Full time part time some time real time get involved

problem answers solutions

Award Judge Challenger 2010 up comming competition across the board improvements

leadership and managemnent synergy practice best ( 2 case sample need for improvement www.daytonmliaa.org and JeffersonTWP.annual festival ) interagency assessetments member get out the box RFP. help

God Bless Servants of God and Man.   Thank You First Lady & President for ongoing annual our  process Grow The Seeds of Greatness

Rule Content

The proposed rule should address the following:

• Ensure grantee accountability: Before accessing the full amount of their grant, programs should meet certain benchmarks, such as enrolling a percentage of their members.  A fixed-amount grant is based on a cost per member service year (MSY) and anticipated number of members.  It would be problematic if a program were, for example, to be awarded a grant for 40 MSY and be able to access the full amount even though it had only enrolled 10 MSY. 
• Cost per MSY: The proposed rule should allow state commissions to retain the option of offering fixed-amount grants with variable costs per MSY.   
• New Service Corps: The five new Service Corps outlined in the Act should be priority areas rather than distinct entities. 
• AmeriCorps national competitive funding: The Act combines funding for national direct and state competitive applicants.  The new process for administering the competition and awarding grants should address several key questions:.

o   Will there be any difference in the review for national direct and state competitive applicants?  For example, will there be panels dedicated exclusively to one category of applicant?

o    Will there be a difference in review criteria, or in the application of the criteria?  For example, national direct programs are able to leverage economies of scale and will likely have lower costs per MSY.

 o    How will the process ensure that there is no overlap between national direct and state formula applicants (e.g., an organization applies for a state formula grant and is part of a national direct application)?

o    What role will state commissions have in prioritizing which national direct applications are funded in their state?

·         AmeriCorps national direct consultation with state commissions: To ensure that resources are effectively utilized and coordinated, applicants for AmeriCorps national direct grants should be required to have meaningful consultation with state commissions:

o    At a minimum, national direct applicants should meet or exchange information with appropriate state commissions.  This consultation can take the form of in-person meetings or written communications, but should enable the commission to understand key components of the program, including program model, member placement sites, major partners, etc. 

 o    The consultation requirement should recognize that larger states such as California have numerous national direct programs and applicants.  Large state commissions will require adequate time to review information and conduct a review.

o    Consultation will (1) enable commissions to better understand AmeriCorps programs that might operate within their states, and (2) provide an opportunity to inform applications through feedback on potential regulatory issues (e.g., state-specific requirements for tutors or construction projects), partnering organizations, potentially helpful resources, and other concerns (e.g., potential challenges with member transportation in rural regions).

o    Information from national direct applicants would have implications for issues that impact commission funding decisions, such as geographic distribution and issue areas.  For example, a commission is in a better position to determine whether a given region is underserved if it has information on current and proposed formula and national direct programs.  In determining potential issue area priorities, it would be helpful to know whether national direct AmeriCorps members are already addressing a problem such as literacy or green jobs.

Considerations for Implementation

•  Accounting for costs: In developing their budgets, applicants – especially organizations new to AmeriCorps – may not adequately account for all program costs.  Stronger technical assistance and tools would help applicants develop accurate budgets.
• State commission systems: State commission invoicing systems may be designed to reimburse grantees for specific, budgeted expenses as they occur.  By design, fixed-amount grants are not attached to detailed budgets with discrete line items and expenses.  Corporation technical assistance and guidance in this area would be helpful. 

Corporation Strategies and Activities

• Simplification of documents and applications: Organizations applying for AmeriCorps grants would benefit from more user-friendly application guidelines and documents.  For example, a recent Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for AmeriCorps grants refers applicants to three separate documents – the NOFO, application instructions, and AmeriCorps regulations.  The AmeriCorps regulations alone comprise several hundred pages and are written in complex, technical language. 

After working in the field with many youth aging out of the foster care system,  I  realized the need to start a non profit youth support and mentoring program. It has been quite a task seeking information needed for funding. Many calls placed to many departments requesting information  goes unanswered without a response. Many non profit organizations in my area are struggling having to down size in staff for the funding thats awarded does not cover salaries to support their program. My organization plan to work with many volunteers, but I hope more importance in funding can be placed on implementing and running a program.

My comment pertains to grant announcements (RFPs) from DOJ, though they may also apply to other federal grants.  I would hope for greater clarification of terms used within grant applications.  For example, in the recent grant for Strategic Enjancement of Mentoring Programs (cfda 16.726) within the narrative instructions there is reference to "program objectives" (page 11).  Are these program objectives the same as the "objectives" explained on page 7 of the RFP?  This is never made clear.  Are the "performance objectives" referenced on page 7 the same as the "performance objectives" referenced on page 11?  The addition of logic models further confuses things.  Is the term "objective" used the same way in a logic model as it is in the RFP on page 7?  It appears not.  When preparing applications we suffer over every word because these grants are so important to the children we serve.  I ask that someone look over grant announcements in their entirety and create uniformity when using terms such as "objective", "goal" and so forth.  The meaning of a term on page 7 should be the same as it is on page 11 or elsewhere.  This would eliminate a great deal of confusion from the application process.

I an many of my collegues believe that state-based PSOs would provide great efficiencies.  It would be much more cost-effective to conduct the PSO in state instead of paying to send all members to Chicago or Indianapolis.  I understand and support the edea of creating a large, regional VISTA community, but in these tough economic times efficiencies must be made.  Additionally, state-based PSOs could be held quarterly giving us many more opportunities to bring members on.  The current system of only being able to send new memb er candidates to Chicago or Indianapolis twice a year is incredibly restrictive and not conducive to operating an effective program.  For instance, if you bring on a member in July and she early terms, for whatever reason, in December, we can't replace her until July...a full 6 months will have gone by with no one in that position. 

State-based PSOs occurring more frequently will also allow for better recruitment.  There won't be as long a lag time between identifying candidates and them actually starting, whihc often results in drop-offs.

Another option that makes sense to me is to scrap PSO altogether.  AmeriCorps*State members do not have a PSO.  The Sponsor is responsibile for orientation of their own members.  Seems to me that this works very well for State programs, so why not VISTA?  It would obviously save huge amounts of money that could maybe be redirected to increases in living allowances or more S&T grants to Sponsors.

I think the grant process is fine and the availability of 6 years of funding makes sense, to first figure out what you are doing in planning  and then 3 years of implementation and 2 years of sustainability.  The assistance from the staff is very helpful and most needed. They have a wealth of knowledge and disseminate information to the field.

The 2 progress reports and then the 1 final report all with a narrative is a lot of paperwork. The data collected on the progress reports should be identical to the LASSIE report and therefore reducing the need of at least one of the progress reports. In the summer we are doing progress report and LASSIE and then a couple months later, the final report, too much is a short period of time.

The monthly SOE is time consuming however, it makes sense to do it that way, it is easier in the long run.  There is 2 progress reports, 1 final, monthly SOE, quarterly Financial forms, final financials, lots of reports, along with an on-site visit and on-site financial visit.  I don't think the second progress report is needed in June.  An outside audit is required to ensure appropriate use of federal funds, if there is a suspicion of mis-use of funds, then additional reports could be requested. Most agencies that believe in service to the community are honest helpful individuals that do not believe in doing wrongful deads.

It is very difficult to have a "fixed" grant because in each area of the country there are different costs for different items and salary structures. Even in the same county and in each district or agency there will be varying costs.

I have been around long enough to remember the old fixed price grants of the old AmeriCorps Promise Fellow grant program.  Some very strong leaders were developed from those programs as well as strong contributions to our State Service Plan.  We used to manage these fixed price grants at my State Commission back in the mid to late 1990's.  Meeting the goals of America's Promise in our local communities and not worrying too much about complicated financial reporting and match requirements was quite appealing for those early APF subgrantees.

There were a few things that were good and bad about the fixed price grantmaking process.  Just wanted to share a few thoughts and a few ideas how to alleviate the potential problems that may arise.

PROS:

Fixed price grants provides less stress to AmeriCorps subgrantees to meet and report their increasing single match requirements on their Federal Financial Reports if they have been in operation for a couple grant cycles. 

Federal Financial Reporting will be much easier in recipient share will get less attention.

Fixed price grants would allow some flexibility in how subgrantees prioritize their program income in Operational and Member Support - while not having to ensure compliance to a single match. 

Subgrantees can be a bit more flexible with "other federal funds" or other program income in general used to supplement their AmeriCorps programs and obtaining written statutory permissions by the other federal agencies in utilizing their funding as match for AmeriCorps. 

CONS:

Fixed price grants still puts pressure on AmeriCorps subgrantees located in high cost areas to generate higher amounts of revenue to make up the difference of the actual cost of running a program as well as member support.  This had also been a complaint with those subgrantees with the increasing single match requirement.

More stress on subgrantees to document sources of other program income, especially from other government sources, to funders and auditors.  It will be obvious that fixed price grants will not cover the true cost of running a program.  Subgrantees will likely patch together more various streams of funding to generate enough program income to make their AmeriCorps program viable and competitive. Even though it may not be required by the Corporation in their FFR, the subgrants will likely be required to report their other income to the sources from which it came from while also meeting all the legal requirements of the income sources.

Inequities between programs in the same regions or cities.  Going back to the old AmeriCorps Promise Fellow days, you might get the programs that can afford AmeriCorps uniforms and service gear, and those that can just afford the buttons.  In-kind will only go so far, every program still needs hard cash to pay the bills. When it comes to covering the actual costs of running a program some programs are better at leveraging resources than others, that is the way it is.  The economy really stinks right now so more folks chasing fewer dollars.

IDEAS:

It is obvious the Corporation will likely have little motivation of having the fixed price grants exceed past $12,600 per MSY.  Really, what is the advantage for the national office of having it any higher other than not having State Commissions and National Directs shouting complaints? Our country is still in recession and Recovery Grants are just getting off the ground.  There is no baseline data yet or whether programs are cost effective.  As mentioned in many Serve America Act discussions, the authorization is there but the appropriations are not.  I loved the metaphors used, Serve AmeriCorps Act created expectations that are like a river that is a mile wide but a inch deep. 

Obtain Data on Actual Cost of Supporting Members and Staff:

Responders to this site need to flood it with data on actual Cost per MSY by different states, regions, cities, etc. to provide some benchmarks. I haven't thought about the complaints of some states that might feel they are getting shortchanged compared to a neighboring state, but standard data with justification from the Census might show that data doesn't lie.

Explore Sliding Scale of Fixed Price Grants Based on Benchmark Data Received:

Use Data to determine variables to be utilized for Fixed Priced grants depending on high/low cost regions, cities, etc.

Once a Sliding Scale System Model is Developed, Pilot some AmeriCorps Projects in this System and Assess the Results:

HELLO, I'M MAGALI AND I'M WORKING FOR AMERICORP VISTA IN THE AREA OF CALIFORNIA.

I FEEL PASION TO WORK WITH FAMILIES BUT I'M FEEL VERY SAD TO SEE HOW THE ECONOMIC IS AFFECTING

OUR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.i WONDERING TO KNOW HOW THE ORGANIZATION CAN HELP ME TO FIND

MONEY FOR THE AGENCY WHERE I'M WORKING IN ORDER TO ASSIST THE FAMILY IN THIS COMMUNITY.

To enable small nonprofits to develop the skills to acquire and manage a grant, the Corporation should consider demonstration grants, awarded to experienced organizations, to provide subawards to small grassroots organizations while conducting capacity building activities to increase an organization's ability to develop and manage Corporation grants. This will enable many smaller disability organizations to develop inclusive service programs and partner with other organizations including national service grantees.

<P>I believe that the companies should work with consultants locally (volunteers with auditing,accounting background),who could interview each local grant seeker,to ensure that each community does not get duplicate grants,while other communities doesnot get anything. Also this will avoid frivolous spending and greed,also they should provide receipt for every dollor/cent received to ensure that it was spent for worthwhile servi

#6. Extend fixed-price grants into every category possible.

This type of grant brings benefits to everyone:

• Many national service grants that involve enrolling someone to serve and qualify for benefits are done on a cost-share reimbursement basis. Under fixed-price grants, the basis for receiving funds is not expenditures but enrollment of service members.
• Fixed price grants do not require budgeting for or reporting match dollars. The funds to operate the entire project are presumed to exist by the fact the work gets done. While one could argue that teaching nonprofits how to document in-kind and generate match is valuable technical assistance, the accounting staff in grantees find it burdensome due to the generally small size of CNCS grants. Among the typical small nonprofits found in Maine, the accounting systems ability to do this in a manner compliant with general federal accounting standards has been a barrier when it comes to applying directly to MCCS for support.
• These grants should eliminate the “price war” among VISTA cost-share programs, AmeriCorps State, and AmeriCorps National grantees, permitting better alignment between project purpose and the host site.

Community agencies seeking help from AmeriCorps have learned that they need to pay a fee ($5,000 to $9,000 in Maine depending on the program) that is generally set as the amount of required match divided by the number of AmeriCorps members. Sometimes the fee is modified to account for the length of time an agency has hosted a member.

Host sites have learned to “shop” for the best bargain in terms of match contribution and then mold their request to the interests of the official grantee. Numerous problems, including inconsistent partners over the life of a grant, have arisen.

• Moving to fixed-price grants will concentrate attention on performance and impact.

#8. Rework and consistently offer opportunities for State Initiative proposals as a means of expanding organizational involvement and lessening the application burden on community organizations.

• Use this approach to increase the diversity of organizations (size, age, economic resources, geography, and type) with access to national service program resources.
• Exercise the new CNCS authority to assign to State Commissions specific programmatic functions to increase efficiency in the operation and oversight of national service programs to restructure the grant application process for AmeriCorps*State Formula, Education Award, any fixed-price grants for which Commission can be the conduit, and new programs such as Service Fellows and Silver Scholars .

• Model a State Initiative competition so that State Commissions apply to be intermediaries and take on the burden of the full application as well as reporting to CNCS.
• Permit States to re-grant the funds using state competitive procurement or grant processes that meet minimum criteria (peer review, scoring, etc.).
• Give preference to statewide performance measures that relate to State funding priorities or strategic plan objectives.
•  Ensure local innovation and opportunity for unique needs by requiring that State Initiatives allow community groups to customize a percentage of work (e.g., 30%).

#9. Set the fixed-price grant amount for programs with part-time members at the same full-time equivalent level as programs with full-time members.

• Although programs with part-time volunteers are not likely to pay benefits, the complexity of training, supervising, and supporting a larger number of people actually places greater demands on a volunteer program.
• Fixed-price grants that are based on the total FTEs of part-time volunteers have a unique impact on part-time volunteer programs because the funds can be targeted at quality management or implementation of the volunteer project and, thereby, increase retention and sustainability.
• Fixed-price grants are more “scalable” and, therefore, open participation to a greater number of community-based and faith-based efforts.

Re: Recompeting RSVP program grants every three years.  I think CNCS should only put RSVP program sponsorships up for competition if a program is not performing well, not meeting its goals, not able to secure matching funds, not bringing in new volunteers, etc.  To require high performing programs to go through the time and trouble of recompeting every three years will take away from the time the progam staff can spend on managing the program and recruiting and engaging more volunteers.  It is also my understanding that the state CNCS offices will be required to hold public meetings for anyone interested in applying to take over an RSVP program and then provide technical assistance to these new grantees.  I don't see how they will have time to do this given their already heavy workload, the large number of RSVP programs in each state that would be up for recompetition each year, the large geographic area of some states, and the expense involved in doing this.  This is my opinion only, not that of our state CNCS staff.  I just think this will add increased burden to the state CNCS offices which will decrease the amount of time they have to assist, train, monitor, etc. existing CNCS programs.

This concept paper was submitted to the Corporation on May 26th, 2009. We are now sending it here in hopes these ideas will not only continue to make common sense but generate additional support to make this type of Senior Corps Grant a reality.

CONCEPT PAPER

“SENIOR UNITED CORPS”

CATHOLIC CHARITIES SOUTH WESTERN OHIO

2009

For over 35 years, Catholic Charities SouthWestern Ohio (CCSWO) located in Cincinnati has been the sponsoring agency of Foster Grandparents and Senior Companion programs. This Grantee has always strived to be innovative and committed to Senior Corps Programs. In 1968 it was chosen to operate one of the two nationally awarded Senior Friends pilot projects; in 1977 it began placing FGP Volunteers in elementary schools to tutor children with problems and for the last 8 years has generated 80 to 100 thousand dollars each year in local cash support for SCP. In January 2008, CCSWO was awarded the RSVP grant, which completed the Senior Corps Trifecta. The directors, Dave Mikkelsen with FGP and SCP, and Mike Dutle with RSVP, have learned a lot more about each others’ programs, and have found interesting ways to take advantage of the synergies available by having all three programs under one roof.

They’ve known that working together as Senior Corps benefits the volunteers, the site stations, the agency and community. When the cooperation became an in-house melding of resources, staff, and program operations, it opened a whole new level of program cohesiveness and positive impacts which can be shown to support this concept proposal. They’ve found that working together on shared recognition events, quarterly newsletters, training opportunities, and marketing strategies can not only save money for the programs, but also provide a greater sense of community in the staff and the volunteers.

The positive results of working together have encouraged Dave and Mike to look for additional ways to make their programs work more efficiently. They are convinced that by eliminating the barriers between the programs, by working as one universal “Senior Corps” program instead of three; the community, the volunteers, the site stations, the sponsoring agency and the Corporation could all be better served.

They are proposing a pilot project, or a demonstration program, that would merge the three Senior Corps programs into one. By this merger they not only become much more efficient with the use of federal and local resources,

but will be able to consolidate both budget and program operations for the Corporation, the grantee and the community. Under this proposal the following processes and grant operations will be adapted and produce positive impacts as a single Senior United Corps Volunteer Grant.

·        Grant Process:

A single grant application to develop and review, with a single budget, single file to maintain in e-grants and at the Corporation’s state and grants offices, single grant account under HHS and grantee. This consolidates and simplifies the grant process from creation to final operation. The grant would contain the combined totals of all three programs for projected hours of service for both stipend and non-stipend, number of volunteers to serve, service areas etc;

·        Budget Operations:

A single set of books and single account for the grantee to manage. Flexibility within the budget to apply needed resources to address community needs as directions and challenges change throughout a given budget period. Volunteers could be more easily accommodated as to individual desires to serve in a particular area. Grantee would be able to more easily meet minimum purchase order requirements as the larger a quantity purchased under one name almost always reduces costs. Amounts reimbursed to or used for volunteers like transportation or recognition would be the same instead of different amounts according to available resources in an individual program. Consolidation would help erase the effects of a weak budget in one program by dispersing expenses over one large budget for all volunteers and service areas;

·        Program Operations:

All staff would have responsibility in all three program areas allowing for more knowledge and competency for the broader range of services offered. This would increase the flexibility for Senior Corps to address needs in any given service area with more staff, volunteer time or resources as local demands dictate. It would erase guidelines such as non-stipend FGP services provided by co-located RSVP volunteers. A specified percentage of volunteers could be over the income limitation and still receive the tax free stipend as is currently occurring in the SCP Demonstration Program under this grantee. Volunteer recruitment efforts would be more cost efficient as all three service areas can be covered under the same budget. Reimbursement processes could be divided over a greater number of staff, reducing the number of sheets and calculations handled by each individual and thus reducing the potential for errors, more checks and balances;

These are some examples of how the merging of funding streams would result in expansion, simplicity, and improved program efficiency, and at the same time, allow for increased effectiveness of Senior Corps Services. With the “Boomers” coming of age this proposed concept model will allow for the greatest potential of recruitment from that generation to provide services and address community needs through Senior Corps. This merged Senior United Corps model will eliminate the current “low income, poverty class, or anti poverty program”, stigma that is present today.  This somewhat degrading terminology often turns away potential boomer volunteers who are the highest educated and wealthiest of the senior generations ever. A specified percentage (for example; 70% / 1^st year, 60% / 2^nd year and down to 50% / 3^rd year), of stipend volunteers could still be required to meet the current income eligibility guidelines. This would allow for a more gradual and orderly transition for this segment of the proposed merger. The program flexibility needed to enroll the next generation of “Baby Boomer Volunteers”, will require not only this redirection of guidelines and regulations, but also an amendment of the presentation and requirements of service.

 It is a new generation with a new set of self directions, demands, expectations and resources which will have to be met at some level if we expect to gain their commitment and dedicated service. The creation of a Senior United Corps Program will not only allow local programs to more efficiently meet community needs, but it could also open the avenue to a new age of Senior Volunteerism energized by the “Baby Boomers”. This concept is created through innovation and will strengthen local support, program management, and cost-effectiveness while increasing volunteer opportunities. We believe this concept of a merged Senior Corps Program is exactly what the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act is promoting by helping to create some of the necessary paths and greatly supporting innovation for purpose and progress.

We respectfully ask the Corporation for National & Community Service to seriously consider this proposed concept merger of the three Senior Corps Programs as the pilot project, Senior United Corps to be sponsored by Catholic Charities SouthWestern Ohio.

In the Act it states, “Annual reports required, beginning two years after enactment.” I’m wondering if this applies to all the programs. If so, who are we to share these annual reports with outside the usual stakeholders? To me this is just another opportunity to report to the federal government on the status of our program and adding to the burdensome paperwork mentioned by Dustin Speakman.

As an AmeriCorps VISTA aluma, an AmeriCorps supervisor and a national peer reviewer of AmeriCorps grants, I am very familiar with national service and the Corporation.  I have also directed two national service inclusion projects and served as an assistant director of a CNCS funded project.  Last year, I applied for a VISTA grant through e-grants.  It was a very difficult and cumbersome process.  E-grants should be abolished.  It is not user-friendly and it simply does not work half the time spitting out information and bumping you off the system at times.  It also is not disability accessible because the lettering is too small and not accessible to people who experience visual problems!  Please change the system!!!  Thank you!

Fixed-Price Grants

Implementation of fixed-price grants may be one of the more challenging aspects of the Serve America Act. Jumpstart offers two solutions to helping determine how the fixed-price grants could apply to part-time positions.

Part-time programs have more Corps members per MSY – up to 5 for every 1 full-time Corps member – and thus need larger program budgets per MSY for costs that accrue on a per member basis such as training materials, travel costs, and program supplies.

If the Corporation is looking for one general “one size fits all” approach to the fixed-price grants, it would be appropriate (and still substantially less than the amount needed to run a part-time program) for the Corporation to determine the fixed-priced grant amount for part-time positions based upon the minimum pro-rated amount of the minimum full-time stipend plus an additional amount for administrative costs.

For example, for a minimum part-time program, the current pro-rated maximum ($12,600) stipend amount would be $2,667. Even with a 5% administrative cost, this would amount roughly $13,000 per MSY. This is thousands of dollars less than the full cost organizations like Jumpstart need to operate its program.

Another potential approach would be more customized approach, seeking to understand the costs associated with individual programs in order to determine the appropriate fixed-price amount for that program.  In order to do this, an organization would submit a budget as part of the application process, using the existing structure of AmeriCorps budgets – an organization would submit its actual costs in personnel, fringe, staff travel, supplies, evaluation, etc.  Once the costs are outlined, the Corporation could then determine a percentage they consider “substantially less than the amount needed to run the program” based on the existing framework that is currently in effect relating to matching amounts.  During the negotiation and clarification phase of the AmeriCorps application process, organizations would have the opportunity to educate the Corporation on their plans to leverage the funds (including growth and impact goals).

For example, in order for the Corporation to determine the reasonableness of a proposal for funding staff travel, the Corporation would compare the amount requested in the proposal against a standard amount for staff travel for that location.  This standard can be determined by compiling all of the staff travel costs reported by part-time Corps member programs during the last fiscal year and then calculate an average.  If the proposed staff travel amount is less than the standard (average), then no further action needs to be taken.  If it is higher, then the organization may be given an opportunity to justify the proposed amount.

As the Corporation continues to consider this and other issues about implementation of the Act, Jumpstart would be happy to provide support and information.

I am thrilled that the issue of capacity building for non profits is getting attention and hopefully some investment.  I have experienced the benefits of the capacity building program through the Compassion Capital Fund.  As an intermediary of that project, I found that nonprofits often have difficulty taking advantage of the capacity building opportunities because they are so busy, so stretched in their service provision capacity.  I think this needs to be taken into consideration as you structure capacity building services.  Organizations may need some short term, targeted funds for service provision so that the key staff can have the time to focus on capacity building for their organization.

I've also experienced that capacity building activities are much more effective if the parent organization or intermediary has some sort of relationship with the organization receiving services.  Organizations are very hesitant to reveal weaknesses and areas for growth when they haven't experienced the intermediary as non-judgmental and without hidden agenda.  As you define community, it would be useful to consider that community may be defined through relationship and common cause as much as geography.

The egrants system is a nightmare to work with.  The applications seemed to be built on a common template, and if the application varies from most come use of the template, the system has difficulty accomodating it.  For examples, applications for National Directs and Planning Grants use the same type of template the was used to develop the State Commision applications.  However, all of the fields are not the same, and the applicant must enter NA in the irrelevant fields.  This sounds simple.  However, for the fields that are layered (ex. Perf. Measures) this can be baffling and take many unnecessary hours to complete.

The system is also difficult as a reporting tool.  I regularly experience egrants not accepting a report or amendment because a requirement has changed during the funding cycle, but egrants does not recognize that change in my submission.  I have had to engage my Program Officer on three separate reporting occasions in order to instruct egrants personnel to work around the barrier.

Electronic submission and reporting is a helpful approach, and I hope resources will be dedicated to fix this frustrating tool.

As an AmeriCorp National Direct grantee, I am concerned about the potential conflict of interest if, as I understand it, State Commissions and National Directs will compete for grant funds at the same time State Commissions have some authority or strong influence in what AmeriCorps programs operate in their states.  I hope this is carefully considered as you proceed.

In my experience, it is very true that the Corporation funds much less than the resources needed to adequately run a good program.  I do understand and embrace the need and opportunity for community support and sustaining partner investments.  Nonetheless, it is very difficult to continue to make the case that AmeriCorps funds are worth the efforts required in the areas of not supplanting, outcome/performance measures, and record keeping.  This is especially true now when nonprofits are stripped to the bare minimum of staffing and personnel benefits as a result of reduced local, state and national funding from other sources.  I hope you will consider that our nonprofit project sites desperately need the assistance, can provide amazing service experiences, and need an understanding of what it really takes to provide the services they do.

I am creating a Service organization in my Local area using teen and college age volunteers, as Elves, on a  year-round basis with Santa Claus, whose purpose is visiting the sick and the Dying of any diagnosis,  both Young and old.

These visits will bring Love, Hope and Joy as well as a small Gift. These visits will be through the auspices of Local Hospice organizations as well as the Hospitals and other caring organizations. The volunteers will be high school or college age, with a focus on caring for others.

 They will be trained in The role of the Elf volunteer, understand the concepts of the ongoing physical care of the sick or dying patient, spirituality, grief, loss, bereavement, taking care of oneself and avoiding burnout. 

The primary goal is to instill a sense of the worlds needs before self, to provide service to others, and to restore hope in a new generation through visits to the sick and Dying. To realize the benefit of caring. 

Is there any way you can help?

Our program, California JusticeCorps, recruits and places over 300 minimum time members a year. This part time position is most appropriate for us because our members are college students who typically have significant academic obligations. Our reuired expenses fall into three primary categories: 1) staff time; 2) training expenses; and 3) travel.  STAFF: It is very staff intensive to recruit, interview, place, schedule, train, supervise and manage 300 people. Because we strive for the highest retention rates possible it's critical to make sure we are very thouroughly vetting, selecting and supporting our members in serve so that they can complete their obligation. TRAINING: We achieve the best retention rates and the highest quality service when we thouroughly train our members. Our initial 2 day orientation involves gathering together anywhere from 40 to 90 to 200 members all at once and asking them to commit to a full weekend of training. This requires space rental fees, training materials fees and other associated meeting expenses. Then we have 2-3 other all member trainings throught the year where we bring all members together again. TRAVEL: Because we do not provide our members a living allowance (as with many other minimum time programs) we have to be sure to defray service associated costs for our members like travel to trainings and service sites.

<P>FGP & SCP need to have barriers removed to meet the current needs of our youth and seniors.   Remove the 80/20 requirement to assist those programs in rural communities hard hit by the ecomony to more effiinciently spend dollars. Our community is at 18.5% unemployment with a populaiton of just over 100,000 and limited indurstry.  Cutting back on transportation and meals would go along way to help us meet progr

It would be a great benefit for many nonprofits if they could apply directly for CNCS grant initiatives without having to "go under" a larger statewide, regional, or national initiative. I understand that CNCS would prefer to adminster as few grantees as possible and so favor applicants that are large entities or networks, but this excludes many nonprofits if they are not part of a large network, or if their network decides not to apply for CNCS initiatives.

As a Volunteer Center in Maryland, there have been CNCS grant initiatives that were perfect for our organization, but statewide entity (such as our Governor's Office on Service and Volunteerism) wanted to take on the initiative. One such example was the 2008-2009 Summer of Service initiative. The RFP perfectly described Volunteer Frederick's SummerServe programs which have been in operation for 11 years. But VF could not apply for the funds: Our statewide Volunteer Center network did not have enough partners interested, and the national HandsOn Network decided not to apply. To apply for this funding, I had to create a new regional network of volunteer organizations across the eastern seaboard who were interested in streghtening and creating summer youth service learning programs using three models of service that have been proven successful. This was a tremendous amount of work as was managing 14 sub-grantees once the grant was awared to us.

Some of the best work in the nation is done by small local nonprofits and it would be great is they could get the support they need to sustain and expand successful programming directly through CNCS. It might require adding a new layer of program management at CNCS for handle larger numbers of smaller grants, but the overall impact may better than funneling money through large organizations that have very high administrative costs that eat into the funds available for actual programming. Smaller organizations can do things more efficiently and have lower administrative costs.

It is very challenging to manage multiple CNCS grant and sub-grant programs when the fiscal reporting requirements of each are different. When an organization has direct grants from CNCS, requirements are pretty consistent using the FSR forms. But when an organization is also a sub-grantee of another organization holding the direct grant from CNCS, the reporting requirements, schedule, forms, etc. are all over the map, with some sponsoring organizations requiring extreme levels of detail, reports directly from our own accounting system's general ledger, monthly financial reports, etc. In some cases these sub-grant requirements nearly require the grantee to completely revise their own accounting system just to meet the requirements of one grant! It would be helpful if there was a consistent financial reporting form or system that all grantees and sub-grantees use. This would help direct grantees adminster their programs without having to come up with their own forms and reporting requirements for their sub-grantees, and it would help the sub-grantees by not being at the whim of every different grant program manager.

One of the issues we have faced is the ability to bring our locally recruited VISTA members on board within a short time after recruiting.  Waiting for the next PSO may mean months -not weeks - before the VISTA is officialy on board and receiving their stipend, etc.  This puts our projects way behind schedule!  I realize volunteers must receive orientation - but if there was a short on-line orientation available and able to be completed prior to PSO, perhaps this could be used to bring the volunteer on board and they can attend the next scheduled PSO. 

A set amount for five years would be helpful because it would eliminate hours and days of grant writing for agencies, it would save resources and time, it would make more time available to research other donors and additional funding sources. A fixed amount would reduce stress for the board and administrator allowing them to work more towards implementing their mission and it would support creative thinking and problem solving.
I understand that the initial grant has to be more involved and detailed, it would be wonderfull if established non profits which have provided great services for their communities for years would be given the trust to have a period of at least five years to focus on their work.
Thank you. Marita Kaplan

Conduct pre-screening qualifications for non-profits which will demonstrate and document capacity.

Template to the extent possible the performance outcomes CNCS wants to achieve

Allow the nonprofits to propose how they will achieve outcomes and tie performance to grant payments

Higher Ed LSA funds should be administered like the K-12 program.  It is difficult for those of us outside of major metropolitan areas to compete for national LSA funds.  However, states with rural and smaller metro areas understand the great need and opportunities present with these dynamics.

I would like to see grantmaking to Higher Ed similar to K12. Award amounts to the States and let the States make grants to their insitutions. The competition aspect of the current Higher Ed grants makes it nearly impossible to develop and write grants and to be funded for programs that will address smaller programs. I feel the States are in a better position to understand local programming goals. I serve on the Missouri Service Learning Advisory Board and have come to appreciate the K12 model through that body.

Southwestern Illinois College is the proud sponsor of all three (3) Senior Corps programs, RSVP, SCP & FGP.  SWIC sought and was approved to consolidate the administration of the programs by hiring one experienced director, with appropriate support staff, but grant time is hectic with one director doing three grants all at the same time.  By consolidating the grant writing process into one grant for three programs, staff could concentrate more on shared goals and outcomes and enhancing the programs. 

UJC/Jewish Federations of North America, the collective voice of 157 Jewish Federations and 400 independent communities, commends the Corporation for holding this series of listening sessions and pledges to continue to work with Corporation to strengthen the burgeoning volunteer movement. In this spirit, we offer three specific comments.  

First, we are concerned that the current Corporation application process is very burdensome, especially for smaller nonprofit agencies that lack experience in government grant processes. This cumbersome process has stopped us before from pursuing AmeriCorps grants in the past and we hope that streamlining applications would encourage more nonprofits to participate. In our case, there was one lead staff person who worked for a period of three months on the project, and two senior staff members who provided feedback and direction.  It was the lead staff person's singular responsibility for the better part of one month and a major part of her responsibility (40-60%) for another two months to design a program, figure out which of the Corporation’s programs were a fit, and gather information for the application . As an example of a streamlined procedure we would point to the Department of Homeland Security which uses a simple 5 page application for nonprofits to fill out to apply for funding. Another suggestion is to have an online pre-application where nonprofits could answer a few simple questions to see if they qualify and if so, would go on to submit a full length application. This way, the nonprofit has not spent time making its way through an entire application process without knowing it is fully qualified.

Second, we are concerned about the administrative costs that nonprofits must incur to run a productive volunteer program. In today’s challenging economic climate, it is difficult for organizations to come up with necessary matching funds and we worry that the cost of maintaining volunteer program will force many nonprofits to pass on such opportunities. We would urge the Corporation to make more funds available to nonprofits for such administrative funds.

Third, in terms of matching volunteers to nonprofit programs, we would like to recommend that the Corporation be more flexibile in permitting nonprofits to choose volunteers for these programs. We would hope that program guidelines would permit nonprofits to help secure volunteers who have an interest and cultural sensitivity in the areas in which the organization works and to the people served by those programs. We see the opportunity to use volunteers as a way to engage them in future work within our communities and hope there is a nexus between their interest in the volunteer opportunity and a continuing role for them in our organizations.

Thank you for the opportunity and we look forward to working closely with the Corporation in the future.

I have to say that the rush to roll out all of these new AmeriCorps*VISTA slots is being hindered by the incredibly burdensome paperwork involved in bringing on new members!  Our project is a very large, statewide project and the requirement that we have original signed documents (rather than faxes or scanned copies) submitted to the state office truly hinders effective, successful recruitment.  For instance, if a member candidate lives out of state, we, as the Sponsor, must rely on one of our many statewide sites to get the paperwork to the potential member in another state, have her or him complete the forms, snail mail them back to the site for signatures, and then, finally, mail those originals to us, the Sponsor.  We have to then turn around and review those documents, sign off and mail or hand-carry them to the state office. 

This system requires that we have members on board and ready to go MONTHS in advance of the start date of the project.  Many well-qualified candidates drop off because we have approached them way to early and they are still in school and not thinking in earnest about post-school, or they find another opportunity in the two or three months that pass by while we're collecting these orignial signatures!

If we, as a society, are able to make loans, provide tax payer-funded benefits such as food stamps, etc., given only an electronic signature, I would think that CNCS could accept the same.  This would afford great efficiencies in the recruitment process and allow Sponsor much more time to chose the right folks for the job.

Streamline the process ----- do not make the proposal or the reporting so onerous as to discourage inventive thought and new players. Think about new models of matching such as cost sharing and pooled funds.

In order to market AmeriCorps grants to a broader range of possible applicants, the Georgia Commission for Service and Volunteerism would like to suggest that CNCS consider changes to the AmeriCorps planning grant process. If state commissions had more flexibility to award planning grants, the full AmeriCorps grant application, review and award process could be greatly improved for organizations that have not previously participated in national service programming. The intermediate step of planning grants would lead to a higher success rate for new programs, faster start ups, less risk, and higher quality programming. 

One of the limitations of the current planning grant process is the timing of the grants. State commissions need the flexibility to award planning grants at different times of the year rather than to lump them all into the AmeriCorps program application and review schedule. The planning grant applications could also be simplified. These and other structural changes would provide state commissions and new applicants an opportunity to incubate new AmeriCorps programs as we scale up the number of sub grantees and member slots in coming years.  

The budget process seems overly complicated, tying the number of members to the amount that can be requested does not seem to work very well. 

The Georgia Commission for Service and Volunteerism supports the concept of fixed amount grants and believes that their use will both simplify grantmaking for state commissions and their sub grantees, and encourage smaller non profits and others to participate in national service programs. We suggest for fixed amount grants that flow through state commissions, such as AmeriCorps*State Competitive and Formula grants, some means of coordination between CNCS and states will be necessary. State commissions should have a role in determining whether their applicants and sub grantees for AmeriCorps*State grants qualify for fixed amount grants. We suggest a quarterly draw on the grant rather than providing the full amount of the grant at the beginning of the grant period. And we suggest that sub grantees that are awarded fixed amount grants should be required to meet some minimal requirements or benchmarks each quarter to keep the fixed amount grant status. A sub grantee should be in full compliance with all CNCS and state commission grant requirements to be eligible for a fixed amount grant. Including such a requirement in the rules governing fixed amount grants will enhance the monitoring capacity of state commissions by creating a new and attractive incentive for sub grantees to maintain 100 percent full compliance status.

Many Georgia AmeriCorps sub grantees operate programs that combine full and part time members. If fixed amount grants are only made available to those sub grantees that have full time members exclusively, several of our current programs would not qualify to participate strictly on those grounds. Most of the Georgia sub grantees that enroll part time members do provide their members with stipends that are at or near the pro rated full time amount. Therefore, their overall program costs per MSY are not much different from programs that only enroll full time members.

From an operational standpoint, fixed amount grants offer our state commission the prospect of reduced burden in the area of financial management and that will be a crucial factor in our effectiveness as our portfolio of grants grows in coming years. However, we do not envision use of fixed amount grants for all of our AmeriCorps sub grantees. Rather, we suggest CNCS draft rules that will permit both fixed amount and cost reimbursement grants, at least for a transition period. 

For new programming contained in Serve America Act, we suggest that the fixed amount grant process will be an essential component in state commission management. An example could be the Serve America Fellowships. Using the fixed amount grant procedure for Serve America Fellowships will greatly enhance the ability of state commissions to provide national service programming in rural areas by attracting small non profits and local governments that have reduced organizational capacity and may not be a good fit for larger programs such as AmeriCorps.

The US Agency for International Development has made extensive use of fixed amount grants in certain countries. Many of these have gone to NGOs. These have not necessarily been grants that required a large grantee contribution, as the Corporation anticipates, but some may have been of this type. They were used for essentially the same reason CNCS is considering using them:  fledgeling NGOs in developing and transitional countries often do not have the capacity for detailed cost accounting, much as smaller nonprofits in the US do not.  I recommend spending some time interviewing officials at USAID who were involved in building NGO capacity in countries, such as South Africa in the early immediately pre- and post-apartheid era, Central and Eastern Europe, and the former Soviet Union, about their experience. There may also be situations today where such grants are being made.  It would be interesting to learn how these grants worked: E.G. how costs  were estimated, how disbursement milestones were established, what documentation was required to trigger disbursements, etc.

Welcome to the "Achieving Growth through Simpler Grantmaking" discussion forum.  We look forward to your thoughts and ideas!