalizations about the “emphasis of Americorps” on the basis of her limited
exposure to a few Members at only one of AmeriCorps’ 1,000 sites.

inally, since Ms. Lacey’s pre-AmeriCorps visit, the Peach Corps does require a
minimum of 40 hours of additional uncompensated volunteering from its Members.
This is roughly equal to the average number of hours the typical American volun-
teer puts in a full year—and the Peach Corps Members, of course, log in at least
an additional 1700 hours of service.

REBUTTAL OF FALSE STATEMENTS IN AMERICORPS OPPONENT TESTIMONY

As you are well aware, there are many legitimate areas of disagreement about
AmeriCorps between its proponents and its critics. Some of these were brought out
in the initial debate over the legislation that created AmeriCorps, and undoubtedly
many will resurface in the debate over AmeriCorps’ reauthorization. Unfortunately,
the legitimate substantive debate has been obfuscated by a series of accusations
about ‘AmeriCorps programs—accusations that are at best misleading, and at worst,
patently false.

‘On May 18, 1995, Jill Lacey, Allyson Tucker, and John Walters repeated 50 of
these charges before the Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental
Relations of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the United
States House of Representatives. The attached document sets the facts straight; it
systematically enumerates the false and misleading statements in the testimony of
AmeriCorps’ opponents, and it provides the underlying facts.

Most of the opponents’ charges have been made Setore, and, as you know, we have
made extensive efforts to correct them in other contexts. Fortunately, the lack of
any foundation for these claims was brought out in the hearing. For example:

Both Mr. Walters and Mr. Tucker continued to repeat as fact the wildly inac-
curate assertion that Nebraska spent $20,000 “just to recruit” AmeriCorps Mem-
bers. The actual recruitment cost is less than $50 per Member. Although ir, Wal-
ters had widely disseminated this claim in the press, at the hearing, Mr. Walters

‘@ Lacey Testimony, p. 2
7 Lacey Testimony, p. 2
7 Lacey Testimony, p. 3


31

There's something I want to bring to your attention. I want to
tell you why Habitat, in particular, is so supportive of AmeriCorps.
We are now operating in about five or six Habitat sites around the
United States. And what they will say—particularly what Jerry
Bass will say, Jerry Bass, a man in his 40’s who, instead of con-
tinuing his life as a district sales manager at K-mart, joined Habi-
tai

tb.

And I met with Jerry Bass in Miami several months ago, and he
said he loves AmeriCorps. The reason he does is, No. 1, his biggest
problem is, he’s never sure on a given day whether we're going to

ave 5 volunteers or 105 volunteers who are going to show up on
that site. AmeriCorps is there full time, long term, to do the labor.
No. 2, when the volunteers do come there, AmeriCorps can help
train those volunteers so that, in fact, he can use scarce resources
in another way.

No. 3, AmeriCorps can be out in the community, as they are, re-
cruiting volunteers on a full-time basis to come join with those
Projects. No. 4, AmeriCorps members are regularly—can regularly,
and are, in fact, regularly recruiting those who will live in Habitat,
who will actually become the homeowners. And No. 5, AmeriCorps
members are frequently involved in helping those who are moving
from being renters to being owners, to understand what it means
to have a mortgage, to become a responsible member of the commu-

nity.

% Habitat is one of the real examples of the partnership, I
think, working the way we’d like it to. We know we have to work
real carefully on the course of this program. As someone who comes
from the private sector, I think we really, really view our respon-
sibilities to fiduciaries and tax money carefully. But we also have
to look at the cost-benefit ratio. And Habitat is really one example
where I think, if you'd be given an opportunity to see, to talk with
some of the s of Habitat and some of the volunteers, I think
you'd feel comfortable with it.

Mr. MartINI. Well, we're going to be there again Saturday, and
YN do just that. I will speak with them more. But it just struck me,
in listening to you today, that it was a good example of what might
be a Potential problem. But I appreciate your insight on it, and
we'll discuss it more.

Mr. SEGAL. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. MarTINi. I give back the balance of my time.

Mr. Suays. I thank the gentleman, he probably has about 3 min-
utes. I wasn’t thinking. I ran out, and I’ve already asked the ques-
tion. I should have told Mr. Green to run, and we're going to be
waiting for him. Therefore, I’m going to take the opportunity to ask
a few more questions. One of your critics complains about your na-
tional ad campaign.

I'm never aware of seeing a national ad campaign, but they’re
criticizing that evidently you spend too much in advertising. There
was a contract entered into by the corporation. Honestly, it’s a
predecessor organization.

Mr. SHays. Which was ACTION?

Mr. SEGAL. That was ACTION. With an advertising agency for
a series of activities, only one of which was advertising. Only one—
we felt it was important to make people aware, create some visi-


7

¢ Working in classrooms as tutors; assisting individuals with Alzheimers disease;
providing computer training, and nature trail construction.

¢ Helping to solve local environmental problems, repairing and upgrading com-
munity facilities, promoting sustainable farming, conducting environmental edu-
cation seminars, and preserving and restoring national forests.

* Low-income seniors providing individual attention and guidance to children
with mental, physical or emotional disabilities, and low-income seniors providing as.
sistance to frail adults so that they may maintain their highest level of independent

ving.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of paying for college now ranks as one of the most costly
investments for American families, second only to buying a home. During the 19803
the cost of attending college scared by 126 percent. The truth is that families are
making up the cost of a declining federal commitment to higher education. It is sim-
ply not acceptable that millions of young people are denied access to higher edu-
cation because of the limited income of their families.

Today’s debate is about priorities. It’s about whether we stand behind the future
of our children or we support cuts in over $30 billion in student grants, loans and
federal aid to higher education as the House-passed budget proposes to do—includ-
ing the complete termination of the National and Community Service Programs. It’s
about whether we as a nation understand the importance of Prepari the workforce
of tomorrow with education today. It’s about whether we stand behind working fam-
ilies in their efforts to send their children to college when they are working longer
hours for less ay. It’s about assisting seniors in their work with children as foster
grandparents and their work with other seniors as companions through difficult and
challenging times.

National and Community Service helps remove some of the economic barriers to
attending college by allowing students to pay off their student loans by working in
their community on important educational, environmental, and poverty programs.
By paying students for their work and enabling students to p22, off their loans, Na-
tional Service recognizes the current situation for most college students—namely,
most of them are currently working. In fact, nearly half of ail full-time students in
the 16-24 age group and 62 percent of students in all age categories work—often
as much as 35 hours a week. Our higher education policy must continue to serve
college students as they are, not as we imagine them to be.

truth is our college students and their families are paying the price of a un-
conscionably declining Federal commitment to higher education. Since its earliest
involvement in higher education policy, the federal government's ultimate goal has
been to Fparanvee ‘an equal opportunity for Americans to attend and graduate from
college. If we continue to pare back our commitment to Pell grants and eliminate
the in-school interest subsidy for student loans as the House-passed budget has
done—our students will have little opportunity—to attend school without facin;
enormous debt. We must offer college students both National Service and a soli
commitment to Pell grants, work study, supplemental educational opportunity
ants, Perkins and Stafford Loan programs and the State Student Incentive
rants. Instead the GOP budget adds $5000 to the cost of the average student loan
by charging students interest on their loans while they are in school.

In addition, we must continue to recognize our changing student population and
the obstacles currently preventing them from completing college. National Service
recognizes and addresses many of those obstacles. Today about 43 percent of our
students are over the age of 25—40 percent are enrolled on a part-time basis—and
more women than men attend college, as has been the case since 1979. National
Service provides awards to full and part-time students; it provides family leave to

‘icipants; and it allows states and other grant recipients to fund their own health
insurance policy and make child care available. National Service removes additional
barriers that would have prevented much of our diverse student population from
participating in National Service.

Let us get our priorities straight. National Service and other federal programs
rovidi financial aid to students are funding priorities that this Congress can no
longer afford to ignore. We must oppose any and all efforts to cut back on financial

aistance to students—especially those efforts outlined in the House-paased budget
plan—and preserve programs that allow Americans of all ages to work with and im-
prove our communities.

And I'd like to assure the gentleman, Mr. Lantos, that it’s been

a pleasure to work with Mr. Towns. He has been so very coopera-
tive, and I think we’ve run this committee on the bipartisan basis



46

AMERICoRPS INVESTORS

The following is a partial list of corporate giving programs and corporate, inde-
pendent and community foundations that are investing in community service orga-
nizations that are a part of the AmeriCorps National Service Network:

Alcoa

AlliedSignal
Allstate

Amelior Foundation
American Airlines
American Express

Arizona Foundation
Arthur Anderson
Bank of Boston
Bank of New Hampshire
Bechtel
BellSouth
Booth Ferris Industries
Boston Foundation
British Petroleum
Bullitt Foundation
Burnett-Tandy Foundation
Cabletron Systems
California Community Foundation
Capital Cities/ABC
Carnegie Corporation of NY
Amon G. Carter Foundation
Chevron
Citizens Bank
Compas
Cowell Foundation
Charles A Dana Foundation

jigital Equipment Corporation
Echoing Green Foundation
Enron

intergy
Fannie Mae
First Deposit National Bank
Fleet Bank
Ford Foundation
The Gap
General Electric
General Mills
Grand Rapids Foundation
Greater Cincinnati Foundation

E. & W. Haas Jr. Foundation
Hall Family Foundations
Healthsource

Hogg Foundation

The Home Depot

Houston Endowment

IBM

JCPenney

J.P. Morgan

James Irvine Foundation

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Johnson & Johnson

Kansas City Community Foundation
Kauffman Foundation

W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Key Bank of
Knight Foundation

Luce Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
MBNA

McKesson

Meadows Foundation
Mellon Bank

R.K. Mellon Foundation
Meyer Foundation
Microsoft

Milli

Mobil

Monsanto

Morgan Stanley
Charles S. Mott Foundation
NationsBank
Charitable Foundation
e

NYNEX

Packard Foundation

Panhandle Eastern

Patagonia

Pew Charitable Trust
ilip Morris

PNC Bank

Polaroid

Prince Charitable Trust

Proctor and Gamble

Providian Bank

Prudential Insurance

Reebok

RI Hospital Trust Bank
Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation
ie Rouse Company
Safeco Insurance
Sallie Mee. & So
joseph E. Seagram ns
Sell On
Skillman Foundation
Sony Corporation of America
Sprint
Steelcase
Surdna Foundation
Tenneco
Texaco
Timberland
ime Warner
Toyota
Union Pacific
United Way of America
UPS

US. Health Corporation
Waste Management
Western Resources

Lola Wright Foundation
Xerox


6

J am extremely concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the House Republican Budget com-
pletely eliminates funding for the Corporation for National Service and the pro-
grams under its charge. This means that this year thousands of young people serv-
ing communities all over the nation—more than four times as many as the
Peace Corps—will not be able to improve our communities in such areas as, health,
by organizing AIDS education programs, caring for senior citizens, providing child
care training and services, and immunizing children against. preventable diseases.
We are making it more difficult for our young people to work in areas of community
development, where they are renovating low-cost housing, refurbishing senior cen-
ters, helping the homeless, providing job training. There will no longer be any more
funding available to fight crime, through community policing programs and provid-
ing program alternatives to reduce juvenile crime and juvenile delinquency.
elimination of funding for the Corporation means that over the next seven years,
at least 300,000 young people will not have the opportunity to help our communities
or pay for college through national service.

Chairman, in my own Congressional district, Americorpe funds programs in
San Mateo and San Francisco Counties where more than 200 full-time AmeriCorps
members work in collaboration with community based organizations to improve our
communities in the areas of 1) reducing crime, 2) improving child care, 3) developing
affordable housing, 4) running substance abuse awareness workshops, 5) trainin
young tutors, and 6) helping families find health care and other services. All o!
these activities are worthy of our support and continued funding.

Mr. Chairman, Americorps is an invaluable program for this generation and fu-
ture generations because it makes an investment in the young people of today by
helping them pay for their education in return for community service. There have
been a lot of inaccuracies and distortions that have been used to discredit national
service and the volunteer corps. It is my hope that this forum will provide us with
a reasoned discussion about the value of Americorps, which is putting creative, dedi-
cated and committed young people to work and addressing the real social issues fac-
ing our local communities.

Mr. SHays. Without objection, I’d ask unanimous consent that all
members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening
statement in the record, and that the record remain open for 3
days for that purpose. And without objection, it is so ordered. I also
ask unanimous consent that our witnesses be permitted to include
their written statements in the record, so that they can summarize
their statement. And without objection, that’s so ordered.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that you called this important hearing today, on the
Corporation for National Service. [ am aware that you yourself were involved in the
Peace Corps, and I congratulate you for giving your energy, dedication and time to
develop communities around the world. [am sure you understand my outrage that
the recently passed House budget that shuts the door on all the National and Com-
munity Service programs throughout this country.

In my own state, 10,000 Vermonters are engaged in National Service programs.
Over the pert two years Vermont has received more than $2 million from the Cor-
poration for National and Community Service to support the work of thousands of
concerned and dedicated Vermonters involved in community service. For example,
over 5,000 of Vermont's seniors continue to serve Vermont's communities through
the National Seniors Service Corps program: Foster Grandparents, Senior Compan-
ions, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Programs. Nearly 150 Vermonters,
through AmeriCorps are committing 1-2 years of their lives to service in exchange
for a chance to afford the skyrocketing cost of higher education. Thousands more
Vermonters, through Learn and Service America are developing ‘skills theyll use
throughout ‘their lifetime while helping their communities take care their edu-
cational, public safety, human and environmental needs. What kind of activities are
we talking about?

¢ Working side-by-side with community volunteers providing routine home main-
tenance for those chores that are often impossible for elderly and disabled persons
to accomplish on their own and enabling individuals to be integrated into their com-
munities.



40

Mr. SHays. Hearing just the reference to the military, we will
have critics who will say that somehow national service is making
it more difficult to encourage people to go into our military service.
And I'd like you, if you would, just to address that.

Mr. SEGAL. I think this is one of those blips on the screen that
was unfortunate. I think the record is absolutely clear, from both
Secretary of Defense Perry to the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Manpower, Mr. Pang, and from the personnel chiefs of all the
different services that national service is having no adverse effect
on recruitment. It’s not surprising, when you recognize that our
benefit level is substantially lower.

The universe from which we are drawing is substantially dif-
ferent. And I believe that the record should be clear that there is
no adverse effect. We’re really quite happy with our relationships
with the Defense Department, the armed services and with the vet-
erans community, who are really supportive of what we are doing
in national service as well.

Mr. SHays. Is Gene Green outside? OK, what I want to do then,
if you don’t mind, is give Mr. Green the opportunity, if he’d like,
to ask you questions. But I think we need to proceed with our hear-
ing, and evidently he is meeting with some students. So I am going
to ask you just to stay a little longer. When Mr. Green gets Back
I may call you back.

Otherwise, I'd like to start with Mr. Witt, and invite him to tes-
tify. Excuse me, 1 second. So, can you stay for just a——

Mr. SEGAL. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SuHays. Thank you. Mr. Witt, you are the director of the Fed-
eral Emergency Management Agency, is that correct?

Mr. Witt. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHays. Well, I welcome you here, and if you would please
raise your right hand.

{Witness sworn.]

Mr. Suays. Thank you very much, and Mr. Witt, I appreciate you.
staying here. And I'll just say, Mr. Segal, we'll be able to tell you
in the next 5 to 10 minutes if he’s coming back. Thank you,
Witt. I welcome your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JAMES LEE WITT, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Mr. Wirt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I appre-
ciate the op rtunity to appear before you today to tell you about
FEMA's work with eriCorps. I believe my friend, Eli aeeal, has
provided a terrific leadership, and it’s been a great help to FEMA.
And I hope it’s been a useful experience for the AmeriCorps mem-
bers who have participated. But the greatest benefit of the FEMA-
AmeriCorps partnership has been to the American public.

When President Clinton asked me to become Director of FEMA,
he gave me very clear orders. He told me he wanted his adminis-
tration to respond quickly and efficiently to help people in commu-
nities impacted by disasters. He wanted to make sure that other
agencies in the administration, which had skills and resources to
help, would work with us to improve how we delivered assistance
in disasters, and how we help people recover from the losses.


120

(30) “AmeriCorps Members
and other non-direct service acti

John Walters

This statement is misleading. Mr. Walters has confused a limit with an average.
As explained earlier, although AmeriCorps Members must engage in direct service
(see footnote 23), some of their time may be spent in non-direct service activities
that support what they are doing. These activities may include training and edu-
cation, ‘of which are often essential to programs. The Corporation issued guid-
ance stating that not more than 20 percent of AmeriCorps Members’ 1,700 mini-
mum required hours may be spent in non-direct service activities. That is a limit
however, not an average; most AmeriCorps Members spend a smaller percentage o
their time in education and training; and most AmeriCorps Members serve more
than their minimum number of hours. Therefore, it is incorrect to infer that one-
fifth of AmeriCorps Members’ time is spent on such activities.

id one-fifth of their time in ‘training, education,
ies”

THE TRAINING OF AMERICORPS MEMBERS

(31) “There is a role to have government—FEMA—go in and train the volunteers
and show, them how to get things done . . . but, this program (AmeriCorps) doest't
do it. You're taking green kids off the street. . "43

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is false, First, AmeriCorps Members are not “kids.” 21 percent of
AmeriCorps Members are 30 years of age or older; and 74 percent are 21 years of
age or older, Second, AmeriCorps Members are not green.” ‘Three percent, of
‘AmeriCorps Members have advanced academic degrees; 28 percent have attained at
least @ Bachelors degree; 62 percent have attended at, least some college; and all
but 11 percent have a high school diploma, (See appendix B.) More importantly, by
the Corporation's regulations, all AmeriCorps Members are required to receive
training appropriate to the service they will be providing“ Emergency response
teams receive extensive training in disaster relief and first aid. Teacher taught
how to teach. And nearly all AmeriCorps Members receive basic training in CPR.

AMERICORPS’ EFFECT ON MILITARY RECRUITING

(32) “I did meet some volunteers down there who specifically told me, when I
asked them what they'd be doing if they weren't with the Peach Corps, that th
had opted for the Peach Corps, over the military, because of the educational benefit
that they would receive."#®

i

This statement is false and misleading. Preliminarily, Ms. Lacey admitted later
in her testimony that in fact she remembered speaking with only one such individ-
ual, stating, “I did meet at least one individual down there who was definitely di-
verted from joining the Air Force by the Peach Corps education stipend.”** More
important, the implication of her statement—that AmeriCorps harms military re-
cruiting—is false. This charge was first made by Mr. Walters in a March 23, 1995
memorandum, in which he stated, “there is evidence that AmeriCorps may be harm-
ing military recruiting.”47 Not only is there no such evidence, but there is over-
whelming evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Walter’s assertion is based entirely on a Marine Corps survey of 500 young
men. The study found that only 11 percent of those sui id heard of
AmeriCorps. However, when given the [false] statement that AmeriCorps offered
better education benefits than the military, 47 percent said they would consider
joining. In other words, there is no actual evidence.

The Secretary of Defense and the Assistant Secretary for Manpower—the top two
civilians responsible for military recruiting—have told the 104th Cos in writ-
ing that AmeriCorps is not harming their recruiting: the Personnel fs for each
of the services in the Armed Forces have told the 104th Congress, under oath, that

42 Walters Testimony, p. 4.

“Tucker, Allyson, “Oral Testimony Before The Committee on Government Reform and Over-
sight Subcommittee 'on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. House of Rep-
Texentatives.” May 16, 1995, p. 100, lines 2902-2307, ae

“4 Am part of the minimum program requirements, all AmeriCorps programs must “provi
participants in the program with the training, eills, and knowledge vie noceea ry to perform the

red in their respective projects, including, if a te, specific training in a par-

touler Bold 45 CFR 2502 1009), 6, appropriate, Spee ein een

“Lacey Oral Testimony, p. 75, lines 1728-1732.

“Lacey Oral Testimony, p. 102, lines 2359-2360.

47 Walters, John, “Memorandum to Conservative Reformers: Honey, They Shrunk My Pro-
gram,” March 23, 1995.


19

national service. They would be in the areas of public safety, edu-
cation, environment, and health and human needs. We added to
that the criterion that whatever local communities thought they
needed, they had to “get things done.” There had to be clear and
demonstrable results; whether it was raising reading scores, build-
ing homes, immunizing children, et cetera.

e’re in the business, essentially, of service, not in the business
of any particular agenda. Service is generally going to involve
working with those who need substantial help to help them solve
the problems of our communities. And we’re essentially here to say
it doesn’t really matter to us whether a community focuses on im-
munization or tutoring or recycling, as long as they do it well and
it matches human needs.

Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Segal.

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Towns [presiding]. Yes.

Mr. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield, if he has any more time?

Mr. Towns. I’d be delighted to yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Towns. Mr. Segal—and thank you
for yielding—we have an opportunity this morning to—I just hap-
pen to have a group from my district here that are national service
contractors. And I had an opportunity, about 2 months ago, to visit
an elementary schoo] in North Houston, Garcia Elementary, that’s
a new school. And we have two teachers there, Michael Fienberg
and David Levin who are Teach for America, and they’re contrac-
tors with national service; not directly under national service.

They have a number of their students here today, and I was im-
pressed. And let me explain a little about the KIPP program at our
school. These young people, if they would stand up, and be recog-
nized by the folks that are here. These are 48 fifth graders from
Houston. And they not only spend their regular school day, but
they stay until 5 p.m. and they fe in on Saturdays. It’s called the
KIPP program—Knowledge Is a Power Program.

These 10- and 11-year-olds sign a voluntary commitment to ex-
cellence form. And I have a copy of that, and I was reading it when
I was out there with the children. I was amazed at the dedication
of these 10- and 11-year-olds. These are not selected students from
all over Houston. These children live in the service area for that
elementary school. They’re not handpicked. They’re picked as fifth
graders and 10- and 11-year-olds.

The commitments of these children and their parents—there are
five parents and chaperons here today who are with them, and
they’re visiting Washington. It just so happened that the chairman
had the hearing at the same time. But the opportunity for these
young people in the national service program, again, as contractors
with Teach for America. Teach for America was in prior existence
to national service.

But I'd just like to show the dedication in Houston, TX, in the
national service program that’s being provided as a contractor for
national service by these 10- and 11-year-olds. All I can say to the
children here is, this is Eli Segal, who is from the national service
program in Washington. And I know they don’t understand how
they got those teachers there, but this hearing today is on the ef-


4

finance committee. Mr. Chapman’s outrage over proposals to cut AmeriCorps under-
scores not only the judgment of the business community that service works—but re-
minds us that if we want to leverage the tax dollar by increasing public/private
partnerships, then government can't walk ovt after the firat year of its first real at-
tempt.

Americans like this type of delivery system. And every fair-minded observer
should be encouraged by AmeriCorps’ early results. The committee's other witnesses
will have their own stories to tell, but let me relate just two specific results:

In Atlanta, school Principal Don Doran says discipline problems are down by
25 to 30% and teacher attendance is up because AmeriCorps Hands on Atlanta
Members are tutoring and assisting in the Benteen elementary school.

In rural Simpson County Kentucky, AmeriCorps set the geal of raising the
reading scores of the bottom half of the county's second graders by three full grade
levels in a single year. Well, the school gave those kids their mid-year test, and
more than 70% of those tutored by the AmeriCorps members already had their read-
ing scores up at least two levels—with nearly two-thirds of those up three grades
or more already!

These examples were echoed in an independent evaluations of AmeriCorps by a
firm headed by Ed Aguirre, who served as Commissioner of Education in the Ford
Administration. We've provided their random sampling of AmeriCorps sites after
five months of operations. | want to give you just a few examples of what the 1,500
or so AmeriCorps members at those sites accomplished in their first five months.
Thanks to them:

‘+ 258 neighborhoods have block watches or other safety programs;

* 470 crime victims have received counselling and assistance;

8,500 school children are getting to school safely through some of our toughest
neighborhoods;

© 238 city apartments, 296 homes of the frail elderly, 99 rural homes and 15 shel-
ters and other community buildings have been renovated;
ec homeless families have a place to stay and 50,000 needy Americans have

food to eat;

1,100 children have been screened for lead poisoning and other health threats;

* Over 200,000 trees have been planted; 27 miles of river and stream banks have
been stabilized and 88 miles of parkland trails have been built, restored or main-
tained; an

¢ 7,638 children had tutors and more than 1,430 school kids had skilled teachers.

These are a tiny fraction of the lives touched, the communities improved, the hard
and vital work done by AmeriCorps members in just their first five months. These
are critical services, delivered with impact and accountability—and they wouldn’t
have been delivered any other way.

Mr. Chairman, the Concord Coalition has been an early, consistent, bi-partisan
voice in the effort to reduce the deficit and increase local autonomy. Their plan for
a balanced budget doesn’t call for cuts in national service. As the letter of co-founder
Paul Tsongas to this committee makes clear, “‘balance’ requires judgment as well
as arithmetic. And that means using scarce dollars wisely. AmeriCorps is a smart
investment—and Congress should focus on better ways to solve our massive budget

leficit.”

T thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your colleagues for showing balance and judg-
ment, and | welcome your questions.

Mr. Snays. My challenge, Mr. Segal, is that I like the program
so much and I like you so much, that any question I ask, is some-
what self-serving. cA I'm not going to spend a lot of time asking
you questions, very candidly. I’m going to spend more time just ex-
amining what the critics have to say and why, and get a handle
on it. What I've found is that when I've read critical information
about national service and AmeriCorps, even if it’s by a different
writer, it comes back to the same basic writer. I say, “where do you
get your facts from?” and they say, “well, I got it from an earlier
article.” So we have three critics, and we'll spend more time giving
them a chance to share their views.

One of the things that constantly is confused, is the way we fund
AmeriCorps. People use 1995 dollars and divide it into the number
of participants you have today, which is about 20,000. Are the


3

sponse, are attached to, and included as par of, this statement. Our focus today
will be the quality and the quantity of the service opportunities afforded by
AmeriCorps programs. We will also discuss the appropriate role of federal service
programs in relation to the broad array of private volunteer efforts.

e National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993 challenged young Ameri-
cans to make a difference through a “domestic Peace Corps” program known as
AmeriCorps. Its goals are to match citizen service efforts with unmet human, edu-
cational, environmental and public safety needs and to renew the ethic of civic re-
sponsibility and the spirit of community service.

As someone who has long advocated greater federal budget discipline, I had res-

ervations about a new spending initiative in 1993. But I concluded that the
AmeriCorps program promised to be a wise investment, Yielding benefits to partici-
pants and communities many times greater than expenditures. Nothing I heard or
during the debate in 1993 successfully challenged that conclusion.
Today, I'look forward to an open and frank discussion of the AmeriCorps pro-
gram’s performance in fulfilling its great promise. In this endeavor, facts speak
more persuasively than fables, and good data carries more weight than good inten-
tions.

The future of AmeriCorps may well be determined by how we do our job. Within
the hour, the House will resume debate on an historic budget resolution, ree:
ommended by the Budget Committee, on which I serve. I am proud of that budget.
It sets a course to fiscal balance and rescues our future from a crushing burden of
debt. But in that budget, the FY 96 spending target set for the Education, Training
and Social Services function, which includes the Corporation for National and Com-
munity Service, has been reduced $2.4 billion below current baseline projections.

To earn its place in the final appropriations bill, the Corporation and its
AmeriCorps programs will have to prove their worth. I stood up for the value of na-
tional service during consideration of the FY 95 rescissions bill, and I will continue
to do al] in my power to make that case. In that effort, I appreciate the thoughtful
and heartfelt views of our witnesses today, both pro and con.

We are pleased to have the CEO of the Corporation for National and Community
Service, Eli Segal, with us today. Other witnesses testifying on Corporation pro-

rams are: James Witt, Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency; James

loseph, Chairman of the Board of the Corporation for National and Community
Service; Deputy Commissioner John Timoney of the New York City Police Depart-
ment; Phillip Wu, an AmeriCorps member; and Eugenia Bloom, the parent of an
AmeriCorps participant. Also with us today: Allyson Tucker of the Heritage Founda-
tion, Jill -y of the Capital Research Center and John Walters of the New Citi-
zenship Project. They take a critical view of national service programs.

We are grateful to all of our witnesses for their participation in this hearing.

I want to say, for the record, just for honesty in advertising, that
I was fortunate to help write this bill. I believe strongly in national
service and AmeriCorps. So to the critics here today, I just want
to be up front and say I am a strong supporter of this program.
I intend to be fair to all the participants. We will be asking, I hope,
important questions of everyone. It was a privilege for me to intro-
duce the President’s bill to the committee, and it was a privilege
for me to help write this legislation. .

I was particularly grateful to the administration, that even
though a minority of Republicans voted for this legislation, they
still allowed us, as a minority, to have as much say as the majority.
Steve Gunderson says that this program is a Democratic program
with a Republican delivery system. T happen to think that it is the
best example of involving local communities, and to have a struc-
ture that provides for innovation, because it’s not national in its
orientation.

The danger is, when you allow for so much flexibility, you might
have some bad programs. And we're here to investigate if there are
bad programs, and how many, and what can be done about it. I
welcome our two colleagues, Mr. Lantos, with whom I served on
this committee for many years as chairman; and Gene Green from



110

Mr. Suays. For the record, since you weren’t near the micro-
Phone, Commissioner, are you going to agree that the city pays half
and——

Mr. TIMONEY. The city pays half, and the Federal Government
pays half.

irs. MORELLA. I see.

Mr. SHays. OK, somewhere around there. If that is not precise,
we'll put it in the written record.

Mrs. More.ta. Splendid. Well, I’m pleased to know that it’s
working so very well. And we can certainly look on it as a model.
Thank you. I want to thank Mrs. Bloom for that excellent experi-
ence, and Mr. Wu. You obviously were motivated and inspired, and
I wish that we could clone people like you. And I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. SHays. Well, that’s what we're trying to do. Mr. Timoney, I
just want to note for the record, if your program didn’t exist, would
you do it with volunteers, or would it just not exist? In other words,
would volunteers do this program? Total volunteers? Unpaid?
Could they?

Mr. TIMONEY. | don’t think so, no, Because what there—there’s
a school part of it. We have volunteers in the auxiliary police.

Mr. SHays. Right.

Mr. Timoney. It’s a completely different type of program. This is
more—the auxiliary police, the volunteers, the attractiveness to
that, it’s almost like police work, you know, for all this tactical
stuff. This is more geared toward public service.

Mr. Suays. Yes.

Mr. TIMONEY. So it’s not strictly police. Even though we super-
vise and help train them, it’s more of a public service commitment
being involved. Not only police issues, but social issues that tan-
gibly affect police—homelessness and things of that nature.

ir. SHaYS. Thank you. I am going to let the statement of both
of you stand on their own. They couldn’t have been better. And
candidly, it’s the reason why I support AmeriCorps. You summed
it up so beautifully. You are a very impressive young man.

Mr. Wu. Thank you very much.

Mr. Suays. And our country is blessed to have you as a citizen.
Eli Segal has left, and has designated Rick Allen as someone who
could come and speak for the record. The advantage of calling you
up, Mr. Allen, is that I will put you under oath. And rather than
being in the written record, we'll have it there for your testimony.
So I thank all three of you, and really appreciate you being here,
and your patience for waiting so long until you could testify.

I’m going to try to do this fairly quickly here. I understand, Mr.
Allen, you have a few points that you want on the record. If you'll
raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. Suays. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF RICK ALLEN, CHIEF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS OFFI-
CER, CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERV-
ICE

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll try to be brief.
This was an extraordinary day, and we appreciate the opportunity


69

ice Conservation Corps (NASCC) at the time of application for an AmeriCorps grant,
they need only notify the Corporation of this coverage.


as-17-1988 aL:Sem FROM

May 17, 1995

‘Me, Murtin B. Cominsky

President and Chief Executive Offices
SERVE HOUSTON YOUTH CORPS
P.O, Box 3732

Houston, Texas 77253-3732

Dear Martin,

cna ee DePelchin Children's Come is very appreciative of our participation in SERVE
HOUSTON AmeriCorps. The youth participating in ow program have provided
‘meaningful services to DePelchin, ard we believe the work experiences have been
Positive fur these young people as well.

‘We support the continuation of the funding at the U.S. Congress level for the
AmetiCorps ptograra, 1 am coavinced that this program provides important
training, job experiences and income for disadvantaged youth. The program has
provided DePelchin Children's Center the opportunity to provide job training for
some teenagers who otherwise would not have these uppornunities.

{ realize that there are many reyuests for the use of Pedcral funds. however, I
believe this program is one of thase programs that clearly demonstrates its cost
effectiveness, Youth participating in SERVE HOUSTON AmeriCorps are, in all
probability, golng to tuve rut tr Im: ynealinitive misty,

Sincerely,

Krust £ haba

Robert E. Barker
President und Chief Executive Officer

Corporate OFF.
199 Sandman
Heaton, Tes 77007

7106-0136 B hmtewrens
Ae i Lae ha


10

Mr. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, it’s a pleasure to be with you today.
From the days in early 1993, when this was just a vision, your sup-
port for national service has been unswerving, and your counsel to
us has been wise and evenhanded. Your subcommittee includes
many friends of service, and your leadership is mirrored on the
other side of the aisle by Ranking Member Towns, Congressman
Gene Green, and all of our colleagues who I'd like to thank for
their help and guidance.

Less than 2 years ago, Congress, with strong bipartisan majori-
ties, gave us a job to do. With the possible exception, on behalf of
our most ideological critics, everyone agreed that we have done
what we were asked to do—20,000 well-trained, motivated
AmeriCorps members are serving in over 1,000 communities all
over the country. AmeriCorps supporters don’t claim to reach per-
fection—startups never are—and we need to be held to rigorous
standards for continuous improvement.

But before we get to that, we need to answer two big questions—
is the idea that motivated you and your colleagues in 1993 wrong
in 1995; and is that idea working in practice? The concept of na-
tional service, the rationale for AmeriCorps and our other _pro-
grams~the National Senior Service Corps and Learn and Serve

merica—comes from a few very commonsense observations, as
true today as they were 20 months ago when the Congress enacted
into law the National and Community Service Trust Act.

One, Americans want to help their communities. Two, there is
much that nonexperts can do if. theyre trained and supervised, and
if they dedicate a year or more of their lives to the task. Three, the
country can come together to solve large problems, whether it’s
wartime efforts or peacetime initiatives, like the CCC. Four, even
smaller efforts can have far-reaching results. Look at the Peace
Corps, which the American people cherish as a perfect blend of in-
dividualism, idealism, and government support.

Five, Federal supported service didn’t use to be a partisan battle-

‘ound, as Congressman Shays said earlier today. In fact, Repub-
ficans in Congress, together with a Republican President, made the
most recent Federal involvement in civilian domestic service pos-
sible by passing the National and Community Service Act of 1990.
Six, that act, and what followed in 1993, created a domestic version
of the Peace Corps, and reflected the lessons of the last 30 years—
the power of competition, the advantages of decentralization and
local decisionmaking, and the collaboration of all elements of our
society.

Seven, established nonprofits with proven track records should
be the backbone of that effort, not a new, hide bound Federal bu-
reaucracy. If they get more full-time help, they could use the good
intentions and help of traditional volunteers more effectively. And
eight, AmeriCorps should look like America. I’m providing a demo-
fraphic profile, for the record, of what our first class, in fact, looks
Ke.

After about a half a year of AmeriCorps operations, the American
people called killing AmeriCorps going in the wrong direction, by
ever increasing majorities—stronger opposition than to any other
congressionally Proposed cut, ine’ uding better known targets like
Big Bird and school lunches. Why? They know that AmeriCorps,


youth corps volunteers will teach 300 youngsters
to swim utilizing apartment and school district

00)
pools. Mousten, Texas 77283-3007
i 7131669-5566
The AmeriCorps volunteers have empowered 211ee9 S568

she YMCA to meet its mission goals in low-
income neighborhoods and created enthusiasm among

residents in she neighborhoods they serve. Most importantly,
the children served appreciate and admire your volunteers.
In fact, they look upon them as “ambassadors” to adulthood
and future success. Powerful influence indeed.

What I most admire about your effort is that
it 1s programmatic, practical, and down and dirty.
= thanx you for it.

Sincerely,

Vice-President
YMCA cf 3.

YMCA Masien
To.put Judeo-Chvistan
prncwies ito practice

ano sovnt fo al

Beet

TOTAL °.203


98

ture must keep the project going during the lull periods. That infrastructure must
be a nucleus for occasional, uncompensated volunteers while it supports full-time
service. That infrastructure must be lean, with decisions made at the grassroots lev-
els. Outcomes must be measured instead of inches of paperwork. Quality must be
assured by layers of competition, not erushed by layers of bureaucracy.

Ameri projects make it easy and attractive for citizens to participate in an
occasional, but meaningful volunteer experience. Just down the street at George
Washington University, AmeriCorps members are mobilizing an extraordinary num-
ber of new volunteers at a time when volunteering has been declining. Ten
AmeriCorps members at GW generate 1,000 volunteers and over 50,000 community
service hours in the Shaw neighborhood.

‘That story is repeated in some form in community after community across the
country where local citizens of all ages are making a difference in solving some so-
cial problem or meeting some social need. They are patriots who are willing to dirty
their hands and serve their communities rather than simply stand on the sidelines
and watch them balkanize and deteriorate.

4. AMERICORPS SUPPORTS CORE VALUES

I believe that AmeriCorps is the embodiment of two ideas that are fundamental
to our self-understanding as Americans.
first idea is that of a good society, the notion that a truly benevolent commu-
nity depends as much on the goodness of individuals as it does on the soundness
of government and the fairness of laws. The second is the idea of a transforming
society, the notion that when neighbors help neighbors, and even when strangers
help strangers, both those who help and those who are helped are transformed.
Serving others provides a new Pers ctive, a new way of seeing ourselves, a new
understanding of the purpose ofthe homan journey. People everywhere are’ finding
out that when that which was their problem becomes our problem, the transaction
transforms what was a mere relationship into new centers of meaning and belong-

ing.

fn a world where values and morals seem relics of an earlier, more innocent age,
and parents and prognosticators alike call for a rebirth of citizenship and civic ethic
to rebuild the tattered cords that bind us together, AmeriCorps promotes core Amer-
ican values of community, opportunity and responsibility.

There is talk about the fact that AmeriCorps members—like Community Con-
servation Corps members, like Peace Corps volunteers, like members of the volun-
eer army earn a living stipend and an education award upon completion of a year
of service. Do we have to invest something to get something back? Sure. Father
Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of the University of Notre Dame, says that
“those of us in religious orders take a vow of poverty. Citizens need only take a vow
of service.” It is an American axiom that those who extend a helping hand deserve
a helping hand—and there is no better investment than education. I submit Father
Hesburgh’s statement for the record.

The notion of providing an incentive for serving our neighbors is neither new nor
novel. Like the charitable deduction, a small stipend for community service in-
creases the private resources made available to serve a public good. In community
aller community, ordinary Americans are joining AmeriCorps to do extraordinary
things.

When we ask what are the implications of this idea of civic virtues for the
AmeriCorps program, | would argue that they promote community vitality, helping
people to take matters into their own hands, not as a substitute for the legitimate
social role of government, but as a vehicle for self-help, an important alternative to
the governmental process. Secondly, they build on community values, recognizing
that no one group in our society has a monopoly on such virtues as self-discipline,
hard work, honesty, responsibility and the desire to create a better life for them-
selves and their children. And thirdly, they help build and reflect community vision,
empowering people to dream their own dreams and to take responsibility for making
them a reality.

The old civic virtues are giving rise to a new civic culture in which communities
must now find social cohesion and social solidarity from something other than a
common race, a common religion or even a common culture. Through national serv-
ice, many Americans, young and old, from small towns and large cities, are coming
to realize that diversity need not divide, that the fear of difference is a fear of the
fowre, that pluralism rightly practiced and rightly understood is a benefit, not a

wurden.

One of the most important features of AmeriCorps is that it is open to all Ameri-
cans. While most members come from working families with a median income


91

Mr. FatraH. Yes, on the opening sentence on the third para-
graph of page three of your written testimony today, you said, “Fi-
nally, the AmeriCorps was not means tested. Thus, the children of
wealthy and influential people can elbow out poor students for par-
ticipation in the program.”

is. TUCKER. And they can elbow out. There is no means test. So
anybody—your child, anybody in this room’s child can participate
in that program. You can elbow out a more needy child. There is
no means test.

Mr. FaTTaH. But you did say in the March article that most
AmeriCorps members come from wealthy households.

Ms. TUCKER. Some of them do, compared to the mean income.

Mr Farttan. I’m trying to get the essence of your quote in that
article.

Ms. TUCKER. Right. I do not know the actual—I’m not an expert,
on this program. I’ve never proclaimed to be.

Mr. FaTTau. It’s OK. We all make mistakes. I’m trying to under-
stand—

Ms. TUCKER. I’m not saying I made a mistake. I do not know. I
can look up the exact demographics of the program. I do not know
them. I do know that it’s not a mean—

f Mr. FatTaH. So when you said in March that most come
rrom——

Ms. TUCKER. Most of them are above the median income.

Mr. FaTTaH [continuing]. That was not information based on

any——

Ms. TUCKER. No, I know for a fact that most were above the me-
dian income.

Mr. Fatrad [continuing]. Any facts.

Ms. Tucker. But I do not know—I got that number, again, from
Senator Grassley’s office. I can call them up and verify it.

Mr. Fattau. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. Suays. All right. Before calling on Connie Morella, I’m just
going to ask Mr. Walters this one last set of questions. You cir-
culated the claim that the State of Nebraska received an
AmeriCorps grant of $457,622 to recruit 23 AmeriCorps members.
And then you said that is nearly $20,000 just to sign up each vol-
unteer. Where did you get that statistic?

Mr. WALTERS. That’s what I referred to in my opening statement.
That statement is from the editorial of the Omaha World Herald.
That’s not a sum just to recruit, if it’s understood to be a recruit-
ment sum, rather than a sum to bring in 23 people and have them
participate in the program. It depends on what you understand the
meaning of the word recruit to be. It’s not just to recruit. That
statement that you're quoting from me earlier is not accurate.

Mr. Suays. OK.

Mr. WALTERS. Although it is an accurate quotation from the
Omaha World Herald.

Mr. Suays. I have come to the conclusion that when we trace a
lot of this information, a lot of it comes directly to you. So you
speak with a tremendous amount of authority, and that’s why you
were invited here. And the one request—I’m sure Pao would have
requests of me, but the one request I would have from you is that


1

even though just brand new, is doing its job. They know that the
structure is smart and that it works.

Look at the elements that Congress designed for this pro .
First, fierce competition—nonprofits compete for funding, and even
in our startup year, that competition was tough. And programs
that don’t produce will not be invited back. Second, real oversight—
States don't just select the bulk of AmeriCorps programs. They also
have a major responsibility to oversee the winners, backstopped by
outside national evaluations. That’s why Republican Governors like
Bill Weld and Pete Wilson and John Engler and Fife Simington
and Marc Racicot love what AmeriCorps members are doing in
their States. Td like to share their comments with you, for the
record.

Third, local operations—most AmeriCorps members serve with
local nonprofits. As the Federal Government shifts social respon-
sibilities out of Washington, these charities have made it clear that
they can’t do it alone. And with more Americans working longer
and harder than ever, it’s no wonder there’s less time to volunteer,
and a greater need to make that help effective.

That's what AmeriCorps does. AmeriCorps members are the
trained, full-time human capital that charities say they need most.
I’ve provided for the record a list of supporters of some of those
nonprofits. They include the YMCA and the YWCA; Big Brothers
and Big Sisters; the American Red Cross; the Junior League; the
Girl Scouts and the United Way—some organizations that receive
AmeriCorps support, and a majority that don’t.

Fourth, private sector involvement—our law requires local
matching funds to prove community support and to get the kind of
validation neighbors can best provide. Business has stepped up to
the plate, from Microsoft and Nike and Timberland and Home
Depot to local chambers of commerce, the corner print shop, and
the local lumberyard. I provide for the record a listing of just some
of the biggest of these partners. And I also want to note the testi-
mony of Erie Chapman, the CEO of U.S. Health Corporation, a Re-
publican who served on Budget Chairman Kasich’s finance commit-
tee in Ohio.

Mr. Chapman’s outrage over proposals to cut AmeriCorps under-
scores not only the judgment of the business community that serv-
ice works, but reminds us that if we want to leverage the tax dollar
by increasing public-private partnerships, then government can’t
walk out after the first year of its first real attempt. Americans,
Mr. Chairman, like this type of delivery system. And every fair-
minded observer should be encouraged by AmeriCorps’ early re-
sults.

The committee’s other witnesses will have their own stories to
tell, but let me just relay one specific result out of literally dozens
and dozens we know in detail—real success stories, now obscured
by impersonal budget figures. In rural Simpson County, KY,
AmeriCorps set the goal of raising the reading scores of the bottom
half of the county’s second graders by three full grade levels in a
single year.

ell, the school gave those kids their mid-year test, and more
than 70 percent of those tutored by the AmeriCorps members al-
ready have had their reading scores up at least two levels, with


97

In addition to my role with the Corporation, I continue to serve on the Board of
the Directors of the Points of Light Foundation, to which I was appointed by Presi-
dent George Bush. I worked very hard to develop and maintain Points of Light
Foundation as x non-partisan eflort to encourage Americans to engage in voluntary
activities to address serious social problems. | am committed to the same non-par-
tisan approach by the Corporation and welcome the opportunity to help engage
Americans of all backgrounds in community-based service.

1. SERVICE 1S BEYOND POLITICS

‘As Americans debate the social role of a benevolent government and the public
role of a benevolent people, it is important for us to remember that national service
is neither liberal nor conservative, but uniquely American. The 1990 bill, which set
up what was essentially a pilot program for national service, was proposed by a Re-
publican President ans | passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress with strong Re-
publican support, including that of the current Senate Majority Leader. As a found-
mg Director of the Points of Light Foundation, I oversaw this establishment of a
federal role in national service—one that provides a supportive infrastructure for
service,

The 1993 bill that created the Corporation for National Service also passed with
bipartisan majorities in both houses. This bill folded and downsized several entities
into one, to create an integrated support system for all ages of volunteers. It also
created AmeriCorps.

National Service should continue to be nonpolitical. It is a founding principle of
our democracy. When faced with war, disaster, or everyday challenges, generations
of Americans come together to help one another.

2. AMERICORPS PROMOTES COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS.

In the past we have thought of our communities as divided among three sectors:
a public sector driven by the ballot; a private sector driven by profit and a voluntary
sector driven by compassion. But the functional boundaries of community are be-
coming ambiguous with the most productive sector for solving social problems bein
increasingly the fourth sector of partnerships. And it is this fourth sector to whicl
the national service movement belongs.

AmeriCorps is a partnership in which two-thirds of its funds go directly to the
states to support locally designed and locally operated programs.

AmeriCorps is also a partnership in which private investment has been remark-
able. In its first year of operation, the Corporation has received hundreds of commit-
ments from companies such as the Prudential, American Express, IBM, Monsanto,
BellSouth and myriad foundations throughout the country.

‘And why is the private sector investing so much in the national service move-
ment? Mostly because they have seen AmeriCorps members already making a dif-
ference in public safety, education, the environment and human needs. Equally as
important, the private sector is willing to risk this investment in community organi-
zations and AmeriCorps members because government, through the Corporation for
National Service, serves as venture capitalist, equity partner and quality control of-

icer.

We have heard from some that AmeriCorps may be a nice idea, and that it may
get things done, but the federal government has no place in filling this role, But
the federal government has Jong been a partner with charities trying to meet the
human needs of our society. Charities today receive about 30 percent of their reve-
rues from government sources. As you go about, the job of reforming and reinventing
federal government, you, must ask yourselves, “is there s more elficient way to fi
the gap we may leave?” Nowhere has this consideration caused more trepidation
than on the front lines—in the world of nonprofit charities.

3. AMERICORPS PROMOTES VOLUNTARISM

There is a reason why most nonprofit charitable organizations welcomed
AmeriCorps into the fold of service. As Independent Sector reports, the percentage
of citizens able to volunteer their time for charitable causes has declined since 1989.
Many families are working harder and harder to get by—in recent there has been
an undeniable increase in the number of families who require two- and even three-
wage-earners to survive—and when they can find the time, they want to know that
it will be well-spent. It’s a simple, unfortunate equation of rn life: people have
less time to give—so they give less of their time.

Can we count on a spontaneous outpouring of voluntarism? Not unless there is
an infrastructure that encourages it, recruits citizens, puts them to work on sub-
stantive projects with the right training, supplies and equipment. That infrastruc-



102

am, which received a great deal of coverage last year, and has

n lauded as a great success, particularly by the parents of these
children that had never gotten notification of these kids being in-
volved in truancy. And now, we notify them immediately; it’s re-
duced our truancy problem. It’s also reduced crime committed by
kids during school hours, particularly against other kids, by fully

percent.

In Brooklyn, the cadets have been involved in a unique program
trying to help us out in auto crime identification. They have stud-
ied well over 2,000 or 3,000 auto larcenies, and studied the loca-
tions where many of these cars—1,700 of them—were recovered,
and have developed the crime pattern and hot spots which have
been used with great effect by the local precinct officers. Also in
Brooklyn, in the 72nd precinct, the Sunset Park area, the cadets
have been involved and have identified six gang-prone locations.

The cadets are also Dregent in the 72nd precinct at two, I guess
you would call them, highly volatile high schools that have had
pang problems, gang recruiting problems in the past. And they’ve

een a huge reassurance to the parents that attend these two par-
ticular high schools. In Queens, an also in Staten Island, the two
outer boroughs that. suffer probably the most from auto larceny, the
cadets have been involved in many auto larceny, prevention TO-
grams, such as the one in Brooklyn; but also in VIN etching. VIN
etching is where we get the vehicle identification number, the VIN
number, and etch it to a stencil on parts of the car that are readily
stolen, particularly the windshield.

That’s one program. The other program—they’ve signed up over
900 people in our Combat Auto Theft program, which is a decal
that, if it’s affixed to a car, it allows the police officer to stop the
car for no reason. Because the occupant of the auto, by having this
decal affixed, has passively given police officers approval to stop
them without probable cause, particularly during the early hours
of the morning, late hours of night.

These are just a few examples of the tremendous and important
work done by our cadets. We consider the AmeriCorps community

olicing program a model for the Nation. In fact, many big city po-
lice departments have contacted us to learn more about our suc-
cessful program. We were proud to describe the AmeriCorps pro-
gram to police executives from around the country at a recent
International Association of Chiefs of Police conference, held in

‘ouston.

The New York City AmeriCorps cadets have made a noticeable
impact on crime and the fear of crime in New York City. Our expe-
rience with the cadet program has been extremely positive. And on
the way down on the plane, I have here about 100, 150 letters from
principals, business leaders, some civic leaders, even local politi-
cians, regarding their impressions of this program. And it’s very
positive. It is not a pseudo-welfare program or some way around
of giving kids a stipend for college.

{t’s a real, live program that teaches kids the importance of com-
munity service. And the thing which should not be underestimated
is the role model that these men and women, boys and girls, really,
provide to their peers just maybe a year or two younger at the jun-
lor and seniors in high school. Again, | take this opportunity to


118

AmeriCorps money next year,” as both Ms. Tucker and Mr. Walters assert.2° The
Corporation operates like an investment banker, making small number of plan-
ning grants to programs that show the most promise. These planning grants are
analogous to research and development in business—they allow for the development
of new and innovative approaches that otherwise might be overlooked, and they pro-
vide the opportunity for these programs to work through potential barriers belore
full operations commence and the costs of corrections or failure greatly increase.
Along those lines, and in accordance with the specific legislation passed by Congress
that authorizes planning grants, in fiscal year 1994 the Corporation put approxi-
mately 1.5 5 Percent of its AmeriCorps budget into planning grants for promising ini-
tiatives with good leadership talent.

(20) “The assembly of these [AmeriCorps] members on time paid for by the gov-
ernment to orchestrate a political attack for partisan purposes is a misuse of
money.’

—John Walters, comment regarding. AmeriCorps Members attending an Earth

Day event at which the President of the United States spoke.

The premises of this statement are false. First, the AmeriCorps Members that were
at the Earth Day event were there on their own time; government funds were not
spent on them. nd, the event was not partisan. Democrats, Republicans, and
independent local elected representatives were all in attendance to hear the Presi-
dent speak. And third, the AmeriCorps Members were not used to “orchestrate a
political attack.” They were in attendance because the President was planning to

\onor them for the important environmental work they were undertaking to clean
up nearby Chesapeake Bay and restore the natural habitat.

WHAT AMERICORPS MEMBERS DO

(22) “The reality, however, is that the AmeriCorps program is nothing more than
another expensive government jobs program.”31

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is false. A jobs program is intended primarily to provide train
for those who need it or work for individuals who otherwise would be unable to fin
it. The primary purpose of AmeriCorps, however, is to meet the pressing needs of
our nation, to “get things done.” Competition to participate in AmeriCorps is in-
tense, with over 10 people expressing interest for every Membership available.
AmeriCorps is not geared exclusively toward disadvantaged youth; most Members
come from hard working middle class families, and 74% are 21 years of age or older.
(See Appendix B.)

The early evidence indicates that AmeriCorps Members’ accomplishments are well
worth the funds that are being invested. A team of four conservative, independent
economists recently completed a comprehensive cost-benefit study of three rep-
resentative Ameri rps programs. In the conclusion of their 49 page study, they
state, “we have measured benefits to be $1.60 to $2.60 per dollar of federal outlay,
and... these measured benefits, by the nature of the methodology, are under-
stated.” 52 (This study is attached as appendix G.) Aguirre International, an inde-
pendent research firm headed up by President Ford’s former Commissioner of Edu-
cation, recently completed a survey of 8 percent of AmeriCorps’ sites selected at ran-
dom, and found strong progress. (The results of this survey have previously been
provided to the Subcommittee and were referenced in Mr. Segal’s testimony.) More-
over, all AmeriCorps programs are subject to audits and evaluations; any that aren’t
achieving results and living up to standards won't receive further funding.

(23) “AmeriCorps, a program that awards taxpayers’ dollars to special interest,
ideolo ical, and litical organizations, and to bloated bureaucracies. . .”39

—Allyson Tucker

_ It should be noted that although both Mr. Walters and Ms. Tucker cite the same, quotation
in their teatimony (i... “a plan to compete for more AmeriCorps money next year”) and al-
though Me. Tucker provided footnotes and citations fer other assertions, neither of them pro-
vided a citation for this quotation

Walters, John P., “Oral Testimony of John P. Walters Before the Subcommittee on Human
Resources and Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Governmental Reform and
oversight, United State [sic] House of Representatives, “May 18, 1996, p. 109, lines 2519-2521.
(Hereinafter referred to ae “Walters Oral Testimony”).

2 Tucker Testimony, p. 2

Garner, Cyrus J. Kormendi, Roger C.; Neumann, George R; and Tamura, Robert F. “The
Benefits and Costs of National ‘Service: Methods for Benefit Aseesement with Application to

ree AmeriCorps Programs.” Funding provided by The Charles A. Dana foundation, IBM Foun-
dation, The James Irvine Foundation, and Youth Service California. June, 1995. p. 45.

33 Nicker Testimony, p. 5.



65

MO SE MO State Univ. (37)

MT MT Conservation Corps (110)

NJ NJ Dept of Military and Veteran’s Affairs
NJ Youth Corps (104)

NY State Council on Children and Families (25)
State Urban Development Corp (20)
Clinton Co. Youth Bureau (20)

NC NC State Univ. (60)
City of Wilmington

OH Cuyahoga Co. Board of Mental Retardation
OH Dept of Youth Services (20)

OR Housing and Com. Services Dept. (42)

PA PA Conservation Corps (36)
Keystone School District (28)
Union-Snyder Human Resources (38)

RI City of Pawtucket (26)

TN Knox Co. Community Action Cmte (20)
Memphis City Schools (40)
Center for Health Services (20)
Office of Gov., Division on Aging (20)
SC Dept. of Menta) Health (36)

TX TX Dept. of Mental Health (108)

VT Lyndon State College (23)

WA WA State Employment Security Dept. (300)
Dept of Ecology/WA Con. Corps (100)
Pasco School District #1 (20)
Educational Service District 101 (30)

Mr. WALTERS. Fourth, I would argue—and we have in public
here and elsewhere—that, like all government bureaucracies,
AmeriCorps costs too much. There’s already been a large discussion
of the cost issue and how one calculates that. I suspect we’re goin;
to have some more questions about how one calculates some
these numbers. But let me just say two things about that. Let me
take one example. The Omaha World Herald example, which one
of my colleagues also referred to, and which has been a subject of
some discussion between myself and some of the AmeriCorps staff.

The Omaha World Herald, in that editorial, reported that Ne-
braska received a grant for $457——

Mr. Suays. Before you continue, I just want to be clear. Is this
something that you're aware of personally? See, we can’t ask
Omaha, the editorial board, to come before us. In Miss Lacey's
case, she went to a program. So I just want to make sure that

‘ou’re going to be comfortable defending what you say, as you be-
lieve it to be fact. Editorial boards are not fact. They are very sub-
jective.
; Mr. WaLrTers. No, I understand that.

Mr. SHays. OK.

Mr. Wa ters. I don’t think I’m going to say what you think I’m
going to say.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I don’t know what you're going to say.

Mr. WALTERS. They reported that the State commission in Ne-
braska had received $457,622 to “recruit 23 young people to the
Corps.” Now, that could be read two ways. One—and the way it
was read and subsequently followed up on—was that this was sim-
ply in recruiting costs. It’s not. The other way to read it was, they


wa

SP 13 +54 aa:2uem CareUnUITY Svc corm 482/671-6206 Pe
1. OTWER PARTICIPANT CUPPORT COSTS, Number of ‘Camporntion Share — Gravtee Share Tetal =
Parlicipagte (maximum 830 ‘Gniakour 150) 100% =
“- <=
Useg Aloo 2d te tress SS
FICA and Workers Compentt 2 aay at a we tke BE
Hea Cae? =
Wenuneneuncers OE PRG Ze. To ps
eat cpteyaant 23 4,963 872 S.tis =
tet © (asoaee_]* Cs. }*Ganeer_] go
=
wen 2
cc
Ss
SEvtmaed inberEae Nenteraperton i le tat =
of dew ef Tgee Pervdeuts (maximem 1000 Stare =
cena ems ey ed
[~4
2
mane Gand =
Bd o
=]
oN a
Fouwdwe
Number of Amount per ‘Toul
Panicipasts Pantclpast
f. Dovaron aeanas putie
230 x ums 108,675
PatTime
Portipents ‘sas

waco (ys) Coes) &

(7 gten ttttng curren poiey eenng turin bene fr slighle paridparts gD ucairaw) AVOID

tee wry etree hel cae pc tebe made evade,


16

gems. And the fact that we have so many flowers blooming at this
time is encouraging.

Yes, you’re correct. The real problem, I fear, is not the creation
of a new Federal bureaucracy, because it will not be. My anxiety
is that with, at this point, 1,200 operating sites, it is impossible,
simultaneously, to control what happens at every one of those sites.
And it is not always as easy as we would like, to communicate the
simple principles that underlie what AmeriCorps is. National serv-
ice is not a obs program; it’s about service to one’s community, giv-
ing something and getting something in return.

it is certainly not about advocacy; again, it is a service pro-
gram—direct service in the communities. I think that is about our
Major anxiety at this point, Mr. Chairman, is to be simultaneously
making sure, in these early stages, that we're able to communicate
a clear enough vision of what we see in national service. But I
think we've made real strides on that.

And as I indicated earlier, we are vigilant in making sure those
that don’t understand the message, are given an opportunity to un-
derstand what we’re trying to communicate, what the Congress
wanted us to communicate, and make the changes necessary. And
if they’re not able to, we'll make changes going forward.

Mr. Suays. As Republicans, we want a decentralized program we
are asking you, as the director, to give up some of your authority;
to take some risks that there are going to be some bad programs.
The big surprise to me is that there aren’t a number of bad pro-
grams. Still, when you find a bad program, what do you do? What
can you do?

Mr. SEGAL. Well, I think our first call is to distinguish between
bad as a matter of malice or spite or the like, and those that are
bad because they don’t understand what our objectives are. We
have no interest in wasting taxpayer dollars. So before we would
immediately cutoff programs—unless they're obviously Practicing
fraud, patronage, abuse, or anything else which is inconsistent wit
getting things done, the mantra of the corporation—before we
would, in fact, terminate any of the programs, we would do all we
could to fix it.

Now, you mig! t ask, how can we simultaneously be monitoring
1,200 programs? Well, that is the beauty of the system that Con-
gress designed. We have 50 State commissions. We have parent or-
ganizations. We have site visits on our own. We have the independ-
ent evaluation that I referred to. We believe we have a lot of tech-
niques which will not amount to a top-down, cookie cutter ap-
preach. But we believe we have been effective in finding problems,

‘ing them where necessary, and terminating those whose mission
is just too different from ours, or those that are clearly doing things
that we think are inconsistent with service.

Mr. SHays. Thank you very much. I now call on Mr. Towns. But
beforehand, I'd like to welcome Mr. Martini, from New Jersey. It’s
nice to have you here, and we'll give you the floor, Mr. Towns.

Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Some of the
criticism that we hear is that some people say that this is a pro-

am for the rich. And then others will say this is a program for
the poor. How do we deal with that? I mean, we hear it from one
extreme to the other extreme.


99

around $30,000, some are much less well-off, a few are better off. But our society

gains when they—from all spectrums of society, from all walks of life, across lines

or race and religion—learn to count on each other, to work together to get things
jone.

Mrs. Bloom’s son knew, in that split second in Oklahoma City, that it was his
moral duty to risk life and limb to help others in need. Our society will only move
forward if we each take responsibility for our own actions, and in doing so, inspire
others to follow us. AmeriCorps is creating leaders for the next generation, and lay-
ing the e_fround work for a more society.
ir. Chairman, I have a long personal history of involvement in community serv-
ice and I am here today to bear witness to the critical importance of AmeriCorps
and the Corporation for National Service The proposed budget is reasonable and
prudent and the American people are enthusiastic about continuing to implement
the provisions of the National Service Trust Act of 1993.

1 look forward to working with this subcommittee in the years ahead and will be
available to you whenever you deem it useful.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REV. THEODORE M. HESBURGH, PRESIDENT EMERITUS,
UNIVERSITY OF NoTRE DAME

Chairman Shays and Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful for this oppor-
tunity to testify in support of AmeriCorps. As one who believes deeply in the impor-
tance and great potential of national service, I hope that members of Congress will
put politics aside in considering the future of AmeriCorps. I strongly urge that you
Tetain bipartisan support for service and not back away from a program that invests
in American values, promotes citizenship and enables people to work together and
solve their communities’ problems.

Perhaps no concept so permeates the history of our nation nor captures the es-
sence of our religious and ethical tradition as does service. I have seen many types
of national service, from the CCC in which | served as chaplain from 1940 to ‘41;
to the Peace Corps, in whose heady earliest days Notre Dame played a part; to the
bipartisan Commission I co-chaired in 1979, which recommended a new national
service initiative; and to AmeriCorps, the latest and best conceived movement for
national service. In the debate about AmeriCorps facts sometimes seem to get lost,
and that is unfortunate—not just for the 20,000 Americans new Members of
AmeriCorps, nor only for the hundreds of thousands more Americans interested in
joining it, but for the thousands of communities around the country that
AmenCorps has reached and the thousands more that need its touch.

That is where the rea] AmeriCorps begins—in local communities. It works in our
biggest cities, like New York, where the New York Police Department reports that
recreation areas policed by AmeriCorps Members in a 1994 pilot program were free
of assaults for the first time in years. Or in Kansas City, Mo., where AmeriCorps
Members shut down erack houses and build programs that give youth alternatives
to drugs and gangs.

And Ameri rps works in smaller cities and tiny rural hamlets too. Notre Dame
has seen AmeriCorps’ value. That’s why it joined, fielding 40 extraordinary coll
graduates who teach in South Bend schools in the summers and in 30 severely
strapped schools in four southern states during the school year. The Principals say
these AmeriCorps Members are “on a mission,” and their spirit and commitment
have enriched their students’ lives and re-energized their fellow teachers. Those stu-
dents wouldn't make it without the AmeriCorps Members—and the 40 Members
couldn't live out their commitment without AmeriCorps.

‘AmeriCorps is guided by a corporation (the Corporation for National Service), but
it has also moved most of the decision-making closest to problems by giving author-
ity and responsibility to the states and by having programs operated by local non-
profits, AmeriCorps is funded by Congress, but it requires local companies and foun-

lations to foot a substantial part of the bill. And AmeriCorps is run like a smart,
lean business, monitored by a private sector board and wedded to competition, not
politics, as the method by which grants go out and participants join up.

Some wonder whether the $600 a month AmeriCorps members earn as a living
allowance, and the $4,725 scholarship or student loan reps ment they can earn

ough @ full year’s service, destroy the spirit of service, ft hasnt done £0 in the
Peace Corps. It hasn’t in the many youth and service corps that started up in the
1980s here at home. And it hasn’t in AmeriCorps. Those of us in religious orders
take a vow of poverty. Citizens need only take a vow of responsibility. AmeriCorps
does demand sacrifice from its Members. And for those who answer the challenge,


21

Houston Carcaicie

Sunday, Sept: 25, 1994

ce

Houston Chronicle --

RICHARD J. V. JOHNSON,

(Chsieman and Publisher

G.E MeDAMID, President | JACK LOFTIS. Executive Vice President, Editor
JOHN W. SWEENEY, Vice Presiden General Manager | TONY PEDERSON, Vice ‘Maraging Editor
, STANLEY, Vies President Operauons | HUGH POWERS, or
JOH 8 LAIRG: Vice Brsidet Seles and vakeang | TOMMY MILLER Deoucy Manasng Editor
ROBERT E CARLQUIST, View President Adminatauen | FRANK MICHEL. Deputy asecte
‘DWIGHT Mi, BROWN, Vics Prendene adverusing | SUSAN BISCHOFF, DAN CUNNINGHAM.
FERNANDO DOVALINA, WALTER JCHNS,
oe Assistant Managing Edivors
= ="
==>
ousien Grveneie 4 ciisen of The Meatst Corporatcn.

SERVING

AMERICA

Houston youth corps could be model for nation:

President Clinton has had limited success
lately in getting legislation through Congress,
but one of his earliest initiatives ~ providing
an opportunity to youths for national service
— has been brought to fruition.

About ° 15,000 = young. Americans’ recéntly
were sworn in as members of Americorps. In
exchange for their community service, corps
members. will receive héalth insurance, a
stipend and college tuition assistance.

While some government social’ programs
have been bogged: down in bureaucracy,
Americocps members are forbidden to work
in offices pushing paper. The emphasis is on
doing — tutoring, caring for the sick, feeding
the hungry, cleaning up the environment.

The Houston Americorps operation has had
to start from scratch, but the 60-1

her :

Serve Houston Youth Corps may turn out to be
a model for others. The’Serve Houston Youth
Corps is partly funded by federal taxpayers,
but crucial! financial support’ comes from
private companies and foundations that Spen-
Sor teams.of youth corps members.

‘The University. of Houston-Downtown. is
offering ciasses so corps members need‘not
postpone higher: education,while they serv

Americorps was conceived as a- domestic
version of the highly regarded Peace'Corps. .
Begun'on a modest scale, Americorps and

" Serve Houston deserve a chaiice to show that a °
partnership “between government, : private:

businesses and hardworking young people can

broaden. opportunity for higher education -
‘while“relieving some’ of the social {lls-that

beset the jon” -



50

They detailed to us 24 members who worked closely with our community relations
staff for six weeks. These youne people knew the community, wanted to learn, and
wanted to help. And they did.

—They contacted residents in more that 1,300 households who, in some cases,
needed help but didn’t know how to apply. This was real door-to-door outreach in
neglected neighborhoods that needed this special attention.

—They helped elderly residents clean and repair their homes. In fact, I visited
with the members that were scrubbing the walls of the home of Carl and Carrie
Ward, an elderly couple that needed, and ay ted, the help.

—They helped to dispense food and clothing at Red Cross assistance centers. In
fact, many AmeriCorps members have been trained by the Red Cross as mass care
technicians and have been helping the Red Cross in many disaster situations.

Since our Houston experience, we have maintained our working relationship. At
this moment, for example, fifty AmeriCorps members are working with the Red
Cross in Louisiana to provide mass care to People affected by the flooding.

The AmeriCorps members were particularly helpful during our work in Oklahoma
City. Almost a dozen AmeriCorps members came from St. Louis, before we could
even request their help, and helped set up the best donations program in FEMA's

istory.

‘That was a big job, because the outpouring of assistance from around the country,
but particular! trom Oklahoma City itself, was fantastic. We received a huge
amount of , and the young AmeriCorps people made sure that it was used in
the most efficient manner.

—They coordinated eight different sites in the area dealing with a variety of do-
nated goods.

—They organized the donations that were actually used by the rescue workers,
goods such as knee pads, and tools, and respirators.

—They were especially helpful with clothing donations; due to the work in the
building, clothing had to be changed frequently, and the workers went through
gloves quickly, so these donations were essential.

—The AmeriCorps group at work in Oklahoma City were highly motivated and
very self-sufficient; one of my staff referred to them as “the perfect responders” in

jose respects.

—After a couple of weeks of intense effort, the St. Louis contingent was relieved
by a group of AmeriCorps members from around the Oklahoma City area. They are
still working to help the city de-mobilize and complete the work with donated goods.

This relationship with AmeriCorps is one that we at FEMA want to expand on.
In fact, that was one of the recommendations from our Reinventing Government
Group—that we should build on our work with AmeriCorps.

It is a big help to disaster victims in a community to work with young who
will be around for a while, and are well versed in services available in commu-
nity beyond disaster relief.

ut as head of the Federal Emergency Management acy, and as an emergency
management professional for more than a ‘fecade, T have a selfish interest in
AmeriCorps because it offers a tremendous collateral benefit.

When these members complete their service they will be going on to college. It’s
our hope that their experience with FEMA will encourage them to consider becom-
ing a regular asset to FEMA as part of our “DAE” contingent. That’s the group that
we activate during disasters to help us administer our program.

In the case of the AmeriCorps members, we'll be able to tap into a pool of dedi-
cated people who will already be trained and have a working knowledge of FEMA
programs and policies. These are the kinds of people who can really hit the ground
running.

‘The Challenges of the last few years, from the hurricanes on the east coast, to the

ing in the midwest, to the earthquakes and fires in California, demonstrate
that the emergency management community will always need a cadre of disaster
employees who are committed to public gervico.

fe like to think of AmeriCorps members as our apprentices that are prepari
to meet the challenges of the future. We at FEMA believe that AmeriCorps is a Fed
eral program that works and works well. We believe it has helped us do our jobs
better and more efficiently and has served America well.

We believe it’s a program that works in eatablishing the finest values of service
to America.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to publicly thank the AmeriCo:
members for their tremendous help to FEMA. | know you value public service in
its many forms and I hope my testimony has added to the success of this hearing.


95

like to offer. The first is this—national service is neither a liberal
nor a conservative idea.

National service is a uniquely American idea. The 1990 bill
which set up what was essentially a pilot program for national
service, was proposed by a Republican President, and passed by a
Democratic controlled Congress, with strong Republican support.
The 1993 bill that created the Corporation for National Service also
passed with bipartisan majorities in both Houses. It is a founding
principle of our democracy that, when faced with war, disaster, or
everyday challenges, generations of Americans come together to
help one another.

My second point is that AmeriCorps promotes community part-
nerships. In the past, we have thought of our communities as di-
vided among three sectors—a public sector, driven by the ballot; a
private sector, driven by profit; and a voluntary sector, driven by
compassion. But the functional boundaries of these sectors are be-
coming ambiguous, with the most productive sector for solving so-
cial problems being increasingly, what Peter Drucker has called,
the fourth sector of partnerships.

And it is to this fourth sector to which the national service move-
ment belongs. AmeriCorps is a partnership in which two-thirds of
its funds go directly to the States to support locally designed and
locally operated programs. AmeriCorps is a partnership with the
private sector. In its first year of operation, the corporation has re-
ceived hundreds of commitments from companies such as The Pru-
dential, American Express, IBM, Monsanto, Bell South, and myriad
foundations throughout the country.

AmeriCorps continues the long tradition of partnership between
the Federal Government and local charities trying to meet the
human needs of our society. What is often overlooked in the new
focus on the capacity of the charitable sector is the fact that the
charities today receive about 30 percent of their revenues from gov-
ernment sources. And I might add, parenthetically, in looking at
those statistics, that’s been true for a long period—for more than
two decades.

Third, AmeriCorps promotes volunteerism. And I’m going to
make that point very carefully and clearly. The percentage of citi-
zens able to volunteer their time for charitable causes has been de-
clining since 1989. I have a copy of a press release from Independ-
ent Sector, which was referred to earlier, and I want to read what
that press release says: “Volunteering among American adults has
declined steadily from 1989 to 1993.”

Let me also quote from an article in the Journal of the National
Endowment for Democracy, by George Putnam, in which he reports
on a general survey of civic engagement. And he reports that vol-
unteering for Boy Scouts was off by 26 percent, since 1970; for the
Red Cross, was off by 61 percent since 1970; the membership in the
daycees was off 44 percent, since 1979; membership in the Shriners
was off 27 percent, since 1979; membership in the Elks was off 18
percent, since 1979.

I think the point is clear. AmeriCorps projects make it easy and
attractive for citizens to participate in an occasional, but meaning-
ful, volunteer experience. Just down the street, at George Washing-
ton University, AmeriCorps members are mobilizing an extraor-


33

we have a decentralized model, to kind of focus again on the core
clements—on the values, the communities, strengthening respon-
sibility.

Td say those are the major challenges. There will be programs
which will disappoint us, there’s no question. There are programs
that will disappoint us. Hopefully, the reality will do as well as our
thetoric, and we in fact will terminate them as circumstances re-

quire.

Mr. SHAys. Until we wait for Mr. Green—because I really have
asked the questions I wanted to ask—but if you don’t mind me ask-
ing just a few more of these. They're kind of filler questions. But
what would be the dropout rate that you have experienced? When
I was in the Peace Corps, we had a 50-percent dropout rate, before
we even got to site. And then we had another 50 percent, once we
were at site. It wasn’t too good.

Mr. SEGAL. Well, we're happy that the dropout rate has been
very low. We believe it is significantly under 10 percent at this
point, nationally. Some programs will be higher, some lower. Again,
it’s an index of the success of a program. You don’t want too many
Reople dropping out. That means you're wasting Federal taxpayer

ollars.

On the other hand, sometimes people dropout because the stand-
ards are so high. And on the other hand, if you have no one drop-
Ping out, that might mean the standards are low. We believe the
percentage will be lower than the Peace Corps, than the military,
and than college.

Mr. Suays. Is that the standards? The standards will be lower?

Mr. SEGAL. Our standards might be lower if everyone makes it
through the year.

Mr. SHays. What are we talking about in standards here? I’m
missing this.

Mr. SEGAL. The standards of the program. If in fact no one is
ever dismissed from the program——

Mr. Suays. Right.

Mr. SEGAL [continuing]. No one drops out, it could be a state-
ment that the program is not, in fact, getting things done.

Mr. Suays. Right. Well, how do you collect your data? You have
50 different agencies, and you have to know what 50 different
agencies are doing. You have to have some kind of uniformity, but
you want to allow flexibility. So do you have the ability to collect
data? And the other question I want to ask before Mr. Green gets
here is how you interacted ACTION and the other programs with
AmeriCorps.

Actually, I'd like to ask that question first. What programs ex-
isted before you initiated AmeriCorps?

Mr. SEGAL. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that another one of our
great challenges was that at the same time, we were both a startup
and a merger. That put a great deal of pressure on us. But because
there was such a clear sense of mission, both as a new organization
and an organization that had been in existence for as much as 30
years, I think we have done a pretty good job.

We also were operating under two personnel systems—one, the
existing civil service system; and a new more flexible, alternative
personnel system, which is kicking in.


17

Mr. SEGAL. This stands out as one of the cutting issues when the
1993 legislation was designed. We believed at the beginning, and
with strong bipartisan support, that national service must “not be
means tested.” By that we meant that all Americans could serve.
Poor Americans, middle-class Americans and wealthy Americans
would all be given an opportunity to contribute to their commu-
nities. We believe we've done that.

And the data that we have collected so far on the demographics
of AmeriCorps would certainly support that AmeriCorps, for the
most part, is a program of the children of the hardworking middle-
class people of the United States. About 20 percent of AmeriCorps
members come from families with incomes of $15,000 or less. I
think 5 percent of AmeriCorps members come from incomes of
$75,000 or less.

It means that about 70 percent of all AmeriCorps members come
from the middle class. We work hard on that. We believe that they
are getting great help in paying for their college or graduate school
or loan forgiveness. We're real happy that this represents the cross-
section—a diverse group in AmenCorps, which I think was the in-
tention of the Congress going in.

Mr. Towns. Thank you very much. The other issue is that there’s
been some concern that AmeriCorps members are working in Fed-
eral agencies. How do we respond to that?

Mr. SEGAL. It’s absolutely untrue. The fact is, the Congress, in
its wisdom, authorized Federal agencies to compete for ds for
national service at a ceiling of no more than one-ninth of the
funds——

Mr. SHayYs. May I just interrupt the gentleman? Could you re-
peat the question?

Mr. Towns. No, the criticism out there is that there are some
real concerns that the members are basically working in Federal
agencies, talking about——

Mr. SHAYS, So, it’s true they’re working in Federal agencies?

Mr. SEGAL. No, they’re not working in ‘Federal agencies.

Mr. SHays, OK.

Mr. SEGAL. In fact, I would argue that there are no AmeriCorps
workers, for instance, in Washington, DC, unless you want to count
that the AmeriCorps is working at the Anacostia River right now
on environmental protection programs. They do not work in Fed-
eral offices. In fact, if I might generalize, for the most part, try to
think of the Federal agencies as more or less Passthroughs; as an
organizer of locally based communities, which themselves competed
for funds for AmeriCorps workers.

Let me state that another way. We are prohibited by law from
replacing Federal employees. AmeriCorps workers are not treated
as employees. They don’t have the benefits of Federal employment.
They are not working in Federal agencies. They do, in some cases,
help fulfill the mission of those agencies. In order to drive qualit;
as high as possible, if AmeriCorps workers are going to be involved
in environmental matters, for example, and the Department of In-
terior has expertise and AmeriCorps can help fulfill their mission—
if they want to put together a coalition of nonprofit groups to fulfill
their mission, using AmeriCorps members, we're happy to supply
them,


61

in addition to their paid work, more genuine, unpaid service was
not expected of them.

We often hear that AmeriCorps is making a difference. But the

hrase is an empty one. Everything we do makes a difference.

ven Spending money foolishly will make a difference to future
generations. The question is, what kind of difference; who is really
served; and were there any positive, measurable results? It’s clear
to me that the emphasis of AmeriCorps are the so-called volun-
teers, not the populations they purported! serve.

Continual pulse-taking, in the form of rap sessions, journaling
exercises and self-evaluation, sends this message loud and clear.
Self-esteem, not self-sacrifice, is the order of the day. And what
were the measurable results? In Georgia, for a price tag of $2.8
million, 16 kids will pe on to do something that they more than
likely wouldn’t have. The cost that I most fear, however, is the cost
of teaching young people to expect something in return for their
good deeds.

de Tocqueville wrote, 150 years ago, that “where in France you
would find the government, or in England, some territorial mag-
nate, in the United States, you are sure to find an association.”
said, “I have often admired the extreme skill they—Americans—
show in proposing a common object for the exertions of very many,
and inducing them, voluntarily, to pursue this.”

AmeriCorps talks about reinvigorating a spirit of service, but the
truth is, Americans already have one. Over half of all Americans,
and 61 percent of teens, volunteer time each week in the quiet
service of others. The benefits that volunteers cite as important to
them are not the free child care or the boost in self-esteem, but
that they learn to respect others and learn to be helpful and kind.
And the strongest incentive for them to volunteer was simply that.
they were asked.

Mr. Suays. I thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Wal-
ters, I welcome your testimony now. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOHN P. WALTERS, PRESIDENT, THE NEW
CITIZENSHIP PROJECT

Mr. WALTERS. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to
be with you again. I’ve, of course, testified before you in the past,
in my previous positions in government, and know you to be a com-
mitted person to the things you believe in. That's been clear again
this morning, and I regret that I am not going to agree with those
positions on AmeriCorps.

Let me state the reasons. My organization is a nonpartisan, non-
profit organization, created about a year ago for the purpose of try-
ing to advance domestic policy reform, designed to return greater
authority to communities and citizens themselves. We were found-
ed at a time when we thought there was a remarkable consensus
between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans,
about the need to restore America’s fundamental institutions.

The disagreement was over how to do that—whether the Federal
Government essentially should be an enabler and empowerer of
local rehabilitation and renovation; or whether the Federal Govern-
ment and large bureaucracies associated with it—and sometimes


114

cation benefits, program support, and AmeriCorps’ overhead. The projected costs per
Member for fiscal years 1996 and beyond are lower then for fiscal year 1994 because
as the program grows it will achieve economies of scale—increasing the number of
Members without significant growth in administrative infrastructure.

THE VALUE OF AMERICORPS BENEFITS

(2) “Each AmeriCorps ‘volunteer’ is paid a $7,400 stipend and a $4,750 tuition
credit, worth approximately $7.27 per hour.”2

~Ailyson Tucker

(3) “AmeriCorps ‘volunteers’ receive annual stipends of $7,400, plus up to $9,450
over two years toward payment of higher education debts. That works out to more
than $7 per ‘volunteer.’”?

lohn Walters

These statements are misleading. The typical full-time AmeriCorps Member re-
ceives a stipend of $7,640. By law the federal share of the stipend cannot exceed
85% of $7,640, or $6,494,4 and the Corporation’s estimated share of the stipend
averages $6,200. Most part-time AmeriCorps Members do not receive stipends, and
if they do, the maximum federal share of the stipend is pro-rated. The amount of
the education award is $4,725 for full-time AmeriCorps Members and half that
amount, or $2,362.50, for part-time AmeriCorps Members.

Although full-time Members must serve a minimum of 1700 hours over 9-12
months, and part-time Members must serve a minimum of 900 hours over up to two
or sometimes three years, the amount of the living allowance and the education
award is not tied to the number of hours served. Since many AmeriCorps Members.
serve substantially more than the minimum required hours, and because some
AmeriCorps Members will never use their education award, any calculation of hour-
ly wage based on the minimum hours and the maximum education award inevitably
will be wrong.

(4) “Bach AmeriCorps ‘volunteer’ [receives] medical benefits and free child care.”5

—Allyson Tucker

(5) *. . . {AmeriCorps’] automatic health and childcare benefits.”®

—John Walters

These statements are false. By law, full-time AmeriCorps Members are eligible to
receive health care benefits only if they are not already covered, and the Corpora-
tion will not pay more than 85% of the cost.” To receive child care benefits, full-
time AmeriCorps Members must (a) need child care in order to participate, (b) have
a family income less than 75% of the state median income, (c) reside with and
the parent of a child under the age of 13, and (d) not be receiving child care assist-
ance from any other source at the time of acceptance into the program.® Part-time
AmeriCorps Members do not receive AmeriCorps health and child care benefits. Be-
cause of these conditions, the Corporation’s combined cost for child and health care
has been estimated to average $1,200 per AmeriCorps Member—and early experi-
ence suggests actual averages may be less.

(6) “The educational benefits also exceed those available to veterans.”®

—Allyson Tucker

This statement is false. Not only are the educational benefits of AmeriCorps Mem-
bers less than those available to veterans, but the amount of the AmeriCorps edu-
cation award is pe; to the amount of G.I. benefits such that it is impossible for
the education award to exceed veterans’ educational benefits in the future. The

2 Pucker Testimony. p. 2.

2 Walters, John Py “Testimony of John P. Walters Before the Subcommittee on Human Re-
sources and Intergovernmental Relations of the Committee on Governmental Reform and over-
sight, United State [sic] House of Representauves,” May 18, 1995 (Hereinafter referred to as

aliers Testimony”). p. 3.

“‘The relevant ecction of the law reads as follows: “The amount of the annual living allowance
provided under paragraph (1) that may be paid using assistance provided under section 12571
Of this title and using other Federal funds shall not excoed 85 percent of the total average
amount provided to VISTA volunteers under section 4955 of this title.” 42 USC 12594(aX2).

Sucker Testimony, p. 2.

Walters Testimony, p. 3.

7A State o other recipient of assistance under section 12571 of this title shall provide a basic
health care policy for each full-time participant in a national service program carnied out or sup-

2

ted using the assistance, if the participant is not otherwise covered by a health care poli
Net more than fa percent of the cost of a premium shall be provided by the Corporation.”

*“A State or other recipient of assistance under section 12571 of this title shall make child
care available for children of each full-time participant who needs child care in order to partici-
pate in a national service mm.” 42 USC 12694{eX1).

*Tucker Testimony, p. 2.


116

come from wealthy, not poor or needy, households.” Both the implication of Ms.
Tucker's claim here, and her specific assertion in her article, are false. AmeriCorps
Members are selected on their merits by local programa without regard to socio-eco-
nomic status. The “children of (the) wealthy and influential” do not “elbow out”
needy people. As stated earlier, a full 80% of AmeriCorps Members come from fami-
lies with incomes of less than $50,000, less than 3% come from families with annual
incomes of over $100,000, and the median family income of AmeriCorps Members
is $28,000, putting the vast majority right in the heart of the working class.

(LI) There was a large emphasis on affirmative action in the prograr.”17

cey

(12) “I have seen it said from AmeriCorps representatives . . . [that] we want this

(AtmeriCorps] to be 70 percent minorities."1®

These statements are false. There are no such quotas in AmeriCorps. And for the
record, AmeriCorps is ethnically as well as socio-economically diverse: AmeriCorps
Members are 47% White, 31% African American, 14% Hispanic, 3%. Asian Pacihe
Islander, 2% Native American, and 3% Other. (See Appendix B.) Ms. Lacey algo ar-

ed in a June 12, 1993 article that “the middle class won't see the benefits of
AmeriCorps,” stating that “it is unlikely that many shining, white, middle lass
faces will help to form its ‘mosaic,’ given the fact that local program leaders would
choose their own participants and are encouraged to do so based on needs.” 19 (Ms.
Lacey’s article is attached as Appendix C.) Her speculations clearly are not true.

HOW AMERICORPS MONRY IS SPENT

(13) “More than half of the Americorps appropriation is spent on administrative
costs and paperwork.” 20

—Allyson Tucker

(14) At least $15,000 per Americorps participant goes for overhead and adminis-
tration.”

—Allyson Tucker

These statements are false. At the Federal level, 5% of AmeriCorps’ 1995 appro-

riation goes to administrative costs. An additional 3% is used to support ite

ommissions that help to oversee and select two-thirds of the AmeriCorps Bro.
grams. This comes to a total of 8%, or $1,300 per AmeriCorps Member devoted to
administrative costs. In fiscal year 1995, for example, the ration’s cost per
AmeriCorps Member will be $17,600. Of that amount, 35% ($6,200) goes to Me:
stipends, 27% goes to Member education awards, 23% ($4,075) is used to operate
the AmeriCorps programs at the local level (paying for everything from training,
materials, and supplies to planning. and evaluation), 5% ($850) fore to AmeriCorps’
overhead, and 3% 450) supports State Commissions. (A breakdown of AmeriCorps’
fiscal year 1995 cost per Member is attached as Appendix D.)

‘AmeriCorps has two crucial safeguards to ensure that AmeriCorps money is spent
directly to get things done. First, by law, a maximum of 5 percent of any
AmeriCorps grant may be spent on administrative costs. And second, according to
the Corporation’s regulations, all AmeriCorps Members must either provide a direct
service to a community or supervise others who are doing so. Administrative work
is not allowed except when it is incidental to direct service and necessary to accom-
plish it.2? For example, an AmeriCorps Member who was performing immunization

Tucker Article.

17 Lacey, Jill. “Oral Testimony of Jill K, Lacey before the House Subcommittee on Human Re-
sources and Intergovernmental Relations.” May 18, 1995. (Hereinafter referred to as “Lacey Oral
Testimony”), p. 127, lines 2975-2976.

‘Lacey Oral Testimony, p. 127, lines 2079-2962.

» , “National Service: Just More Welfare,” Clinton Watch, June 12, 1993.

ad "estimony, pp. 3-4.

21, Pucker Testimony, p. 4. ;

2 This statutory restriction applies both to grantees and to any subgrantecs. It reads as fol-
lowe: “Not more than 8 percent of the amount of assistance provided to the original recipient
of a grant or transfer of assistance under subsection (a) or this section may be used to
cover administrative costs incurred by (A) the recipient of the aasistance; and (B) national serv-
ice programs carried out or supported with the assistance.” 42 USC 12571(@X1).

AmeriCorpe’ regulations read as follows: “§2520.20 What types of service activities are al-
lowable for programs supported under parts 2520 through 2524 of this chapter? (a) The service
must either provide a direct benefit to the community where it ie performed, or involve the 8u-
pervision of participants or volunteers whose service provides a direct benefit to the communi
where it is performed. Moreover, the approved ‘activities must result in a specific
identifiable service or improvement that otherwise would not be provided with existing funds
or volunteers and that does not duplicate the routine functions of workers or displace paid em-
ployees " (b) In certain circumstances, come activities may not provide a direct benehi



4

Texas, Mr. Green, you were here first, and I'd welcome any com-
ments you might like to make.

Mr. GREEN. Thank re Mr. Chairman. As our ranking member
comes into the room, Id like to thank the chairman for this oppor-
tunity to be here today to talk about national service. I was also
on the committee last session, then called the Education and Labor
Committee, that helped write this bill. And I appreciate the chair-
man’s vocal and visible support for the program, and I hope we can
work to save this contribution to our society.

National service helps build a sense of citizenship, commitment
and community in our young people all over the country. It’s a pro-
gram passed with bipartisan support, that rewards service to our
country and teaches our young that, as citizens, that they not only
have rights, but they also have responsibilities. And critics say that
national service aims to replace private charity and unpaid commu-
nity service. In my area in Houston, I have not seen that happen.

in fact, what it has accomplished is supplementing the good work
of a lot of our charities and. community service organizations, and
provide a framework for children, particularly in my district, in
inner city Houston, to be able to not only serve their community,
but also to have something and to receive for that service in paying
back some of their student loans or paying for some of their college
education.

National service is a model, as the chairman said. All my life I’ve
heard about the success of the CCC camps, from my parents and
my grandparents. And this builds on that with a commitment to
the community. And I would hope, 50 years from now, Mr. Chair-
man, we will hear the same thing from not only our generation, but
a younger generation, saying the success of the national service, as
much as the success of the CCC in building our country in the

Ss.

Again, I'll submit my full statement, and thank the Chairman for
the opportunity to be here.

Mr. Suays. I thank the gentleman for being here. Mr. Lantos,
we'd appreciate a statement from you, if you'd like to give one.

Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
first just comment that I have a concurrent hearing going on in
International Relations, where I need to be. I would like to begin
by commending you, Mr. Chairman, for four unwavering and long-
standing support for national service. This comes quite easily to
Chairman Shays, because of his exceptional service with our Peace

Corps.

He is a true champion of volunteer service, and I applaud him
for holding this hearing, particularly at this critical juncture in de-
bate in this country, which unfortunately is taking the direction of
tearing whatever community-building activities we have to shreds.
I also welcome the opportunity of paying tribute to the chief execu-
tive officer for the Corporation for National and Community Serv-
ice, Mr. Segal. who has done a remarkable job in fashioning fune-
tioning and effective and worthwhile organization in record time.
And I’m very proud, publicly, to say thank you, sir, for the out-
standing job you have done.

T also want to commend the director of FEMA, who has had more
than his share of crises, and has done an outstanding job in using


93

born, And that makes it harder to bring this information out than
it might be if you looked at it after its 3-year authorization.

Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate the gentleman’s comment. And let me
jest say to you, the only reason I make the comment is that you

ave become the source for information. Your organization is
quoted widely. And so if you are then passing on information that
you got from Omaha or somewhere else, or some other source, the
challenge is it then becomes your source. And your organization
has credibility in that respect.

So I’m going to offer my services. We may ultimately disagree on
the philosophy of it. It may be that this Congress doesn’t fund this,
and that would be a tragedy, in my judgment, not in yours. But
I would hope it would be over the facts. And we can argue the
facts, and then we can argue the Philosophy. And I’m going to in-
vite you to call on AmeriCorps and Rick Allen, in particular, and
if you find him not cooperative in any way, I want to know about
it. And I'll try to help out.

Mr. WALTERS. Let me just say, on his behalf, he has been forth-
right. I think I've been—while we disagree and he may disagree
with some of the things I’ve said, I think I’ve tried to be pretty can-

nd.

Mr. SHays. Well, I think you all are very sincere, and I'm trying
to be sincere, as the other members here. And hopefully, we'll do
the right thing for our country. I'll just conclude by saying that
your word carries a lot of weight with people, so I’m just hopeful
that it’s really as accurate as vou can make it. And we're going to
call the next panel, and I thank each and every one of you.

Mrs. Morella would like to make a statement, and welcome you
for being here.

Mrs. Morea. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do think
this is a very interesting hearing, and have been very interested
in AmeriCorps from its inception. I re wanted to point out we
have_probabl y the largest number of AmeriCorps participants in
the State of Maryland. And in my district, Community Year was
the predecessor of AmeriCorps, which allowed young people to
work for a year, get a small stipend, which they could use for edu-
cational reasons.

So I am very interested in any hard facts that you can give us,
too. But I just had to put in that kind of parochial point. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Hon. Constance A. Morella follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF Hon. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts to hold this important oversight heari
on the Corporation for National and Community Service. As you know, I supporte
the legislation that created this Corporation. The goal of the National Service Trust
‘Act was to involve every American, from kindergarten to senior adulthood, in serv-
ice,

Creating opportunities that connect people to their communities promotes the best
in American values. | believe that national service enables individuals, young and
old, to make meaningful contributions to society.

T have long been an advocate of providing financial assistance to students in re-
turn for service. Offering financial awards opens the way to a higher education.

When I first came to Congress, I sponsored legislation to provide scholarships to
students in return for service in the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps Volunteer Edu-
cation Demonstration Act was approved by the 101st Congress, and students in that


38

The costs of volunteerism must not be overlooked. In order to get volunteers to
the point of effectively meeting a social need many things come into play. They must
be recruited, trained, transported, and in some cases fed. Their times of service
must be coordinated, their activities supervised, and in some cases, when they com-
mit their full-time to the effort, they must be stipended for their commitment in
order to live. Like all things of value, volunteerism does not come without a commit-
ment of effort and resources.

However, I do believe there are ways to improve the National Service model.
First, state commissions should administer a greater share of Corporation for Na-
tional Service (CNS) funds that go to the states. Currently the Corporation directly
administers National Direct AmeriCorps grants, VISTA programs, and Senior Serv-
ice Programs. If state commissions were given grant-making and administrative re-
sponsibility for these programs it would ensure that they would be used to broker
greater coordination among state and local nonprofit and volunteer agencies consist-
ent with state prioriti

Second, the CNS administrative structure should be reconsidered. The Corpora-
tion is the product of a merger of the ACTION. Agency and Commission on National
and Community Service. While the old Commission followed a decentralized model
that depended on state administration and coordination, the ACTION Agency main-
tained a centralized, hierarchical structure of federal and regional offices for pro-
gam administration. In the merger, CNS retained both structures, so there are

‘NS state offices (the late ACTION offices) as well as state commissions operatin
parallel programs. Greater efficiencies may be achieved if CNS streamlines its ad-
ministrative structure and, building on its strength, adopts a completely state and
locally driven model.

Third, more efforts should be made to assure all parties that CNS and National
and Community Service are non-partisan endeavors. The Corporation for National
Service Board, should make final decisions on funding grant proposals. It should
also hire the Chief Executive Officer to ensure that the perception of partisanship
does not enter into the appointment process.

Government should rely on a decentralized nonprofit-driven service delivery sys-
tem, but also continue to share the burden of support. AmeriCorps represents an
important experiment that deserves a chance to prove itself. Congress gave
AmeriCorps three years to demonstrate its potential. If National Service succeeds
in meeting its ambitious goals, it may help facilitate the transfer of services to more
decentralized non-profit models. If it does not succeed, then we can look to some-
thing else. Yet, whatever the outcomes, I can assure you that along the way Na-
tional Service will have helped Michigan's communities become stronger, more self-
sufficient, and charged with a renewed sense of voluntary spirit.

Fouey, Hoac & ELior,
Boston, MA, May 16, 1995.
Hon. CuristoptieR SHAYs,
Chairman,
Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee,
B~372 Rayburn Building,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN SHAYS: Throughout my career in public service and since, I have
romoted fiscal prudence as the hallmark of a wise and compassionate government.
at is the essence of the Concord Coalition, which I co-founded with former Sen-
ator Warran Rudman.

The Concord Coalition has made it clear that tough choices in the national inter-
est must be the equal focus of both parties’ fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition has
made these tough choices, whether that means opposing tax cuts or supporting
means testing of entitlements, At the same time, we have chosen not to e cuts
in programs that are investments in America’s future. AmeriCorps is such a pro-

m,

My experience in the Peace Corps convinced me that national service is a wise
investment. That is why I was a strong supporter of the concept when I served in
Congress. I remain so today.

Beyond that, it seems to me that encouraging local efforts and citizen solutions
to community problems is a value conservatives should embrace. AmeriCorps em-
bodies that value.

Balancing the budget must be our highest priority. But “balance” requires dade:
ment as well as arithmetic. And that means using scarce dollars wisely. AmeriCorps


125

admitted that he had no reason to believe that the claim was accurate, and that
he had made no efforts to verify it,

« Ms. Lacey repeated an earlier assertion Mr. Walters had made in an op ed: that
AmeriCorps harms military recruitment. Her evidence? She spoke with one member
of a service program prior to the existence of AmeriCorps who said that he had
feined the program instead of the Air Force. The facts are that 1994 was the third

at year in history for mili recruitment, that the demographics of AmeriCo1
are very different from those of the military, and every major relevant leader of the
Armed Forces has stated that AmeriCorps is not hurting military recruitment.

« Ms. Tucker made the assertion that AmeriCo1 ‘does little to help working
families to pay for college” because the children of the wealthy and influential can
“elbow out” more needy participants, In an article she published in The Hill, she
made the even stronger claim that “the majority of AmeriCorps Members come from
wealthy families.” fact is that the median family income of AmeriCorps Mem-
bers bout $28,000. When questioned about this, Ms. Tucker admitted that she
was not an expert on the specifics of the AmeriCorps program and that there were
no facts to support her assertion.

+ Ms. Tucker testified that the cost per AmeriCorps Member is $30,400. The most

ithmetic proves this assertion false. Ameri ” appropriation is $376 mil-
lion; it has 20,000 Members; therefore the Corporation’s cost per Member is $18,800.
When questioned about her claim, she first stated that she thought the number was
derived by dividing the 1994 appropriation by the number of Members. Realizing
that this was wrong, she said that she didn’t know where her number came from.
After being asked to find out, she said that she had obtained this number from Sen-
ator Charles Grassley’s office. (Incidentally, Senator Grassley’s office invented this
widely cited figure by extrapolating from the costs of the nine-and-a-half week Sum-
mer of Service demonstration program, which of course occurred prior to the exist-
‘ence of AmeriCorps.)

AmeriCorps’ critics may not be intentionally disseminating false information, but,
as the hearing made clear, they have not made even the most minimal efforts to
verify the assertions about the AmeriCorps program that they hear and repeat. And
they have done very little in the way of real research. Ms. Lacey bases her entire
opposition to AmeriCorps on one visit to one of 40 sites of one program before
AmeriCorps even existed. Ms. Tucker, as a representative of the well-respected Her-
itage Foundation, has written articles with dozens of false and unsubstantiated
claims for which—as she admitted under oath—she has no real evidence. And Mr.
Walters has systematically ignored the accurate information provided to him by
AmeriCorps, choosing instead to disseminate as fact any charge against AmeriCorps
he may hear. Hopefully this hearing and the attached document will finally put to
rest these old false charges.

The hearing also brought out some new charges that are equally groundless. Mr.
Walters claimed that AmeriCorps would “corrupt” volunteerism because part-time,
unpaid volunteers would be unwilling to work with full-time AmeriCorps Members
who receive a living allowance. However, as Habitat for Humanity will {ell you, not
only is this false, but AmeriCorps Members actually dramatically increase the num-
ber of part-time volunteers. Ms. Tucker argued that the disaster relief service of the
“green kids” who are AmeriCorps Members isn’t worth the investment of taxpayer

jollars—ignoring the facts that three-quarters of AmeriCorps Members are over 21,
that all of them receive appropriate training, and that the AmeriCorps Members
who respond to disasters receive extensive training from the Red Cross. Finally, Ms.
Lacey testified that she remembered hearing that AmeriCorps had a quota of 70
percent minorities. The fact is AmeriCorps oes not have racial quotas, and all of
America’s racial and ethnic groups are fairly represented in the AmeriCorps pro-

am.
Sin the final analysis, these false charges about AmeriCorpe—both new and old—
are nothing but red herrings detracting from the real debate. The evidence—includ-
ing the systematic evaluations and cost-benefit analyses of independent experts—
indicates ‘overwhelmingly that AmeriCorps is working. Interestingly, Mr. Walters
seems to agree. In his testimony he states, “We salute the young people in
AmeriCorps. . . who are trying to serve their country. The issue is not our running
down honest people who are doing serious work. The issue is whether or not this
program, in my mind, is well conceived; is a cost-effective use of taxpayer money;
and whether or not it should be continued.”

An objective look at the real facts leads one inevitably to the conclusion that yes,
AmeriCorps works; yes, it is well conceived; yes, it is cost-effective; and yes,
AmeriCorps should be continued. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to set
the facts straight.



100

it provides not only the opportunity to pay for college, but the higher gift. of making
a difference, and the lifelong satisfaction of building community:

If we are to recapture basic values that our history and religion teach, we must
make the challenge of service accessible to more than those who can afford to take
a year off. And if we wish to reclaim our communities from the danger of crime,
the decline in education, the decay of our environment, the demoralization of our
homeless, then we know that more trained, focused help is needed. That, too, is
what AmeriCorps is. Our church has always called parishioners to aid those in
need, and Americans of all faiths have been the most generous people on earth. But
more is needed. Week-end volunteers return to their jobs Monday morning, as do
parents to their children, and the clergy to their congregations. AmeriCorps is de-
signed to make the most out of what each American can give in time and talent.

at is why 350 organizations that have always made service their mission—from
Notre Dame to the Cross to Habitat for Humanity to the YMCA—have proudly
joined the AmeriCorps network.

Sixteen years ago our Commission concluded that service was critical to the edu-
cation and development of young Americans for adult lives of productive work and
geod citizenship. National Service was a non-partisan idea then, as it was when

ident Bush signed a national service law in 1990. It was a non-partisan idea
when Congress created AmeriCorps, as it was when the first AmeriCorps Members
began serving last fall. [t should be free from political gamesmanship now and given
a chance to succeed. Values matter, now more than ever. Let AmeriCorps help nour-
ish the roots of citizenship, so that all our American dreams can flower.

Mr. Suays. Mr. Joseph, I understand you have another engage-
ment.

Mr. JosEPH. I will answer questions, if you'd like.

Mr. Says. OK. But I would want to just see if any member does
have a question, before we proceed. And if we don’t, then you’re
free to ee. Is there any question you'd like to ask the chairman?

Mr. FaTraH. No, I’d just like to commend the chairman for his
fine work not just in relationship to AmeriCorps and the National
Service Corp., but the Points of Light Foundation, and your work
with the Council of Foundations. You are a true treasure here in
our country, and we want to thank you for your willingness to
serve others. Thank you.

Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you very much, sir.

a Mrs, More ta. I add my thanks, too. Your testimony was splen-
id.
Mr. JoSEPH. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.

Mr. SHays. Thank you very much. Have a nice afternoon.

Mr. JosEePH. Thank you.

Mr. SHays. And Miss Bloom, I’m going to have you sit in the
middle there. And I’m tempted to say a rose between two thorns,
but I won't say it. I did say it. I lied under oath. I have this order—
John Timoney, and am I saying it correctly?

Mr. TIMONEY. Timoney, yes.

Mr. SHays. Timoney. And you are the first deputy commissioner,
New York City Police Department. And then I’m going to ask Phil-
lip Wu, AmeriCorps member from Habitat for Humanity to be sec-
ond. And then I'll ask Jeanie Bloom, parent of an Oklahoma
AmeriCorps participant. And I welcome all your testimony. Thank
you. Commissioner.

STATEMENT OF JOHN TIMONEY, FIRST DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

Mr. TIMONEY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. And by the way you didn’t lie under oath, I do look
like a thorn. I have provided the committee with written testimony,


41

I think the record of this administration, in dealing with the
floods, earthquakes, fires, and recent tragic bombing in Oklahoma
City, shows that we have approached disaster response recovery as
a full team effort. We have worked hard to show the American pub-
lic that when disaster strikes, if they need our help, they can count
on us to be there. One of the most critical members of that team
has been the members of AmeriCo1 .

'MA’s job in a disaster is two-fold. We have the authority and
resources to accomplish this mission under Presidential declara-
tion. But delivery of assistance is only one part of the job, because
that delivery of help has to be done in accordance with community
need. When a disaster strikes, FEMA receives a great deal of help
from many quarters. We count on the Red Cross, the Salvation
Army, and other volunteer organizations.

But the real key to responding effectively is to get people out as
soon as possible into that community, that knows that community.
These are the people who will work with individuals and local gov-
ernments to assist their need, and to start the recovery process.
These people are needed to work with the disaster victims; to apply
for assistance where needed; to feed and shelter those left homeless
by the disaster; to cleanup homes and businesses so that they can
reopen; to work with the special needs of the elderly and the other
segments of the community.

in each disaster, we learned again and again that community
outreach makes the critical difference in moving a community to-
ward recovery and economic stability. This kind of work requires
unique talent, expertise ——

ir. SHAYS. Excuse me, Mr. Witt, I'm going to interrupt you just
1 second. We’ve learned that Mr. Green is coming back, but that
he may not be back right away. And I know you have other things
to do. So he is not going to be here to ask you questions, so you
are free to go if youd like. I'd like to request that someone from
your office be here. If we have information that we need to have
responded to, I’d like to be able to make sure that there will be
someone. Who will be here?

Mr. SEGAL. Rick Allen is available.

Mr. SHays. OK. It may not necessitate our asking any questions,
but. yes. Would you just come to the microphone if you want to say
anything else?

ir. SEGAL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. | just would like to make
sure we have in the record, if we may, the letter of charities and
support from the charities who are supporting us; and the list of
businesses who are supporting us. Mr. Chapman’s statement, if we
may, submit for the record, as well.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIE CHAPMAN, CEO, U.S. HEALTH

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank for inviting me to
testify on the great importance of continuing support for AmeriCorps. I am the
President and CEO of U.S. Health, a large, non-profit, health care system with
11,000 employees and $800 million in net revenues. More important, I testify today
ag the volunteer Chairman of the Board of City Year Columbus.

City Year Columbus—like the City Year programs in American cities from Boston
to Chicago, to San Jose, receives significant support from AmeriCorps. City Year is
@ spectacularly successful example of public-private Partnerships. ‘rivate corpora-
tions like U.S. Health, Bank One, The Limited and Timberland have put hun