United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1995 NATIONAL SERVICE

PROGRAMS

AmeriCorps*USA—

Early Program

Resource and Benefit

Information

GAO/HEHS-95-222

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-260739 

August 29, 1995

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski

United States Senate

With the National and Community Service Trust 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. This program,

commonly known as AmeriCorps,1

 is administered by a new federal

Corporation for National and Community Service (the Corporation) that

combined two independent agencies—the Commission on National and

Community Service and ACTION. For AmeriCorps*USA grants and

national service education awards, the Corporation’s budget was about

$249 million in fiscal year 1994, and the administration has requested

about $619 million for fiscal year 1996. In congressional testimony, the

Corporation estimated AmeriCorps*USA’s cost per participant at $18,800

for 1995 operations.2

 The Corporation did not include contributions that

AmeriCorps*USA grantees receive from other federal agencies, state and

local governments, and private sources. Not knowing the total resource

commitment currently supporting AmeriCorps*USA programs led to

concern on the part of some members of Congress about authorizing

significantly higher program appropriations.

Because of this concern, you asked us to provide information on the

public and private resources currently being used to support the

Corporation’s AmeriCorps*USA program.3

 In addition, you asked us to

express those resources on a per-participant and per-service-hour basis,

considering the program’s different resource streams. Because most

programs will not complete an entire operating year before

September 1995, we agreed to report on the amount of funds and in-kind

contributions available for expenditure to support AmeriCorps*USA

participants. In the absence of actual cost data, this information may be

indicative of the level of federal and other resources that ultimately will

1

AmeriCorps consists of three programs: AmeriCorps*USA, which is the largest; AmeriCorps*VISTA;

and AmeriCorps*NCCC. This report pertains only to the AmeriCorps*USA program.

2

Statement by Eli J. Segal, chief executive officer, Corporation for National and Community Service,

before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommitte on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

(Mar. 24, 1995). In other forums, the Corporation has given estimates that ranged from about $9,000 to

$14,000 per participant.

3

“Resources” in this report refers to both cash and in-kind contributions being used to operate

AmeriCorps*USA programs. “Funds” refers only to cash contributions, while “the Corporation’s

appropriations” refers to appropriations by the Congress to support AmeriCorps*USA programs.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

support AmeriCorps*USA participants each year. Finally, you asked us to

provide information on AmeriCorps*USA’s program objectives and

anticipated benefits along with examples of achievements to date.

In developing our information on resources available for the

AmeriCorps*USA program, we identified both the amount and source of

funding devoted to supporting AmeriCorps*USA grantees’ programs for

program year 1994-95.4

 As a first step, we held extensive meetings with

Corporation officials; examined legislation establishing the Corporation

and national service programs; and reviewed Corporation program

policies, guidance, and reports as well as its program evaluation plans.

At the Corporation, we reviewed grant files for all grantees’ programs the

Corporation told us received fiscal year 1994 appropriations. Each file

typically included the application submitted by the AmeriCorps*USA

grantee, the amount of the grant award, and matching contributions

proposed and budgeted by the grantee. The Corporation grant files,

however, did not contain information on the source of these matching

contributions. To obtain detailed information on matching contributions,

we constructed a random sample of 80 nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA

grantees. For each program in our sample, we collected information as of

May 1995 from project administrators on the amounts, sources, and types

of resources—cash versus in-kind contributions—obtained or certain to

be received by the end of the program year to match Corporation grant

funds.5

 In addition, we collected information on the number of currently

enrolled participants and the number of additional participants the

grantees expected to enroll before the end of the first program year. The

data we received were self-reported by program officials and not

independently verified with other sources. We used this information to

project the amount and source of resources available and the number of

participants involved in AmeriCorps*USA programs nationwide. Our

sample was drawn to make the results statistically representative of the

284 grantee programs administered by nonprofit, state, and local

organizations. At the 95-percent confidence level, our estimates have a

sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Because of the small number of federal sponsors, we collected resource

information from all 13 federal agencies that were grantees. We met with

4

The program year began and will end at different times for different sites, and it may be more or less

than 12 months.

5

Although we excluded in-kind contributions donated by the private sector from our per-participant

and per-service-hour calculations, we did include them in estimates of total resources available.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

agency officials and obtained information on the amounts, sources, and

types of funding and in-kind contributions used to support their programs

and the number of participants enrolled and expected to be enrolled.

Finally, we visited seven judgmentally selected AmeriCorps*USA grantees’

programs in Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington. These

programs represented a mix of grantee characteristics, such as mission

and scale, and our visits provided insight into program operations, actual

sources of funds, and program benefits.

Appendix I provides a more detailed description of the methodology we

used to obtain and analyze funding information, along with data and

analysis limitations. We performed our work between January and

July 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing

standards.

Results in Brief For program year 1994-95, our estimate of Corporation resources available

per participant was about $17,600, slightly less than the Corporation’s

March 24th estimate. Using our methodology, total resources available for

AmeriCorps*USA programs included more than the Corporation’s

appropriations. Over one-third of the financial resources available for

AmeriCorps*USA grantees’ programs came from sources outside the

Corporation, mostly from other federal agencies and state and local

governments. Total resources available per AmeriCorps*USA participant

averaged $26,654, of which about $17,600 came from the Corporation,

$3,200 from non-Corporation federal sources, and $4,000 from state and

local governments. The remaining amount, roughly $1,800, came from the

private sector. Resources available per participant were lower for

programs run by nonfederal organizations than those funded by federal

agencies. Total resources available to AmeriCorps*USA grantees’

programs equaled about $16 per service hour.

In terms of benefits, our review of activities at the seven programs’ sites

visited indicated that a variety of results have been achieved that support

AmeriCorps*USA’s goals. The legislation intended grantees’ programs to

help communities address unmet human, educational, environmental, and

public safety needs. At the grantees’ sites we visited, we found that the

projects had been designed to strengthen communities, develop civic

responsibility, and expand educational opportunities for program

participants and others.

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

Background Under the act that created it, the Corporation has a diverse set of

responsibilities. These responsibilities include administering national

service programs authorized under previous legislation,6

 funding training

and service clearinghouses, and undertaking activities related to disaster

relief. In addition, the Corporation administers the national service trust,

which pays for national service education awards under the statute. For

fiscal year 1994, the Congress appropriated $370 million for the

Corporation plus $207 million for programs under the former ACTION

agency that the Corporation now administers.

The AmeriCorps*USA

Program

AmeriCorps*USA 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.

Participants earn an education award of $4,725 for full-time service or half

of 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. The Corporation

requires that programs devote some portion, but no 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. 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 only receive two education awards. The 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*USA 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 $7,640 for full-time participants in fiscal year 1994.

Additional participant benefits include health insurance and child care

assistance for participants who need them.

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

postsecondary education. A participant must be 16 or older and be a

6

These programs include Serve-America (which authorizes grants for education service projects for

elementary through postsecondary education), the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) (which

utilizes former military personnel and unused military sites for residential youth programs), Volunteers

in Service to America (VISTA) (a domestic version of the Peace Corps), the Youth Conservation Corps

(which provides teenagers with opportunities to perform conservation work), and older American

volunteer programs (which provide service opportunities for retired and senior Americans).

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

citizen, a national, or a lawful permanent resident of the United States. A

participant must also be a high school graduate, agree to earn the

equivalent of a high school diploma before receiving an education award,

or be granted a waiver by the program. Selection of participants is not

based on financial need. In its fiscal year 1994 appropriations, the

Corporation anticipated fielding about 18,350 full- and part-time

AmeriCorps*USA participants.

AmeriCorps*USA Grantees The Corporation awarded about $149 million of its fiscal year 1994

appropriations to make about 300 grants to nonprofit organizations and

federal, state, and local government agencies to operate AmeriCorps*USA

programs.7

 About two-thirds of the grant dollars were awarded through

state commissions on national service set up by the 1993 act to provide

oversight to state programs. The remaining one-third of the

AmeriCorps*USA grant monies was awarded directly by the Corporation

to national nonprofit organizations and federal agencies. Grantees were to

be selected on the basis of their proposed national service programs’

quality, innovation, and sustainability. Sustainability was evaluated on the

basis of community support for a program and a grantee’s ability to raise

other funds from multiple sources, including the private sector.

Grant recipients use grant funds to pay up to 85 percent of the cost of

participants’ living allowances and benefits (up to 100 percent of child

care expenses) and up to 75 percent of other program costs, including

participant training, education, and uniforms; staff salaries, travel,

transportation, supplies, and equipment; and program evaluation and

administrative costs. Grants are based in part on the number of

participants the program estimates it will enroll during the year. If

participants leave the program during the year, the Corporation may either

allow the program to redirect participant stipend and benefit funds to

other program expenses or take back any unused portion of the grant. To

ensure that federal Corporation dollars are used to leverage other

resources for program support, grantees must also obtain support from

non-Corporation sources to help pay for the program. 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*USA programs as

well as to supervise and train participants; office facilities and supplies;

7

These grants are known as operating grants. The Corporation also awards planning grants, which are

given to organizations to plan future year programs but do not fund current operations.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

and materials and equipment needed in the course of conducting national

service projects.

Consistent with the legislation, federal agencies can receive grants to

support AmeriCorps*USA volunteers who perform work furthering the

agencies’ missions. Federal agency grantees are to use their own resources

in addition to the Corporation grant to integrate national service more

fully into their mission work. Furthermore, as is the case with nonfederal

agency programs, Corporation regulations state that federal agencies are

ultimately intended to support their service initiatives without Corporation

resources.

AmeriCorps*USA

Primarily Supported

by Public Resources

In its first program year, AmeriCorps*USA relied heavily on public

support. The Corporation’s appropriations accounted for slightly less than

two-thirds of resources available for AmeriCorps*USA grantees. When

Corporation appropriations were combined with resources from other

federal agencies and state and local governments, the public sector

provided about 88 percent of the $351 million in total program resources

available. Federal resources accounted for 74 percent (about

$260 million), while state and local government contributions made up 14

percent ($50 million). Private cash and in-kind contributions constituted

the smallest share of resources, amounting to about 12 percent (or about

$41 million).

Most of the Corporation’s funding for AmeriCorps*USA projects went to

providing operating grants and education awards. Of the Corporation’s

funding, 61 percent financed operating grants. Slightly over one-quarter

supported participants’ education awards, while the remainder went

toward Corporation program management and administration.

Most of the matching contributions AmeriCorps*USA programs have

received came from public as opposed to private sources. About 69

percent of all matching resources came from either a federal or a state or

local government source, with the split between cash and in-kind

contributions being about 43 percent (about $57 million) and 26 percent

(about $34 million), respectively. The remaining 31 percent of matching

resources were from private sources, with cash and in-kind contributions

accounting for 17 percent (about $23 million) and 14 percent (about

$18 million), respectively.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

In calculating resources available on a per-participant and

per-service-hour basis (see table 1), we found that average resources

available from all sources per AmeriCorps*USA participant amounted to

about $26,654 (excluding in-kind contributions from private sources). This

amounted to about $16 per service hour or about $20 per direct service

hour, assuming 20 percent of the 1,700 hours of total service was nondirect

service time.8

 Although these figures represent resources available for all

program expenses, they are not the equivalent of annual salaries or hourly

wages for participants. See appendix II for more detailed results and

appendix III for sampling error and sensitivity analysis results.

Table 1: Per-Participant and

Per-Service-Hour Resources Available

for AmeriCorps*USA, by Source

Resources available

Source of

contribution Per FTE Per service hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

Resources $17,629 $10.37 $12.96

Other federal

Cash 2,247 1.32 1.65

In-kind 930 0.55 0.68

State and local governmenta

Cash 2,272 1.34 1.67

In-kind 1,756 1.03 1.29

Private

Cash 1,819 1.07 1.34

Total $26,654 $15.68 $19.60

Notes: Items may not sum to totals because of rounding.

We calculated available resources per participant on a full-time-equivalent (FTE) basis.

aState and local contributors included state and city departments, such as police forces and

school systems, and public 2- and 4-year postsecondary institutions.

It is important not to equate our funding information with cost data.

Because most AmeriCorps*USA programs are still in their first year of

operations, actual cost cannot yet be determined. Funding and in-kind

contributions from sources other than the Corporation were reported to

us in May 1995 as resources already received or those that program

8

In establishing the national service program, the Congress intended that participants engage in

activities that benefit communities (direct service) and the program participants themselves

(nondirect service). Direct service activities include those that address unmet human, educational,

environmental, or public safety needs. Nondirect service activities include training participants to

carry out national service projects and assisting them in making the transition to other educational and

career opportunities after they complete national service.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

directors were certain of receiving by the end of their current operating

year. Therefore, actual resource and expenditure levels may prove to be

higher or lower than indicated by the estimates reported to us.

During the course of our review, Corporation officials expressed several

concerns about our calculations. First, they believed our estimate should

be adjusted to reflect start-up costs incurred in the first program year. The

Corporation’s position was that because AmeriCorps*USA programs incur

initial-year start-up costs that will not recur in the future, first-year costs

will be overstated unless start-up costs are capitalized over several years.

We did not attempt to systematically identify start-up costs since we

focused on resource availability and not cost data. Moreover, during our

site visits, we saw little evidence of start-up costs so high that, unless

capitalized, they would cause a significant distortion. Most start-up costs

consisted of intangible items, such as curricula development and program

planning, rather than conventional capital acquisitions like buildings and

machinery.

Second, Corporation officials said it is likely that not all education award

money will be used. Thus, they believed our estimate for education award

funding may be overstated. However, we found no reliable data or basis to

make such an estimate to adjust our per-participant estimates. We have

included the full value of the awards in our calculations because the

Congress appropriates funds specifically for these awards and the funds

are held in trust and available to those who earn them for 7 years.

Moreover, our methodology is identical to the way the Corporation

calculates its own cost estimates.

Third, Corporation officials believed our per-hour calculations are

overstated. The Corporation believes participants will complete

substantially more than the 1,700 service hours required by law. As

support, they provided us information on participants serving in the VISTA

program and preliminary figures about some participants who have

completed their AmeriCorps*USA service. We used the 1,700 figure

because this is the minimum established by law, and program participants

are required to only attain, not exceed, it. Also, from discussions with

officials at the seven programs visited, we found that while some

participants might exceed these hours, many others would have difficulty

meeting the requirement. This is particularly true in programs that started

later in the year than expected. In addition, we do not consider the VISTA

participant data appropriate because VISTA is a different type of program,

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

with participation requirements and target populations that differ from

AmeriCorps*USA’s.9

 The data the Corporation provided on

AmeriCorps*USA participants was based on about 1,000 of an estimated

18,350 current AmeriCorps*USA participants, or about 5 percent. These

participants may not be representative of those still serving.

The Corporation also believes participants will spend substantially less

than 20 percent of their service hours on nondirect service activities. In

calculating resources per direct service hour, we used 80 percent of the

total 1,700 hours (or 1,360 hours) as the basis for estimating direct service.

While we recognize that the Corporation’s regulations make 20 percent the

maximum amount of service time that may be spent on training, programs

we visited appeared likely to use the full 20 percent for training. In

addition, because programs have not all completed their first year, the

Corporation could not provide us with data on the portion of time spent on

nondirect service.

Federal Agency

Programs Are Most

Resource Intensive

We found significant differences in levels of resources available for

nonfederal versus federal programs (see table 2). On average,

AmeriCorps*USA programs operated by nonprofit, state, and local

agencies received about $25,800 in cash and in-kind contributions per

participant. In contrast, programs sponsored by federal agencies received

about $31,000 in cash and in-kind contributions per participant—about

20 percent more than programs administered by nonfederal grantees. In

addition, federal agencies relied far more on non-Corporation federal

resources than their counterparts. On average, federal agency grantees

had about $15,500 in cash and in-kind contributions available per

participant from federal sources other than the Corporation.

Non-Corporation federal funds accounted for about 50 percent of total

resources available to federal grantees.10 Nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA

grantees received resources of less than $800 per participant from

non-Corporation federal sources, or about 3 percent of their total

resources. For more detailed resource information and a description of

AmeriCorps*USA programs sponsored by federal agencies, see

appendix IV.

9

For example, VISTA volunteers specifically work to combat poverty-associated problems. They must

live among and at the economic level of the low-income clients they serve. And at the time the data

were collected—1992 and 1993—an education award was not available for VISTA volunteers upon

completion of their service.

10Almost all of the non-Corporation federal cash and in-kind contributions came from the sponsoring

federal agencies themselves.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

Table 2: Comparison of Resources

Available for Nonfederal and Federal

AmeriCorps*USA Programs

Source of

contribution

Nonfederal

program resources

Federal program

resources

All program

resources

Corporation for National and Community Service

Resources $18,602 $12,665 $17,629

Other federal

Cash 493 11,187 2,247

In-kind 261 4,338 930

State and local government

Cash 2,607 564 2,272

In-kind 1,880 1,126 1,756

Private

Cash 1,953 1,136 1,819

Total $25,797 $31,017 $26,654

Note: Items may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Program

Accomplishments

Support the Varied

Goals of

AmeriCorps*USA

In its mission statement, the Corporation had identified several objectives

that spanned a wide range of accomplishments, from very tangible results

to those much harder to quantify. During our site visits, we observed local

programs helping communities. AmeriCorps*USA has also sponsored an

evaluation of its own that summarized results at a sample of programs

during their first 5 months of operation and identified diverse

achievements related to each service area.11

Meeting Unmet Needs One of AmeriCorps*USA’s objectives was to help the nation meet its

unmet human, educational, environmental, and public safety needs, or as

the Corporation states it, “getting things done.” Our visits to programs also

identified diverse achievements. We observed participants renovating

inner-city housing, assisting teachers in elementary schools, maintaining

and reestablishing native vegetation in a flood control area, analyzing

neighborhood crime statistics to better target prevention measures, and

developing a program in a community food bank for people with special

dietary needs. Officials at the sponsoring organizations spoke of being able

to accomplish tasks that their limited resources had previously prevented

them from accomplishing.

11Aguirre International, AmeriCorps*USA at Five Months (Rosslyn, Va.: Mar. 22, 1995).

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

Strengthening

Communities

AmeriCorps*USA’s legislation identified renewing the spirit of community

as an objective, and the program’s mission includes “strengthening the ties

that bind us together as a people.” We observed several projects focused

on rebuilding communities. For example, a multifamily house being

renovated was formerly a congregating spot for drug dealers. Program

officials believe that after completion, it will encourage other

neighborhood improvements. Another team built a community farm

market and renovated a municipal stadium, both of which a town official

stated will continue to provide economic and social benefits to the

community.

Another way to meet this objective was to have participants with diverse

backgrounds working together. Participants of several programs we

visited spanned a wide age range, from teenagers to retirees. Teams also

showed diversity in educational, economic, and ethnic backgrounds.

Participants said that a valuable aspect of the program was working with

others with different backgrounds and benefiting from their strengths.

Fostering Responsibility Another of AmeriCorps*USA’s program objectives was to foster civic

responsibility. We saw evidence of this at programs such as one where

participants devoted half of each Friday to working on community service

projects they devise and carry out independently. Participants at another

program, in which they organized meetings to establish relationships

between at-risk youth and elderly people, commented that this work had

taught them how to organize programs, experience they believed would be

helpful as they took on roles in their communities. Training periods

included conflict resolution techniques and team-building skills.

Expanding Opportunities Both the AmeriCorps legislation and the Corporation’s mission identified

expanding opportunities as an objective. In practice, individuals who

participate in national service have their educational opportunities

expanded by the education awards, which help them pursue higher

education or job training. At the sites we visited, participants indicated

that the education award was an important part of their decision to

participate in AmeriCorps*USA.

Programs also supported participants in obtaining high school degrees or

the equivalent. According to Corporation regulations, a full-time

participant who does not have a high school diploma or its equivalent

generally must agree to earn one or the other before using the education

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

award. In one program, a general equivalency diploma (GED) candidate

was receiving classroom instruction and individual tutoring. She had

recently passed the preliminary GED test after failing the GED test five

times. After doing some extra preparation for the math portion, she will

take the actual GED test again. A larger program that recruited at-risk

youth, most of whom do not have high school degrees, provided classroom

instruction related to the service that participants performed, such as a

construction-based math curriculum. Program officials said most of the

participants are enrolled in high school equivalency courses and that at

least five have already passed the GED test.

We also saw programs that offer participants the chance to get

postsecondary academic credit. One such program, affiliated with a

private college, offered participants the option of pursuing an

environmental studies curriculum through which they can earn up to six

upper-level credits at a reduced tuition. Half of the participants have

chosen to do so. A second program allowed participants to earn 36 credit

hours toward an associate’s degree in the natural sciences through their

service, which can lead to state certification as an environmental

restoration technician.

In addition to formal education opportunities, some participants said they

were attracted to AmeriCorps*USA programs because the programs

provide service in specific fields. We spoke with several participants who

wanted experience in those fields to improve their skills and expand their

opportunities. For example, a community policing program attracted 15

participants who are pursuing law enforcement careers. Similarly, in a

youth conservation corps program in which most participants have

environmental science degrees, many participants sought practical

experience to complement their formal education.

For more detailed results from our site visits, see appendix V.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, the Corporation agreed with the

amount we reported as federal (Corporation and non-Corporation) cash

resources made available to AmeriCorps*USA programs. However, the

Corporation took exception to our including anything other than federal

cash resources in determining total resources available to these programs.

Other program resources we included were in-kind resources provided by

federal agencies and cash and in-kind resources provided by state and

local governments as well as by private contributors. The Corporation also

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

disagreed with the methodology we employed to develop and report on

total available resources per participant and per service hour. The

Corporation believed we should have excluded resources other than

federal cash from our calculations because these resources were not a

burden to the federal taxpayer, AmeriCorps*USA programs were legally

required to obtain these resources, and these resources should have been

considered benefits rather than costs.

As we have clearly noted in our report, our objective was not to determine

whether AmeriCorps*USA was cost-effective. We drew no conclusions

about the cost of the program, the value of program benefits, or whether

the program was meeting its objectives. Contrary to the Corporation’s

view, we believed that ignoring significant amounts of AmeriCorps*USA

program resources would undermine the importance that these resources

play in fielding AmeriCorps*USA participants. In our view, an accounting

of the total resources available to support an AmeriCorps*USA participant

provides a useful perspective on the program. This report presents the

only information available to date on total resources available to

AmeriCorps*USA programs nationwide and captures this information by

resource stream—that is, by federal, state and local, and private sources.

Knowing the total resources available to the program is critical

information for decisionmakers. In addition, such information can

demonstrate the degree of partnership between the public (federal, state,

and local government) and private sectors.

The Corporation’s comments, and our assessment of these comments,

appear in appendix VI. In addition to these comments, the Corporation

provided us with technical comments, which we have incorporated into

the report where appropriate.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
B-260739 

We are providing copies of this report to the appropriate House and

Senate committees and other interested parties. Please call me at

(202) 512-7014 or Wayne B. Upshaw, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7006

if you or your staff have any questions. Other GAO contacts and

contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Linda G. Morra

Director, Education and Employment Issues

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Methodological and

Data Collection Issues

20

Collecting Program Resource and Participant Data 20

Analyzing the Data 21

Corporation Administrative Cost Data 21

Education Awards Cost 22

Combining Information From All Sources 22

Appendix II 

Detailed Results of

Resource Analysis

23

Appendix III 

Sampling Error and

Sensitivity Analysis

Results

24

Sampling Error 24

Sensitivity of Our Results to Changes in Certain Key Assumptions 24

Appendix IV 

Federal Agency

Program and

Resource Availability

Information

28

Overview of Federal Agency Programs 28

Detailed Information on 15 Federal Agency Programs 31

Appendix V 

Information Gathered

From Site Visits

38

AmeriCorps Maryland Community Assisting Police 38

AmeriCorps Health and Housing Fellows 40

MAGIC ME 42

Vermont Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps 45

Washington (State) Conservation Corps 46

Washington (State) Service Corps 48

YouthBuild Boston 50

Youth Corps - National Service Academy 52

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Contents

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Corporation for

National and

Community Service

55

Appendix VII 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

71

Tables Table 1: Per-Participant and Per-Service-Hour Resources

Available for AmeriCorps*USA, by Source

7

Table 2: Comparison of Resources Available for Nonfederal and

Federal AmeriCorps*USA Programs

10

Table III.1: Estimated Resources Per Participant and Associated

Bounds of 95-Percent Confidence Interval

24

Table III.2: Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption Regarding

Returned Corporation Funds

25

Table III.3: Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption Regarding

Treatment of Public University Contributions

25

Table III.4: Sensitivity of Estimate to Assumption Regarding

Treatment of In-Kind Contributions

26

Table IV.1: Resources Available for AmeriCorps*USA Programs

Sponsored by Federal Agencies

30

Table V.1: Estimated Program Resources for AmeriCorps

Maryland Community Assisting Police

39

Table V.2: Estimated Program Resources for AmeriCorps Health

and Housing Fellows

41

Table V.3: Estimated Program Resources for MAGIC ME 43

Table V.4: Estimated Program Resources for Vermont

Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps

45

Table V.5: Estimated Program Resources for Washington

Conservation Corps

47

Table V.6: Estimated Program Resources for Washington Service

Corps

49

Table V.7: Estimated Program Resources for YouthBuild Boston 51

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Contents

 Table V.8: Estimated Program Resources for Youth Corps -

National Service Academy

53

Abbreviations

ADD Administration on Developmental Disabilities

CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FTE full-time equivalent

GED general equivalency diploma

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration

NCCC National Civilian Community Corps

OEO Office of Economic Opportunity (Vermont)

SCC Seaborne Conservation Corps

USDA Department of Agriculture

VISTA Volunteers in Service to America

YFC Youth Fair Chance

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix I 

Methodological and Data Collection Issues

To obtain resource and participant information, we surveyed a random

sample of nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA grantees and gathered data on all

federal grantees. We asked these grantees to detail their sources and

amounts of available program resources and number of participants. To

estimate program totals, we projected data from the nonfederal grantee

sample to the universe of nonfederal grantees and combined them with

federal grantee data.

Collecting Program

Resource and

Participant Data

Because nonfederal programs were so numerous, we collected

information from a sample of 80 nonfederal programs. Our sample was

randomly selected from the 284 nonfederal programs identified by

reviewing Corporation files. We received responses from 75 of the 80

programs that we surveyed.12 We obtained data from them on the sources

of their available resources, asking them to include all resources “devoted

specifically to your AmeriCorps program” received “for use during your

program’s initial funding period.” We also asked them for information on

the number of (1) full-time and part-time AmeriCorps*USA participants

who were currently enrolled or had successfully completed service

requirements and (2) additional full- and part-time participants expected

to enroll before the end of the initial funding period. We summed these to

reflect the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) participants who are likely

to eventually meet service requirements this year.

We also gathered the same data—resources available and numbers of

participants—from the 13 federal agencies administering AmeriCorps*USA

programs.13 One agency, the Department of Health and Human Services,

operated 3 separate programs, so our information covered 15 programs.

Since programs are only in their first year, we could not obtain final

spending or participant totals. We gathered information on resources that

were available to date and those the programs told us they were certain to

receive by the end of the initial funding period. We cannot say whether all

resources will be used over the course of the funding period. Similarly, our

FTE participant total will not reflect either attrition that occurred after we

conducted our field work or instances in which slots expected to be filled

are ultimately unfilled.

12Two of the programs in our sample were not operating, two did not respond, and one responded after

our cut-off date.

13A 14th agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was on the list provided by the

Corporation but was not operating its program this year.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix I 

Methodological and Data Collection Issues

The data obtained were self-reported by program officials and were not

independently verified with other sources. We provided the grantees with

a form identifying the information needed, explained the questions on the

form to them, answered their questions about our data needs, reviewed

the responses, and followed up with further questions whenever responses

were incomplete or inconsistent.

Analyzing the Data Several assumptions underlie our estimates of available resources per

participant. First, we assumed that a program will return a pro rata share

of its Corporation grant if it has fewer participants than anticipated at the

time of its grant application. The Corporation may require a program to

return the grant portion that would have gone toward participant living

expenses and benefits. We did not make a similar adjustment to a

program’s non-Corporation resources because we obtained this

information in May 1995, late enough in programs’ operating year for them

to predict available resources and participant levels. Second, we

considered contributions from public universities as public resources, and

those from private universities, private. We made this assumption realizing

that both public and private universities receive a mixture of public and

private support, but given the reliance of public postsecondary institutions

on public support, we believe such an assumption is appropriate. Third,

we made no adjustment to in-kind contributions reported to us although

we recognize that these resources are sometimes very difficult to value.

Fourth, we calculated available resources per participant on a

full-time-equivalent basis, counting a part-time participant as 50 percent of

an FTE participant. In calculating available resources, we excluded private

in-kind contributions from our per-participant and per-service-hour

calculations.

Corporation

Administrative Cost

Data

To determine per-participant resources associated with the Corporation’s

administrative responsibilities, we combined the following three

components. First, we allocated fiscal year 1995 National and Community

Service Trust Act appropriated funds for this purpose across the estimated

number of AmeriCorps*USA participants and other programs covered

under this appropriation. Second, we divided fiscal year 1994

AmeriCorps*USA program planning grants by the number of estimated

AmeriCorps*USA participants. Third, we divided fiscal year 1995 grants

covering state commission operating expenses by the number of estimated

AmeriCorps*USA participants.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix I 

Methodological and Data Collection Issues

Education Awards

Cost

In calculating total Corporation resources per participant, we added $4,725

per FTE for the education award because the Corporation incurs this

liability for each full-time participant. To the extent that participants do

not actually take advantage of their awards, funds expended would be

lower than our estimate.

Combining

Information From All

Sources

We produced estimates for nonfederal programs from our sample and

added the data on all federal programs to obtain estimated totals for all

AmeriCorps*USA programs.

Estimates for Nonfederal

Programs

We used a ratio estimation methodology to estimate available resources

and participation for all nonfederal AmeriCorps*USA programs. This

method incorporated information on anticipated matching resources and

numbers of participants from the programs’ grant applications. To

estimate resources, we computed the ratio of actual to anticipated

matching resources for our sample programs, and we applied this ratio to

total anticipated matching resources for all nonfederal programs.

Similarly, to estimate participants, we applied the ratio of actual to

anticipated participants for the sample programs to the number of

anticipated participants in all programs. These estimates of resources and

participants were used to calculate the available resources per participant

for nonfederal programs.

Totals for

AmeriCorps*USA

To estimate total resources and participants for all AmeriCorps*USA

programs, we combined estimated totals for nonfederal programs with

federal program totals. Our federal program information was not projected

from a sample because we had information from every federal program.

We used the combined results to produce an overall estimate for

AmeriCorps*USA programs.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix II 

Detailed Results of Resource Analysis

Nonfederal programs Federal programs All programs

Source

Per FTE

(n= 10,465)

Per total

service

hour

Per direct

service

hour

Per FTE

(n= 2,054)

Per total

service

hour

Per direct

service

hour

Per FTE

(n= 12,519)

Per total

service

hour

Per direct

service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

Funding $18,602 $10.94 $13.68 $12,665 $7.45 $9.31 $17,629 $10.37 $12.96

Other federal

Cash 493 0.29 0.36 11,187 6.58 8.23 2,247 1.32 1.65

In-kind 261 0.15 0.19 4,338 2.55 3.19 930 0.55 0.68

Subtotal

other federal 755 0.44 0.55 15,525 9.13 11.42 3,177 1.87 2.34

Subtotal

federal $19,357 $11.39 $14.23 $28,191 $16.58 $20.73 $20,806 $12.24 $15.30

State and local

Cash 2,607 1.53 1.92 564 0.33 0.41 2,272 1.34 1.67

In-kind 1,880 1.11 1.38 1,126 0.66 0.83 1,756 1.03 1.29

Subtotal

state and

local 4,487 2.64 3.30 1,690 0.99 1.24 4,028 2.37 2.96

Subtotal

public $23,844 $14.03 $17.53 $29,881 $17.58 $21.97 $24,834 $14.61 $18.26

Private

Cash 1,953 1.15 1.44 1,136 0.67 0.84 1,819 1.07 1.34

Total without

private in-kind $25,797 $15.17 $18.97 $31,017 $18.25 $22.81 $26,654 $15.68 $19.60

Notes: We assumed “total service hours” equals 1,700 per participant, while “direct service hours”

equals 1,700 less 20 percent, or 1,360, per participant.

Items may not sum to subtotals or totals because of rounding.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix III 

Sampling Error and Sensitivity Analysis

Results

We tested the stability of our per-participant resource estimates. First, we

calculated a 95-percent confidence interval around our results to examine

the extent of possible sampling error. Second, we analyzed the effects of

changing some of the assumptions we made about AmeriCorps*USA

grantees’ program operations.

Sampling Error Because our estimates incorporated results from a sample of nonfederal

programs, a sampling error is associated with these estimates. We

estimated both total resources and the number of participants using a ratio

methodology, and the calculation of resources per participant is a ratio of

these ratios and has its own sampling error. At the 95-percent confidence

level, the sampling error for our estimated resources for nonfederal

programs of $25,797 per participant is plus or minus $810 (see table III.1).

The sampling error for our total estimate of $26,654 per AmeriCorps*USA

member is about $120 lower than for the nonfederal estimate.

Table III.1: Estimated Resources Per

Participant and Associated Bounds of

95-Percent Confidence Interval

Nonfederal Federal Total

Lower bound $24,988 n/a $25,960

Estimate 25,797 $31,017 26,654

Upper bound 26,607 n/a 27,347

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

Note: The lower and upper bounds refer to the limits of the 95-percent confidence interval; that is,

there is a 95-percent probability that the actual resources per participant for AmeriCorps*USA

programs fall within these bounds.

Sensitivity of Our

Results to Changes in

Certain Key

Assumptions

Funds Returned to the

Corporation

If a program had fewer participants than anticipated when it applied for its

AmeriCorps*USA grant, grant money that would have paid for living

expenses and benefits for the participants who did not appear could be

returned to the Corporation. Our baseline estimate assumed that all of the

per-participant grant funds from the Corporation would be returned for

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix III 

Sampling Error and Sensitivity Analysis

Results

each participant the program was short of its anticipated number. We

recalculated the resources per participant using the alternative assumption

that no Corporation funds were returned (see table III.2).

Table III.2: Sensitivity of Estimate to

Assumption Regarding Returned

Corporation Funds

Assumption and funding element Resources per participant

Baseline (all per-participant Corporation funds returned)

Corporation funding $17,629

Total resources $26,654

No Corporation funds returned

Corporation funding $18,400

Total resources $27,425

This assumption did not affect our estimates of other federal, state and

local government, and private resources. The changes shown affected only

a small portion of the estimate of Corporation funding per participant.

Many components of the Corporation funding estimate—for example, the

education award of $4,725 per participant—were based on the actual

number of participants.

Valuation of Public

University Contributions

If a program reported a contribution from a public university, we included

it as a state or local government contribution, as appropriate. Because

such universities receive private as well as public support, and because

the programs could not separate these resources by private or public

source, we cannot be certain these were indeed all public resources. We

estimated resources per participant by source again, counting public

university contributions as private contributions (see table III.3).

Table III.3: Sensitivity of Estimate to

Assumption Regarding Treatment of

Public University Contributions

Assumption and funding element Resources per participant

Baseline (public university contributions counted as public)

State and local government resources $4,028

Private cash 1,819

Total resources $26,654

Public university contributions counted as private

State and local government resources $3,610

Private cash 1,878

Total resources $26,294

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix III 

Sampling Error and Sensitivity Analysis

Results

This assumption affected both the allocation of resources between public

and private sources and the total level of resources per participant.

Changing the assumption decreased the level of state and local

government resources by about $420. Of this amount, about $60 was cash

and was added to private resources. The remainder, about $360, was

in-kind; because we did not include private in-kind contributions, the total

resources per participant using the alternative assumption decreased by

about $360.

Valuation of In-Kind

Contributions

We were not certain that respondents valued in-kind contributions

consistently. To see how sensitive our estimate was to the level of in-kind

contributions reported, we estimated totals again, valuing in-kind

contributions as 50 percent and then 150 percent of the figures reported to

us (see table III.4).

Table III.4: Sensitivity of Estimate to

Assumption Regarding Treatment of

In-Kind Contributions

Assumption and funding element Resources per participant

Baseline (in-kind contributions valued as reported)

Corporation funding $17,629

Other federal resources 3,177

State and local government resources 4,028

Private cash 1,819

Total resources $26,654

In-kind contributions valued as 50 percent of reported value

Corporation funding $17,629

Other federal resources 2,712

State and local government resources 3,150

Private cash 1,819

Total resources $25,310

In-kind contributions valued as 150 percent of reported value

Corporation funding $17,629

Other federal resources 3,643

State and local government resources 4,907

Private cash 1,819

Total resources $27,997

Note: Items may not sum to totals because of rounding.

This assumption affected matching resource estimates for federal, state,

and local government sources, but it did not affect the estimate for

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix III 

Sampling Error and Sensitivity Analysis

Results

Corporation resources. Of the approximately $9,000 match total, about

$2,700, or nearly one-third, consisted of in-kind contributions, and about

$6,300 consisted of cash contributions. Thus, the total in each alternative

differed from the baseline by about $1,350, or one-half the approximately

$2,700 in-kind total.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

AmeriCorps*USA programs operated by federal agencies, on average,

entailed a larger commitment of federal resources than nonfederal

AmeriCorps*USA programs. The federal agencies largely used their own

resources, through either cash or in-kind contributions, to supplement

their Corporation grants. To learn more about the funding and operation

of these programs, we spoke with officials at all 13 federal agencies that

received AmeriCorps*USA grants for the 1994-95 program year.

Overview of Federal

Agency Programs

Thirteen federal agencies were awarded AmeriCorps*USA grants in 1994

to fund 15 programs. Of the nearly $149 million awarded in Corporation

operating grants, federal agencies received about $14.6 million, or about

10 percent of the total. About 2,400 participants, or 16 percent of all

participants, served in programs sponsored by federal agencies. Total

resources available for federal agency-sponsored programs ranged from

about $22,200 per participant for the National Institute for Literacy’s

Literacy*AmeriCorps program to $66,700 per participant for the

Department of the Navy’s Seaborne Conservation Corps (see table IV.1).

We did not analyze the reasons for the differences in per-participant

resource availability because it was beyond the scope of this study.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

AmeriCorps*USA programs sponsored by federal agencies varied in size

from 22 full- and part-time AmeriCorps*USA participants for the

Department of Veterans Affairs’ program to about 1,200 for the

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) program. The number of operating

sites per program varied as well. For example, the Navy’s program has one

site in Galveston, Texas, while USDA’s program operated at 326 sites across

the country.

Many of the federal agencies did not directly administer their

AmeriCorps*USA programs. These agencies subgranted their Corporation

awards to partner organizations, usually nonprofits that have

responsibility for day-to-day operations of the programs and oversight of

AmeriCorps*USA participants. In general, the federal agencies served as

grant administrators and liaisons between the Corporation and the

nonprofit program partners. In addition, some agencies provided technical

assistance and training.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Table IV.1: Resources Available for

AmeriCorps*USA Programs

Sponsored by Federal Agencies

Federal agency grantee: AmeriCorps*USA program

Corporation award

(adjusted)

Agriculture: AmeriCorps/USDA $2,467,281

Defense/Navy: Seaborne Conservation Corps 650,226

Energy: Salmon Corps 792,718

Environmental Protection Agency: Improving

Disadvantaged Neighborhoods 1,427,335

Health and Human Services/Agency for Children and

Families: FamilyServe 506,667

Health and Human Services/Administration on

Developmental Disabilities: ADD Corps 669,300

Health and Human Services/Health Resources and

Services Administration: HRSA Model Health Service Corps 777,833

Interior: Interior AmeriCorps Program 1,149,467

Justice: JustServe 1,277,183

Labor: AmeriCorps/Youth Fair Chance 542,623

National Endowment for the Arts: Writers Corps 379,198

National Institute for Literacy: Literacy*AmeriCorps 737,847

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation: NeighborWorks

Community Corps 0

Transportation: National Service Initiative 270,250

Veterans Affairs: Collaboration for Homeless Veterans 423,077

Total $12,071,004

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Other resources d

) Other federal State/local Private cash Number of FTEs

Resources

available per

participant

Resources

available per

service hour

Resources per

direct service

hour

$21,156,957 $979,355 $740,250 1,131.5 $29,186 $17.17 $21.46

6 2,166,338 0 0 47.0 66,715 39.24 49.06

8 1,375,325 0 105,410 72.0 38,363 22.57 28.21

5 1,083,947 351,425 106,705 92.0 39,064 22.98 28.72

7 393,482 82,958 50 50.0 26,450 15.56 19.45

0 242,868 232,508 191,536 34.5 45,519 26.78 33.47

3 346,047 157,315 67,191 58.5 29,837 17.55 21.94

7 1,776,914 67,315 720,000 155.0 30,747 18.09 22.61

3 1,670,000 1,227,236 0 172.5 30,987 18.23 22.78

3 299,320 0 0 50.5 23,459 13.80 17.25

8 194,984 10,000 155,000 35.5 27,610 16.24 20.30

7 29,600 34,700 160,913 62.5 22,196 13.06 16.32

0 566,000 144,500 30,000 28.0 33,234 19.55 24.44

0 420,099 182,696 56,397 42.0 28,917 17.01 21.26

7 159,450 0 0 22.0 33,266 19.57 24.46

4 $31,881,332 $3,470,008 $2,333,452 2,053.5 $31,017a $18.25b $22.81c

Note: Items may not sum to totals because of rounding.

aThis figure is the sum of (1) Corporation award (adjusted), other federal contributions, state and

local government contributions, and private cash, for all federal agencies together, divided by

number of FTEs for all federal agencies, plus (2) an education award of $4,725 per FTE, plus

(3) Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE. It is not an average of the individual agency figures.

bThis represents the resources per participant divided by 1,700 service hours. It is not an average

of the individual agency figures.

cThis represents the resources per participant divided by 1,360 direct service hours. It is not an

average of the individual agency figures.

Detailed Information

on 15 Federal Agency

Programs

The 15 agency programs varied widely in their scope and missions. All

information presented here, including descriptions of the agency mission

fulfilled by the AmeriCorps*USA program, participant tasks, and funding

streams, was provided by agency officials.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Department of Agriculture:

AmeriCorps/USDA

USDA had the largest of the federal agency AmeriCorps*USA programs. The

program operated at 326 sites in 38 states, with some sites hosting only

one AmeriCorps*USA participant. These sites, located nationwide,

emphasized one of three areas: fighting hunger, protecting the

environment, and rebuilding rural America. Nutrition education is a major

element of the Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Team’s work.

Members provide nutrition assistance to the poor, senior citizens, and

schools. Members of the Public Lands and Environment Team help repair

and upgrade community facilities, protect watersheds, and preserve and

restore national forests. The Rural Development Team helps protect water

quality, improve housing, respond to disasters, and generally promote

economic development. Most AmeriCorps/USDA participants joined the

program in September 1994.

Department of

Defense/Department of the

Navy: Seaborne

Conservation Corps

The Seaborne Conservation Corps (SCC) is a military-style residential

environmental and drug awareness education project sponsored by the

Department of Defense/Department of the Navy, the Texas National

Guard, and Texas A&M University at Galveston, which has primary

responsibility for day-to-day program operations. SCC is a 9-month

residential program, and participants are considered part time. SCC

provides high school dropouts with an opportunity to earn their general

equivalency diploma (GED) and acquire a basic seaman’s license while

performing environmental services for the community. SCC evolved out of

the Junior Leadership Corps, a program of the Navy’s Drug Demand

Reduction Task Force, which was designed to support military

dependents. SCC supports the task force’s mission to develop and support

programs that decrease the demand for illegal drugs within and, when

directed, outside of the Navy. SCC members joined the program in

September 1994.

Department of Energy:

Salmon Corps

The Department of Energy’s Salmon Corps aims at restoring the salmon

habitat along the Columbia River Basin in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

Through the coordination of its operating partner, the Washington,

D.C.-based nonprofit Earth Conservation Corps, the Salmon Corps brings

together five Native American tribes located in these three states. At the

five tribal sites, Salmon Corps participants restore salmon habitats

damaged by hydroelectricity production. Tasks include removing trash

and debris, building fences to restrict livestock access to salmon habitats,

and renovating historically significant properties. As is the case with other

AmeriCorps*USA programs sponsored by federal agencies, participants do

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

work that the Department is already mandated by law to carry out. The

program meets at least two departmental missions: (1) reducing the

impact of energy production and use and (2) helping to develop a

technically trained, diverse workforce and enhance scientific and

technical literacy. Salmon Corps participants joined in September 1994.

Environmental Protection

Agency: Improving

Disadvantaged

Neighborhoods

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsors six

AmeriCorps*USA programs operated at nine sites. Each program has a

different focus that helps fulfill EPA’s missions. Participants of the Drinking

Water Contamination program in El Paso, Texas, which is run by the

University of Texas at El Paso and the Texas Natural Resources

Conservation Commission, identify sources of contamination in public

drinking water wells and educate the community on methods of managing

and preventing water pollution. Another AmeriCorps*USA team, overseen

by EPA local staff, works with residents of 15 native Alaskan villages to

reduce, reuse, and recycle their waste. Participants in Oregon and

Washington states help public schools adopt energy-conserving

technology available through the EPA’s Green Lights program. That

AmeriCorps*USA program is a partnership with the Bonneville Power

Administration and Oregon and Washington State Energy Offices.

Revitalization of inner-city neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts, and

Providence, Rhode Island, is the focus of the fourth program, which

utilizes AmeriCorps*USA participants from City Year, the nonprofit

partner. In the fifth program, which is operated by nonprofit organizations

or state or local government agencies at four sites (Oakland, California;

Newark, New Jersey; Atlanta, Georgia; and Tacoma, Washington),

AmeriCorps*USA participants restore urban streams and educate

residents about the dangers of lead and radon contamination. EPA’s sixth

program, the Anacostia River Restoration, is run by the Metropolitan

Council of Governments in Washington, D.C. AmeriCorps*USA

participants joined EPA’s programs in September 1994.

Department of Health and

Human Services/Agency

for Children and Families:

FamilyServe

The Department of Health and Human Services’ FamilyServe had

AmeriCorps*USA participants working in three Head Start programs, two

located in migrant communities in Texas and Florida and one run by a

tribal college on Indian reservations in Montana, North Dakota, and South

Dakota. AmeriCorps*USA participants assist staff in local Head Start child

care centers by, among other things, conducting nutrition programs,

linking residents with community medical resources, and providing

recreation activities for children. These activities support the

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Department’s mission to enhance the quality of early childhood

development. Head Start FamilyServe participants joined in

September 1994.

Department of Health and

Human Services/

Administration on

Developmental

Disabilities: ADD Corps

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on

Developmental Disabilities (ADD) operates the ADD Corps in three states:

Georgia, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. Its goal is to improve the

independence, productivity, and community integration of people with

developmental disabilities. The ADD Corps furthers ADD’s mission to

support and encourage the provision of quality services to persons with

developmental disabilities. AmeriCorps*USA participants at the ADD Corps

sites, which are run by local university-affiliated developmental disability

programs, provide support services to people who are disabled. ADD Corps

participants, some of whom are themselves disabled, joined the program

in October 1994.

Department of Health and

Human Services/Health

Resources and Services

Administration: HRSA

Model Health Service

Corps

The Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Model Health

Service Corps is designed to enhance community health resources.

Improving access to quality comprehensive primary health care and

related services is a main goal of HRSA. Corps participants, who are health

profession students and community health workers, work at one of three

program sites: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Chicago,

Illinois. At each site, HRSA has a local organization as a partner that

administers the project: the Health Federation of Philadelphia, the

Allegheny County Health Department, and the Chicago Health

Consortium. HRSA Corps participants provide services that increase access

to health care for community residents. These services include home

visits, referrals, transportation, and child care. HRSA Corps participants

joined in September 1994.

Department of the Interior:

Interior AmeriCorps

Program

The Department of the Interior funds five projects, located throughout the

country, designed to support Interior’s environmental conservation

mission. Four of the projects are partnerships of one or more of the

Department’s agencies (the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation)

and nonprofit organizations that, with local agency officials, manage the

projects and provide administrative support to the projects. Participants in

two of these projects help restore and protect the environment in the

Florida Everglades and along the Rio Grande. The Student Conservation

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Association is the nonprofit partner for both of these projects. Participants

at a project at Fort Ord in Monterey, California, help transform the former

military base into public recreational land. The Califonia Conservation

Corps is the nonprofit partner. At the Southern California Urban Water

Conservation project, located in Los Angeles, California, a partnership

with the nonprofit Executive Partnerships for Environmental Resources

Training (ExPERT), participants distribute water-saving fixtures to

low-income residents. The fifth project, run by the Department’s U.S.

Geological Survey, has sites in Virginia, Hawaii, California, Nebraska,

Wisconsin, and Georgia, where participants help staff update national

geological and hydrological information. AmeriCorps*USA participants

joined the Interior programs in September 1994.

Department of Justice:

JustServe

The Department of Justice’s JustServe program operates through

recipients of its Weed and Seed program grants. Justice’s Weed and Seed

program promotes community-oriented approaches to crime-fighting.

Weed and Seed programs are designed at the local level and run by a

coalition of local government representatives and community members.

Local Weed and Seed grant recipients were required to incorporate a plan

for using AmeriCorps*USA participants into their Weed and Seed grant

applications. AmeriCorps*USA participants work at one of seven Weed

and Seed sites: Seattle, Washington; Los Angeles, California; Fort Worth

and San Antonio, Texas; Trenton, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

and Madison, Wisconsin. AmeriCorps*USA participants carry out activities

in three priority areas determined by Justice that enhance local Weed and

Seed efforts: (1) enhancing community police efforts by working with

local police staff, (2) assisting schools by conducting conflict mediation

and drug prevention programs, and (3) supporting social services by

helping community members obtain services. JustServe participants joined

the program in September 1994.

Department of Labor:

AmeriCorps/Youth Fair

Chance

Youth Fair Chance (YFC) is a Department of Labor pilot program designed

to concentrate resources and services in high-poverty areas to benefit the

community. The Department awards YFC grants to local organizations,

such as private industry councils, mayor’s offices, or local nonprofit

organizations, that run the YFC projects. AmeriCorps*USA participants

augment existing YFC projects, increasing resources available at the eight

sites: Seattle, Washington; Fresno and Los Angeles, California; Fort Worth,

Texas; Memphis, Tennessee; New York City, New York; rural Kentucky;

and Baltimore, Maryland. Participants’ activities focus on literacy, public

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

safety, and assisting expectant and new teen mothers and children. YFC

participants joined in January 1995.

National Endowment for

the Arts: Writers Corps

The National Endowment for the Arts is a federal agency that supports the

visual, literary, and performing arts. Writers Corps participants provide

programs and activities that promote accessibility to the arts for young

and old people residing in inner cities, particularly in those neighborhoods

with very limited access to art resources. These are mostly neighborhoods

with high crime rates and drug activity. The Writers Corps operates at

three sites: the Bronx, New York; San Francisco, California; and

Washington, D.C. Writers Corps participants joined in September 1994.

National Institute for

Literacy:

Literacy*AmeriCorps

The National Institute for Literacy, created in 1991, is an independent

agency managed by the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and

Human Services. The Institute does not deliver services directly but

instead helps to establish collaborations among literacy groups at the state

and local level and provides technical assistance to these collaborative

programs. The goal of the Institute’s Literacy*AmeriCorps program is to

establish models of one-on-one literacy tutoring programs at the local level

that can be replicated nationwide. Literacy*AmeriCorps has four program

sites: Seattle, Washington; Houston, Texas; New Orleans, Louisiana; and

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At each site, a local coalition of literacy

organizations manages the program. In addition to one-on-one tutoring,

AmeriCorps*USA participants help strengthen local literacy coalitions and

recruit students from homeless shelters and public housing developments

to participate in literacy programs. Literacy*AmeriCorps participants

joined in September 1994.

Neighborhood

Reinvestment Corporation:

NeighborWorks

Community Corps

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is a federally chartered,

public nonprofit corporation that provides technical assistance to support

nonprofit organizations that make up its NeighborWorks network.

NeighborWorks is a partnership of 173 nonprofit groups that work with

residents and government and business leaders to revitalize urban and

rural neighborhoods and make affordable housing available.

NeighborWorks Community Corps programs operate in 16 cities:

Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Clearwater, Florida; Las Cruces,

New Mexico; Los Angeles and Pasadena, California; New York City, New

York; Savannah, Georgia; St. Paul, Minnesota; Allentown, Pennsylvania;

Chattanooga, Tennessee; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Hartford, New

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix IV 

Federal Agency Program and Resource

Availability Information

Britain, New Haven, and Stamford, Connecticut. AmeriCorps*USA

participants help provide affordable housing and increase neighborhood

volunteer activity to revitalize communities. NeighborWorks Community

Corps participants joined in July 1994.

Department of

Transportation: National

Service Initiative

The Department of Transportation funds three AmeriCorps*USA

programs. Two, located in Baltimore, Maryland, and Vancouver,

Washington, are sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. The

third program, located in Washington, D.C., is sponsored by the

Department’s Federal Transit Administration. Each project is administered

by a nonprofit or state or local government organization. Community

Building in Partnership administers the Baltimore program; the

Washington Service Corps and City of Vancouver administer the

Vancouver program; and the D.C. Service Corps administers the

Washington, D.C., program. The three programs contribute to the

Department’s goal of bringing together transportation and community

service by implementing programs that improve the safety and

accessibility of transportation systems. AmeriCorps*USA participants at

the Baltimore site help with activities that include street maintenance,

demolition, and landscaping; at the Vancouver site, they clean up and

rehabilitate local walking trails; at the Washington, D.C., site, they assist

elderly residents in using public transportation. AmeriCorps*USA

participants joined in September 1994.

Department of Veterans

Affairs: Collaboration for

Homeless Veterans

The Department of Veterans Affairs’ Collaboration for Homeless Veterans

program operates at two sites: Los Angeles, California, and Houston,

Texas. AmeriCorps*USA participants address the needs of homeless

veterans. Some of the participants themselves are veterans. The Los

Angeles site is managed by local nonprofit community service

organizations that provide veterans’ services and the local Veterans Affairs

medical center. There, AmeriCorps*USA participants help to renovate a

building formerly used as a corporate training site into transitional

housing for homeless veterans. The Houston site is jointly managed by the

Department’s regional office and Stand Down Homes, a nonprofit

organization. There, AmeriCorps*USA participants renovate foreclosed

properties, turning them into housing for homeless veterans.

AmeriCorps*USA participants joined in September 1994.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

We visited seven AmeriCorps*USA grantees’ programs to obtain more

detailed information on amounts and sources of available resources, to

verify program accomplishments, and to gain insight into local program

operations.14 These programs were judgmentally selected to provide

examples of a wide range of characteristics, such as level of Corporation

funding, type of grant, program size, and mission.

The following summaries provide information on participant

characteristics, funding sources and levels, and operations. We have

calculated resources per participant, per service hour, and per direct

service hour. We adjusted the Corporation’s grants proportionally based

on the number of participants enrolled at the time of our visit as compared

with the number of participants originally expected. In calculating

resources per participant, we included dollars for two components that

local programs did not control—$2,062 for the Corporation’s overhead and

$4,725 for the participant’s education award. Although some participants

may not use the full education award, the funds are held in trust and

available to those who earn them for 7 years. In calculating resources per

service hour, we used 1,700 hours as the required number of hours for a

full-time-equivalent participant completing the program. In calculating

resources per direct service hour, we used 80 percent of the required

hours because participants must spend at least 80 percent of their time in

direct service rather than in education, training, or similar activities.

The information provided represents a “snapshot” of the programs at the

time of our visits, but some programs may not use all available funding or

may be given additional resources, and participant levels may change.

AmeriCorps Maryland

Community Assisting

Police

The Montgomery County (Maryland) Police Department began operating

the Community Assisting Police program in January 1995. The program’s

mission is to engage in community education and outreach projects that

address the needs for crime control, prevention, and the reduction of fear

in underserved or at-risk communities. The Department applied for

AmeriCorps*USA funding to implement a community policing initiative

that had faltered in the face of growing cultural and language barriers

between it and the community.

14We visited two sites of one grantee, the Department of Agriculture—the Vermont Anti-Hunger,

Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps and the Vermont Youth Corps - National Service Academy.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Table V.1: Estimated Program

Resources for AmeriCorps Maryland

Community Assisting Police

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=23.5)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $332,125 $14,133 $8.31 $10.39

Other federal

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 92,260 3,926 2.31 2.89

In-kind 232,550 9,896 5.82 7.28

Private

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 4,286 n/a n/a n/a

Total $661,221 $34,742a $20.44a $25.55a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Participant ages range from 17 to 64. Most are in college or are college

graduates. A third of the original participants were bilingual, speaking a

total of six languages. Half were pursuing law enforcement careers.

Program officials projected that 90 percent will use the education award.

The program budgeted for 20 full-time and 10 part-time participants; at the

time of our visit, the program had 18 full-time and 11 part-time

participants. More recently, the program has lost six of its original

participants for reasons including insufficient financial support,

employment or education opportunities, and the inability to function

independently in an unstructured environment. New participants have

been trained and have replaced them.

Program Structure Participants complete 1 week of training at the outset, which focuses on

technical skills and team-building training. They work either as community

mobilizers or victim assistance advocates at headquarters, six satellite

facilities, five district stations, one mobile facility, the State Attorney’s

Office, and the County Division of Victim Services. Each week, the

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

participants meet for 2 hours of additional training and reflection.

Participants record their hours and activities on weekly time sheets signed

by their supervisors. In addition, supervisors evaluate their efforts and

work using a detailed performance evaluation form after the first 2

months, after 6 months, and at the end of participants’ service. Full-time

participants received biweekly living allowance stipends of $400, while

part-timers received $140.

Program Accomplishments During site visits at two satellite police stations, we observed participants

performing outreach services at schools, businesses, and residential

groups. Participant projects included distributing flyers to alert residents

of area car thefts, coordinating a school Crime Awareness Day, organizing

a date-rape presentation at a high school, analyzing neighborhood crime

statistics to identify developing problems, providing bilingual referrals and

assistance to crime victims, and educating senior citizens about how to

protect themselves from crime.

AmeriCorps Health

and Housing Fellows

The Boston University School of Public Health is the primary

administrator of the AmeriCorps Health and Housing Fellows program.

Boston University collaborates with three partner institutions to operate

the program: University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of Texas at

El Paso School of Public Health, and Johns Hopkins University School of

Nursing at Baltimore, Maryland. This integrated work-service-education

program uses the skills of returned overseas Peace Corps volunteers to

serve targeted communities needing improvements in health and living

conditions. The four universities operate the program in separate urban

sites located at housing authorities, transitional housing and homeless

shelters, community health and social service agencies, and urban health

centers.

Corporation program funds are matched by other resources from federal,

state, and county sources; service agencies; and private and university

sources.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Table V.2: Estimated Program

Resources for AmeriCorps Health and

Housing Fellows

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=17)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $290,919 $17,113 $10.07 $12.58

Other federal

Cash 36,000 2,118 1.25 1.56

In-kind 23,292 1,370 0.81 1.01

State and local government

Cash 28,264 1,663 0.98 1.22

In-kind 108,915 6,407 3.77 4.71

Private

Cash 29,062 1,710 1.01 1.26

In-kind 151,111 n/a n/a n/a

Total $667,563 $37,167a $21.86a $27.33a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Program participants are recruited from a pool of returned Peace Corps

volunteers with an average age of 30 and who have at least a bachelor’s

degree. AmeriCorps*USA participants undertake full-time or part-time

community service while pursuing graduate education programs at one of

the four universities. Participants receive a work stipend (ranging from

$3,397 to $6,500 per year), financial assistance for matriculation in a

master’s in public health or a graduate nursing program, an

AmeriCorps*USA education award, and, at Boston University, program

housing assistance.

The program is funded for 36 participants: 26 full-time and 10 part-time

slots. Program officials stated that primarily because of late funding

decisions, the program was unable to meet its participation goal; the

program had only 12 full-time participants at the time of our visit. Boston

University had 5 of 15 planned full-time participants, Alabama had 5 of 6,

and Texas had 2 of 5 planned full-time participants; Johns Hopkins had 10

part-time participants as planned.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Program Structure Part-time participants must complete 900 hours of community service for

their 2-year program commitment while enrolled in a university nursing

program. Full-time participants must complete 1,700 hours of public health

community service for each year of program participation while enrolled

in a university public health program.

Boston University participants are required to live either in a housing

authority project or within the same community where the authority is

located; other university sites have no such requirement.

Participants are required to have daily logs of times and functions

completed and provide monthly progress reports to supervisors for

forwarding to program administrators.

Boston University, as program administrator, has total program oversight.

After conducting an evaluation, Boston University decided to close the

Texas site because it was not meeting program participant goals.

Program Accomplishments In Massachusetts, participants implement tenant health and economic

self-sufficiency programs specified by the U.S. Housing and Urban

Development Family Self-Sufficiency Program. Participants live among

and provide services directly to tenants in housing authority projects.

A housing authority official commented that these services are provided at

her complex at approximately half the cost of an employed social worker;

she also said the direct and accepted participant-tenant relationship was a

benefit.

We spoke with one participant who stated that the program provided a

real-world application of public health education principles and made

obtaining a graduate degree possible through reduced tuition costs, a

living allowance and housing, and an education award.

MAGIC ME MAGIC ME America, a nonprofit organization founded in 1980 in

Baltimore, Maryland, conducts intergenerational service-learning

programs. The organization’s mission is to motivate and educate

adolescents by involving them in long-term service with elderly and other

needy groups and their communities. MAGIC ME is designed to recruit

these groups to volunteer in their communities. In addition to engaging

youth and elders in service, MAGIC ME involves school and nursing home

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

staff, high school and college interns, business leaders, and community

volunteers. The MAGIC ME organization operates three AmeriCorps*USA

programs in San Joaquin County, California; Boston, Massachusetts; and

Baltimore, Maryland. AmeriCorps*USA participants establish and conduct

MAGIC ME groups and recruit and train volunteers and interns. Program

officials reported that in the 1994-1995 period, 25 AmeriCorps*USA

participants developed 95 MAGIC ME groups involving 2,660 youth and

elderly. In addition, they recruited and trained 500 interns and volunteers.

Table V.3: Estimated Program

Resources for MAGIC ME Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=25)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $646,552 $25,862 $15.21 $19.02

Other federal

Cash 63,000 2,520 1.48 1.85

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 65,500 2,620 1.54 1.93

In-kind 71,390 2,856 1.68 2.10

Private

Cash 225,176 9,007 5.30 6.62

In-kind 40,750 n/a n/a n/a

Total $1,112,368 $49,652a $29.21a $36.51a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Participants ranged from 20 to 40 years old and came from a wide variety

of racial, cultural, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. Program

officials said that all participants plan to use their education awards to

begin or continue their postsecondary education. Many plan to enter fields

such as teaching and social work. The program was budgeted for 29

full-time participants. These slots were initially filled, but participation had

dropped to 25 at the time of our visit because one participant successfully

completed the program, one converted to part-time, and the others left for

unstated reasons.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Program Structure Members spend approximately 20 percent of their service time training to

develop core competencies needed for establishing and conducting

MAGIC ME programs, including topics related to gerontology, youth,

intergenerational issues, and community problem-solving.

Participants report weekly work entries and hours to program monitors;

weekly and cumulative service and training hours are recorded separately.

Program monitors compile monthly participant progress reports that

summarize their entries. Progress reports are compared with earlier

monthly work goals developed jointly by the participant and team leader

or program administrator. Participants receive a stipend of $364 every 2

weeks for 21 biweekly periods, totaling $7,644.

Program Accomplishments MAGIC ME aims to improve the program’s effectiveness and expand the

program to reach youth and elderly nationwide. AmeriCorps*USA helps

meet these goals by providing matching program funds and a national

presence. Program officials stated that these combined resources have

made it possible to expand the number of people served by over

800 percent in the three AmeriCorps*USA program sites. Each of these

sites uses a different operating model, which provides MAGIC ME with the

opportunity to test new program approaches designed to meet the needs

of various communities. The sites range from inner city to agricultural, and

participating youth include gang members, gifted and talented students,

special education students, and pregnant teens from diverse cultural and

ethnic backgrounds.

AmeriCorps*USA participants interviewed at the Baltimore site stated that

the program has helped them to build their self-confidence and self-esteem

and to think of bigger things to do with their lives. All three participants

interviewed planned to use their education awards to start or return to

college.

In addition, we interviewed three staff members at Baltimore area

facilities for the elderly who spoke highly of the AmeriCorps*USA

participants and their efforts in meeting student, elder, teacher, and care

facility personnel needs. Their presence was said to be a key ingredient to

the program.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Vermont Anti-Hunger,

Nutrition, and

Empowerment Corps

The Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) began operating the

Vermont Anti-Hunger, Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps in December

1994. OEO was awarded its AmeriCorps*USA grant in July 1994; however,

because this was a new effort, it used the fall of 1994 to plan. As one of

several programs funded by a national direct federal agency

AmeriCorps*USA grant to USDA, it operates in five sites in Vermont. OEO

signed on as an applicant for funding from the USDA’s AmeriCorps*USA

grant to initiate a statewide approach to hunger that would increase

participation of low-income and rural residents in federal food assistance

programs and teach them about nutrition and how to buy and plant food.

Table V.4: Estimated Program

Resources for Vermont Anti-Hunger,

Nutrition, and Empowerment Corps

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=33)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $660,622 $20,019 $11.78 $14.72

Other federal

Cash 50,000 1,515 0.89 1.11

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 304,860 9,238 5.43 6.79

Private

Cash 56,601 1,715 1.01 1.26

In-kind 11,587 n/a n/a n/a

Total $1,083,670 $39,274a $23.10a $28.88a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Participants’ ages range from 19 to 67. Most have either attended or

graduated from college. Program officials expect all participants to use

their education awards.

The program was budgeted for 40 full-time slots. At the time of our visit,

there were 33 full-time participants on board. Five original participants

had left; since our visit, six additional participants have left. Reasons

included financial difficulties, extreme personal needs and issues, inability

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

to work independently without explicit instructions, and the stress caused

by living in group houses.

Program Structure Participants complete a minimum of 100 hours of training in areas that

include nutrition education, federal and state food assistance policy, and

community service. They are divided into five crews of up to eight

participants that are stationed in one of five regional sites. Four of the five

crews live together in group houses.

Participants report weekly work entries and hours to team leaders; weekly

and cumulative service and training hours are recorded separately. Team

leaders compile monthly team progress reports that summarize the

individual entries. Participants receive a stipend of $7,660 for the program

year; those beginning the program after its start receive an adjusted

amount. They receive biweekly checks from which 25 percent of the

stipend is automatically deducted to pay their rent.

Program Accomplishments During site visits to a community food bank and a garden tenant program,

we saw participants providing special foods and instruction for clients

with special dietary needs, conducting outreach efforts to establish a

summer food program for the elderly and children as an extension of the

school-year program, and teaching low-income and rural residents to plant

and buy food to get more and better food for their resources.

One member who attended basic education classes and was individually

tutored by team members recently passed the preliminary GED test.

Washington (State)

Conservation Corps

The Washington (State) Conservation Corps originated in 1983. It is a

crew-based youth employment, education, and training program that

provides resources, conservation services, and training to meet ecology

needs. Through 1993 state legislation, the Corps was mandated to address

watershed restoration projects and create jobs in 20 designated counties

hardest hit by timber industry reductions. The State Department of

Ecology operated the program and conducted projects on a fee-for-service

basis for federal and state agencies and private landowners. In 1994, the

Corps became affiliated with the AmeriCorps*USA program, thereby

providing additional education benefits to program participants.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Table V.5: Estimated Program

Resources for Washington (State)

Conservation Corps

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=91)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $0a $0 $0 $0

Other federal

Cash 722,200 7,936 4.67 5.84

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 1,003,850 11,031 6.49 8.11

In-kind 0 0 0 0

Private

Cash 147,200 1,618 0.95 1.19

In-kind 0 n/a n/a n/a

Total $1,873,250 $27,372b $16.10b $20.13b

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aThe Corporation only provided education awards for this program. No operating grant was

provided.

bTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 28. Most were high school graduates

and local residents.

Program Structure This is a 1-year program combining field work on the job and classroom

instruction. Participants complete 160 hours of program training in land

restoration, which can be combined with a 36-hour college credit

certificate program leading to an environmental restoration technician

rating and further college education. Participants work in 1 of 16 crews

providing land restoration services. The AmeriCorps*USA program only

funds the cost of the participants’ education awards. State and work site

projects cover the cost of operating the program by paying fees for the

Corps’ services.

Participants report hourly entries every 2 weeks to their site leader, who in

turn reports to the team leader. Both leaders sign off on each participant’s

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

cumulative service and training hours, which are recorded and sent to the

Department of Ecology.

Program Accomplishments Participants get a wide variety of field experiences in watershed

restoration, reforestation, stream and salmon habitat rehabilitation, forest

fire and oil spill response, plus other conservation projects encompassing

classroom and field concepts. At the time of our site visit, the program was

active at 16 sites; 2 additional sites were temporarily inactive because of

inclement conditions. During the site visit, we observed a team conducting

flood control area clean-up and an ecology survey for land restoration. A

county senior ecologist present said that the team’s work was a valuable

resource for land restoration. A program official stated that because the

program is highly rated, a large private corporation contracted for a

program crew to work on its land.

Also, in conjunction with a state community college, the program has

developed a college credit certificate program for participants to earn a

state-certified environmental restoration technician rating. All 62

AmeriCorps*USA participants who registered for credits with the college

received some credit while in the program. Thirty-six AmeriCorps*USA

participants have completed the required 36 college credits and are

state-certified environmental restoration technicians. The program

encourages and supports crew members who are working on their high

school equivalency. Between 75 and 85 percent of those working toward

the GED have thus far obtained it.

Washington (State)

Service Corps

The Washington (State) Service Corps originated in 1983 as a state citizen

service corps to address the needs of unemployed and needy residents.

The present AmeriCorps*USA program began through a competitive bid to

the Washington Commission on National and Community Service for

funding. The program is a team-based youth employment, education, and

training program providing literacy, parenting skills, gang and substance

abuse prevention, and family and community social services.

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Table V.6: Estimated Program

Resources for Washington (State)

Service Corps

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=276)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $2,855,172 $10,345 $6.09 $7.61

Other federal

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 1,000,000 3,623 2.13 2.66

In-kind 0 0 0 0

Private

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 0 n/a n/a n/a

Total $3,855,172 $20,755a $12.21a $15.26a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

The resources available to the program are 74 percent federal funds and

26 percent state and local funds. Its Corporation grant is the program’s

only federal funding.

Participant Characteristics Participants’ ages range from 17 to over 60. Most participants, particularly

those in the 18- to 21-year-old group, are from local communities affected

by the decline of the timber industry. To a lesser degree, some older

citizens and nonstate residents participate in the program. Just over half of

the participants have some had some college or have college degrees.

Although the majority of the youth are high school graduates, some

participants are attempting to complete their diplomas or obtain a GED.

Program Structure Participants work in teams at various community sites across the state,

including one Indian reservation. Each participant spends approximately

20 percent of the program time in training in areas such as team-building,

cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), conflict resolution, and self-esteem.

Participants are also trained in specific topics related to project needs,

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

including the natural environment, literacy and tutoring skills, tool and

construction skills, and health care outreach.

Participant training and work site activity are separately recorded for each

40-hour week during the 11-month program period. Participation is

monitored daily, and team leaders sign off on time sheets every 2 weeks.

Each participant has a mid-program review with his or her supervisor of

events completed and scheduled activities required to complete the

program commitment.

Program Accomplishments Participants interviewed stated that they plan to apply the learning skills

and self-development training they receive in pursuing a college education.

Participant program experiences include construction trade and

community development work, tutoring students at risk of dropping out of

school, and conducting outside school recreational and support services

for youth. Many participants felt they were making a visible difference in

their communities’ quality of life, such as by building and renovating

public facilities and helping other youth. We observed participants

working on renovations of abandoned housing, on community facilities

such as a farm market and a stadium, and in school classrooms.

A town official commented that both the farm market and stadium

renovation projects have improved the community and are providing

economic and social benefits to citizens. A teacher at another location,

whose classroom helper was an AmeriCorps*USA participant, stated that

the participant’s work allowed students to get individual help with their

particular study problems.

YouthBuild Boston YouthBuild Boston is the first replication of the YouthBuild Program that

originated in Harlem in 1990. Its AmeriCorps*USA program began

operating in October 1994 in Boston. A large, urban program, it received a

Corporation grant through the Massachusetts National and Community

Service Commission to renovate buildings to provide low-income housing,

reduce community environmental hazards, and conduct violence and

dropout prevention programs in schools. Its mission is to engage

disenfranchised youth in rebuilding their communities and to provide

them with the education and skills to become self-reliant and responsible.

It applied for AmeriCorps*USA funding to double its size, initiate a

part-time YouthBuild Teens program, in which YouthBuild graduates serve

as mentors and role models to young teens, and expand its services from

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

housing renovation to include environmental, public safety, and education

projects.

Table V.7: Estimated Program

Resources for YouthBuild Boston Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=81)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps*USA

grant adjusted $988,564 $12,204 $7.18 $8.97

Other federal

Cash 1,062,875 13,122 7.72 9.65

In-kind 0 0 0 0

State and local government

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 0 0 0 0

Private

Cash 301,596 3,723 2.19 2.74

In-kind 5,000 n/a n/a n/a

Total $2,358,035 $35,837a $21.08a $26.35a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

Participant Characteristics Participants’ ages range from 18 to 24. About 75 percent have not

completed high school; all are from Boston. Nearly half of the men and

80 percent of the women are young parents, and approximately one-third

receive some form of public assistance. While historically one-third of

participants have gone on to college, a program official projects that 40 to

50 percent of the participants will use the education award for college or

advanced skills training; the two participants with whom we spoke both

expected to do so.

When the program began in October 1994, it budgeted for 84 full-time and

10 part-time participants; at the time of our visit, 76 full-time and 10

part-time participants were on board. Since that time, a number of

participants have left for various reasons, including full-time employment,

returning to school full-time, and deciding that the program was not for

them.

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Program Structure Full-time participants complete a 2-week orientation known as Mental

Toughness Training, and 1 week of Department of Labor Occupational

Safety and Health Administration safety training before beginning field

work at 2 housing projects and 10 vacant lots where they conduct

environmental testing. During each 2-week period, participants spend 6

full days in service and 4 days in classes in the morning and in service in

the afternoon. While on the job, they learn carpentry skills and how to

read blueprints under the supervision of union carpenters. Part-time

participants receive training in conflict resolution, mediation skills, and

violence prevention. They design and conduct workshops on violence,

substance abuse, early pregnancy, and dropout prevention programs for

Boston middle school students. Full-time participants receive living

allowance stipends of $112.50 per week initially and are eligible to earn

bonuses and raises to bring their stipends up to $147 per week. Part-time

participants receive stipends calculated at $7 per hour for a 20-hour week.

Approximately 75 percent of participants are enrolled in high school

equivalency classes. The program combines work and academics through

a service learning curriculum in which many classes are project related.

For example, math classes are construction or architecture related. Each

participant has a formal learning plan, and program staff meet weekly on

case management.

Program Accomplishments During our site visits to two housing projects, participants were working

in teams under the supervision of union carpenters on the renovation of a

two-family home that will become affordable housing and on an

abandoned five-story building that will become a transitional dormitory for

homeless youth.

Youth Corps -

National Service

Academy

The Vermont Youth Conservation Corps began operating the Youth Corps -

National Service Academy program in January 1995. One of several

programs funded by a direct federal agency grant to USDA, it is based at

Green Mountain College in Poultney, Vermont. Its mission is to restore,

maintain, and manage the Vermont National Forest and community

resources, while providing participants with opportunities to apply their

formal training and develop leadership skills. The Vermont Youth

Conservation Corps applied to USDA for assistance to create a program that

combines conservation work, community work, and education to reduce

backlogged USDA Forest Service work requests that the Service has been

unable to address.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Table V.8: Estimated Program

Resources for Youth Corps - National

Service Academy

Source of

contribution

Total

resources

Per FTE

(n=17)

Per service

hour

Per direct service

hour

Corporation for National and Community Service

AmeriCorps grant

adjusted $5,185 $305 $0.18 $0.22

Other federal

Cash 450,000 26,471 15.57 19.46

In-kind 82,000 4,824 2.84 3.55

State and local government

Cash 0 0 0 0

In-kind 0 0 0 0

Private

Cash 74,321 4,372 2.57 3.21

In-kind 18,000 n/a n/a n/a

Total $629,506 $42,758a $25.15a $31.44a

Legend

n/a = Not Applicable

aTotal includes education award of $4,725 per FTE and Corporation overhead of $2,062 per FTE.

Total does not include private in-kind resources.

The resources available to the program are 88 percent federal funds and

in-kind contributions, and 12 percent private funds. Of its federal funds,

less than 1 percent comes from its Corporation grant; the remainder

comes from the USDA Forest Service, of which $405,000 is a grant to the

Corps under terms of the National and Community Service Trust Act. The

program also receives private, in-kind contributions in the form of

volunteer efforts, supplies, and administration from Green Mountain

College.

Participant Characteristics Participants’ ages range from 18 to about 50. Three-quarters have college

degrees in the environmental sciences field and most are seeking

applied/practical experience to complement their education and training.

A program official projects that all participants will use the education

award.

The program is budgeted for 20 full-time participants; at the time of our

visit, there were 17 full-time participants. Participants are not replaced

mid-cycle because training and team formation occur at the program’s

outset.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix V 

Information Gathered From Site Visits

Program Structure Participants complete 2 weeks of classroom training in wilderness

characteristics and survival, Red Cross first aid, team-building techniques,

the natural sciences, community policy and needs, personal responsibility

and self-sufficiency, and an orientation to field work on forest projects.

Participants work in two crews that are sent to the northern and southern

halves of the state to complete field projects. Projects are typically

generated from backlogged USDA Forest Service work requests on

recreational facilities and trails; wilderness management; watershed,

timber stand, and fisheries improvements; and environmental education

and interpretive programs. In addition to field work, participants conduct

weekly environmental literature searches; participate in a reading, writing,

and discussion curriculum; and undertake environmental education

projects for the community.

Participants live in a dormitory at Green Mountain College. They receive

monthly living allowance stipends totaling $7,625 for the program’s

duration. Funds for participants’ meals are deducted from the stipend.

Work and training hours are broken down into four components—service,

education, training, and other, which includes community environmental

projects—and recorded daily. Time sheets are submitted to crew leaders

each week and recorded for participant tracking and program cost

accounting.

Program Accomplishments During site visits we discussed participants’ efforts with a Forest Service

employee and met crew members before their deployment to work sites in

Green Mountain National Forest.

Participants have the option of pursuing a curriculum worth six

upper-level, environmental studies credits at Green Mountain College with

a reduced tuition; half have chosen to do so.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 1.

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 1.

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 3.

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 3.

See comment 3.

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 4.

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 5.

See comment 5.

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 6.

See comment 7.

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 3.

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

See comment 3.

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

Below are our responses to specific points raised by the Corporation in its

comments.

1. The Corporation raised concerns about our including private cash

contributions, in-kind resources, and any state or local government

resources in our calculations because in its view these resources represent

benefits, not an additional cost to the federal government. Our objective,

however, as clearly stated in the report, was not to identify what is or is

not a cost or benefit but rather to identify the various resources available

to AmeriCorps*USA programs, including all nonfederal funds and other

support.

In the report, we categorized all resources by their sources. For example,

those resources provided by nongovernment sources were labeled as

private cash and in-kind contributions. Similarly, in-kind contributions

from all levels of government were identified separately from cash

contributions. These resources, which are permitted to be counted toward

the programs’ required match, included such things as salaries of federal

agency personnel who monitored AmeriCorps*USA programs and

administered grants, state natural resource managers’ time to supervise

participants, and uniforms provided by a local police department. By

including these contributions, we were recognizing that they represent

resources available to the programs—resources on which those programs

depend.

2. The Corporation noted that in our calculations we assumed all

participants will use their full education awards. We included the full

education award amount as resources available because the Congress

appropriates funds specifically for this purpose and funds are held in trust

and available to those who earn them for 7 years. Interestingly, in

calculating its own cost estimates, the Corporation used the full education

award amount, too. Even if we had wanted to predict actual education

award usage, there was insufficient experience with the program to date to

do so, as the Corporation noted in its response.

3. The Corporation raised three concerns with the methodology we used

to develop a calculation of resources per direct service hour: (1) we used

the minimum required service hours—1,700 hours; (2) we reduced the

1,700-service-hour figure by 20 percent in calculating direct service hours;

and (3) we did not include service hours worked by related but

uncompensated volunteers.

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

We used the 1,700-hour figure because it was the minimum established by

law and participants were only required to attain it, not exceed it.

Although at the time of our site visits comprehensive data were not

available on completed service hours, the data we were able to collect on

participants indicated that while some would exceed the required 1,700

hours, many others would need to put in extra hours to meet the

requirement. Regarding the specific information the Corporation provided

on the Washington Service Corps in an enclosure to its letter, the average

of more than 1,800 hours worked may represent the experience only of

early completers. As we stated in the report (see p. 9), early information

on those completing the program may not be indicative of results of

programs that are still under way. Information from our site visits

indicated that when considering all participants, it is likely the average will

be closer to 1,700 hours.

We reduced total service hours by 20 percent in calculating direct service

hours because the Corporation allows programs to allocate that amount of

time to education, training, or similar activities. Several programs we

visited were on track to spend 20 percent of their service time on such

activities. Recognizing that the Corporation does not yet have actual data

on the portion of time spent on nondirect service, we used the allowed

amount in our calculations. In calculating resources per direct service

hour, we included all resources, including those used on nondirect

activities such as training, because those activities are an integral part of

the program and required by legislation. The Corporation, in its comments,

also recognized that nondirect service is a required part of the program. It

follows that resources spent on nondirect service need to be included

when analyzing resources per direct service hour. At the specific program

the Corporation mentioned as devoting less than 20 percent of

participants’ time to nondirect service (the Washington Conservation

Corps), formal training was expected to be about 10 percent of the

required hours. However, that figure does not include additional informal

training at worksites.

In our calculations of resources per service hour, we did not include, as

the Corporation suggested we should, hours worked by uncompensated

volunteers who were not AmeriCorps*USA participants. Because our

objective was to identify the resources needed to field an

AmeriCorps*USA participant, including hours of service generated by

other volunteers was not relevant. It should be noted that the Corporation

in its own estimates of cost per participant did not include such

volunteers.

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

4. The Corporation expressed concern that our estimate of $31,000 in

available resources per participant at federal agency grantee programs

was higher than its estimates. The Corporation suggested that our

calculations did not discount resources for participant attrition. It

provided data to us that showed an estimate of $27,600 per participant

calculated by using programs’ budgeted resources and expected numbers

of participants—data it obtained from grant files. Unlike the Corporation’s

estimate, ours was based on resources programs were certain to receive

and actual numbers of participants that programs reported about halfway

through the program year; we did adjust our estimate for participant

attrition. Because the Corporation used expected participants, a higher

figure than the actual number, its resources-per-participant figure was

lower than ours. The example the Corporation presented (which it

identified as the Vermont Anti-Hunger AmeriCorps program but whose

figures related to the Vermont Youth Corps - National Service Academy

program) indicated that the grantee, the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), will reduce the resources it contributes to the program to reflect

attrition. However, Youth Corps officials reported to us in June 1995 and

confirmed in July 1995 that they expected to receive the full $450,000 in

cash from USDA despite attrition.

5. The Corporation expressed several methodological concerns: (1) that

many of the data we used were self-reported, (2) that programs may have

overstated the resources they hoped to raise, and (3) that we “expensed”

start-up costs and capital costs in the first year. As to the first point, we

used the only data available—those which we obtained from the programs

themselves—because the Corporation did not have reliable data available.

As to the second point, the data programs reported do not appear to be

overestimated. In fact, the amount of non-Corporation resources the

programs we sampled told us they expected to actually receive for the

program year totaled only about 93 percent of the resources these

programs’ grant applications indicated that they would raise. As to the

third point, in our report, we clearly stated why we chose to treat start-up

costs as we did (see p. 8). Interestingly, the Corporation in its cost

estimates included all expenses programs were expected to incur in the

first year—including start-up costs—without allocating them over future

periods.

6. The Corporation also was concerned about our inclusion of all

resources available to programs when some may not be used and

suggested that we should adjust the non-Corporation resources for

participant attrition. We disagreed. We obtained our information in

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Corporation for

National and Community Service

May 1995, late enough in the programs’ operating year for them to predict

available resources and participant levels. (In contrast, the Corporation’s

funding was committed to the programs at the start of the operating year

before any participation rates were known; therefore, we chose to adjust

the amount of these funds.)

7. The Corporation stated that it is not certain that all of the resources in

the “state and local” category are from public sources. Evidence we

obtained showed that about 90 percent of the resources were clearly from

public sources; the remaining 10 percent were from public postsecondary

institutions. Given the reliance of public postsecondary institutions on

public support, it was therefore appropriate in our view to categorize the

resources they contributed to AmeriCorps*USA programs as public. In any

event, our sensitivity analysis showed that categorizing resources from

public postsecondary institutions as private resources had very little

impact on our estimate (see app. III).

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
Appendix VII 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Wayne B. Upshaw, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7006

Carol L. Patey, Project Manager, (617) 565-7575

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: C. Jeff Appel, Nancy K.

Kintner-Meyer, and James W. Spaulding assisted in collecting and

analyzing the data and writing the report; Jill W. Schamberger helped

administer the data collection instrument; Susan C. Donna verified site

visit information; Edmund L. Kelley helped conduct site visits; Lena G.

Bartoli wrote computer programs to aid in our analysis; Steven R. Machlin

performed statistical analyses and provided methodological advice on

sampling errors; and Leslie D. Albin did the editing.

(104806) Page 71 GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information
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. 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 (301) 258-4097 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

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 Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/HEHS-95-222 AmeriCorps*USA Program Information