Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service

message: I'm 36 and wanting to spend a year trailblazing or doing some other outdoorsy environmentally focused activity, and Americorps sounded perfect until someone suggested most participants would be just out of college.  I really don't want to be the grandma on the team.  I'm already feeling old and freaky for not being married; I kind of wanted to be surrounded by others in my age group who are like minded about the environment and being physically active and wanting to make a positive difference.  Being surrounded by kids just starting out in life I think is going to just be depressing, given I haven't really moved forward since age 22!   Without going into psychology, anyone have some factoids about average age of participants in these programs (I know there are the occassional 85 year olds, but I'm talking average, or mean, not the rare exception!)
NCCC is only for 18-24 year-olds. I know plenty of older partcipants work with state and local programs. Call 202-606-5000 for more info.
I don't think the average age is needed.  NCCC is age limited as are some other specific programs (I believe City Year has limits too) but most of the programs are only limited to 18 and up.  The only real requirement for most programs is a Diploma or GED.  There are of course exceptions.  I know of one program in St Louis that the first person in the section could be excited about.  Anyway, I've seen AmeriCorps work to make everyone feel included and actively seeks out people of all ages who are interested in their programs.  Dividebyzero
I am currently serving a second year of AmeriCorps, and I'm 28. Last year, I had a teammate who was 57, and this year, my oldest teammate is 46 or 47. NCCC is the only one with an age requirement, and that's just for the team members. You can be a team leader at any age, I believe. I'm struggling with the same things the person above mentioned, but I said whatever, and I'm just getting stuff done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.66.65 (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Average age of Americorps participants?

message: First, this subsection has been peppered with weasel words in the past year or so. For those who don't understand what constitutes "weasel words" per Wikipedia standards, feel free to check here --> Weasel Words.
The OMB is not the Whitehouses "own" , as intimated in the article. The OMB is entirely independent, as much as certain people would like to blame "Bush" for everything under the sun. The whole "praised by some conservatives" thing is weasel-wordery to a tee, in addition to numerous other examples of WW's. Instead of editing out all of the NPOV sort of stuff, I thought i'd start a talk on the discussion page about this first. There is an undeniable political bend to most (but not all) NCCC alums, thus it is extremely easy for NPOV sort of things to slip by since most people seeking out the article will be like-minded. I think we should at least hold some heights and standards by eliminating the partisanship and simply report facts as they are. --FactsAndHonesty 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, someone cleaned it up. Weasel Words tag appropriately removed. --FactsAndHonesty 22:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NCCC And Weasel Words

message: I removed the NPOV tag inserted into the criticism section, namely because it was put there by an anonymous IP and not explained here. I presume that it was inserted into the criticism because on WP it seems that any criticism is inherently seen as NPOV. To counter that concern I've created a section on "Successes" - however, everything I've found in a quick google search alludes to one longitudinal study that is only available on the A*C website. So the successes section should be expanded. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I'm fixing to remove the neutrality tag on the article. • Freechild'sup? 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: I don't know enough about Americorps to intelligent edit the article, but I'll just throw this out.  A quick readthrough makes me suspect James Bovard is being given a tad too much weight here.  Americorps is , at the least, an internationally known multimillion dollar organization, but about half the article is devoted to the criticism from an author who doesn't seem _particularly_ notable. 
Just my two-cents-- i'll throw it out there but I won't try to fix it myself, since pretty much all I know about Americorps is what I just read here. :).  I willl put a pov-check template up. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add, one quick fix, if others agree, would probably be to thin out the criticism just a tad , while still leaving the major points intact.  And then to round out the successes section, which might be a bit sparse.  --Alecmconroy 06:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Grundle2600, I'm glad you responded to the editing that's been ongoing. FYI, I added the original citations from the A*C website, primarily because there were no citations to begin with. However, you'll also notice I've been reverting all the attempts to eradicate the criticism section, as well. I share your concerns about the article, and will continue to watch it. • Freechild'sup? 21:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am an Americorps Alum (NCCC)- spent a year of my life, full time, in the program. Americorps programs are *severely* prone to boosterism, given the nature of most of the participants (who definitely 'trend' towards certain idealist archetypes) - Americorps is the sort of well-intentioned program that rings very profound to certain people, often times at the expense of valid criticisms. Finding a NPOV balance in Americorps articles can be damn near impossible (feel free to check the Americorps NCCC talk archives for examples of this) but thusfar, Bovard seems to be the only traditional media person who has made a point to criticize it on a formal level. --LoverOfArt (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a multi-year alum myself I understand your perspective, and have carefully edited and monitored this article for WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel and WP:Neutral. However, I believe Bovard was receiving too much attention in the criticism section, regardless of whether he was the only one saying anything - which he is not. If anyone wants to see more substantive criticism in the article, please add it, along with reliable citations from a variety of sources. After this recent cleaning though, I do notice that there is no material cited from after 1998. That might be just about the time that A*C criticism picked up and became powerful. If an editor was truly concerned with the absence of criticism in the article that would be something to contribute. • Freechild'sup? 21:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: The first paragraph talks about Americorps giving money to already existing private charities. That's not any kind of accomplishment.
The second paragraph talks about all sorts of touchy feely stuff, but doesn't cite any concrete examples of success.
Where are the examples of real success? Grundle2600 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed. The section isn't a dissertation on criticism of AmeriCorps; rather its an encyclopedic summary of the issue. • Freechild'sup? 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Successes section doesn't have any concrete examples

message: The successes portion of this article states:
"AmeriCorps provided fiscal and personnel to support the start-up of innovative new national programs, including City Year, Public Allies and Teach for America. It also brought vital resources to established programs, including Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters and the American Red Cross.[7]"
However, City Year, Public Allies, and Teach for America were all founded prior to AmeriCorps.  (I noticed this simply because I am a City Year member; but a simple check of each of the 3 websites for these programs verifies their founding dates...1988, 1992, and 1990, respectively.)  I think these programs should be moved to the 2nd sentence.  I don't know of any new programs formed post-AmeriCorps to replace those three, nor do I really have the time to weed through the massive list on the AmeriCorps website.  Suggestions?
Jettarose (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Issue in Successes Section

message: I think that this article reasonably satisfies the six criteria for B-class, though perhaps it would be desirable to have an organizational diagram or a map of important locations for the "supporting materials" criterion.  I've rated it B-class with Low importance (one agenda item of many on change.gov), so editors may start to think about bringing this up to WP:good article status. Mike Serfas (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment for [[WP:WikiProject Barack Obama]]

message: When I first read this article a long time ago, every single source that was cited was from the Americorps website. The article sounded like an advertisement. I did not erase any of that information. However, I did add some criticisms from other sources. However, other people erased those criticisms. The article should include both sides of the debate. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag.  The tag is meant for articles that truly read like advertisements, e.g. "buy special K, the only breakfast cereal with 100% of your daily vitamins and minerals, and tasty too!".  It is not appropriate for articles an editor might consider unbalanced for failure to include partisan criticisms.  If there were a serious, bona fide issue an NPOV tag would be the way to go.  However, a single editor unable to gain consensus for shifting the POV would not justify that tag either.  Wikidemon (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article written like an advertisement

message: The pledge is not taken any more by VISTA's I cannot speak for other parts of AmeriCorps as I didnt need to pledge for any part but VISTA my pledge was the traditional one every US Govt employee takes  — 216.67.186.164 (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AmeriCorps*State and National members do, in fact, recite this pledge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.199.124 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All i know is im glad that as a vista i did one that didnt look so lame but are there any sources on why who does what pledge? it seems weird to me that it would be different--209.181.16.93 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As of August 2009, I recited this pledge as an AmeriCorps State volunteer. However, the information about potential changes to the pledge in 2002 that never materialized seems unneeded. The pledge listed is the one I recited. Gator00 (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pledge

message: Okay, decided to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk here. I consolidated the successes and criticisms section into a single "costs and benefits" piece. Anyone else is more than welcome to toy around with this if they can think of something better-suited.
I left everything from the success section the way it was. If anyone has a beef with the way that part looks, I'll again be glad to yield the floor. At least all the source articles from this section were within the past decade.
From the criticism section, I brought up the cost-per-volunteer, which I do think is a pertinent piece of information that belongs in this section. I would, however, strongly urge future editors to find something a little more timely than a 1998 estimate (not to mention from a tad more neutral source). Also, as a note on nomenclature, I know that at least the NCCC program refers to its participants as "service members" or "corps members", not volunteers, precisely because of the benefits and living allowance provided (which pretty much abrogates the whole "you're not technically volunteers! Gotcha now" angle of the source articles from the old criticism section). I'm not sure whether the same applies to VISTA and State/National or else I would've changed the wording immediately.
Gone from the old criticism section is the Bovard article, which was outdated, opinionated more than it was factual, very likely unreliable, and more of an advertisement than the AmeriCorps Wiki page ever was (per Grundle's criticism way above). Also gone is the bit about AmeriCorps helping others file for welfare, because that's not criticism so much as it is one person's opinion of what they would and would not like done. Also purged the randomly placed problem from 1994, on the basis not only of its obsolescence and randomness but its convoluted, tenuous connection to AmeriCorps. If someone is really passionate about this part staying, they're more than welcome to make it a good deal clearer and explain why it's still time-relevant a decade and a half down the road.
I would've kept the last paragraph, the one about the effect on delayed careers, subject to some heavy revision, but its source article was a 404, so, nope.
A final suggestion: As far as I know, AmeriCorps programs presently track all the work their service members do on a quantifiable basis (e.g. square footage of invasive species removed in a single day). A really solid Costs/Benefits or Successes/Criticisms section would lay these things out against the cost to taxpayer (i.e. the annual operational cost per volunteer) so a good starting step, for whoever else is really passionate about this article, would be to contact the central AmeriCorps offices, get this info, put it up here, and let people make up their own minds about the efficacy of the program. Seems odd to have to say this but let's remember to emphasize recent facts and info as opposed to things that happened two decades ago. Only one of the above is appropriate for lending a government service organization, or really anything, contemporary characterization.
'kay then?24.53.155.48 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More re: Criticism Section

message: The cost and benefits section is a bit of a misleading title. The section only addresses benefits as if it were an advertisement for the AmeriCorps and the only cost listed in the section was treated like a benefit. The fact that " 71% of alumni were incentivized to join by the prospect of earning a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award" is a cost, because this costs money to AmeriCorps and taxpayers ultimately. Yet this was treated as a benefit. Some discussion about other costs of the programs would be beneficial given the title of the section. Either that, or change the section title. Jb8819 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs and Benefits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on AmeriCorps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927234600/http://www.asaging.org/publications/dbase/GEN/Gen.30_4.Gomperts.pdf to http://www.asaging.org/publications/dbase/GEN/Gen.30_4.Gomperts.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026210755/http://www.ofm.wa.gov/servewa/CivicEngRpt2-10-06.pdf to http://www.ofm.wa.gov/servewa/CivicEngRpt2-10-06.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I see these criticism were raised and dismissed a decade ago. Yet apparently there is still zero critical voices reflected in this article. Given that it is extremely controversial—-from the left, right, unions, and academics—the lack of any critical perspective seems a terrible weakness in the article.
Here’s some articles from a variety of perspectives to get you started
* https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/12/americorps-obama-clinton-american-bureaucracy-column/15505289/
* https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/young-low-wage-temporary-disaster-relief-army/
* https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/evanmcsan/twenty-years-later-still-trying-to-make-americorps-cool
* https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/americorps-not-necessary-even-harmful
* Thomson, Ann Marie, and James L. Perry. "Can AmeriCorps build communities?." Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27.4 (1998): 399-420.
* Perry, James L., et al. "Inside a Swiss army knife: An assessment of AmeriCorps." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9.2 (1999): 225-250.
* Frumkin, Peter, et al. "Inside national service: AmeriCorps' impact on participants." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28.3 (2009): 394-416.
* Ward, Kevin D. "Cultivating public service motivation through AmeriCorps service: A longitudinal study." Public Administration Review 74.1 (2014): 114-125.
* https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464348.pdf
* Wofford, Harris, Steven Waldman, and Doug Bandow. "AmeriCorps the beautiful?." Policy Review 79 (1996): 28-37.
* Bass, Melissa. The politics and civics of national service: Lessons from the Civilian Conservation Corps, VISTA, and AmeriCorps. Brookings Institution Press, 2013.
* Checkoway, Barry. "Institutional impacts of AmeriCorps on the University of Michigan." Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 2.1 (1997).
* Carpenter, Sara Catherine. Theorizing praxis in citizenship learning: Civic engagement and the democratic management of inequality in AmeriCorps. Diss. 2011.
* Walters, John. "Clinton's AmeriCorps values: how the President misunderstands citizenship." Policy Review 75 (1996): 42-47.
Given literally 25 years of critical interpretations of a large government program, there’s really no excuse for their to be neither criticism worked into topic sections nor a criticism section of any sort. This article should be tagged with a content flag until the article is brought up to standard, rather than appearing like an advertisement for the program. 151.202.41.194 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is written like an advertisement. Still. 

message: Is the infobox template for a government agency appropriate for this page given that AmeriCorps is not an agency, but merely a program within the agency of CNCS? Similarly, is it appropriate for the three AmeriCorps programs to be listed as child agencies when they are merely programs? Would a different template be more appropriate for this page, such as Template:Infobox organization? Grn1749 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the infobox, I  have no idea. I just expanded on what was already there for my previous edits. But as a related matter CNCS changed their name to AmeriCorps on September 29th. Highlights from their press release:"While the agency’s operating name is “AmeriCorps,” its legal name will remain the Corporation for National and Community Service.""The changes announced today unite all national service programs under the name AmeriCorps. Organizations and members funded through the AmeriCorps VISTA, NCCC (National Civilian Community Corps), and State & National programs, as well as the Volunteer Generation Fund, will operate and be promoted as AmeriCorps. The agency’s three programs that cater exclusively to volunteers 55 years and older under the Senior Corps name – Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and RSVP – will now operate and be promoted under the banner of AmeriCorps Seniors."I find their branding change a little confusing. I am assuming that the articles AmeriCorps, Corporation for National and Community Service, National Civilian Community Corps, AmeriCorps VISTA, and Senior Corps will all have to be changed? ❧ aﬃus (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I saw this announcement, too, and am similarly unsure of how it should impact these pages. Since the Corporation for National and Community Service isn't actually changing their official name, I'm not sure that page should be changed, other than the addition of a reference that they are now doing business as "AmeriCorps" and making other changes to program names as needed throughout that page. Perhaps we should redirect Senior Corps to a new page called AmeriCorps Seniors, and add it as a subsection on the AmeriCorps page as well. But on the other hand, part of me wonders if we should wait a bit to make these significant changes to see how it all shakes out. In the past, CNCS has announced (or at least proposed) major changes and then rolled them back when grantees argued against them. The Senior Corps programs in particular have a strong lobby and have historically been resistant to being folded into the AmeriCorps umbrella. I am not sure if these changes are subject to political whims that could shift depending on the result of the upcoming election--in which case we might want to wait to make major page changes--or if they are a done deal that will stick no matter who is president in January. What do you think? Grn1749 (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not really familiar with any of CNCS's programs and I am still new to Wikipedia. So, I probably don't have any of the answers you are looking for. The only reason I edited this page was because I uploaded all of CNCS's logos to Commons, only for CNCS to change their logos a week later. *sigh* Regardless I do think you have a point on waiting it out for a bit and seeing how CNCS uses their new branding guidelines. As of right now it seems they are still in the middle transitioning everything. ❧ aﬃus (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriateness of government agency infobox & agency name changes announced September 2020 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Would watchers of this page please review the discussion in process on Talk:Corporation for National and Community Service, as that proposal would be to essentially overwrite this current page, as the Corporation for National and Community Service one year age rebranded itself as AmeriCorps. This page would become the new page for the entire AmeriCorps agency. "AmeriCorps" is now being used by the agency as an umbrella term encompassing numerous federal voluntary service programs.Grn1749 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress