United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Congress

February 1997 NATIONAL SERVICE

PROGRAMS

Role of State

Commissions in

Implementing the

AmeriCorps Program

GAO/HEHS-97-49

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-275765 

February 20, 1997

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Chairman, Subcommittee on VA, HUD,

 and Independent Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

United States Senate

With the National and Community Service Trust Act (the act) of 1993 (P.L.

103-82), the Congress created the largest national and community service

program since the Civilian Conservation Corps of the 1930s. AmeriCorps,

the act’s signature program, is jointly administered by the Corporation for

National and Community Service (the Corporation) and state

commissions. AmeriCorps allows participants to earn education awards to

help pay for postsecondary education in exchange for performing

community service that matches priorities established by the Corporation.

In an era marked by fiscal austerity, AmeriCorps has experienced

substantial growth relative to other domestic programs in budgetary

terms. Through fiscal year 1997, the Congress has appropriated over

$800 million to support about 100,000 AmeriCorps participants. Amid

concerns over costs and internal controls, however, considerable

congressional oversight activity has accompanied AmeriCorps’

appropriations.

Several studies of the Corporation’s first operating year have been

completed. Between January 1995 and May 1996, at the request of the

Congress, we conducted three studies that focused on AmeriCorps

program resources and benefits. In March 1996, the Corporation’s

Inspector General issued five reports on the Corporation’s financial

management systems and its 1994 AmeriCorps National Direct grant

award process. The results from these reviews prompted several initiatives

aimed at lowering AmeriCorps’ costs.

Under the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of

1996 (P.L. 104-134) and the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of

1997 (P.L. 104-208), the Congress mandated new funding restrictions for

the Corporation. One provision makes federal agencies ineligible to

receive AmeriCorps grants, while another directs the Corporation, to the

greatest extent possible, (1) to increase the amount of matching

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

contributions provided by the private sector and (2) to reduce

AmeriCorps’ total federal cost per participant. Among the program

reforms contemplated during the 1996 appropriation process, some

Members of Congress expressed interest in scaling back AmeriCorps’

federal bureaucracy and transferring more program management to state

commissions.

To better gauge state commissions’ capacity to absorb additional program

management responsibility, the Congress mandated through the Omnibus

Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act that we study state

commission programs. Because of your long-standing interest in

AmeriCorps, we coordinated our work with representatives from your

offices and agreed to address our report to you. On the basis of

discussions with your staff, we agreed to provide information on the

following three issues:

• the statutory role of state commissions,

• state commission operations, including project-level1 outputs from

national service projects within their purview, such as participant

enrollment and expenditure data,

• extending state commissions’ administrative and oversight role over

AmeriCorps and correspondingly decreasing the federal government’s

role.

To conduct our work, we reviewed seven state commissions representing

a range and mix of characteristics, including geographic location, level of

Corporation grant funding, and number of AmeriCorps participants. Our

state commission sample consisted of California, Maryland, Missouri,

Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

To address our research questions, we interviewed state commissioners,

commission executive directors, AmeriCorps project directors, and

Corporation officials. We also reviewed files at state commission offices to

obtain program documentation or obtained documentation directly from

commission officials.

We also reviewed 24 AmeriCorps projects administered by the seven state

commissions. We selected the projects on the basis of the type of service

program, the level of Corporation funding, and whether the decision to

1

Throughout this report, we use the term “project” to describe the grantees or subgrantees of federal

funds that are provided either by the Corporation or the state commissions to conduct national service

activities authorized by the act. We use the term “program” to refer to AmeriCorps projects

collectively.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

fund the project was made solely by the state commission or jointly with

the Corporation. For each project, we reviewed (1) expenditure data;

(2) data on participant enrollment, attrition, and education award usage;

and (3) information on projects’ service activities. Appendix I lists the

AmeriCorps projects we selected and briefly describes each project.

Where possible, we reviewed the most recent data available in comparing

the operations of the seven state commissions. For example, project

expenditure and enrollment data were for the 1994-95 program year—the

first, and only, completed program year for which such data were

available. The number of projects that state commissions were currently

administering at the time of our review were those funded with fiscal year

1995 federal funds. Finally, because of differences between the federal and

state governments’ fiscal years and the AmeriCorps program’s operating

year, we compared state commissions’ operating budgets on the basis of

their federal fiscal year 1996 allocations.

Because the data are self-reported and unverified, and we reviewed a

judgmentally selected sample of state commissions, our results cannot be

generalized beyond the commissions and programs studied. With these

exceptions, our work, done between July and November 1996, was in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief By assigning state commissions significant responsibilities, the National

and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, in effect, emphasizes state

control of the AmeriCorps program. These responsibilities include

developing a statewide service infrastructure, selecting and funding

AmeriCorps projects, and monitoring and evaluating projects. State

commissions directly control two-thirds of the federal funds available for

AmeriCorps projects. For fiscal year 1995, state commissions received

$131 million of $192 million available in federal funding.

Our review of seven state commissions indicated that all are performing

program management activities envisioned by the act but vary in terms of

their infrastructures and project outputs. For example, all seven state

commissions developed strategic plans to identify priority service needs

and selected and funded projects consistent with their plans. Operational

resources of the state commissions in our sample varied widely, however.

For example, while California’s commission employed 18 full-time

equivalent (FTE) staff and commanded a 1996 fiscal year budget of about

$1.3 million, Rhode Island’s commission employed 3.5 FTE staff and

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

managed a budget of $183,000 for the same period. For the selected

projects, outputs also varied both within and among the state

commissions. For example, the Washington commission’s projects had

from 33 to 350 participants, and among the seven states, project

expenditures ranged from $206,000 to $3.9 million.

Officials from the seven state commissions agreed on the need for a

federal role in AmeriCorps but disagreed on how much federal control is

desirable. On one hand, all officials agreed that only a federal entity can

provide AmeriCorps with a national identity, which they considered

essential. On the other hand, they disagreed on the role the Corporation

should play in allocating AmeriCorps funding grants. For example,

California officials believed that all funds should be proportionally

allocated to states based on population, leaving the Corporation no

substantive role. Conversely, Rhode Island officials believed that the

Corporation should allocate funds to states based on its judgment of the

quality of the states’ projects, giving the Corporation a significant role.

Senior Corporation officials agreed with state officials that a federal role is

necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity.

They also stated that a federal role is necessary to conduct performance

evaluations of national service projects and state commissions. These

officials acknowledged that changes to the funding allocation process

might better achieve the Corporation’s quality control objectives and said

they may recommend changes to the Congress when it considers

reauthorization of the act. Finally, Corporation officials noted that,

notwithstanding their view that the act gave the states a substantial degree

of control over the program, they have initiated actions to increase state

commissions’ autonomy.

Background In creating AmeriCorps, the Congress chartered a federal corporation to

work with the states to fund local national and community service

projects.2

 The President appoints a chief executive officer and a

15-member bipartisan board of directors that is confirmed by the Senate to

govern the Corporation; each member serves a 5-year term. The board has

the authority to review and approve the strategic plan and proposed grant

2

The Corporation also administers other programs. For example, the Learn and Serve America

program incorporates service learning in the curriculum of students from kindergarten through

graduate school. In addition, the National Senior Volunteer Corps program includes the Retired and

Senior Volunteers, Foster Grandparent, and Senior Companion programs, which support community

service by senior adults. These programs are funded through renewable project grants to public and

private nonprofit organizations that work with schools, hospitals, senior centers, and other

organizations that directly assign and supervise participants.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

decisions. The Corporation provides grants to AmeriCorps projects

directly and through states. To receive AmeriCorps funds, states must

establish commissions on national service. These state commissions must

have between 15 and 25 members and be composed of representatives

from a variety of fields, including local government, existing national

service programs, local labor organizations, and community-based

organizations. Since AmeriCorps began, 48 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico have created commissions. These state

commissions, in turn, subgrant AmeriCorps funds to local community

service projects.

Federal and State Program

Roles

The act gives critical program responsibilities to both the federal and state

governments. Because national service was intended to address

community needs, the act sought to balance a centralized federal program

role with state responsibility for planning, implementing, and overseeing

most eligible AmeriCorps projects because state governments are thought

to be closer to and therefore more knowledgeable about community

needs. Although it directly selects and oversees some AmeriCorps

projects, the Corporation is primarily responsible for establishing national

criteria for determining projects’ eligibility for federal funds and for

assisting the states in carrying out their program responsibilities. Both the

Corporation and the states are jointly responsible for other program areas

such as providing training and technical assistance to local AmeriCorps

projects. Table 1 lists the Corporation’s and the states’ responsibilities.

Table 1: Federal and State National Service Program Responsibilities

Corporation for National and Community

Service State commissions Corporation and state commissions

Determine national service needs

Administer education award trust fund

Promote national identity

Disburse grant funds to states

Select and fund certain projects directly

Assist state commissions

Determine state service needs and develop

service infrastructure

Issue applications for AmeriCorps funds

Select and fund certain state-administered

projects; preselect other projects for

competitive funding

Administer state AmeriCorps projects

Provide assistance and training to local

projects

Evaluate projects

Develop strategies to leverage additional

funds to support projects

Recruit, refer, and place AmeriCorps

participants

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

AmeriCorps*State/

National Program

AmeriCorps*State/National is the Corporation’s flagship AmeriCorps

program.3

 AmeriCorps*State/National participants earn an education

award of up to $4,725 for full-time service or half that amount for part-time

service. A minimum of 1,700 hours of service within a year is required to

earn the full $4,725 award. To earn a part-time award, a participant must

perform 900 hours of community service within 2 years (or within 3 years

in the case of participants who are full-time college students). Individuals

can serve more than two terms; however, they can receive only federally

funded benefits, including education awards, for two terms. The

Corporation allows projects to devote some portion, not more than

20 percent, of participants’ service hours to nondirect service activities,

such as training or studying for the equivalent of a high school diploma.

With regard to attrition, participants can earn prorated education awards if

they are released for compelling personal circumstances, such as illness or

critical family matters, and have served at least 15 percent of their service

term. Participants released for cause are ineligible to receive an education

award and may disqualify themselves from future service in AmeriCorps.

Participants may be released for cause for a variety of reasons, including

being convicted of a felony, chronic truancy, or consistent failure to follow

directions. In addition, participants released for cause may include those

who leave a project early to take advantage of significant opportunities for

personal development or growth, such as educational or professional

advancement. Education awards, which are held in trust by the U.S.

Treasury, are paid directly to qualified postsecondary institutions or

student loan lenders and must be used within 7 years after service is

completed.

In addition to the education award, AmeriCorps*State/National

participants receive a living allowance stipend that is at least equivalent to,

but no more than double, the average annual living allowance received by

VISTA volunteers—about $7,500 for full-time participants in fiscal year 1996.

Additional benefits include health insurance and child care assistance for

participants who qualify for such support.

Individuals can join a national service project before, during, or after

postsecondary education, but must be a high school graduate, agree to

3

The other AmeriCorps programs are the AmeriCorps*National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) and

the AmeriCorps*VISTA programs. NCCC recruits 18- to 24-year-olds for environmental service

activities. Members live on campuses at closed or downsized military facilities. VISTA (Volunteers in

Service to America), established in 1965, is a full-time service program that addresses poverty-related

problems. Participants serve with community-based public and private nonprofit organizations and

serve in capacity-building assignments.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

earn the equivalent of a high school diploma before receiving an education

award, or be granted a waiver by the project. A participant must be 17 or

older and be a citizen, a national, or a lawful permanent resident alien of

the United States. Selection of participants is not based on financial need.

In its fiscal year 1997 appropriations, the Corporation anticipated fielding

about 24,000 full- and part-time AmeriCorps*State/National participants.

Grant Award Protocols The act created three types of grant awards as funding streams for

AmeriCorps*State/National projects: formula, competitive, and national

direct. The act lists criteria that state commissions and the Corporation

must use in selecting AmeriCorps projects for grant awards. The principal

criteria include project quality, innovation, and sustainability. In addition,

service projects must address community education, public safety, human,

or environmental needs. States may develop additional criteria, based on

identified service needs, to use in selecting projects for state formula

grants. Similarly, the Corporation develops additional criteria that reflect

particular national needs that states use to nominate projects for

competitive grant awards and that the Corporation uses to select projects

for national direct grants.

• State formula grants: One-third of the funds appropriated for

AmeriCorps*State/National grants are distributed to state commissions

strictly on the basis of population. In fiscal year 1995, state commissions

were awarded about $67 million to support 262 projects using formula

grants.

• State competitive grants: At least one-third of funds appropriated for

AmeriCorps*State/National grants are awarded to state commissions on a

competitive basis. The Corporation ranks the highest quality projects

among those submitted by the states for these funds. In fiscal year 1995,

the Corporation awarded another $64 million to state commissions to

finance 103 projects using competitive grants.

• National direct grants: The Corporation competitively awards the

remaining appropriations to public or private nonprofit organizations,

institutions of higher education, or multistate organizations. In fiscal year

1995, the Corporation directly awarded about $58 million to support 57

projects using national direct grants.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

AmeriCorps*State/

National Grantees

AmeriCorps grantees use grant funds to pay up to 85 percent of the cost of

participants’ living allowances and benefits4

 and up to 67 percent of other

project costs,5

 including participant training, education, and service gear;

staff salaries, travel, transportation, supplies, and equipment; and project

evaluation and administrative costs. To ensure that federal Corporation

dollars are used to leverage other resources for project support, grantees

must also obtain support from non-Corporation sources to help pay for the

project. This support, which can be cash or in-kind contributions, may

come from other federal sources as well as state and local governments,

and private sources. In-kind contributions include personnel to manage

AmeriCorps*State/National projects and to supervise and train

participants; office facilities and supplies; and materials and equipment

needed in the course of conducting national service projects.

National Service

Statute Provides State

Control

The National and Community Service Trust Act provides for extensive

state control of AmeriCorps. State commissions must develop strategic

plans that identify state educational, public safety, human, and

environmental service needs. On the basis of these plans and the act’s

criteria, commissions select projects to finance with formula grant funds

and nominate other projects to the Corporation as candidates for

competitive grants. Commissions have ultimate responsibility for

administering both formula and competitive awards. In addition,

commissions must monitor and evaluate the performance of the

AmeriCorps projects under their purview and assess projects’ compliance

with state and federal regulations. These reviews determine whether

commissions renew funding for AmeriCorps projects in succeeding years.

Commission officials in all seven states told us they used a grassroots

effort to develop their strategic plans and identify service needs. They said

they sought input from a broad cross-section of individuals and

organizations to ensure extensive input in identifying state service needs.

Most commission officials said they solicited public comment through

local and regional meetings and other public forums. For example, one

commission mailed meeting announcements to various government,

nonprofit, and community-based organizations. Another commission

mailed over 1,000 invitations to various service programs and individuals.

Another state commission used interactive computer technology to

coordinate input from 60 individuals collectively representing over 250

organizations.

4

For one benefit, child care, the Corporation pays 100 percent.

5

Before fiscal year 1997, grant funds paid up to 75 percent of these other project costs.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

After developing state plans and prioritizing service needs, commissions

used a variety of measures to identify, develop, and select AmeriCorps

projects. For example, while some commissions published

request-for-proposals packages, others solicited proposals from existing

community service and government agencies, and some held regional

meetings around the state where local organizations identified community

needs and proposed projects to address them. In general, state

commissions convened review panels to assess project proposals and rank

them according to how well they met the state’s needs and priorities as

established in the state’s strategic plan. One review panel was composed

only of the commissioners themselves; others used panels made up of

commissioners, commission staff, and local service project officials; while

another included citizens with academic and public service backgrounds.

State commissioners, using the results of these panels, then selected

projects to fund with the state’s allotted formula funds or to submit to the

Corporation for competition with other state commissions’ selections.

Commission officials in all seven states told us they based their project

monitoring and evaluation protocols on Corporation guidelines. Some

state commissions developed additional evaluation and monitoring

measures to ensure projects remain in compliance. Commission staff in

six of the states conducted project site visits, while in Texas,

commissioners themselves conducted on-site reviews. Typically, the

commissions used their site visit results and periodic reports submitted by

project administrators to determine whether projects effectively achieved

project objectives.

Commission

Operations

States chose to organize their commissions in a variety of ways. The seven

commissions we reviewed fell into one of three organizational models:

(1) part of a preexisting state agency; (2) an independent state agency; or

(3) a nonprofit agency. Five commissions operated within existing state

agencies. For example, the Virginia commission operated within the state’s

Department of Social Services. California created its commission as an

independent agency, while the Rhode Island legislature decided to charter

its state service commission as a nonprofit agency, thereby obtaining

tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service.

Commission Budgets and

Staffing Vary

State commissions’ administrative budgets and their staffing levels varied

significantly among the seven states. For example, in terms of

administrative budgets, the Rhode Island commission managed about

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

$183,000, while the California commission managed over $1.3 million in

fiscal year 1996. Also, in regard to staffing levels, the Virginia commission

employed 1.5 FTE staff, while the California commission employed 18 FTE

staff.

Both federal and state government contributions defined state commission

budgets and their staff resources. Under the act, the Corporation awards

administrative grants of between $125,000 and $750,000 to states to help

pay for commission operations. Federal administrative grants are limited

to 85 percent of a commission’s costs in the first year and decrease to

50 percent of costs in the fifth and subsequent operating years. States must

contribute either cash or in-kind resources to obtain administrative grants.

Among the seven states, the type (cash or in-kind) and amount of support

provided by the state varied. Table 2 lists the commissions’ total budgets

and staffing levels for fiscal year 1996.

Table 2: Fiscal Year 1996 Budgets and

Number of Full-Time Equivalent Staff

at Seven State Commissions

State Budget Staff (FTEs)

California $1,321,000 18

Maryland 446,602 13

Missouri 398,810 2.5

Rhode Island 182,562 3.5

Texas 957,279 10

Virginia 431,284 1.5

Washington 481,394 5

Source: Corporation for National and Community Service and state commissions.

Number of State

Commission Projects

Varied

During the 1995-96 program year, the number of AmeriCorps projects in

the seven states varied depending on (1) the number of projects

commissions financed with their allotted formula funds, (2) the number of

projects that won competitive funding, and (3) the number of projects

funded directly by the Corporation rather than by the state commissions.

The number of formula-funded projects ranged from a low of 1 in Rhode

Island to a high of 19 in California. The number of projects awarded

competitive grants ranged from none in Virginia to eight in Texas.6

 The

number of national direct projects administered by the Corporation in the

seven states also varied. While only 1 national direct project operated in

Virginia, 18 such projects operated in California. Table 3 lists the number

6

At the time of our visit, the Virginia state commission had never submitted projects to the Corporation

for competitive funding.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

of state commission formula and competitive projects and the number of

national directs projects in each state.

Table 3: Projects for the 1995-96

Program Year, by Type and by State

State

State commission

formula projects

State commission

competitive

projects

National direct

projects

California 19 7 18

Maryland 4 6 10

Missouri 5 3 4

Rhode Island 1 3 3

Texas 11 8 10

Virginia 5 0 1

Washington 5 3 7

Source: Data provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Project Outputs Vary

Considerably

For the 24 projects we reviewed, outputs and characteristics varied

extensively. We reviewed information on enrollment, attrition, and

participants’ use of education awards for each project. In addition, we

obtained data on projects’ expenditures and the source of projects’

financial support. To calculate enrollment, we added the number of fulland part-time participants that began a term of service for each project.

We calculated attrition rates on two bases: (1) the number of participants

who ended service early for cause and (2) the combined total of

participants who ended service early for cause and for compelling

personal circumstances. We determined education award usage based on

the number of participants who earned either a full or prorated education

award and the number of participants who had used either part of or the

full value of their awards at the time of our review. The following points

illustrate the extent of variability among the projects:

• Participant enrollment: AmeriCorps enrollment ranged from 21 to 350

participants. The median enrollment was about 46 participants.

• Attrition rates: The attrition rate for participants who ended service early

for cause ranged from 3 to 58 percent. The median attrition rate was

22 percent. The overall attrition rate—participants who ended service

early for either cause or compelling personal circumstances—ranged from

9 to 95 percent,7

 and the median was 39 percent.

7

Most of the participants in one project were unable to complete a full-term of service because the

project began operations late. According to Corporation records, education awards were prorated for

these participants.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

• Education award usage: The proportion of participants who accessed their

education award ranged from 17 to 78 percent. The median was

54 percent.

Appendix II lists projects’ enrollment, attrition rates, and participant

education award usage.

Project Expenditures Project-level expenditures also varied widely. Our expenditure data

excluded funding for education awards and for state commission and

Corporation administrative expenses. Projects obtained cash support and

in-kind resources to cover their expenditures from the Corporation, other

federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. The

projects’ expenditures ranged from $206,000 to $3.9 million. The median

expenditure was $627,000. The share of these expenditures that were

supported by the following sources was

• corporation grants—08 to 78 percent (the median was 66 percent),

• public sector resources—49 to 100 percent (the median was 83 percent),

and

• private sector sources—0 to 51 percent (the median was 17 percent).

Figure 1 illustrates private sector support for all 24 projects. Appendix III

lists detailed expenditure data for all 24 projects.

8

For one project in our sample the Corporation is only funding education awards.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

Figure 1: Distribution of 24 Americorps

Projects by Proportion of Expenditures

Covered by Private Sector Funding

Number of Projects

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% >40%

Proportion of Expenditures Funded by Private Sector

Project Accomplishments One of the National and Community Service Trust Act’s objectives is to

help the nation address its unmet human, education, environmental, and

public safety needs. The projects included in our sample all reported

diverse service activities that address one or more of these needs. While

some projects’ service activities were focused on meeting a particular

need within the community, such as housing, other projects’ activities

addressed multiple areas of need, such as environmental and education

needs. In the project reports we reviewed in detail, participants organized

food programs that served 2,500 children; assisted with totally

rehabilitating 16 vacant public housing units; operated a 7-week summer

reading camp for 36 children; planted trees, removed debris, and created

gardens improving 32 urban neighborhoods; and provided parenting

classes to low-income families.

Officials Agree

Federal Role Needed,

but Differ on Degree

of State Control

State commissioners and executive directors in all seven states agreed

with senior Corporation officials that a federal role in the AmeriCorps

program is needed. None of these officials believed that eliminating the

federal Corporation and simply allocating funds directly to state

commissions would serve the program well. While some state officials told

us that the grant allocation process warrants significant change, other

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

state officials noted the indispensability of federal oversight. Corporation

officials believed that a federal role is needed for conducting nationwide

data gathering on the AmeriCorps program, evaluating the performance of

AmeriCorps projects and state commissions, and providing a central

repository of information on the “best practices” of individual AmeriCorps

projects and state commission operations.

Federal Role Needed All seven state commission executive directors agreed that a federal role is

necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity.

According to these officials, a national identity helps AmeriCorps projects

obtain widespread public support. They told us that national identity

provides AmeriCorps participants with a sense that the benefits of their

service extend not only to themselves and their communities, but to the

whole nation. Furthermore, they said AmeriCorps’ name recognition and

positive reputation help local projects recruit participants. To promote

national identity, the Corporation provides AmeriCorps projects national

advertisement, service gear, and the means to network with other projects

across the country to share experience and knowledge. In addition, the

Corporation encourages projects to adhere to certain standardized

elements such as the ethic reflected by the Corporation’s slogan “getting

things done,” a standard orientation and pledge, and participation in

national events.

Most commission officials also welcomed the federal oversight of

AmeriCorps. Some officials told us that while reducing the federal role

could save money, a lack of oversight would spawn fraud, waste, and

abuse. Several commission officials, for example, expressed concern that,

without federal oversight, other state officials might bypass commission

offices and fund projects, regardless of whether they meet national service

priorities, to serve partisan agendas. Another official said that without a

federal role, the AmeriCorps program would become wholly dependent on

the support of the states’ executive leadership, noting a fear for the future

of their states’ AmeriCorps programs if elected governors do not support

national service.

Corporation officials agreed that a national identity for the AmeriCorps

program is important and that a federal role provides it. They also noted

that the federal government has a vital role in evaluating the AmeriCorps

program, sharing evaluation results with others, and developing and

increasing the evaluation capacity of state commissions. They believe that

such a role helps to address the disparity between state commissions’

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

competence and performance by, in part, serving as a central repository of

information on successful AmeriCorps projects and state commission

management strategies. Furthermore, evaluating projects and state

commissions ensures that federal taxpayer dollars are efficiently and

effectively used to finance legitimate national service projects.

Federal Grant Allocation Commission officials in the seven states disagreed on whether states

should have more control over federal grant funds, particularly in terms of

allocating federal funds. Some commission officials supported allocating

all three types of grants (formula, competitive, and national direct) to the

states based on population. The California contingent advocated allocating

all AmeriCorps grant funds to states using a population-based formula.

California officials argued that the Corporation’s competitive grant-making

process is redundant because it occurs after states review and select

projects for funding on their own. In addition, these officials told us that

federal selection of AmeriCorps projects usurps the state commissions’

right to exercise their best judgment, expertise, and creativity in

administering national service projects in their states. Other officials told

us that the competitive grant-making process promotes equity and ensures

that the relatively higher quality projects receive funding. Officials in

Rhode Island argued that the competitive grant-making process provides a

more equitable distribution of national resources than strict

population-based allocations. They said that such simplistic methods

arbitrarily penalize states with small populations and reward states with

large populations, while ignoring the variability in quality among national

service projects.

Officials in other states told us that commissions themselves, rather than

individual projects, should compete for federal grants. Officials in

Maryland and Texas told us that the Corporation should allocate federal

AmeriCorps grants to states on the basis of commissions’ demonstrated

ability to effectively manage quality national service projects in their

states. They argued that the Corporation should treat different states

differently, taking into account states’ unique service needs. Neither

Maryland nor Texas officials, however, had developed a set of suggested

criteria for the Corporation to use to make such determinations.

Senior Corporation officials told us that they are not certain the

competitive process used, in part, to allocate funds to state commissions

achieves the quality control over project selection that was originally

anticipated. They oppose, however, allocating all available funding to state

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

commissions based simply on population demographics. Corporation

officials stated that such a method does not take into account the differing

abilities of state commissions to administer and oversee AmeriCorps

projects, noting that two states have yet to even appoint state

commissions. In addition, these officials believe that national direct

projects play an important role in the AmeriCorps program and should

receive grants directly from the Corporation. While these officials told us

that in the future the Corporation may recommend that the Congress

change the act’s grant allocation process, they had no specific proposals

for the Congress to consider at the time of our review.

Coordination With

National Direct Projects

Some state commission officials we visited told us that giving states more

control over the AmeriCorps program would eliminate or alleviate current

problems they have coordinating with AmeriCorps projects operating in

their state. Historically, national direct projects were not required to

coordinate with state commission officials, which some commission

officials cited as a point of frustration. These officials told us that the

public holds them culpable for the actions of national direct AmeriCorps

projects because the public does not distinguish between national direct

projects and state-administered projects. In addition, some state

commission officials said they doubt that out-of-state nonprofits fully

understand the needs of local communities in their states.

Corporation officials acknowledged the difficulties that some states have

experienced coordinating with national direct projects. To ameliorate this

problem, an official said that as of January 1997, the Corporation requires

national direct grantees to coordinate with the relevant state commission

officials. In addition, in the future, state commissions can provide

comments on the Corporation’s national direct grant selections, which

these Corporation officials believe will also help eliminate this

coordination problem.

Corporation officials told us, however, that national direct grants play an

essential program role. They argued that community service is central to

the mission of many national nonprofit organizations and that these

organizations are, by and large, the recipients of such grants. Specifically,

these officials believe that national direct grants help (1) attract national

nonprofit organizations to the AmeriCorps program, (2) achieve a more

efficient and less bureaucratic method of administering projects that

operate in several states, and (3) recruit nonprofit organizations with the

economies of scale that could allow the Corporation to dramatically

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
B-275765 

decrease its per-participant costs by funding only the portion of projects’

expenses associated with providing participants their education awards.

Agency Comments In commenting on our report, the Corporation stated that in calculating

attrition rates, we should not have included participants who leave

projects early to take advantage of opportunities for educational or

professional advancement because such departures do not reflect on

program quality. We did not, however, use attrition rates or any other

output as a project quality index and, therefore, did not modify our

calculations. Although the Corporation believes that the term “outputs”

should characterize only project accomplishments, we use the term to

characterize participant enrollment, project attrition, education award

usage, and project expenditures—a use of the term that is consistent with

long-standing conventions of social science research.

The Corporation also stated that a complete analysis of education award

usage may not be available for several years because participants have up

to 7 years to use their awards. Our education award calculation represents

a snapshot in time, and our report describes the 7-year interval. The

Corporation suggested other changes that were primarily technical and

editorial in nature. We revised the report as appropriate, defining our use

of the terms “project” and “program,” for instance, and clarifying that we

used the most current and appropriate data available for our analysis.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate House and Senate

committees and other interested parties. We will also make copies

available to others on request.

If you have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-7014 or Jeff Appel, senior evaluator, at (617) 565-7513. This

report was prepared under the direction of Wayne B. Upshaw, Assistant

Director. Ben Jordan, evaluator, also contributed to this report.

Cornelia M. Blanchette

Associate Director, Education

 and Employment Issues

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Description of 24

Selected Americorps

Projects, by State

20

Appendix II 

Detailed Information

on Project

Enrollment, Attrition,

and Education Award

Usage for the 1994-95

Program Year

22

Appendix III 

24 Americorps Project

Expenditures for the

1994-95 Program Year,

by Resource Stream

24

Tables Table 1: Federal and State National Service Program

Responsibilities

5

Table 2: Fiscal Year 1996 Budgets and Number of Full-Time

Equivalent Staff at Seven State Commissions

10

Table 3: Projects for the 1995-96 Program Year, by Type and by

State

11

Figure Figure 1: Distribution of 24 AmeriCorps Projects by Proportion of

Expenditures Covered by Private Sector Funding

13

Abbreviations

FTE full-time equivalent

NCCC National Civilian Community Corps

VISTA Volunteers in Service to America

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix I 

Description of 24 Selected Americorps

Projects, by State

Project Participant activities

California

Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium

AmeriCorps Project

Participants work to meet the needs of at-risk youth through peer counseling, health

education/outreach, gang intervention, conflict resolution, alcohol/drug counseling and

education, outreach to homeless youth, after-school recreation, tutoring, and child care.

Building Up Los Angeles Participants serve in a citywide partnership to develop neighborhood-based service

projects. Members mentor/tutor community youth, provide training in conflict

management skills, and engage individuals in physical improvement projects.

California Conservation Corps AmeriCorps Participants serve in teams to plan and perform activities, including rural and urban

environmental projects, trail construction and maintenance, tree planting, city

infrastructure maintenance, and organizing city youth activities.

East Bay Conservation Corps AmeriCorps

Collaborative

Participants tutor and counsel at-risk youth, develop and operate after-school programs,

deliver basic health care services, and implement physical improvement projects

through a 19- organization partnership.

Maryland

Appalachian Service Through Action and

Resources

Participants provide independent living assistance and health care to homebound

elderly individuals, enlarge area food pantries, create youth literacy programs, and

develop educational programs for Head Start students in Appalachian Maryland.

Maryland Students Taking Responsibility for

Tomorrow

Participants tutor low-income students, in a tri-county area, using a cascading

leadership model. Participants supervise high school students who, in turn, act as

mentors and tutors for middle and elementary school students.

United Youth Corps of Maryland Participants work in rural, urban, and suburban areas of the state through a collaboration

among the Maryland Conservation Corps, Civic Works, and Community Year.

Participants work to stabilize soil erosion, build community gardens, and rehabilitate

homes for low-income families.

Enhancing Neighborhood Action by Local

Empowerment

Participants conduct home visits to the chronically ill and provide health service referrals.

Participants also tutor first-grade students, develop structured after-school

intergenerational activities, and teach school readiness skills to preschool children.

Missouri

Grace Hill AmeriCorps RiverFront Trail Project Participants help conserve the Mississippi Riverfront by restoring and beautifying trails.

Participants work to increase the educational success of urban youth by organizing

outdoor recreational and educational activities and by planning weekly summer

educational events.

Come as You Are Project Participants serve the St. Joseph area by developing academic laboratories in schools,

organizing and conducting neighborhood cleanup projects and recycling programs, and

working with children to establish community gardens that provide food to local food

pantries.

Southeast Missouri Partnership for

Community Service

Participants work to reduce violence against children by recruiting tutors and mentors to

work with high-risk youth, developing a literacy program for parents, developing

after-school and summer programs, and working with juvenile authorities to develop

service projects for youthful offenders.

St. Louis Partners for Service Participants work to increase the capacity of schools to improve the achievement of

fourth- through eighth-graders in low-income communities and identify and train

volunteers to develop service projects in literacy, the environment, first aid and personal

safety, and substance abuse prevention.

(continued)

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix I 

Description of 24 Selected Americorps

Projects, by State

Project Participant activities

Rhode Island

Leadership, Education and Service

Enterprise

Participants provide a range of services for at-risk students of all ages, including

preschool assistance, tutoring for school-aged youth and adults, and referral services.

City Year, Rhode Island Participants serve in teams to strengthen communities by tapping the resources of local

residents, business, and nonprofit organizations. Participants provide services such as

mentoring/tutoring students from kindergarten through seventh grade and participating

in community gardening, low-income housing, and after-school programming.

Texas

Casa Verde Builders Program Participants work to improve low-income areas by building energy-efficient homes using

least toxic materials and alternative building methods. Participants also renovate and

weatherize existing homes to save on energy costs.

Making Connections for Children and Youth Participants serve children living in poverty by offering nutritious food and enrichment

activities at summer food sites, tutoring and mentoring at schools, providing violence

prevention/conflict resolution activities, and facilitating access to health care.

Parenting Education Project Participants provide parenting education services at schools and community nonprofit

organizations. Participants conduct home visits, community outreach and recruitment,

teen parent mentoring, and developmental screening, and provide child care for teen

parent students.

Serve Houston Youth Corps Participants operate after-school service-learning programs in elementary schools.

Participants work in teams with other youth from varied backgrounds to strengthen the

community in areas including the environment, hunger and homelessness reduction, and

public safety.

Virginia

Service to Alexandria Participants work to rehabilitate, revitalize, and maintain public housing units in their own

communities.

Virginia Commonwealth University

AmeriCorps

Participants serve as outreach workers for community-based organizations that provide

tutoring/mentoring, parenting skill workshops, physical exams and immunizations,

conflict resolution training, and prenatal health education.

Washington

AmeriCorps Youth in Service Participants teach conflict resolution skills, provide tutoring and frontline gang

intervention, and implement after-school, late night, and summer recreation programs for

rural and Native American youth. Participants also provide independent living support to

mentally ill adults.

Spokane Service Team Participants rehabilitate low-income housing units and construct new housing for

emergency and transitional living. Participants also work to restore habitats for native

plants, vegetation, and wildlife. They are also involved in developing recreational areas

in state parks and improving hiking and biking trails.

Educational Conservation Corps Participants work to improve water quality and restore a reduced salmon population by

rehabilitating damaged watersheds and building fences to prevent erosion.

Washington AmeriCorps Participants serve in various agencies across the state on a wide range of projects,

including developing a statewide literacy initiative for recent immigrants, providing at-risk

youth with service alternatives to gang activity, and concentrating services to a needy,

isolated Native American reservation.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix II 

Detailed Information on Project Enrollment,

Attrition, and Education Award Usage for

the 1994-95 Program Year

Project Total enrolled

Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium AmeriCorps Project 60

Building Up Los Angeles 125

Califoria Conservation Corps AmeriCorps 135

East Bay Conservation Corps AmeriCorps Collaborative 169

Appalachian Service Through Action and Resources 32

United Youth Corps of Maryland 128

Enhancing Neighborhood Action by Local Empowerment 24

Maryland Students Taking Responsibility for Tomorrow 33

St. Louis Partners for Service 31

Grace Hill AmeriCorps RiverFront Trail Project 38

Southeast Missouri Partnership for Community Service 41

Come as You Are Project 40

Leadership, Education and Service Enterprise 25

City Year, Rhode Island 85

Casa Verde Builders Program 64

Making Connections for Children and Youth 50

Serve Houston Youth Corps 64

Parenting Education Project 61

Virgina Commonwealth University AmeriCorps 37

Service to Alexandria 21

AmeriCorps Youth in Service 43

Spokane Service Team 33

Washington AmeriCorps 350

Educational Conservation Corps 97

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix II 

Detailed Information on Project Enrollment,

Attrition, and Education Award Usage for

the 1994-95 Program Year

Participants who ended service

early for cause

Participants who ended service

early for all reasons

Education award usage

d

Released for

cause

Percentage of

enrolled

Released for all

reasons

Percentage of

enrolled Earned an award Used award Percentage used

0 10 17 13 22 50 20 40

5 26 21 43 34 87 29 33

5 14 10 43 32 115 29 25

9 47 28 76 45 118 64 54

2 8 25 9 28 22 13 59

8 45 35 50 39 66 35 53

4 5 21 10 42 19 10 53

3 1 3 3 9 12 9 75

3 10 7 23 28 19 68

8 13 34 15 39 22 5 23

20 49 23 56 21 15 71

0 12 30 21 53 28 16 57

5 8 32 10 40 17 10 59

5 17 20 17 20 47 26 55

4 37 58 38 59 23 4 17

0 14 28 21 42 35 19 54

4 8 13 18 28 56 33 59

10 16 21 34 50 18 36

7 16 43 17 46 21 13 62

3 14 20 95 17 3 18

3 7 16 9 21 36 28 78

3 4 12 19 58 28 7 25

0 80 23 94 27 254 137 54

7 37 38 41 42 58 20 34

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix III 

24 Americorps Project Expenditures for the

1994-95 Program Year, by Resource Stream

Other federal

Project Corporation Cash In-kind

Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium AmeriCorps Project $756,587 $0 $0

Building Up Los Angeles 1,415,016 0 0

California Conservation Corps AmeriCorps 637,595 293,641 500,000

East Bay Conservation Corps AmeriCorps Collaborative 2,020,649 0 8,500

Appalachian Service Through Action and Resources 341,935 0 0

United Youth Corps of Maryland 1,767,517 0 0

Enhancing Neighborhood Action by Local Empowerment 222,605 0 0

Maryland Students Taking Responsibility for Tomorrow 262,672 5,681 0

St. Louis Partners for Service 368,812 0 0

Grace Hill AmeriCorps RiverFront Trail Project 270,114 0 0

Southeast Missouri Partnership for Community Service 308,093 0 0

Come as You Are Project 218,659 0 0

City Year, Rhode Island 826,835 0 0

Leadership, Education and Service Enterprise 251,495 0 16,812

Casa Verde Builders Program 975,009 799,635 0

Serve Houston Youth Corps 937,315 40,325 0

Parenting Education Project 759,110 0 0

Making Connections for Children and Youth 445,646 24,985 0

Service to Alexandria 269,860 0 0

Virginia Commonwealth University AmeriCorps 154,287 0 0

Educational Conservation Corps 0 626,639 0

AmeriCorps Youth in Service 304,233 0 0

Spokane Service Team 254,319 0 0

Washington AmeriCorps 2,399,965 0 54,241

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Appendix III 

24 Americorps Project Expenditures for the

1994-95 Program Year, by Resource Stream

State Local government Private Sector

d Cash In-kind Cash In-kind Cash In-kind Total

0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $257,921 $145,040 $1,159,548

0 0 0 0 0 199,877 203,090 1,817,983

0 563,584 122,986 69,580 311,387 23,361 8,650 2,530,784

0 13,299 28,164 142,488 239,681 190,326 102,567 2,745,674

0 23,894 235,075 31,336 0 0 0 632,240

0 0 37,712 75,263 14,300 351,309 23,148 2,269,249

0 152,535 11,500 0 0 78,568 0 465,208

0 0 0 0 0 0 92,548 360,901

0 0 0 0 0 68,895 168,604 606,311

0 0 0 0 0 114,731 47,920 432,765

0 11,464 46,517 11,050 36,997 226 3,718 418,065

0 0 0 0 0 20,974 43,867 283,499

0 0 0 0 0 270,163 144,142 1,241,140

2 0 0 0 29,518 35,736 0 333,561

0 0 0 469,819 0 143,590 60,000 2,448,053

0 0 0 0 0 205,768 95,070 1,278,478

0 51,366 45,714 78,540 11,636 93,083 23,271 1,062,720

0 0 0 0 0 112,816 0 583,447

0 0 0 69,117 80,000 0 0 418,977

0 24,496 27,067 0 0 0 0 205,850

0 953,592 0 152,261 0 0 0 1,732,492

0 0 0 0 0 57,646 259,330 621,209

0 103,448 34,000 23,465 0 94,226 25,770 535,227

683,281 75,314 0 512,041 0 208,597 3,933,438

(104875) Page 25 GAO/HEHS-97-49 Role of AmeriCorps State Commissions
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100