In creating AmeriCorps, the Congress chartered a federal corporation to work with the states to fund local national and community service projects. The President appoints a chief executive officer and a 15-member bipartisan board of directors that is confirmed by the Senate to govern the Corporation; each member serves a 5-year term. The board has the authority to review and approve the strategic plan and proposed grant decisions. The Corporation provides grants to AmeriCorps projects directly and through states. To receive AmeriCorps funds, states must establish commissions on national service. These state commissions must have between 15 and 25 members and be composed of representatives from a variety of fields, including local government, existing national service programs, local labor organizations, and community-based organizations. Since AmeriCorps began, 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have created commissions. These state commissions, in turn, subgrant AmeriCorps funds to local community service projects. The act gives critical program responsibilities to both the federal and state governments. Because national service was intended to address community needs, the act sought to balance a centralized federal program role with state responsibility for planning, implementing, and overseeing most eligible AmeriCorps projects because state governments are thought to be closer to and therefore more knowledgeable about community needs. Although it directly selects and oversees some AmeriCorps projects, the Corporation is primarily responsible for establishing national criteria for determining projects’ eligibility for federal funds and for assisting the states in carrying out their program responsibilities. Both the Corporation and the states are jointly responsible for other program areas such as providing training and technical assistance to local AmeriCorps projects. Table 1 lists the Corporation’s and the states’ responsibilities. AmeriCorps*State/National is the Corporation’s flagship AmeriCorps program. AmeriCorps*State/National participants earn an education award of up to $4,725 for full-time service or half that amount for part-time service. A minimum of 1,700 hours of service within a year is required to earn the full $4,725 award. To earn a part-time award, a participant must perform 900 hours of community service within 2 years (or within 3 years in the case of participants who are full-time college students). Individuals can serve more than two terms; however, they can receive only federally funded benefits, including education awards, for two terms. The Corporation allows projects to devote some portion, not more than 20 percent, of participants’ service hours to nondirect service activities, such as training or studying for the equivalent of a high school diploma. With regard to attrition, participants can earn prorated education awards if they are released for compelling personal circumstances, such as illness or critical family matters, and have served at least 15 percent of their service term. Participants released for cause are ineligible to receive an education award and may disqualify themselves from future service in AmeriCorps. Participants may be released for cause for a variety of reasons, including being convicted of a felony, chronic truancy, or consistent failure to follow directions. In addition, participants released for cause may include those who leave a project early to take advantage of significant opportunities for personal development or growth, such as educational or professional advancement. Education awards, which are held in trust by the U.S. Treasury, are paid directly to qualified postsecondary institutions or student loan lenders and must be used within 7 years after service is completed. In addition to the education award, AmeriCorps*State/National participants receive a living allowance stipend that is at least equivalent to, but no more than double, the average annual living allowance received by VISTA volunteers—about $7,500 for full-time participants in fiscal year 1996. Additional benefits include health insurance and child care assistance for participants who qualify for such support. Individuals can join a national service project before, during, or after postsecondary education, but must be a high school graduate, agree to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma before receiving an education award, or be granted a waiver by the project. A participant must be 17 or older and be a citizen, a national, or a lawful permanent resident alien of the United States. Selection of participants is not based on financial need. In its fiscal year 1997 appropriations, the Corporation anticipated fielding about 24,000 full- and part-time AmeriCorps*State/National participants. The act created three types of grant awards as funding streams for AmeriCorps*State/National projects: formula, competitive, and national direct. The act lists criteria that state commissions and the Corporation must use in selecting AmeriCorps projects for grant awards. The principal criteria include project quality, innovation, and sustainability. In addition, service projects must address community education, public safety, human, or environmental needs. States may develop additional criteria, based on identified service needs, to use in selecting projects for state formula grants. Similarly, the Corporation develops additional criteria that reflect particular national needs that states use to nominate projects for competitive grant awards and that the Corporation uses to select projects for national direct grants. State formula grants: One-third of the funds appropriated for AmeriCorps*State/National grants are distributed to state commissions strictly on the basis of population. In fiscal year 1995, state commissions were awarded about $67 million to support 262 projects using formula grants. State competitive grants: At least one-third of funds appropriated for AmeriCorps*State/National grants are awarded to state commissions on a competitive basis. The Corporation ranks the highest quality projects among those submitted by the states for these funds. In fiscal year 1995, the Corporation awarded another $64 million to state commissions to finance 103 projects using competitive grants. National direct grants: The Corporation competitively awards the remaining appropriations to public or private nonprofit organizations, institutions of higher education, or multistate organizations. In fiscal year 1995, the Corporation directly awarded about $58 million to support 57 projects using national direct grants. AmeriCorps grantees use grant funds to pay up to 85 percent of the cost of participants’ living allowances and benefits and up to 67 percent of other project costs, including participant training, education, and service gear; staff salaries, travel, transportation, supplies, and equipment; and project evaluation and administrative costs. To ensure that federal Corporation dollars are used to leverage other resources for project support, grantees must also obtain support from non-Corporation sources to help pay for the project. This support, which can be cash or in-kind contributions, may come from other federal sources as well as state and local governments, and private sources. In-kind contributions include personnel to manage AmeriCorps*State/National projects and to supervise and train participants; office facilities and supplies; and materials and equipment needed in the course of conducting national service projects. The National and Community Service Trust Act provides for extensive state control of AmeriCorps. State commissions must develop strategic plans that identify state educational, public safety, human, and environmental service needs. On the basis of these plans and the act’s criteria, commissions select projects to finance with formula grant funds and nominate other projects to the Corporation as candidates for competitive grants. Commissions have ultimate responsibility for administering both formula and competitive awards. In addition, commissions must monitor and evaluate the performance of the AmeriCorps projects under their purview and assess projects’ compliance with state and federal regulations. These reviews determine whether commissions renew funding for AmeriCorps projects in succeeding years. Commission officials in all seven states told us they used a grassroots effort to develop their strategic plans and identify service needs. They said they sought input from a broad cross-section of individuals and organizations to ensure extensive input in identifying state service needs. Most commission officials said they solicited public comment through local and regional meetings and other public forums. For example, one commission mailed meeting announcements to various government, nonprofit, and community-based organizations. Another commission mailed over 1,000 invitations to various service programs and individuals. Another state commission used interactive computer technology to coordinate input from 60 individuals collectively representing over 250 organizations. After developing state plans and prioritizing service needs, commissions used a variety of measures to identify, develop, and select AmeriCorps projects. For example, while some commissions published request-for-proposals packages, others solicited proposals from existing community service and government agencies, and some held regional meetings around the state where local organizations identified community needs and proposed projects to address them. In general, state commissions convened review panels to assess project proposals and rank them according to how well they met the state’s needs and priorities as established in the state’s strategic plan. One review panel was composed only of the commissioners themselves; others used panels made up of commissioners, commission staff, and local service project officials; while another included citizens with academic and public service backgrounds. State commissioners, using the results of these panels, then selected projects to fund with the state’s allotted formula funds or to submit to the Corporation for competition with other state commissions’ selections. Commission officials in all seven states told us they based their project monitoring and evaluation protocols on Corporation guidelines. Some state commissions developed additional evaluation and monitoring measures to ensure projects remain in compliance. Commission staff in six of the states conducted project site visits, while in Texas, commissioners themselves conducted on-site reviews. Typically, the commissions used their site visit results and periodic reports submitted by project administrators to determine whether projects effectively achieved project objectives. States chose to organize their commissions in a variety of ways. The seven commissions we reviewed fell into one of three organizational models: (1) part of a preexisting state agency; (2) an independent state agency; or (3) a nonprofit agency. Five commissions operated within existing state agencies. For example, the Virginia commission operated within the state’s Department of Social Services. California created its commission as an independent agency, while the Rhode Island legislature decided to charter its state service commission as a nonprofit agency, thereby obtaining tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. State commissions’ administrative budgets and their staffing levels varied significantly among the seven states. For example, in terms of administrative budgets, the Rhode Island commission managed about $183,000, while the California commission managed over $1.3 million in fiscal year 1996. Also, in regard to staffing levels, the Virginia commission employed 1.5 FTE staff, while the California commission employed 18 FTE staff. Both federal and state government contributions defined state commission budgets and their staff resources. Under the act, the Corporation awards administrative grants of between $125,000 and $750,000 to states to help pay for commission operations. Federal administrative grants are limited to 85 percent of a commission’s costs in the first year and decrease to 50 percent of costs in the fifth and subsequent operating years. States must contribute either cash or in-kind resources to obtain administrative grants. Among the seven states, the type (cash or in-kind) and amount of support provided by the state varied. Table 2 lists the commissions’ total budgets and staffing levels for fiscal year 1996. During the 1995-96 program year, the number of AmeriCorps projects in the seven states varied depending on (1) the number of projects commissions financed with their allotted formula funds, (2) the number of projects that won competitive funding, and (3) the number of projects funded directly by the Corporation rather than by the state commissions. The number of formula-funded projects ranged from a low of 1 in Rhode Island to a high of 19 in California. The number of projects awarded competitive grants ranged from none in Virginia to eight in Texas. The number of national direct projects administered by the Corporation in the seven states also varied. While only 1 national direct project operated in Virginia, 18 such projects operated in California. Table 3 lists the number of state commission formula and competitive projects and the number of national directs projects in each state. For the 24 projects we reviewed, outputs and characteristics varied extensively. We reviewed information on enrollment, attrition, and participants’ use of education awards for each project. In addition, we obtained data on projects’ expenditures and the source of projects’ financial support. To calculate enrollment, we added the number of full- and part-time participants that began a term of service for each project. We calculated attrition rates on two bases: (1) the number of participants who ended service early for cause and (2) the combined total of participants who ended service early for cause and for compelling personal circumstances. We determined education award usage based on the number of participants who earned either a full or prorated education award and the number of participants who had used either part of or the full value of their awards at the time of our review. The following points illustrate the extent of variability among the projects: Participant enrollment: AmeriCorps enrollment ranged from 21 to 350 participants. The median enrollment was about 46 participants. Attrition rates: The attrition rate for participants who ended service early for cause ranged from 3 to 58 percent. The median attrition rate was 22 percent. The overall attrition rate—participants who ended service early for either cause or compelling personal circumstances—ranged from 9 to 95 percent, and the median was 39 percent. Education award usage: The proportion of participants who accessed their education award ranged from 17 to 78 percent. The median was 54 percent. Appendix II lists projects’ enrollment, attrition rates, and participant education award usage. Project-level expenditures also varied widely. Our expenditure data excluded funding for education awards and for state commission and Corporation administrative expenses. Projects obtained cash support and in-kind resources to cover their expenditures from the Corporation, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. The projects’ expenditures ranged from $206,000 to $3.9 million. The median expenditure was $627,000. The share of these expenditures that were supported by the following sources was corporation grants—0 to 78 percent (the median was 66 percent), public sector resources—49 to 100 percent (the median was 83 percent), private sector sources—0 to 51 percent (the median was 17 percent). Figure 1 illustrates private sector support for all 24 projects. Appendix III lists detailed expenditure data for all 24 projects. One of the National and Community Service Trust Act’s objectives is to help the nation address its unmet human, education, environmental, and public safety needs. The projects included in our sample all reported diverse service activities that address one or more of these needs. While some projects’ service activities were focused on meeting a particular need within the community, such as housing, other projects’ activities addressed multiple areas of need, such as environmental and education needs. In the project reports we reviewed in detail, participants organized food programs that served 2,500 children; assisted with totally rehabilitating 16 vacant public housing units; operated a 7-week summer reading camp for 36 children; planted trees, removed debris, and created gardens improving 32 urban neighborhoods; and provided parenting classes to low-income families. State commissioners and executive directors in all seven states agreed with senior Corporation officials that a federal role in the AmeriCorps program is needed. None of these officials believed that eliminating the federal Corporation and simply allocating funds directly to state commissions would serve the program well. While some state officials told us that the grant allocation process warrants significant change, other state officials noted the indispensability of federal oversight. Corporation officials believed that a federal role is needed for conducting nationwide data gathering on the AmeriCorps program, evaluating the performance of AmeriCorps projects and state commissions, and providing a central repository of information on the “best practices” of individual AmeriCorps projects and state commission operations. All seven state commission executive directors agreed that a federal role is necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity. According to these officials, a national identity helps AmeriCorps projects obtain widespread public support. They told us that national identity provides AmeriCorps participants with a sense that the benefits of their service extend not only to themselves and their communities, but to the whole nation. Furthermore, they said AmeriCorps’ name recognition and positive reputation help local projects recruit participants. To promote national identity, the Corporation provides AmeriCorps projects national advertisement, service gear, and the means to network with other projects across the country to share experience and knowledge. In addition, the Corporation encourages projects to adhere to certain standardized elements such as the ethic reflected by the Corporation’s slogan “getting things done,” a standard orientation and pledge, and participation in national events. Most commission officials also welcomed the federal oversight of AmeriCorps. Some officials told us that while reducing the federal role could save money, a lack of oversight would spawn fraud, waste, and abuse. Several commission officials, for example, expressed concern that, without federal oversight, other state officials might bypass commission offices and fund projects, regardless of whether they meet national service priorities, to serve partisan agendas. Another official said that without a federal role, the AmeriCorps program would become wholly dependent on the support of the states’ executive leadership, noting a fear for the future of their states’ AmeriCorps programs if elected governors do not support national service. Corporation officials agreed that a national identity for the AmeriCorps program is important and that a federal role provides it. They also noted that the federal government has a vital role in evaluating the AmeriCorps program, sharing evaluation results with others, and developing and increasing the evaluation capacity of state commissions. They believe that such a role helps to address the disparity between state commissions’ competence and performance by, in part, serving as a central repository of information on successful AmeriCorps projects and state commission management strategies. Furthermore, evaluating projects and state commissions ensures that federal taxpayer dollars are efficiently and effectively used to finance legitimate national service projects. Commission officials in the seven states disagreed on whether states should have more control over federal grant funds, particularly in terms of allocating federal funds. Some commission officials supported allocating all three types of grants (formula, competitive, and national direct) to the states based on population. The California contingent advocated allocating all AmeriCorps grant funds to states using a population-based formula. California officials argued that the Corporation’s competitive grant-making process is redundant because it occurs after states review and select projects for funding on their own. In addition, these officials told us that federal selection of AmeriCorps projects usurps the state commissions’ right to exercise their best judgment, expertise, and creativity in administering national service projects in their states. Other officials told us that the competitive grant-making process promotes equity and ensures that the relatively higher quality projects receive funding. Officials in Rhode Island argued that the competitive grant-making process provides a more equitable distribution of national resources than strict population-based allocations. They said that such simplistic methods arbitrarily penalize states with small populations and reward states with large populations, while ignoring the variability in quality among national service projects. Officials in other states told us that commissions themselves, rather than individual projects, should compete for federal grants. Officials in Maryland and Texas told us that the Corporation should allocate federal AmeriCorps grants to states on the basis of commissions’ demonstrated ability to effectively manage quality national service projects in their states. They argued that the Corporation should treat different states differently, taking into account states’ unique service needs. Neither Maryland nor Texas officials, however, had developed a set of suggested criteria for the Corporation to use to make such determinations. Senior Corporation officials told us that they are not certain the competitive process used, in part, to allocate funds to state commissions achieves the quality control over project selection that was originally anticipated. They oppose, however, allocating all available funding to state commissions based simply on population demographics. Corporation officials stated that such a method does not take into account the differing abilities of state commissions to administer and oversee AmeriCorps projects, noting that two states have yet to even appoint state commissions. In addition, these officials believe that national direct projects play an important role in the AmeriCorps program and should receive grants directly from the Corporation. While these officials told us that in the future the Corporation may recommend that the Congress change the act’s grant allocation process, they had no specific proposals for the Congress to consider at the time of our review. Some state commission officials we visited told us that giving states more control over the AmeriCorps program would eliminate or alleviate current problems they have coordinating with AmeriCorps projects operating in their state. Historically, national direct projects were not required to coordinate with state commission officials, which some commission officials cited as a point of frustration. These officials told us that the public holds them culpable for the actions of national direct AmeriCorps projects because the public does not distinguish between national direct projects and state-administered projects. In addition, some state commission officials said they doubt that out-of-state nonprofits fully understand the needs of local communities in their states. Corporation officials acknowledged the difficulties that some states have experienced coordinating with national direct projects. To ameliorate this problem, an official said that as of January 1997, the Corporation requires national direct grantees to coordinate with the relevant state commission officials. In addition, in the future, state commissions can provide comments on the Corporation’s national direct grant selections, which these Corporation officials believe will also help eliminate this coordination problem. Corporation officials told us, however, that national direct grants play an essential program role. They argued that community service is central to the mission of many national nonprofit organizations and that these organizations are, by and large, the recipients of such grants. Specifically, these officials believe that national direct grants help (1) attract national nonprofit organizations to the AmeriCorps program, (2) achieve a more efficient and less bureaucratic method of administering projects that operate in several states, and (3) recruit nonprofit organizations with the economies of scale that could allow the Corporation to dramatically decrease its per-participant costs by funding only the portion of projects’ expenses associated with providing participants their education awards. In commenting on our report, the Corporation stated that in calculating attrition rates, we should not have included participants who leave projects early to take advantage of opportunities for educational or professional advancement because such departures do not reflect on program quality. We did not, however, use attrition rates or any other output as a project quality index and, therefore, did not modify our calculations. Although the Corporation believes that the term “outputs” should characterize only project accomplishments, we use the term to characterize participant enrollment, project attrition, education award usage, and project expenditures—a use of the term that is consistent with long-standing conventions of social science research. The Corporation also stated that a complete analysis of education award usage may not be available for several years because participants have up to 7 years to use their awards. Our education award calculation represents a snapshot in time, and our report describes the 7-year interval. The Corporation suggested other changes that were primarily technical and editorial in nature. We revised the report as appropriate, defining our use of the terms “project” and “program,” for instance, and clarifying that we used the most current and appropriate data available for our analysis. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate House and Senate committees and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Jeff Appel, senior evaluator, at (617) 565-7513. This report was prepared under the direction of Wayne B. Upshaw, Assistant Director. Ben Jordan, evaluator, also contributed to this report. Participants work to meet the needs of at-risk youth through peer counseling, health education/outreach, gang intervention, conflict resolution, alcohol/drug counseling and education, outreach to homeless youth, after-school recreation, tutoring, and child care. Participants serve in a citywide partnership to develop neighborhood-based service projects. Members mentor/tutor community youth, provide training in conflict management skills, and engage individuals in physical improvement projects. Participants serve in teams to plan and perform activities, including rural and urban environmental projects, trail construction and maintenance, tree planting, city infrastructure maintenance, and organizing city youth activities. Participants tutor and counsel at-risk youth, develop and operate after-school programs, deliver basic health care services, and implement physical improvement projects through a 19- organization partnership. Participants provide independent living assistance and health care to homebound elderly individuals, enlarge area food pantries, create youth literacy programs, and develop educational programs for Head Start students in Appalachian Maryland. Participants tutor low-income students, in a tri-county area, using a cascading leadership model. Participants supervise high school students who, in turn, act as mentors and tutors for middle and elementary school students. Participants work in rural, urban, and suburban areas of the state through a collaboration among the Maryland Conservation Corps, Civic Works, and Community Year. Participants work to stabilize soil erosion, build community gardens, and rehabilitate homes for low-income families. Participants conduct home visits to the chronically ill and provide health service referrals. Participants also tutor first-grade students, develop structured after-school intergenerational activities, and teach school readiness skills to preschool children. Grace Hill AmeriCorps RiverFront Trail Project Participants help conserve the Mississippi Riverfront by restoring and beautifying trails. Participants work to increase the educational success of urban youth by organizing outdoor recreational and educational activities and by planning weekly summer educational events. Participants serve the St. Joseph area by developing academic laboratories in schools, organizing and conducting neighborhood cleanup projects and recycling programs, and working with children to establish community gardens that provide food to local food pantries. Participants work to reduce violence against children by recruiting tutors and mentors to work with high-risk youth, developing a literacy program for parents, developing after-school and summer programs, and working with juvenile authorities to develop service projects for youthful offenders. Participants work to increase the capacity of schools to improve the achievement of fourth- through eighth-graders in low-income communities and identify and train volunteers to develop service projects in literacy, the environment, first aid and personal safety, and substance abuse prevention. (continued) Participants provide a range of services for at-risk students of all ages, including preschool assistance, tutoring for school-aged youth and adults, and referral services. Participants serve in teams to strengthen communities by tapping the resources of local residents, business, and nonprofit organizations. Participants provide services such as mentoring/tutoring students from kindergarten through seventh grade and participating in community gardening, low-income housing, and after-school programming. Participants work to improve low-income areas by building energy-efficient homes using least toxic materials and alternative building methods. Participants also renovate and weatherize existing homes to save on energy costs. Participants serve children living in poverty by offering nutritious food and enrichment activities at summer food sites, tutoring and mentoring at schools, providing violence prevention/conflict resolution activities, and facilitating access to health care. Participants provide parenting education services at schools and community nonprofit organizations. Participants conduct home visits, community outreach and recruitment, teen parent mentoring, and developmental screening, and provide child care for teen parent students. Participants operate after-school service-learning programs in elementary schools. Participants work in teams with other youth from varied backgrounds to strengthen the community in areas including the environment, hunger and homelessness reduction, and public safety. Participants work to rehabilitate, revitalize, and maintain public housing units in their own communities. Participants serve as outreach workers for community-based organizations that provide tutoring/mentoring, parenting skill workshops, physical exams and immunizations, conflict resolution training, and prenatal health education. Participants teach conflict resolution skills, provide tutoring and frontline gang intervention, and implement after-school, late night, and summer recreation programs for rural and Native American youth. Participants also provide independent living support to mentally ill adults. Participants rehabilitate low-income housing units and construct new housing for emergency and transitional living. Participants also work to restore habitats for native plants, vegetation, and wildlife. They are also involved in developing recreational areas in state parks and improving hiking and biking trails. Participants work to improve water quality and restore a reduced salmon population by rehabilitating damaged watersheds and building fences to prevent erosion. Participants serve in various agencies across the state on a wide range of projects, including developing a statewide literacy initiative for recent immigrants, providing at-risk youth with service alternatives to gang activity, and concentrating services to a needy, isolated Native American reservation. The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed state commissions' capacity to absorb additional AmeriCorps program management responsibility, focusing on: (1) the statutory role of state commissions; (2) state commission operations, including project-level outputs from national service projects within their purview, such as participant enrollment and expenditure data; and (3) extending state commissions' administrative and oversight role over AmeriCorps and correspondingly decreasing the federal government's role. GAO found that: (1) by assigning state commissions significant responsibilities, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, in effect, emphasizes state control of the AmeriCorps program; (2) these responsibilities include developing a statewide service infrastructure, selecting and funding AmeriCorps projects, and monitoring and evaluating projects; (3) state commissions directly control two-thirds of the federal funds available for AmeriCorps projects; (4) for fiscal year 1995, state commissions received $131 million of $192 million available in federal funding; (5) GAO's review of seven state commissions indicated that all are performing program management activities envisioned by the act, but vary in terms of their infrastructures and project outputs; (6) operational resources of the state commissions in GAO's sample varied widely; (7) for selected projects, outputs also varied both within and among the state commissions; (8) officials from the seven state commissions agreed on the need for a federal role in AmeriCorps, but disagreed on how much federal control is desirable; (9) on one hand, all officials agreed that only a federal entity can provide AmeriCorps with a national identity, which they considered essential; (10) on the other hand, they disagreed on the role the Corporation for National and Community Service should play in allocating AmeriCorps funding grants; (11) senior Corporation officials agreed with state officials that a federal role is necessary to provide the AmeriCorps program with a national identity; (12) they also stated that a federal role is necessary to conduct performance evaluations of national service projects and state commissions; (13) these officials acknowledged that changes to the funding allocation process might better achieve the Corporation's quality control objectives and said they may recommend changes to Congress when it considers reauthorization of the act; and (14) Corporation officials noted that, notwithstanding their view that the act gave the states a substantial degree of control over the program, they have initiated actions to increase state commissions' autonomy.