597 24 26018 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/f1ba1088ba0b32357852ed8bc90b04d2.pdf 93f7a8d026f0d9bde65e11d5c29bb2b9 PDF Text Text • . • .• ! Michigan· Conimunity Service Commission Agenda September 12, 1997 ~.­ Michigan Community Service commission George W. Romney Building -2nd Floor Lansing 1:30 p.m. - 4:30p.m. I. Welcome and Introductions - Chairperson Engler II. Review of June 6, 1997 Minutes- Chairperson Engler IlL Program Updates a. b. c. d. e. f. ~ Michigan CARES - Paula Kaiser Michigan's AmeriCorps- Daphne Wells Governor's Service Awards and Make a Difference Day- Lindy Reurink Learn & Serve Michigan - Angelia Salas Budget and Administration- Garry Gross Quest Project- Angelia Salas IV. Executive Director's Report - Frank Dirks v: Commission Initiatives (Status) a. b. c. VI. National State Service Commission Network - Frank Dirks Connect Michigan - Frank Dirks America's Promise in Michigan- Paula Kaiser New Business (Action Items) a. b. c. d. Volunteer Investment Grants RFP - Frank Dirks Adopt Michigan - Lindy Reurink Forest Cleanup - Lindy Reurink Terry Pruitt's New Role - Michelle Engler, Terry Pruitt VII. Public Comment Next Cgmmission meeting will be December 5, 1997 in Lansing. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-09-12_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49899 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-09-12 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/fcffbaccced473ce08153fcdb9a4e2a8.pdf 7af65133b583a877d56aad2b033fc967 PDF Text Text Michigan is a state of many natural and man-made resources. We enjoy more than 3,000 miles of coast line, more than 9,600 miles of state highway, 96 state parks, and 6 million acres of public forest. Our beaches, forests , parks , and roadways provide us with a multitude of vacation , recreation , and siteseeing opportunities. As Michiganians, we can help take care of these The Adopt A Part of Michigan campaign is sponsored by the Michigan Community Service Commission , a division of the Michigan Jobs Commission . For more information on the Adopt A Part of Michigan campaign , call 1-800-987·6543 or contact: Michigan Community Service Commisison Michigan Jobs Commission George W. Romney Building , 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 resources by participating in organized cleanup efforts to Adopt· A maintain and enhance these resources. Through the R El:rt .Of Adopt A Forest, Adopt A Park and Adopt A Highway programs, Michigan thousands of Michigan citizens have adopted a part of Michigan . TDD assistance available through Their efforts have been remarkable , but there 's more the Michigan Relay Center at 1-800-649-3777. work to be done. This is why This brochure is also available in braille. the Michigan Community Service Commission , in partnership with the Adopt A Forest, Adopt A Park and Adopt A Highway programs, has established the Adopt A Part of Michigan campaign . If you , your company, religious organization , or civic/service club are inte rested in finding out more information on any of the adoption programs , call 1-800·987-6543. Printed under authority of Executive Order XXXX-XX.Total copies: 75,000; total cost: $x,xxx; unit cost $.xx. The State of Michigan does not discriminate onthe basis of race, national origin , sex, religion, age or disability in employment or the provision of services. Sponsored by the Michigan Community Service Commission September 1997 �., ·1 ' 1 800 98 7 6543 ' ~ ~ rJ) ~ a) ~ Michigan enjoys an 0 abundance of u. < ~ Q 0 1J < forest land that is enjoyed by hikers, bird watchers and hunters. Every year tons of trash is illegally dumped in Michigan's forests . The goal of the Adopt A Forest program is to enhance the enjoyment of public forest lands by eliminating illegal dumping and to increase the awareness of recycling opportunities for waste materials found . ADOPT·A·PARK co Q. < ~ Q 0 1J < Every year, millions of visitors enjoy camping , hiking and sightseeing in Michigan state parks . The Adopt A Park program gives volunteers the chance to support the wonderful natural heritage of our state park system . Volunteers are partnered with their favorite park for a two-year period. Projects include stewardship , park beautification , construction and special events. the Michigan Department of Natural Michigan Department of Natural Resources , the Michigan Resources . Michigan United Conservation Club, and many private organizations . co ,.C This program was established by the Quality, the U.S. Forest Service , the ADOM-A-H IG HWAY ~ The program is sponsored jointly by Department of Environmental ~ ...~ I < ~ Q 0 1J < M DOT Millions of miles are traveled on Michigan's highways every year. Since 1990 the Adopt A Highway program volunteers have been cleaning up thousands of miles of highway. Groups adopt a certain section of the highway and are provided with trash bags . Trash pickup is provided by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The Adopt A Highway program is sponsored by the Michigan Department of Transportation . � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-09-12_Adopt-A-Part-Of-MI-Pamphlet Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting Adopt A Part Of Michigan pamphlet Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting Adopt A Part Of Michigan pamphlet. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49898 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-09-12 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/88e5ed80d65fbc0193a70889aa7974ba.pdf ff943554d87097bffaf42a85804ed1a0 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN ~ ~ JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 S. Ca pitol Ave . George W. Rom ney Bldg., 4th Floor Lans ing , Michig an 48913 Te lephon e (517 ) 335-4295 FAX (5 17) 373-4977 Chairperson Michelle Eng ler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Administration Michigan Community Service Commission RE: Administrative Issues DATE: September 10, 1997 ~. t1. J .l.Y \ Attached is the Commission's Comparative Financial Statement for the month ending August 31, 1997 and the financial statement for the New Fiscal Year 98 budget. The new budget includes our new Volunteer Investment Grants and the increase in General Fund support for the Commission. Also included in new work project funds of $125,000 that have been added to our previous year Volunteer Awareness Campaign. As you can see on the current Fiscal Year statement, I have adjusted the Michigan CARES budgets to reflect amendments to the CARES grants. These amendments moved a small amount of the travel, meeting, and printing money to the CARES grant. During the summer, the Commission hosted many trainings and meetings for all our programs and initiated numerous printing requests. Based on the fact that there is only one month left in the current fiscal year, the Commission will once again be able to carry into the next fiscal year funds to support our programs. We will be on budget in State General Fund support. I explained at the last Commission meeting, this year we will expend all our Federal Operational Grant money by the end of this Fiscal Year. I have been in contact with the Corporation for National Service and they are confident that we will be allowed to shorten our grant period to October 31, 1997 and they will also allow us to use $30,000 to cover any expenses during this time frame. Please take a minute to look over the Financial Statements and jot down any questions or comments that you might have. I will be glad to answer any questions at the Commission meeting. I can also be reached at the Commission during the week at (517) 373-8028. Attachments A Division of the Mich igan Jobs Commission ~it �Michigan Community Service Commission Comparative Financial Statement/FY 98 For October 1, 1997 STATE FUNDS GFIGP PRIVATE & FOUNDATION FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS Volunteer Awareness YTO Actual Operational Budge! YTO Actual Budge! 1 ,450 ,000 0 1 ,450 ,000 0 125 ,000 40 000 125 ,000 40 000 284 , 586 Prior Year Carryover Total Revenues 1 ,450 000 1 450 000 185 000 165 000 P-OAT YIP Actual Budgo! YTO Actual Budge! Learn & Serve AmeriCorps YTO Actual Budgo! YTO Actual Budge! Michigan CARES·2 MiciOgon CARES YTO Actual Budge! YTO Aduol · Budge! YTO Actual Budge! State EO gr11nt Budge! YIP Aduol REVEN..es Current Year Income - YTOAc1uals TOTALS logiallllvo Bldoal 264 ,566 0 60 ,000 20 000 80 ,000 20 000 4 ,328 , 427 0 0 0 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 100 000 0 0 100 000 21 429 21 429 0 8 .250 0 8.250 0 5.000 0 5.000 8 ,418 ,013 194 679 2,089 , 586 184 879 284.586 284 . 586 100,000 100 000 4 .328 .427 0 150 000 1 50 000 100 000 100 000 21 42e 21 429 8 . 250 8.250 5.000 5.000 6 612 692 2 284,265 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,328 ,427 0 0 0 134 , 736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.463.163 9 , 929 0 4 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 458 ,069 145 ,000 0 0 0 0 43 . 500 60 ,000 0 0 8 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 ,800 34 ,400 0 SUI-GRANTS Operatk:ms Sub-Grants 1,000 ,000 0 Total Sub-Grants 1.000 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.328 .427 0 134.736 325 ,580 25,000 9 , 400 0 0 0 0 120 ,560 120 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Program Sub-Grants 0 0 0 5 , 463 , 163 ADMIN. EXPENSES Salaries & Benefits Admin/MJC/Indlrect Phones/Copier Consutlants Evaluation/Survey Outreach Training Travel Computer/Off Equip . Meetings Wkshps/ Conferences Awards Materials/Guides Printing/Mailing Total Admin Expenses TOTAL EXPEN?ITURES REMAINING RJI'VS 20 ,000 0 15 ,000 0 4,588 0 4,000 0 46.434 450.000 0 0 0 0 0 2,500 20 ,000 6 7, 500 0 0 0 0 0 1,450,000 25, 000 23 ,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,000 0 5 ,000 3 ,500 0 0 41,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ,000 7.000 0 0 25 .000 0 0 0 0 0 185 .000 0 284 .060 0 16!i.OOO 1 , 450 ,000 0 0 0 0 165 .000 284 .060 0 284 ,5 88 0 47,600 7 , 000 2 , 400 1 , 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 , 000 0 0 0 0 100 .000 0 4 .328 .427 100 .000 100 ,000 Federal and Private Funds are estimates based upon current grants and information received by the commission . Carry over funds will be adjusted after Fiscal Year 97 close out and new grant money will be added as they are received . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 , 400 3 , 396 2 , 280 3 , 238 0 1 , 450 2.500 0 0 5 .000 0 40 ,000 20 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 500 0 15.264 100.000 21 .429 0 8 . 250 150.000 100.000 21 .429 0 8.250 150 ,000 0 0 0 100 ,000 21 ,429 0 0 0 0 0 30 , 796 0 15 ,000 0 0 20 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ,005 0 0 0 1,245 0 5 ,000 0 0 0 62 .871 16 , 738 0 5 .000 0 8 , 250 5 .000 0 5 .000 32 ,450 83.679 0 0 1.013.103 0 6.476.266 0 2 , 284 ,2 65 �Michigan Community Service Commission Comparative Financial Statement/FY 97 As of August 31, 1997 STATE FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS PRIVATE & FOUNDATION FUNDS TOTALS GF/GP Budget YTD Adual Volunleer Awareness !luo!Jo! YTDActual Opero1iooal Budgot YTD Adulll P-DAT Budgot YTD Adulll Current Year Income Prior Year Carryover 175,700 175 ,700 100,000 100 ,000 100,795 20 000 3 , 366 , 428 107.676 3 ,386 , 428 107 .676 0 274 ,000 152 306 0 116929 0 0 274 ,000 152 306 0 0 100,795 20.000 0 0 284 ,586 90 000 160,000 0 284,586 90 000 160 ,000 0 116929 6.250 8.250 85 790 Total RaYenues 175 700 175 700 100 000 100 000 374 566 374,566 120 795 120 795 3 494 104 3 494 104 160 000 160 000 426 306 426 306 116 929 116 929 8.250 8.250 85 790 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,494 , 104 129 ,642 129,642 192,265 192 , 265 0 0 0 3 ,494 , 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 500 95 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 494 104 129 642 129 642 192 265 192 265 95 500 95 500 0 0 0 145,000 140,000 2,500 0 2 ,000 17 ,300 143,413 104 ,013 326 0 0 9 , 724 0 0 61 , 100 0 0 0 50 , 762 0 38 , 262 52 , 056 9 , 929 0 0 0 0 0 9,873 4,000 0 0 6 ,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AmeriCorps Budget YTD Adual Leam & Serve Bldqe! YTD Adual Mictjgsn CARES Budgot YTD AdU81 Michigan CARES-2 Budgot YTD Ac1ual legisla1ive Bkfesl Budget YTD Actual Stale ED goanl YTD Adual Budgot Budael YTD Ac1uals 85 790 4,481 ,509 580 951 4 , 481 , 509 580 9 5 1 85 790 5 062 460 5 062 460 0 0 3 ,616 ,011 95,500 3 ,616 ,011 95,500 0 3 911 511 3 911 511 0 366 , 217 147 ,000 160,541 24 ,000 f'IE\IB'I.S SUJ.GRANTS Program Sub·Grants Operations Sub-Grants Total Sub-Grants 0 3 494 104 ADMIN. EXPENSES Salaries & Benefjts Admin/MJC/Indirect Consultants 160,526 3 ,000 142 , 161 2 , 346 20 ,000 16 ,000 Evaluation/Survey Training Travel Computer/ Off Equip. 0 0 5 , 174 5 ,000 6,554 1 , 772 MeeUngs 18 ,12 0 0 8 ,000 6 , 576 8 ,000 0 0 18,120 0 35 ,414 0 0 0 0 37 , 332 4,034 0 507 0 6,075 3 , 129 0 15 764 46 , 160 7 , 115 2,400 1 ,000 0 1 , 000 0 2 . 000 0 0 37.880 8 , 000 0 20.837 7 ,500 7 , 500 0 52 786 Total Admin Expenses 175 700 152 635 100 000 61 533 374 566 282 444 120 795 77 412 TOTAL EXPEMlfT\JRES 175 700 152 635 ~:>00 61 533 374 566 282 444 120795 77412 Wkshps/Conferencas Materials/Guides Printing/Mailing REMAINING R.Jti)S 22 ,665 38 ,467 92 , 142 125 43 , 363 0 0 0 0 0 3 494 104 0 0 0 0 0 4 ,000 0 0 0 53,573 36 , 457 0 22 , 339 0 32,648 12 ,559 12 ,556 0 4 ,016 0 3,570 0 0 12045 234,041 141 687 426,306 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 , 000 0 7 , 600 0 900 7 , 156 0 2.500 482 5,990 0 678 0 30358 3 494 104 160 000 0 253 4 , 642 0 18 , 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 39,355 0 0 0 79 ,646 25 ,520 64 ,655 22 ,658 33 ,648 102.911 337 ,632 106 ,361 88 , 367 8 , 253 49 , 891 37 , 510 19 , 892 50,435 17,119 3 , 695 37.279 65 790 75 533 1 150 949 756 434 85 790 75 533 5 062 460 4 667 945 0 34,679 0 0 0 0 0 7,005 46,111 1.500 0 1.245 94.632 21.429 8.250 286 897 116 929 139,409 0 95 500 21 ,429 36,178 0 0 0 6.250 8,250 M.C.S.C., in cooperation with the Capital Area Community Foundation, also receives additional support from private sources to help offset the cost of the Govemo(s Community Service Awards Program and the AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. The Federal Operational Admin/MJC/Indirect of $t04,013 is for the quarter ending June 31 , 1997. 10,257 103 , 753 394,515 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-09-12_Administrative-Issues Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting administrative issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting administrative issues. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49897 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-09-12 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/4c57182c73ca51541a25f668c156dd06.pdf 2e2a480497e2ee171ab9b4397c691bdc PDF Text Text . 1997- 98 Michigan's AmeriCorps Programs AMERICORPS MILES: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS AmeriCorps MILES will partner with Habitat for Humanity, the Marquette County Commission on Aging, the Alger-Marquette Intermediate School District, the Girl Scout Council, the Marquette United Way, the Marquette Volunteer Center, and the Kellogg Youth Initiative Partnerships to develop senior programs and intergenerational programs that will connect youth and seniors. AmeriCorps MILES will involve 12 full-time members to support the implementation of Summit goals and strengthen the links between community-based and national service programs in Marquette. The program year begins in November 1997. Contact Person: Martha Parks AmeriCorps MILES: Michigan's AmeriCorps Lutheran Social Services 1009 West Ridge Street, Suite A Marquette, MI 49855 (906) 226-7 410 AMERICORPS OAKLAND: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS AmeriCorps Oakland will enroll 37 one-year part-time and three two-year part-time AmeriCorps members to provide reading/literacy and life skills training for youth and families in Pontiac. The program will provide year-round support for the youth through learning and educational programs. The program will also teach Character Education that focuses on respect, caring, trustworthiness, fairness, responsibility, and citizenship. AmeriCorps Oakland corpsmembers will also conduct workshops for parents to encourage parents to read with their children at home. The program year begins in September 1997. Contact Person: Joyce Esterberg/ Carol Anne Ketelsen, Program Coordinators AmeriCorps Oakland: Michigan's AmeriCorps Oakland University 373 West Vandenberg Hall Rochester, MI 48309 (810) 370-3213 �AMERICORPS YOUTH EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves five full-time members in the promotion of volunteerism among youth and to also encourage youth to participate in community problem-solving. The program will identify and develop volunteer opportunities for 500 at-risk youth in Highland Park. These Michigan's AmeriCorps members will work with community agencies to get youth involved in tutoring and mentoring, homework and reading projects, latchkey programs, and HIVI AIDS education and outreach. The corpsmembers will also support and recognize youth volunteer efforts. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Fay Flowers AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service: Michigan's AmeriCorps American Red Cross Development Office P.O. Box 33351 Detroit, MI 48232-5351 (313) 833-2632 CARING TOGETHER ELDERSERVE: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Caring Together Elderserve will enroll22 full-time members to provide 7 ,000 hours of service to 1,200 elderly metropolitan Detroit residents which will increase their ability to remain living independently. Services will include transportation, home maintenance, food and medicine delivery, social support, and health assistance. The program will also engage 1,000 volunteers to provide service to the elderly. The program year begins in November 1997. Contact Person: Mary Campbell, Program Director Caring Together Elderserve: Michigan's AmeriCorps Ecumenical Project S.A.V.E. 1270 Waterman Detroit, MI 48209-2298 (313) 831-7263 �CITIZEN'S HEALTH SERVICE CORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's ArneriCorps will enroll 55 full-time and 15 part-time members (this includes five one-year part-time education award only ArneriCorps members) to serve in the FIA county offices of Berrien, Cass and St. Joseph, Genesee, Gogebic, Kalamazoo, Kent, Mackinac, Newaygo, and Wayne. The corpsmembers work to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. Corpsmembers in this program facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, provide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves faceto-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks. The program year begins in January 1998. Contact Person: Bob Parks, Program Director Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Family Independence Agency 235 South Grand Avenue, Suite 415 Lansing, MI 48913 (517) 335-6420 COORDINATING LITERACY FOR AMERICA'S STUDENTS' SUCCESS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves three full-time and 20 part-time members to improve the reading and writing performance of children kindergarten through fifth grade through a tutoring and mentoring program which utilizes parent and community-based volunteers. The program plans to increase volunteer and parent participation in the literacy of children, establish partnerships between institutes of higher education and the community, and promote civic-mindedness and community service among those involved in the program. ArneriCorps members will be placed at elementary school sites to provide reading and writing tutoring, incentives for reading, and parent workshops. The program starts in September 1997. Contact Person: Margaret Moore-Hart/ Barbara Diamond, Program Coordinators Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps Eastern Michigan University Department of Teacher Education 234 Boone Hall Ypsilanti, MI 48197 (313) 487-3260 �COPPER COUNTRY AMERICORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Copper Country AmeriCorps program will operate out of Baraga, Houghton, and Keweenaw counties in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This program involves 16 full-time members and four part-time members, through its Teen Initiative, to engage area teens in educational programs, leadership training, mentoring programs, and employment opportunities. Through the Family Initiative, the program will recruit teens for Friends of the Elderly, a volunteer program that serves the elderly, and will facilitate parent education, provide child care, and introduce youth to the environmental history of the community. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Rod Liirnatainen Copper County AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Baraga-Houghton-Keweenaw Child Development Board 700 Park A venue Houghton, MI 49931 (906) 482-3663 DETROIT'S ACADEMIC SUCCESS PROJECT: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Detroit Academic Success Program will involve 25 full-time members to provide in school tutoring to low achieving elementary school students in five elementary schools in the Empowerment Zone to increase academic achievement and reading comprehension. The members will also develop after-school tutoring labs for 200 neighborhood youth. In addition, the program will develop community-wide service-learning projects to promote civic responsibility. The program year begins in November 1997. Contact Person: Darold Gholston, Program Coordinator Detroit's Academic Success Project: Michigan's AmeriCorps 74 West Forest Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 833-8353 �DREAMCATCHERS VOLUNTEER PROGRAM: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Dreamcatcher Volunteer Program focuses on providing independent living assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities in four counties in northern Michigan (Emmet, Charlevoix, Otsego, and Cheboygan). The program will involve two full-time and eight part-time members to increase the community's knowledge and understanding of individuals with developmental disabilities by involving persons with developmental disabilities more directly in community activities and by developing a circle of friends for (and with) the individual. The members will be matched with developmentally disabled individuals and will work to generate volunteers from the community to serve as activity companions for these individuals. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Susan Witt, Program Director Dreamcatchers Volunteer Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps Northern Michigan Community Mental Health 800 Livingston Boulevard, Suite 2B Gaylord, MI 49735 (517) 732-6292 FITZGERALD'S AMERICORPS (FOCUS): MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS FITZGERALD'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY UNITY AND SERVICE Fitzgerald's AmeriCorps involves 10 full-time and four part-time members to engage 360 students in community service projects and encourage service-learning as an interactive way to teach problem solving, cooperative work/play techniques, and to define community needs. FOCUS will also design and implement programs that will involve 200 students in academic support, educational, and recreational activities. The program will also recruit 500 community volunteers to participate in community service activities and projects. The program year begins in January 1998. Contact Person: Judy Anderson, Program Supervisor Fitzgerald's AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps 23500 Ryan Road Warren, MI 48091 (810) 759-1161 �FOCUSING ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Focus on Children and Youth is an Education Award Only program that involves 10 part-tirne .members to address the public safety and education needs of children and youth in Gratiot county. The program will provide community workshops, recruit, train, and place literacy tutors, and conduct after school clubs to enhance children's literacy development. In the area of public safety, the program will partner with the Red Cross to assist juvenile offenders in discovering a sense of civic responsibility. They will also partner with the Alma City Police and the Alma Community Education Program to provide educational and recreational activities for area youth through a summer park program. Contact Person: Anne Marie Ritz, Program Director Focusing on Children and Youth: Michigan's AmeriCorps Alma College 614 West Superior Street Alma, MI 48801 (517) 463-7366 GENESEE COUNTY AMERICORPS PROGRAM: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Genesee County AmeriCorps Program (GCAP) will enroll 15 full-time and 32 one-year part-time AmeriCorps members to serve at-risk youth and children by working to improve academic outcomes and to address health care concerns. Specific objectives of the program include: improving math and reading scores through tutoring; improving social skills, self-esteem, and community involvement through mentoring and service-learning opportunities; and improving children's health through referrals, home visits, immunization reviews, and transportation to medical visits. The program year begins in September 1997. Contact Person: Leisa Richardson, Program Manager Genesee County AmeriCorps Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps Urban League of Flint 5005 Cloverlawn Drive Flint, MI 48504 (810) 789-7611 �GRAND RAPIDS SERVICE CORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Grand Rapids Service Corps (GRSC) will involve 23 full-time members from diverse backgrounds for a challenging year of full-time community service. The GRSC, in cooperation with community and neighborhood organizations, will develop and implement service projects in order to build a stronger community and tap into the idealism and energy of corpsmembers to develop leadership skills, meet community needs, and generate a strong sense of civic responsibility. Grand Rapids Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps is committed to having an impact on children in neighborhoods with disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates. The teams will organize and facilitate homework and recreation clubs for school children, an Adopt-A-Senior project for 30 elderly neighborhood residents who wish to continue living in their own homes, a violence-prevention program at Buchanan Elementary School (which has been plagued by playground and neighborhood conflicts), and neighborhood clean-up and restoration programs. The program year starts in September 1997. Contact Person: Oluatoyin Adegbite Moore, Program Director Grand Rapids Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps 161 Ottawa NW, Suite 107E Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 451-9445 MICHIGAN CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps is an Education Award Only program whose primary mission is to conserve, preserve, and enhance Michigan's natural resources. This program involves 150 full-time and 50 part-time members that will operate out of state parks and will work on the new construction and renovation of existing buildings; the new development and renovation of trails, boardwalks, stairways, erosion control structures; seasonal cleanup activities; tree and brush cutting, and landscaping. In addition to and as a result of these activities, members will receive training in job and life skills that will allow them to transition into the workforce. Contact Person: Steve Philips Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Michigan Department of Natural Resources Parks and Recreation Division P.O. Box 30257 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373-7849 �MICHIGAN COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Michigan Communities in Schools (MCIS) will involve six full-time members and four part-time members to bring together community resources, parents, and schools in order to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life. MCIS helps local communities to coordinate existing resources and reposition needed services into the schools to best meet the needs of youth. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Debra Holmes-Garrison Michigan Communities in Schools: Michigan's AmeriCorps 143 Bostwick Level G2, Suite 70 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 771 -3939 MICHIGAN'S GROUNDWATER STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP) will provide information and technical assistance to homeowners, farmers , and tenants about identifying and reducing the risks to groundwater contamination. Twenty full-time AmeriCorps members will be placed throughout the state to assist · landowners with the completion of three environmental awareness tools (Farm*A *Syst, Horne* A *Syst, and Field* A *Syst). The members will also allocate MGSP cost-share funds to implement agricultural stewardship practices, to train volunteers to complete the Horne* A *Syst tool, and to coordinate with local groundwater teams to develop groundwater stewardship activities based on local priorities. Contact Person: Matt Schnepp, Program Director Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps Michigan Department of Agriculture 1405 South Harrison Road, Room 101 East Lansing, MI 48823-5243 (517) 337-6701 x.1243 �The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program will involve 20 full-time and 50 part-time members to strengthen the social development of children and families in Detroit neighborhoods through: direct services, such as violence prevention workshops and community service projects, provided to at least 500 youth in after-school and summer programs; increasing access to health education and health promotion services for at least 300 children and family members; and enabling 100 residents to gain access to jobs and start new businesses. The program year begins in January 1998. Contact Person: Carmen Wells, Program Coordinator Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps 405 Fisher Building 3011 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 872-4369 NONVIOLENCE KIDS, ORGANIZATIONS, PARENTS, AND SCHOOLS (KOPS): MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS Nonviolence Kids, Organizations, Parents, and Schools (Nonviolence KOPS) is a collaborative which enhances the existing New Detroit Coalition's Youth Nonviolence Training Program which is designed to reduce the level of crime, violence, and fear in seven of Detroit's elementary and middle schools by making those schools safe havens and involving youth in conflict resolution and violence prevention efforts. Nonviolence KOPS will involve 15 full-time and eight part-time members to facilitate human and community development by providing opportunities for conflict management, conflict resolution, reconciliation, intercultural approaches, and cross-community efforts. The program will have an impact on the lives of 5,000 Detroit Public School students and 3,000 other individuals. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Alicia Renee Farris Nonviolence K.O.P.S.: New Detroit, Inc. 645 Griswold, Suite 2900 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 496-2000 Michigan's AmeriCorps �RURAL STRATEGIC ACTION INITIATIVE: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Rural Strategic Action Initiative (RSAI) involves 18 full-time corpsmembers in three rural communities, Oceana, Lake, and Mason counties. The corpsmembers will partner with teachers, high school students, and community volunteers to mentor and provide tutoring to 520 elementary and secondary students. In addition, the corpsmembers will work with community volunteers to perform numerous service projects throughout the tri-county area during the service year. The program year begins in September 1997. Contact Person: Anne Soles, Program Director Rural Strategic Action Initiative: Michigan's AmeriCorps American Youth Foundation- Miniwanca 8845 West Garfield Road Shelby, MI 49455 (616) 861-2262 SAGINAW AMERICORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Saginaw ArneriCorps program, in partnership with local schools and the community, is committed to providing educational support services that will help to meet the needs of students and embrace the ideals of volunteerism and service. Fifteen full-time Arn~riCorps members will tutor third grade students who score below standard levels in math and reading, serve teens who are in their first trimester of pregnancy and are at-risk of dropping out of school, and offer prevention-of-gang-activities services for middle school students. The program starts in September 1997. Contact Person: Sam Watkins, Program Director Saginaw AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps Saginaw Public Schools 550 Millard Street Saginaw, MI 48607 (517) 759-2219 �VOLUNTEER CENTERS OF MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS This program involves 31 full-time members and 40 part-time members that will engage youth in community service activities. The program will develop reading support programs for local elementary schools and create 108 new reading programs. The program will partner with local agencies to support local initiatives and address three of the Five Fundamental Resources for Children and Youth as follow up to the Presidents Summit. 1) "An ongoing relationship with a caring, responsible adult"- Corpsmembers will develop relationships with youth through school based service learning activities, advisory groups, and mentoring programs. 2) "Marketable skills through effective education"- VCM AmeriCorps will provide mentoring, technology trainings, develop service-learning opportunities, and assist with SchoolTo-Work initiatives. 3) "An opportunity to give back"- VCM AmeriCorps will develop youth service opportunities with partnering agencies and local schools. The program will also mobilize 13,500 volunteers. The program year beins in January 1998. Contact Person: W ASHTENA W Lara Taylor, Program Director Volunteer Centers of Michigan's AmeriCorps: Michigan's AmeriCorps 31 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824-1022 (517) 353-9277 FAMILY SUPPORT NETWORK: MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS The Washtenaw Family Support Network program will involve two full-time and six part-time Michigan's AmeriCorps members in providing specialized child care to more than 100 infants and toddlers from homeless families; assist more than 20 families, through child care, to increase the parents' opportunities to participate in and gain access to education, job training, or other services that would increase the parents' capacity to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The program will also engage a minimum of 35 homeless parents in programming designed to increase their competence in supporting their child's development. The program starts in October 1997. Contact Person: Charles Kieffer/ Lisa Potti Washtenaw Family Support Network: Michigan's AmeriCorps SOS Community Crisis Center 101 South Huron Street Ypsilanti, MI 48197 (313) 485-8730 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-09-12_1997-98-Michigans-AmeriCorps-Programs Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting 1997-98 Michigan's AmeriCorps Programs Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-09-12 commission meeting 1997-98 Michigan's AmeriCorps Programs. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49896 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-09-12 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/544efd6c4c2cb3c7b946cce6e0446da1.pdf 3076ca4dc320d0637bd86d459e35c479 PDF Text Text YEAR FOUR FUNDING- MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS ' Funding Request FfEcost Ff PT-1YR PT- 2YR B-H-K Child Development Board: Copper Country AmeriCorps $226,991 $11,350 18 4 0 Grand Rapids Service Corps $232,095 $9,284 25 0 0 Norther Mich. Community Mental Health: Dreamcatchers Volunteer Program $71,194 $11,866 2 8 0 SOS Crisis Center: Washtenaw Family Support Network $52,990 $10,598 2 6 0 Van Buren Public Health De~artment: Health Forward Mentoring roject $113,091 $11,309 10 0 0 Youth Volunteer Corps of Muskegon County: Volunteer Muskegon! $95,835 $11,979 8 0 0 Subtotal $792,196 $10,705 65 18 0 American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative $227,701 $12,650 18 0 0 Caring Together Elderserve $246,292 $11,195 22 0 0 Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps $294,794 $9,826 25 10 0 F~erald $139,433 $13,943 10 0 0 Michigan Nonprofit Association: Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps $363,331 $9,820 27 0 40 Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES $156,657 $13,055 12 0 0 Subtotal $1,428,208 $11,071 114 10 40 TOTAL FORMULA REQUEST $2,220,404 $10,938 179 28 40 AVERAGE FORMULA PROGRAM COST $11,406 Legal Applicant/ Program Name New Formula Formula Renewal V'~ Public Schools: US AmeriCorps New Competitive American Red Cross: AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service $56,297 $11,259 5 0 0 Eastern Mich~an University: CLASS: Coor inating Literacy for America's Students' Success $276,857 $10,648 3 46 0 Michigan Ddrartment of Agriculture: Michigan's round water Stewardship Program $225,415 $11,271 20 0 0 Michigan Communities in Schools $95,820 $11,978 6 4 0 New Detroit, Inc.: Nonviolence KOPS $259,226 $12,961 20 0 0 $222,870 $11,578 0 37 3 $259,080 $12,954 10 20 0 Oakland University: ~eriCorps Oakland I "Olivet College: Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County �YEAR FOUR FUNDING- MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS • - Legal Applicant/ Program Name Funding Request FTEcost FT PT-1YR PT- 2YR Saginaw Public Schools: Saginaw AmeriCorps $254,916 $12,746 20 0 0 United Way of Genesee & La~eer County: Genesee County AmeriCorps rogram $305,792 $9,266 20 26 0 University of Michigan: Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program $402,798 $8,951 20 50 0 Wa&e County Neighborhood Legal Services (W NLS): WCNLS AmeriCorps Community Service Program $180,532 $10,316 15 5 0 Young Detroit Builders: Detrmt YouthBuild AmeriCorps $232,578 $13,290 0 35 0 Subtotal $2,772,181 $11,034 139 223 3 Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps $271,099 $8,342 30 5 0 United Way Community Services: Detroit's Academic Success Program $315,206 $12,608 25 0 0 Subtotal $586,305 55 5 0 TOTAL COMPETITIVE REQUEST $3,358,486 $10,878 194 228 3 AVERAGE COMPETITIVE PROGRAM COST $11,298 Competitive Renewal Education Award Only Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth $ 2,750 $1,000 0 1 9 Department of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps $0 $0 150 50 0 Subtotal $2,750 $15 150 51 9 TOTAL AVERAGE PROGRAM COST $10,573 Total Members Requested � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Yr-4-Funding-MI-AmeriCorps Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting year 4 funding Michigan's AmeriCorps Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting year 4 funding Michigan's AmeriCorps. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49895 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/479c3fa0b0c959ebb621bc36d4b9669b.pdf f29fe8b2c949076aa0385c74f9e9fc9d PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Ms. Julie F. Cummings Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48913 6380 Muirfield Ct. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48301 (W)313-871-8000 Fax: 313-874-4001 *Lovelight Foundation Mr. Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission Olds Plaza Building, 4th Floor 111 S. Capitol Avenue Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W)517 -335-4295 Fax:517-373-4977 5-28-97 Updated Ms. Judith Dunn 24404 Catherine Industrial Rd.,Ste. 308 Novi, Michigan 48375 (W) 810-344-6644 Fax: 810-344-8857 *Small business Ms. Karen Aldridge Mr. Arthur E. Ellis C. S. Mott Foundation 1200 Mott Foundation Building Flint, Michigan 48503 (W) 810-238-5651 Fax: 810-766-1753 *Mott Foundation Superintendent Michigan Department of Education Superintendent's Office P.O. Box 30008 Lansing, Michigan 48909 (W) 517-373-9235 Fax: 517-335-4565 *Michigan Department of Education Mr. Victor Begg Ms. Dorothy Johnson 1264 Club Drive Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302 (H)810-338-4180 (W)81 0-334-9225 Fax: 810-334-9225 *Small business Council of Michigan Foundation 1 South Harbor A venue, Ste. 3 P.O. Box 599 Grand Haven, Michigan 49417 (W) 616-842-7080 Fax: 616-842-1760 *Council of Michigan Foundation Dr. Mary Ellen Brandell Ms. Nancy Lenz 619 E. Chippewa Street Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858-1741 (W) 517-774-6448 Fax: 517-774-4250 *Central Michigan University Michigan National Bank 200 W. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (W)616-349-0549 Fax: 616-349-0550 *Michigan National Bank 1 �Ms. Denise Ilitch Lites Mr. Randy Neelis Olympia Development, Inc. 211 Woodward Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48201-3400 (W) 313-983-6577 Fax: 313-983-6049 *Olympia Development, Inc. Menominee School District 4701 Fifth St. Menominee, Michigan 49858 (W) 906-863-9951 Fax: 906-863-1171 *Menominee School District Sister Mary Martinez Mr. Donald Newport Madonna University 36600 Schoolcraft Livonia, Michigan 48150 (W)313-432-5300 Fax: 313-432-5393 *Madonna University Alpena Community College 666 Johnson Street Alpena, Michigan 49707 (W) 517-356-9021 ext. 276 Fax: 517-354-4316 *Alpena Community College Mr. James W. Muir Dr. Joel Orosz 1607 Philadelphia A venue, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49507 (H)616-243-3555 Fax: 616-459-9906 *Retiree and Senior volunteer W. K. Kellogg Foundation One Michigan Avenue East Battle Creek, Michigan 49017 (W)616-968-1611 Fax: 616-969-2693 *W. K. Kellogg Foundation Ms. Eunice M. Myles Ms. Amber J. Pritchard 22741 N. Kane Detroit, MI 48223 (W)810-350-0510 Fax: 810-350-0420 *Private business 710 Dutton Place Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 (W)616-796-3214 (H)616-344-5955 *College Student Ms. Kathleen Keen McCarthy Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. Supervisor of the Charter Township of Plymouth 42350 Ann Arbor Road Plymouth, Michigan 48170 (W)313-453-3840 Fax: 313-453-5680 *Charter Township of Plymouth 1469 Allendale Drive Saginaw, Michigan 48630 (W) 517-496-8827 Fax: 517-496-1657 *Dow Corning Corporation 2 �Ms. Meg Smith Mr. Raymond W. West RSVP of Monroe County 1623 W. Stems Road Temperance, Michigan 48182 (W)313-847-0582 Fax:313-847-1050 *RSVP of Monroe County United Way Community Services of Metro Detroit Labor Department 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 (W) 313-226-9215 Fax: 313-226-9210 *United Way Community Service of Metro Detroit Mr. Scott Smith 12848 Hannan Romulus, Michigan 48174 (H)313-941-4499 *College Student Mr. Michael J. Tate, Asst. Director of Extension for Governmental Affairs MSU-Dept. Of Agricultural and Extension Education 409 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1039 (W) 517-355-6580 Ext.203 Fax: 517-353-4981 *Michigan State University D. Sgt. Matthew Wesaw 3939 Mayapple Lane Lansing, MI 48911 (W)517 -484-6772 Fax: 517-484-5825 *Michigan State Police Ms. Geneva Jones Williams Executive Vice President and COO United Way Community Services of Metro Detroit 1212 Griswold Detroit, Michigan 48226-1899 (W) 313-226-9444 Fax: 313-226-9388 *United Way Community Services of Metro Detroit 3 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Roster Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting roster Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting roster. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49894 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c1913f90ff149a0727f02c2575f4a458.pdf bff0be6788a0868eebf57f487e36b54e PDF Text Text Join in Michigan's Promise Be a leader in workplace volunteerism. Help Michigan achieve its goals by: • • • Committing to involve 10% more of your workforce in workplace volunteer programs; • Program development consultation; • Resource guides and materials for developing employee volunteer programs; Assistance in targeting and coordinating local program activities with other nonprofit and private sector initiatives; Adopting a school, a community nonprofit, a senior center, hospital, or other agency in need ; Providing employee volunteer release time; • Creating an employee volunteer time bank so that volunteer mentors may use the volunteer release time of their colleagues to have more time with the young people with whom they work; Establishing or enhancing your own program for child mentoring, tutoring, health care awareness, and/or public safety. Reach for the Promise Businesses that join the Promise in Michigan will be eligible to receive: Establishing an annual day for employee service; • • The Benefits of Joining in the Promise • Public recognition for programs and activities; • Special recognition for exemplary models of community involvement. Reach for the Promise is a collaborative initiative of the Michigan Community Service Commission, the Michigan Nonprofit Association, the Council of Michigan Foundations, and the United Way of Michigan. Reach for the Promise is part of Connect Michigan. For more information on how to join businesses across Michigan in Reach for the Promise, call the Michigan Community Service Commission at (5 17) 335-4295. Not printed at taxpayer's expense. Keeping Michigan's Promise to our Youth Reach for the Promise is a volunteer initiative involving business, government, and nonprofit organizations to ensure that Michigan's youth are connected to the resources necessary for their healthy growth and productive development as citizens. �Reach for the Promise Reach for the Promise is Michigan 's effort to involve business in achieving the goal s of the national America's Promise campaign to reach two million youth by the year two thou sand . The only way we will solve our country's social problems is by community helping community and people helping people. The Goals of America's Promise Reach for the Promise • Developing ongoing relationships among youth and caring adults through tutoring, mentoring, and coaching. A challenge to businesses both large and small to invest their human as well as fin ancial resources in support of the Ameri ca's Promi se goals in Michigan's communiti es. • Creating safe and structured activities for youth during nonschool hours. Reach for the Promise George W. Romney • Ensuring a healthy start for children. A partnership th at brings together the public, private, and nonprofit sectors through vo luntary community problem so lving in support of Michiga n's youth. America's Promise Ameri ca's Promise-The Alliance for Youth, was launched in Apri11997 at the Preside nts ' Summit for America' s Future in Philadelphia. Under the leadership of retired General Colin Powell, the America's Promise campaign will organize nonprofit agencies, business, and government to involve millions of volunteers in a national effort to turn the tide for America's youth. • Preparing youth with marketable skills through effective education. • Generating opportunities for young people to give back through community service. Reach for the Promise An opportunity fo r Michigan businesses to gain increased public recognition for their many excellent examples of community serv1ce. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Reach-for-the-Promise-Pamphlet Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Reach for the Promise pamphlet Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Reach for the Promise pamphlet. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49893 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d28e538c7565b4d4523c63d2857942f1.pdf 9529905b52928681339104d48946ffd1 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: May 27, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Lutheran Social Services, AmeriCorps MTI..,ES NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 12 FT PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, AmeriCorps MTI..,ES will partner with Habitat for Humanity, the Marquette County Commission on Aging, the Alger-Marquette Intermediate School District, Girl Scout Council, the Marquette United Way, Marquette Volunteer Center, and Kellogg Youth Initiative Partnerships to develop senior programs and intergenerational programs that will connect youth and seniors. AmeriCorps MTI..,ES will also support the implementation of Summit goals and strengthen the links between other community and national service programs in Marquette. STRENGTHS The program has received a great deal of support from the community and community agencies since the health department's decision to end the grant. It is because of this support that AmeriCorps MTI..,ES is able to continue for the remainder of the 96/97 grant. Included in Year Three's focus is volunteer generation, an aspect that has not been a strong point in previous years. WEAKNESSES The Marquette County Health Department's budget issues resulted in the program being transferred to Lutheran Social Services for the remainder of the grant (October 31, 1997). For Year Three, potential challenges may exist in the transfer of information between agencies and the uncertainty of whether the current program director will continue with the program next year. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 156,657 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends funding for this program at its requested level. The program's FTE is$ 13,055. This is a slight increase in the 96/97 FTE cost. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: May 27, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: __,2=7'---_ FT ___ PT 40 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Two, VCM AmeriCorps will continue to engage youth in community service activities. The program will develop reading support programs for local elementary schools and create 108 new reading programs. The program will partner with local agencies to support local initiatives and address three of the Five Fundamental Resources for Children and Youth as follow up to the Presidents Summit. 1) "An ongoing relationship with a caring, responsible adult"Corpsmembers will continue to develop relationships with youth through school based service learning activities, advisory groups, and mentoring programs. 2) "Marketable skills through effective education"- VCM AmeriCorps will continue to provide mentoring, technology trainings, develop service-learning opportunities, and assist with School-To-Work initiatives. 3) "An opportunity to give back"- VCM AmeriCorps will continue to develop youth service opportunities with partnering agencies and local schools. The program will also mobilize 13,500 volunteers. STRENGTHS At the end of their first quarter, VCM AmeriCorps surpassed it first and second quarter volunteer recruitment benchmarks. The program has generated 825 youth volunteers and 98% of the program's youth volunteers are new volunteers. The program has also developed and implemented six Volunteer Center satellite offices at local schools for the promotion of individual and group volunteerism. Additionally, the program has worked with Project STAR to develop and implement evaluation tools for local sites and for the overall program. WEAKNESSES Varied levels of supervisory experience among site supervisors has been a challenge for the program in their first quarter. In some cases, this has resulted in a breakdown in communication and supervisors underestimating the amount of time required to provide adequate member support and supervision. The program manager is taking a number of steps to resolve this by: conducting site visits to view the operating systems of each site; holding bi-monthly conference calls with site supervisors to discuss issues and concerns; conducting site trainings in the areas of team communication and leadership; holding discussions regarding their role as site supervisor as it pertains to a multiple site program. Critical program information is being mailed to each members' home as well. The MCSC program officer will follow up during the upcoming site visit. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 363,331 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Despite the delayed start up, the program has made good progress toward its stated objectives. Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to the Corporation for National Service. The FTE for the program is $9,820. This is an increase from the 96/97 FTE rate resulting from the program 's expansion for 97/98. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps May 27, 1997 PROPOSAL: Fitzgerald Public Schools, FOCUS: Fitzgerald's AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 10 FT PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION In Year Two, FOCUS: Fitzgerald's AmeriCorps will engage 360 students in community service projects and encourage service learning as an interactive way to teach problem solving, cooperative work/play techniques, and defining community needs. FOCUS will also design and implement programs that will involve 200 students in academic support, educational, and recreational activities. The program will also recruit 500 community volunteers to participate in community service activities and projects. STRENGTHS Despite a late start up, the program has made progress in establishing itself within the school sites. The members have held meetings with each school principal and staff to identify the needs within their school. The principals at the schools are very supportive of the program and have pledged resources to support the members. The program has been working with Project STAR to strengthen and develop a clearer focus for their objectives. The program will also work with United Way of Chicago technical assistance provider to develop an annual work plan. WEAKNESSES The Corporation for National Service's notification of grant approval was received later than originally anticipated and, as a result, the original start date for the program was rescheduled from October 1996 to January 1997. This shift in the timeline caused a number of administrative and programmatic issues for the program in member selection and placement, project planning with teachers and principals, and integration into school systems. However, despite the delayed start, the program appears to be progressing toward its objectives. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 139,433 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to the Corporation for National Service. The FTE for the program is $13,943. Staff will work with the program to reduce the FTE to $13,000 prior to submission to CNS. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps May 27, 1997 PROPOSAL: Family Independence Agency, Citizen's Health Service Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT 10 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Citizen's Health Service Corps will serve in Cass and St. Joseph, Genesee, Gogebic, Kent, and Newaygo counties to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. Corpsmembers in this program facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, provide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves face-to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks. STRENGTHS Inter-agency partnerships with local public health departments, schools, and FIA offices have been strengthened as a result of this AmeriCorps program. This quarter, the program reported 9,000 incidents of service with regard to immunizations and health screenings. The program is progressing steadily toward achieving their objectives. To address member attrition, the program has consulted Bob VanOsterhaut. Members have completed a survey to assist the program in assessing why members prematurely exit the program. The program is reviewing this information and working with site supervisors to brainstorm on how the program can best support its members and encourage completion of their term of service. WEAKNESSES The quarterly progress reports for the program lack sufficient data on program impact. For example, the program is able to provide the number of contacts made through outreach efforts, and while this indicates that the program has made a considerable number of contacts and is steadily progressing toward their stated goal, the impact is not being reported on. MCSC has recommended that the program contact the clinics and primary physician offices it partners with to obtain baseline data on immunizations. This information may be used to track progress in this area and help in accurate documentation of program impact. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 294,794 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends funding of this program at its requested level. The program's FTE is $9,826 which is below the MCSC and CNS average cost per member. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps May 27, 1997 PROPOSAL: Caring Together Elderserve NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: · 22 FT PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, Caring Together Elderserve will enro1122 full-time members to provide 7,000 hours of service to 1,200 elderly metropolitan Detroit residents which will increase their ability to remain living independently. Services will include transportation, home maintenance, food and medicine delivery, social support, and health assistance. The program will also engage 1,000 volunteers to provide service to the elderly. STRENGTHS To date, Caring Together Elderserve has served 947 elders. The program has also generated 578 volunteers who have provided 6,855 service hours. For the second quarter, the program reported repeat service or expressions of positive service by volunteers at 89%! Additionally, Caring Together has been successful in sustaining a portion of its program. From Year Two, three of the program sites were able to sustain themselves without AmeriCorps members. Program staff has plans to track these sites and will continue to provide technical assistance and support in the upcoming year. The program is also coordinating with current sites that are seeking funding in order to sustain their programs beyond the term of the AmeriCorps grant. To aid sites in assessing their capacity to sustain, program staff has provided face-to-face and telephone support to partner sites' staff and boards to evaluate their capacity to sustain and strengthen their projects beyond the utilization of the AmeriCorps members. Program staff also facilitated discussions among partner sites in their program development to assist in the decision making process and facilitated contacts with the National Federation of Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers. Funding contacts can be made through this federation. WEAKNESSES The program experienced some difficulty in establishing new sites for Year Two. More specifically, in building relationships with neighborhoods which were identified as "in need" by neighboring sites. This somewhat slowed their start up process. To address this challenge, the program contacted known churches and community organizations serving those communities. The program also contacted the Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program for recommended contacts in the community. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 246,292 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff feels that the program has been successful in making good progress toward its objectives and is pleased with the overall progress of the program. Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service. The program has an FTE of $11,195 . This is below the MCSC and CNS targeted average cost per member. This is a reduction from their 96/97 FTE cost by $241. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: May 27, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: American Youth Foundation, Rural Strategic Action Initiative NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 18 FT _ _ PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, the Rural Strategic Action Initiative (RSAI) will enroll18 full-time corpsmembers who will partner with teachers, high school students, and community volunteers to mentor and provide tutoring to 520 elementary and secondary students in Mason, Lake, and Oceana counties. STRENGTHS To date, the program has tutored 463 students across six school sites and, thus far, has generated 80 volunteers to participate in school programs. The program has also organized and conducted six community service projects including a beach sweep project that involved more than 500 volunteers. RSAI continues to receive on-site support from the A YF-St. Louis staff. A YF- St.Louis staff assisted the program in developing and implementing member recruitment and selection and training in order to prevent the some of the member issues suffered by the program in Year One. Also, RSAI has developed a system to facilitate regular communication among corpsmembers, program staff, and advisory council to also prevent communication issues from Year One; the system appears to be effective thus far. A YF- St. Louis office manages the financial management of the program. WEAKNESSES The primary challenge for this program will be sustaining the program beyond the utilization of AmeriCorps funding and corpsmembers. The sparse resources within this rural community, combined with the setbacks of Year Two, will present challenges as the program looks to securing funding sources. The commitment of their advisory board and developing a strong volunteer network will be critical as the program enters its third year. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 227,701 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service. The FTE for the program is $12,650. This is a reduction in their 96/97 FTE by $988. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps May 27, 1997 PROPOSAL: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 150 Ff 50 PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps is an Education Award Only program whose primary mission is to conserve, preserve, and enhance Michigan's natural resources. The members will operate out of state parks and will work on the new construction and renovation of existing buildings; the new development and renovation of trails, boardwalks, stairways, erosion control structures; seasonal cleanup activities; tree and brush cutting, and landscaping. In addition to and as a result of these activities, members will receive training in job and life skills that will allow them to transition into the workforce. STRENGTHS • The program supports the welfare reform initiative by giving enrollment priority to public assistance recipients through the Work First program. More than 70% of the participants in the program obtain employment upon completion of the program. • By conserving and enhancing the state parks, the program can potentially impact the economic development of its communities. • The applicant has previous experience in operating programs comparable in size and scope. • The applicant has previous experience in administering federal grants. • There are funds available through the applicant organization to sustain the program financially beyond the grant term. • There is an existing structure for the program that appears to be able to handle the number of new corpsmembers. • The members will participate in ongoing training including regular training provided by the Department of Civil Service. • The applicant is not requesting any federal funds to support the program. WEAKNESSES It is not clear how the current program is evaluated. Therefore, it is not clear how the evaluation plan for the proposed program will be structured. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $0 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the proposal be included in the federal funding request for submission to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues as outlined. The FfE rate for the program is$ 0. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps May 27, 1997 PROPOSAL: Alma College, Focus On Children and Youth NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: FT 1 PT 9 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Focus on Children and Youth is an Education Award Only program that will enroll ten part -time members to address the public safety and education needs of children and youth in Gratiot county. The program will provide community workshops, recruit, train, and place literacy tutors, and conduct after school clubs to enhance children's literacy development. In the area of public safety, the program will partner with the Red Cross to assist juvenile offenders in discovering a sense of civic responsibility. They will also partner with the Alma City Police and the Alma Community Education Program to provide educational and recreational activities for area youth through a summer park program. STRENGTHS • Staff involved in the program has prior experience operating volunteer and community service programs. • Alma College has been successful in sustaining Learn and Serve programs. Service learning programs have been integrated into the college through new course development. • The applicant will utilize college work study funds to support the program. • The applicant seems to realize the importance of parental involvement in collaborative efforts within the community. • The corpsmembers will receive ample training that will prepare them for their service activities. • The program incorporates regular feedback from parents and children involved in the program. WEAKNESSES Although the proposal mentions how the members will be placed and supervised, it is not clear what type of supervision will be provided (frequency, etc) and the time commitment of the staff (including site supervisors) to provide this supervision. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 2,750 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Provided the applicant fully addresses the issues as outlined above, staff recommends that the proposal be included in the federal funding request for submission to the Corporation for National Service. The requested funds will not count against the formula allotment. The FIE rate for the program is $1 ,000. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Proposal-Review-Forms Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting proposal review forms Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting proposal review forms. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49892 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/875596b1aacada00b2c911eb3bb7e3a5.pdf a9e19fe81354ffa08e0870082890d29e PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Capitol Ave . Bldg., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commissioners FROM: Mary Estrada Michigan /Y)OJIU c"~~ J,. ) Comrnunity-:serv(J~ RE: June 6, 1997 meeting DATE: May 28, 1997 A reminder that the next commission meeting is scheduled for June 6, 1997. The meeting will be hosted by Commissioner Nancy Lenz and Commissioner Amber Pritchard and will be held at the Senior Services, Inc., 918 Jasper Street, Kalamazoo. Attached is a map and written directions to the Senior Services building. Please call me at (517)373-4998 and verify your attendance. The lunch for the meeting is a steak entree. Should anyone want vegetarian, please call me so that I can let Commissioner Lenz and Pritchard know for their meal count by June 3, 1997. Thanks for your continued support! A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission .i! � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Next-Meeting-Letter Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting next meeting letter Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting next meeting letter. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49891 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c849fba52fc98f5def662c7119f0abc2.pdf 6e91d05eb7f292c88edacdd7aeac881a PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission June 6, 1997 Senior Services, Inc. 918 Jasper Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Karen Aldridge NancyLenz Joel Orosz Terry Pruitt Don Newport Amber Pritchard Meg Smith Michael Tate Matthew Wesaw Ray West Frank Dirks, Ex Officio MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS: Michelle Engler, Chair VictorBegg Mary Ellen Brandell .Julie Cummings Judy Dunn Arthur Ellis Dorothy Johnson Randy Neelis Denise Ditch Lites Kathleen Keen McCarthy Sister Mary Martinez Jim Muir Eunice Myles Scott Smith Geneva Williams Karen Betley, SCP of Kalamazoo County Mary Estrada, Michigan Community Service Commission Garry Gross, Michigan Community Service Commission Wilma Kahn, RSVP of Kalamazoo County Paula Kaiser , Michigan Community Service Commission Linda Lark, RSVP/MARSCPD Lindy Reurink, Michigan Community Service Commission Angelia Salas, Michigan Community Service Commission Sam Singh, Michigan Nonprofit Forum Roberta Stanley, Michigan Department of Education Daphne Wells, Michigan Community Service Commission �I. Welcome and Introduction- Commissioner Pruitt The meeting was called to order at 1: 10 p.m. by Commissioner Pruitt. Commissioner Pruitt welcomed everyone and thanked everyone for attending. Commissioner Pruitt gave a special welcome to two new commissioners, Commissioner Meg Smith and Commissioner Don Newport. Commissioner Pruitt thanked Commissioner Lenz and Commissioner Pritchard for hosting the meeting. Commissioner Pritchard welcomed everyone and explained that everyone was receiving a small gift from Western Michigan University. Commissioner Lenz welcomed everyone and introduced Bob Litke, President of Senior Services. Mr. Litke gave an overview of Senior Services and the programs that they have to offer to the people in their community. II. Review of February 14, 1997 and April10, 1997 Minutes- Commissioner Pruitt Commissioner Pruitt tabled the minutes from the February 14, 1997 and the AprillO, 1997 meetings until the next commission meeting in September. III. Program Updates a. Michigan CARES- Paula Kaiser Ms. Kaiser explained that she had just completed site visits to all six communities. Ms. Kaiser said that several representatives from the CARES communities attended the SuperConference and the Grantmakers Forum. Ms. Kaiser announced that we have received the Phase II-Year II proposals from the six CARES communities and are currently in the review process. Five of the six CARES communities were involved in the Presidents Summit. Ms. Kaiser explained that she had just finished a two-day retreat with all of the CARES coordinator which covered sustainability, dissementation and a complete overview of the CARES program. b. Michigan's AmeriCorps- Daphne Wells Ms. Wells talked about Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project which will be held on June 28, 1997 in the Detroit area. Ms. Wells explained that this year we are piggy-backing on Habitat for Humanity's Housing Blitz. Some of the activities include landscaping, planting trees, shrubs, flowers and painting. Ms. Wells passed out a list of items that are still needed and asked if anyone could donate these items. Ms. Wells gave an overview of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Emergency Based Response Team. Ms. Wells explained that members would receive training and attend a Damage Assessment workshop which will prepare members as volunteers to aid in natural disasters in Michigan. c. Governor's Community Service Awards- Lindy Reurink Ms. Reurink thanked everyone that was involved for their help in making the event a huge success. Over 500 people attended the dinner. Ms. Reurink passed out newspaper articles written about the awards ceremony. 2 �Ms. Reurink announced the possibility that next years Governor's Community Service Awards reception and dinner would be connected with the SuperConference. Mr. Dirks announce that Ameritech was really impressed with this year ceremonies. They have agreed to sponsor the Governor's Community Service Awards again next year. Mr. Dirks informed everyone that the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) would do more outreach and marketing on next years program with the hope of trying to increase the amount of nominations being submitted. There will be some new categories and maybe a Public Service Announcement on the Governor' s Community Service Awards. d. Learn & Serve Michigan- Angelia Salas Ms. Salas informed everyone that on March 14, 1997 the Commission submitted the three year Learn and Serve application to the Corporation for National Services (CNS). Ms. Salas announced that we had received unofficial notice from the Corporation that we have received funding for next year. Ms. Salas explained that she worked jointly with the Michigan Department of Education to develop both the school- and community-based applications and the applications reflect the common goals for service-learning in Michigan. The application also reflects the need to create schoo1Jcommunity partnerships to make a positive impact on the community and to provide quality educational experiences. Ms. Salas explained that over the past two months she has completed a total of eleven full days of site visits to school- and community-based programs with more visits scheduled for this summer. Ms. Salas gave an overview of the new summer programs which are: (1)4-H Oakland, (2)Kirtland Community College, (3)Portage Senior Center, and (4) ACCESS. e. Budget and Administration - Garry Gross Mr. Gross gave an overview of the budget report enclosed in the Commission packet. Mr. Gross explained that he is working with the Michigan Jobs Commission regarding the Volunteer Investment Grants. Mr. Gross gave a special thank you for the recent fmancial support for the Governor's Community Service Awards from Ameritech and C.S. Mott Foundation, Public/Private Ventures and Dow Coming for their support of the national state commission meeting in Midland. IV. Executive Director's Report - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an overview of his executive director's report with updates and highlights on AmeriCorps, Learn & Serve Michigan, Michigan CARES, MCSC's Relatiqnship with the CNS-Michigan Office, Volunteer Investment Grants, Connect Michigan, Governor's Community Service Awards, Presidents Summit and the Ford Foundation funded National State Commission meeting. 3 �Mr. Dirks gave a special thank you to Daphne Wells for her work on AmeriCorps, Lindy Reurink for her work on Governor's Community Service Awards program, Paula Kaiser for her work on the President's Summit and Mary Estrada for her work on the National State Commission meeting as they have gone above and beyond in their long hours of work. Mr. Dirks talked about the recent criticism that the Commission has received lately and as the executive director expressed his frustration because the staff of the Commission work very hard and many extra hours and should not have to take hits of criticism. Commissioner Orosz asked if it would be to our benefit to write a paper to defend ourselves and Mr. Dirks said that he felt our accomplishments over the past years should speak for themselves considering we are considered one of the top states nationally. Commissioner Tate stated the he has seen two or three of these letters and he just takes into account the source. Commissioner Tate does not feel a written response is necessary at this time because the people writing these letters decided to attack the Commission because of their own personal agenda. V. Commission Initiatives (Status) a. National State Service Commission Meeting- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks talked about the success of the meeting and explained that one of the outcomes was an agreement from the states to develop an association among state commissions. Mr. Dirks gave a thank you to Commissioner Orosz and Commissioner Aldridge for their involvement and presentation at the meeting. Mr. Dirks gave a special thanks to Commissioner Pruitt for all of his hard work that helped make the meeting a great success. Commissioner Pruitt stated the he was impressed with the quality of information available at this meeting. b. President's Summit Planning- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks discussed since the announcement of the President's Summit, MCSC organized and facilitated the community planning and communication. A Michigan delegation guidebook was created and distributed to all Summit participants. In addition, MCSC in partnership with Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), Council of Michigan Foundation (CMF), and United Way of Michigan (UWM) held a follow-up meeting on May 28, 1997 for the six Michigan delegations. The intent of the meeting was to allow the communities to share post-Summit strategies, network and discuss ways the state partners can better support the local efforts. Mr. Dirks stated that the State Summit will be held on October 20, 1997 in Lansing. The Governor and First Lady will both participate in the State Summit. Mr. Dirks will provide more detailed information on the State Summit at the next commission meeting. c. Volunteer Investment Grant Proposal - Terry Pruitt/Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an overview on the Volunteer Investment Grants. Mr. Dirks explained that this is a new project which has never been done so it is receiving some negative response from the legislators because they do not understand the benefits to their local communities. 4 �Commissioner Pruitt explained that he has been working with several different legislators and that at the present time the Senate has approved the money but the House has zeroed it out of the budget. Other commissioners need to contact their legislators to get support for this project since it will go to the floor on Tuesday, June 10, 1997. d. New Quest Grant - Angelia Salas Ms. Salas explained that the Commission has just been approved by Quest International to receive a $15,000 training and technical assistance grant. With the money from this grant the Michigan Community Service Commission will offer a series of regional trainings on various service-learning topics. Topics which will be identified according to school- and community-based needs. e. Senior Advisory Council- Paul Tomshany Mr. Tomshany gave an update on the activities of the Senior Advisory Council and highlighted some activities that the Council would like to do in the future. Mr. Tomshany talked about Commissioner Muir, who is also a member of the Senior Advisory Council and the fact the he is their connection to the Commission. Mr. Tomshany expressed that the Senior Advisory Council" is sending a "get well wish" to Commissioner Muir with a hope for a speedy recovery. Mr. Tomshany talked about a proposed annual conference which would involved the Senior Advisory Council and the Michigan Youth Progressive Action Council (MYPAC). Mr. Tomshany gave an overview of the new program the Senior Advisory Council has been working called "The Senior Star's Program". Ms. Reurink added to the overview of the Star's program along with an update on the last Senior Advisory Council meeting. VI. New Business (Action Items) a. Michigan's AmeriCorps Application- Daphne Wells Commissioner Pruitt announced that since there was not a quorum to approve AmeriCorps applications that he proposed that a vote be taken on each proposal by the members in attendance and then an approval sheet would be sent to all absent commissioners for their approval. A motion was made to accept the staff recommendations to approve the six renewal applications which are American Youth Foundation, Rural Strategic Action Initiative; Caring Together Elderserve; Family Independence Agency, Citizen's Health Service Corps; Fitzgerald Public Schools, FOCUS: Fitzgerald's AmeriCorps; Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteers Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps; Lutheran Social Services, AmeriCorps MILES. Commissioner Aldridge made the motion to approve, Commissioner Tate seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously upon approval from the absent commissioners. Ms. Wells gave an overview on the two Education Award Only applications, one new program and one expansion application. 5 �. Commissioner Orosz made a motion to approve the new Education Award only application from Alma College, Focus on Children and Youth. Commissioner Tate seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously upon approval from the absent commissioners. Commissioner Tate made a motion to approve the expansion program from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps. Commissioner Pritchard seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously upon approval from the absent commissioners. b. Review of Hearing Reports - Frank Dirks Commissioner Pruitt gave an overview of the Public Hearing which took place in March and gave his insight on the whole event. Commissioner Pruitt asked if anyone had questions on the individual hearing reports that were enclosed in the commission packet. Commissioner Wesaw gave his overview of the hearing and felt it was very educational. Ms. Mary Pfeiler gave her views of the hearing and felt it was a beneficial and education experience. Ms. Pfeiler suggested that more hearings take place but in different locations across the state. Mr. Sam Singh explained that he had talked to Brad Johnson of the Volunteer Center and Mr. Johnson gave very positive feedback on the hearing. VII. Public Comment Commissioner Pruitt asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Wilma Kahn asked if she could voice her opinion regarding the public hearing since she was unable to attend the hearing. Ms. Kahn gave her view and expressed her satisfaction with the Corporation for National Service state office, the Office of Services to the Aging and the Michigan Community Service Commission. Ms. Kahn's would prefer that all the programs stay the exactly the same and if that was not possible then the programs should be handled by the Office of Services to the Aging. Ms. Kahn explained that the Senior Corps program focus on the seniors first and their volunteer service second. Commissioner Tate made special recognition to Commissioner Amber Pritchard who was among 45 Western Michigan University seniors named a 1997 Presidential Scholar. The award is Western Michigan University's highest honor presented to a senior. Commissioner Orosz made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Wesaw seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 3:50p.m. The next meeting will be September 12, 1997, in Battle Creek, hosted by Commissioner Orosz. 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Minutes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting minutes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting minutes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49890 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/df437ba37ccba78ab66f86b440f9c2ec.pdf 725cf9f7996c62eb729b888dfd1db76a PDF Text Text Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only Grant Review Process December 9 throu~h December 13, 1996: The Michigan Community Service Commission held outreach sessions regionally throughout the state. The outreach sessions provided interested individuals/organizations with technical assistance information on how to become a sponsor for a Michigan's Americorps program or Education Award Only program. Interested individuals/organizations received a draft version of the Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only Concept Paper application materials, an Intent to Apply form, the timeline for the grant application process, an overview of national service programs, lessons in effective practice for Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, an address list of national service and related programs in Michigan, a list of the individuals/organizations that registered to attend the outreach sessions, and a copy of Principles for High Quality National Service Programs. December 20, 1996: The Concept Paper application materials for Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only programs were made available to all interested organizations. The Concept Paper guidelines were mailed to individuals/organizations that registered to attend the December outreach sessions and to others who requested the information . .January 21. 1997: MCSC received 76 Intent To Apply forms . .January 22: Applicants were notified via fax that MCSC had received their Intent To Apply form. Letters were also mailed to the applicants. February 4: MCSC received 30 Concept Papers-- 27 Michigan's AmeriCorps and 4 Education Award Only. February 5: Applicants were notified by MCSC that their Concept Paper was received. April 1997: Education Award Only applicants were contacted and informed that their proposal was still being considered for funding. May 1: The MCSC Staff Review of the Concept Papers took place. The papers were reviewed for requirements, priorities, and preferences. May 5: Based on the results of the staff review, 3 organizations were notified that their proposal was selected to proceed to the next step in the application process-- the submission of the Comprehensive Proposal. Applicants selected received a copy of the feedback generated from the staff review. The feedback provided each applicant with a list of strengths and weaknesses as well as items for continuous improvement. The feedback was faxed and mailed to applicants . �May 8: Applicants participated in a conference call with MCSC staff to review the Concept Paper feedback. May 20: MCSC received 2 Education Award Only Comprehensive Proposals. May 28: The Education Award Only Comprehensive Proposals were reviewed by a panel of external peer reviewers. The job of the peer reviewers was to recommend, based on the criteria detailed in the Comprehensive Proposal guidelines, which of the papers submitted should or should not be forwarded to the next step in the review process-- the MCSC staff review. May 30: MCSC staff reviewed the Education Award Only Comprehensive Proposals. Each proposal was reviewed to determine overall quality. Proposals were rated according to the criteria for the Comprehensive Proposal and technical compliance. Based upon the strengths of the proposals and whether the proposals fully addressed the issues as outlined to them in the Concept Paper feedback, the staff review determined that the two Education Award Only proposals were strong enough to advance to the next stage of the review process-- MCSC Commissioner review . .June 3: Education Award Only applicants whose proposals may be included in MCSC's federal funding request received the staff review feedback in order to make revisions before final submission to CNS (pending MCSC Commissioner approval). June 6: Michigan Community Service Commission meeting to review staff recommendations for Education A ward Only proposals and formula renewals . .June 11: Revisions of the Comprehensive Proposal due to MCSC. .June 12: Applicants will be notified as to whether the proposal submitted by their organization will be included in MCSC's federal funding request. .June 20: CNS will notify commissions of funding approval for competitive programs . .June 28: Education Award Only package due to CNS . .July 1: Michigan's AmeriCorps formula package due to CNS. AU2USt 1997: CNS will notify commission of funding approval for formula programs. October 1997: Earliest expected date for new Michigan's AmeriCorps and Education Award Only programs to start. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_MI-AmeriCorps-Education-Award-Only-Grant-Review-Process Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only Grant Review Process Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only Grant Review Process. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49889 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7accaf6691dc43db015eb368780e91e0.pdf 75d133aa41e23416477e8f544b8e92a7 PDF Text Text � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Meeting-Dates-for-1997 Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting meeting dates for 1997 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting meeting dates for 1997. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49888 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5f072ec52a0ce4d0dbd7d5783474ea41.pdf 742aedd5a04df27cf07bc829e88ca0aa PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Created by Executive Order of the Governor in 1991, the Michigan Community Service Commission was established in state law with the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Legislature in 1994. The nonpartisan Commission administers national and community service programs and supports and promotes volunteerism in Michigan . Chaired by First Lady, Michelle Engler, the Commission's mission is to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through · service and volunteerism. Michigan CARES Supported through a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in partnership with the Council of Michigan Foundations, the Commission has worked to involve more than 150 community-based agencies and hundreds of volunteers in efforts to support improved coordination in delivering volunteer service. Michigan CARES operates in Alpena, Calhoun County, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Marquette, and Muskegon. Already the initiative has created two communi!Y nonprofit information exchange networks ; two community volunteer centers, a comprehensive community plan for youjh development, and a resource network for community nonprofit agencies. Learn and Serve Michigan The Commission supports competitive grants to community-based nonprofit organizations for programs that involve K-12 school-age youth in community volunteer projects. The Commission works closely with the Michigan Department of Education to coordinate school-and community-based youth service and volunteer programs and activities. Learn and Serve Michigan community-based programs operate in Alpena, Dearborn, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Manistee, Muskego n, Pontiac, Portage, Roscommon, and Traverse City. Last year these programs involved more than 1,704 youth and 155 adult - volunteers in more than 21,000 hours of community service. Michigan's AmeriCorps The Commission administers the national service AmeriCorps program which involves full-and part-time stipended volunteers in high impact community service projects. The Commission's competitive Michigan's AmeriCorps grants support programs in Adrian , Ann Arbor, Battle Creek, Benton Harbor, Caro, Dearborn, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Marquette, Midland, Monroe, Mt. Pleasant, Pontiac, Roscommon, Saginaw, St. Ignace, Shelby, Southfield, Warren, and Ypsilanti. Last year, Michigan's AmeriCorps involved more than 110 community-based partner organizations. In its second year, the program involved more than 360 full-and part-time corpsmembers to generate more than 10,000 additional volunteers who gave more than 125,000 hours of service. New Partnerships for Michigan The Commission, in partnership with the Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Council of Michigan Foundations, launched a statewide initiative to support and encourage collaborati'on among the nonprofit, public, private, and religious sectors of Michigan to stimulate community-based, citizen-driven problem solving . Governor's Community Service Awards The Commission administers the annual awards program, which last year received 240 nominations, recognized winners in 13 categories, and drew more than 500 people to the ceremony. Make a Difference Day The Commission partnered with the Volunteer Centers of Michigan, the Council of Michigan Foundations, and the Michigan Campus Compact, to disseminate 4,000 start-up kits and regi ster 160 projects involving more than 30,000 volunteers. TAP Youth Service Through a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Commission supported training for more than 150 low income community-based nonprofits in such areas as organizational development, volunteer recruitment, and fundraising . Nonprofit service and volunteer resource guides The Commission printed and distributed more than 3,000 copies of nonprofit and volunteer resource guides to nonprofit agencies, volunteer and service programs , community-based agencies , youth groups, and public libraries across the state . Youth volunteer and intergenerational service recruitment posters The Commission produced and distributed posters to 4,000 schools and hundreds of senior centers, volunteer agencies, and community nonprofit organizations across the state. Training and technical assistance workshops The Commission provided more than 300 nonprofit agencies and vo)unteer groups with training and technical assistance. �SAMPLE LEITER Dear: I am writing to urge you to support reinstatement of the Governor's proposed funding request for Volunteer Investment Grants. The program, to be administered by the Michigan Community Service Commission, a division of the Michigan Jobs Commission, will help support the sustained capacity of community-based nonprofit volunteer agencies. At a time when government, business, and nonprofit organizations are encouraging more people to volunteer in order to help meet the needs of their communities, the Volunteer Investment Grants will provide important support in building sustainable community volunteer resources. Volunteer Investment Grants are in keeping with the spirit of the national Volunteer Summit, at which the President and all the former Presidents called for bipartisan support for volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grants are innovative examples of public/private partnership. In fact, in a letter of support, Harris Wofford, the CEO of President Clinton's AmeriCorps program, wrote that we "hope to draw from it lessons that we may apply to national service ... This proposal represents another example of innovation by the Michigan Community Service Commission." Volunteer Investment Grants do not duplicate current programs or services, they support the development of nonprofit capacities for providing these services. No other state agency offers a program that will help generate permanently endowed funds to support community volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grants will: Enable roughly 18 Michigan nonprofit volunteer agencies involved in partnerships with other community nonprofit agencies in 18 Michigan communities to benefit from grants of $25,000$75,000, to support the increased involvement of volunteers in community problem solving. Leverage local funds to support local volunteer endowments that will generate a perpetual aggregate annual operating income of $100,000 across Michigan. I urge you to support this worthy program and help build Michigan's nonprofit volunteer sector. Sincerely, �VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Backeround Introduction The purpose of the Volunteer Investments Grants program is to provide grants to communitybased, volunteer, nonprofit agency partnerships that 1) support volunteerism and community service and 2) match local funds supporting local community foundation endowments that help sustain the activities of community nonprofit agencies supporting volunteerisrr:f and community service. Communities need nonprofit agency infrastructure that supports community volunteerism. The focus for this infrastructure in most communities is the nonprofit volunteer center/agency. Michigan's volunteer centers currently serve 48 counties in the state by recruiting and placing volunteers and serving as volunteer information clearinghouses. Yet volunteer agencies annually struggle to raise sufficient funds to operate. By requiring a local endowment match, Volunteer Investment Grants will help increase the number and self-sufficiency of local volunteer agencies/centers while building their capacity to involve volunteers in community problem-solvi ng. Elieibilitv Volunteer Investments Grants are available to community partnerships of nonprofit organizations form any Michigan community that designate a volunteer agency and include a community foundation. Every county in Michigan now has access to a community foundation . The designated volunteer agency must not duplicate the services provided by an existing organization, but may serve to combine the services provided by existing organizations. These partnerships will be eligible to apply for grants that will range in amount from $25,000 to $75,000. The following local organizations may be designated as the community volunteer agency: • • • • • • Volunteer Centers/Agencies United Ways Nonprofit organizations that provide community-wide volunteer services including, but not limited to volunteer recruitment and placement, clearinghouse information, volunteer training and technical assistance, special volunteer projects, and volunteer public awareness. Intermediate school districts Community colleges County extension offices Partnerships Effective community partnerships are essential for supporting and sustaining community volunteerism. The Volunteer Investment Grant program is intended to facilitate and enhance community partnerships that support volunteerism. Volunteer Investment Grant partnerships must include a community foundation and a designated volunteer agency/center. While every community is unique, effective partnerships may include: United Ways, community and neighborhood nonprofit organizations, public schools, community colleges, institutions of higher education, hospitals, senior centers, senior volunteer agencies, county extension offices, local government offices, and other entities that regularly involve volunteers. �Requirements The application must include: • A partnership agreement that: designates a volunteer agency to serve as the applicant, specifies a community foundation to administer the endowment fund, and includes the local Family Independence Agency volunteer coordinator. • A survey of community volunteer resources and a description of how a Volunteer Investment Grant will strengthen and promote collaboration among these resources. • A one-year volunteer action plan that includes ar least two community-_wide service projects which meet community needs and demonstrate measurable community results. • A plan for $2 - to - $1 local cash match - $50,000 to $100,000 range, for the local endowment fund. • Agreement from the community foundation to cap its annual administrative service fee at 1% of principal. • A detailed, twelve-month operating budget for the volunteer agency including the amount of the Volunteer Investment Grant request. Application Process Grants will be awarded competitively. Applicants may request grants of up to $75,000 and no less than $25,000. The grant award process will include an expert peer review, a technical compliance review by MCSC staff, and final review and approval by MCSC. The local cash match will be deposited in a permanent, dedicated agency endowment fund established in the local community foundation for the purpose of supporting the operation of the community volunteer agency in perpetuity. Communities will be encouraged to exceed the minimum cash match and continue to build on the endowment find. In many community foundations, this match may be added to the permanent Romney Fund established for the same purpose. From the date of the award notification, a grantee will have six months to produce 50% of the cash match. At the time of the deposit of the 50% match, the community foundation will certify the formation of the fund and its match level to MCSC. Upon this notification, MCSC will release 50% of the cash grant in accordance with the approved grant budget. At the time of deposit of 100% of the minimum cash match- no later than 12 months after award notification, the foundation will notify MCSC and certify the match level. At that time MCSC will release the remaining 50% of the grant award in accordance with the approved budget. Grantees must submit progress reports after six and twelve months, and a final report after eighteen months that summarize program activities, the status of the endowment fund, and grant expenditures. Priority for Grant Awards Priority consideration will be given to applicants that demonstrate: The scope of the community volunteer partnership, including collaboration among volunteer service entities involving youth and senior volunteers • The level of financial match support and the plan for matching it • The relative (based on community size) number of volunteers to be involved in projects and the number of new volunteers The quality of anticipated outcomes of the volunteer service projects . �VOLUNTEER INVESTMENT GRANTS Talking Points Why .is this important? Volunteer agencies serve to recruit, train, and place volunteers in community nonprofit agencies. They are critical for effectively involving volunteers in service to their communities. Volunteer agencies are :c ommunity-based nonprofit organizations. Because they usually -don't run programs themselves, volunteer agencies have a difficult time raising money . Yet, the role these community nonprofit organizations play in raising human capital (volunteers) is equivalent to the role United Ways play in raising financial capital for nonprofit organizations. A study that the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) commissioned this year with the Michigan State University's Institute for Public Policy and Social Research found that 90% of nonprofit agencies in Michigan reported that they use volunteers; 60% of these agencies do not have the resources for their own volunteer coordinators; and 55% need more volunteers than they currently have. Volunteer agencies are critical for recruiting volunteers from the community and training nonprofit agencies in good volunteer management techniques so they can keep volunteers satisfied and productive once they have them. There is also a need to increase the number of Michiganians that volunteer. In the same study, the Institute found that only 40% of Michiganians volunteered their time and of those that don ' t volunteer, 58% reported that they didn't have enough time. Strong volunteer agencies can increase public awareness about volunteer opportunities and make volunteering easier and less timeconsuming for those who do volunteer. Why this program? Sustainable funding is the biggest challenge to any volunteer agency. For instance, in Washtenaw County, when the United Way was undergoing recent fiscal contractions, the first thing it did was eliminate funding for the volunteer agency that it housed. Even though volunteer agencies make great sense in the long run, they are always an easy target for short term reductions . The Volunteer Investment Grant program will support organizational sustainability through endowment building in the name of a community volunteer center. A $1 million investment will generate a minimum of two million additional endowed dollars that, at minimum, will generate a perpetual annual income of $100,000 across the state. Why place the endowment fund in community foundations? Community Foundations cover every county in the state. They are governed by 50l(c)3 IRS rules and regulations, and they serve as a community fund investment pool that increases the return on the individual investment. How many grants will be awarded? Roughly 18 grants in amounts ranging from $25 ,000-75,000. �That won't generate much income in the communitv. will it? For a volunteer center, even $2,500 per year means a lot. Annual endowment interest income of $2,500-to-$7 ,500 could support a new computer system for volunteer management, a community volunteer opportunity directory, a volunteer recognition program, a summer youth program, or a share of a volunteer coordinator's salary. In addition, endowed volunteer agencies will always have the opportunity to build their endowment further. Will state dollars go into the endowment? No. State support goes only into first year operation with local match supporting the endowment. Funding for the first year operation will provide support for the range of services offered by a volunteer agency. In addition, the agency and its community partners will generate: • A partnership agreement that: designates a volunteer agency to serve as the applicant, specifies a community foundation to administer the endowment fund, and includes the local Family Independence Agency volunteer coordinator. • A survey of community volunteer resources and a description of how a Volunteer Investment Grant will strengthen and promote collaboration among these resources. • A one-year volunteer action plan that includes ar least two community-wide service proj ects which meet community needs and demonstrate measurable community results. How will MCSC ensure that there is geographic distribution? The grants will be competitively reviewed by peers, MCSC staff, and the commission. A factor in the overall review will be geographic distribution. In addition, the requirement that communities develop their collaborative plan as part of the application and in it designate the community's volunteer agency for the purpose of the endowment, makes it unlikely that grants will be concentrated in any specific geographic area. Do nonprofit organizations support this program? Volunteer Investment Grants have the support of the following nonprofit networks. • Michigan Nonprofit Association • Volunteer Centers of Michigan • Council of Michigan Foundations • United Way of Michigan • United Way Community Service for Metropolitan Detroit In addition, the program has the support of the Federal Agency administering President Clinton's AmeriCorps program: • Corporation for National Service �.. ' What the Appropriations Subcommittee Decision Means to Michigan's Nonprofit Volunteer Agencies - • Eighteen Michigan nonprofit volunteer agencies involved in partnerships with other community nonprofit agencies in 18 Michigan communities will not be able to benefit from grants of $25,000 $75,000, to support the increased involvement of volunteers in community problem solving. • These nonprofit community volunteer agencies will lose the opportunity to benefit from a perpetual aggregate annual operating income of $100,000 in endowed funds. • At a time when Government is asking more of nonprofit volunteer agencies, this decision will deny them access to an innovative approach to sustainable, endowed funding. • This decision also runs against the views expressed by Harris Wafford, the CEO of President Clinton's AmeriCorps program, who wrote that we "hope to draw from it lessons that we may apply to national service ... This proposal represents another example of innovation by the Michigan Community Service Commission.'' � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_MCSC-Information Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission information Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Michigan Community Service Commission information. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49887 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d752d15e2b15cf41bc9f39885ef891b5.pdf 30887db40e536109f47973d6a62d6331 PDF Text Text Testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission March 25, 1997 Mrs. Engler, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission. Thank you for inviting me to comment on the topic before us today. The views that I will express today are my own and perhaps no one else' s; they are not to be construed as representing the views of the Corporation as a whole or any other persons within the Corporation. Even with as many views as are represented here today, all of us together represent only a small fraction of the people who are involved in and interested in community service and volunteerism. I read the Lansing Journal these days (since the Detroit papers have been first on strike and now in a lock-out situation) and I noticed on Thursday a small headline that read "A celebration of Community Service." "How wonderful ," I thought . "Maybe I'll see some names I know. Maybe Janet Clark has a new project she hasr}'t told me about yet." As I read the clip it turned out to be a notice about the Delta Sigma Theta Soror.it}: celebrating 37 years of community service. Delta Sigma Theta is a sorority of African-American women formed in 1913 at Howard University. The Lansing alumnae chapter was formed in 1960 and has several community service programs in the local area. A reminder that there are many more of us than we sometimes remember. Those of us here today will give you an interesting but ~mall sampling of opinion on the topics proposed; it is a good start, however. One of those topics concerns the "strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan Community Service Commission as presently constituted and as currently involved. There are of course strengths and weaknesses of any organization ..... The purpose, mission, and goals as outlined in the OPERATING PROCEDURES for the Commission do not appear to need any revision. They outline a wide range of activities and communications in support of community service and volunteerism involving residents from all ages and backgrounds serving in all areas of life in Michigan. These are indeed the mission and goals I would propose for a Commission if they had not already been devised. What I believe can come from this mission is a broad evocation of service in Michigan and one which helps to ensure that programs and resources are widely spread and geographically balanced, facilitates the formation and growth of local collaborative efforts reinforces priority consideration to Michigan ' s needs and wishes, and smooths the way, especially within State Government, for getting things done. But let 's be honest. This meeting today is about something else. Underlying this meeting today is the continuing jostling for power over the community service programs funded by the federal government. The proposed or threatened "takeover" of all the funding by either the State Commissions or by the State Offices of the Corporation has generated considerable heat and rather little understanding and absolutely no benefit to any of our combined constituency. Nationally, and here in Michigan, some people fear the so-called takeover of all the programs by the State Commissions (didn't know you were such a threatening bunch, did you?). Nationally and here in Michigan, Commissions and their staffs are maligned as upstart, inexperienced, and incompetent. Fears are raised that tried-and-true programs will be indiscriminately destroyed and that rules protecting vulnerable populations will be abolished. �Nationally and here in Michigan, some people resent that the devolutio~ of powers to the States has not included devolution of all the money and all the community service programs. Nationally and here in Michigan the federal employees of the Corporation are maligned as rigid, obsolete, and incompetent. Accusations are made that new service programs will be squeezed with rules and overlaid with hidebound bureaucracy. Much criticism is raised and many potential disasters are predicted if one side should prevail over the other. It seems to me unfair and insulting to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Commission - or any other Commission - could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the VISTA and Senior Corps programs. It is equally unfair and absurd to suggest that the staff of the Michigan Corporation for National Service office could not learn and would not abide by the laws and rules governing the AmeriCorps programs and the Learn and Serve programs. Of course, this would not be '· . true. ~ '· _j This whole issue of who's going to be IN CHARGE, I thought, was set aside last year after a group of Executive Directors and CNS State Directors came to consensus over how to overcome some of the difficulties and obstacles. The consensus was to encourage each state to determine its own way of working together- with Commission, Corporation, and Departments of Education coming to their own individualized plans of action. The idea of a " unified plan" came out of these discussions. All the parties took this agreement seriously and were working to address it locally. The good-faith efforts of all the states who took this agreement seriously were undermined- betrayed I must say- by some people in Washington for whatever their reasons might have been. The events and recriminations of the last few months can be explained ad nauseam, but after Washington 's so-called "accidental emission," every constituency of the Corporation began firing weapons. What minimal trust that had developed among the parties was destroyed. Now we find ourselves here today in the aftermath of that debacle. So what is all the fuss about over the structure of how the federal money for community service programs comes to Michigan: Who is complaining about the way things are done now? Who is unhappy and wants so desperately to make things different? Is it the public at large; is it disappointed applicants; is it successful project operators? I think it is none of these. If it is none of these, why would we want to reinvent what already exists. The problem really is that we 've gotten ourselves trapped in a focus on FIXING a few flaws when we should just get busy and work smarter. The human impulse to tinker and fix things up is well known to all of us. We also know how most " new and improved" products on the market are only repackaged and more expensive than the originals. In most areas of life, after we reach a certain level of functioning, the payback of additional "improvements" is relatively limited. The cost of such relatively small improvements can be very high and in the end counterproductive to the larger enterprise. There is the additional risk of negative unintended consequences which are worse than the thing we started out to fix. �· , . , ') We- you as Commissioners and the rest of us as staff and other beneficiaries of the federally-funded community service and volunteer programs - must acknowledge the flaws in our systems and work to minimize their effect, but I must emphasize that none of the flaws are fatal and none are serious enough to warrant the kind of time and tempest that has consumed so many of us for the last year and a half. We all may have different views of what would be the "IDEAL" arrangement. I know that Frank Dirks and I have different views on many things, but we had begun to work quite productively together and had been able to bring some things of value to the state and to individual programs and participants by doing so. We've come to understand different points of view; different approaches to problems; and different styles of work. Interagency collaboration is not easy, as all ofyou know. '· But in the end the cooperation and the learning environment have benefited both our operations and our immediate constituencies. We have made mistakes- separately and together- and will again, I'm sure- separately and together. Were there to be someone else in my place and someone other than Frank at the helm of the Commission, there might be different mistakes, but there definitely \vould be mistakes and missed opportunities and misunderstandings. That's life. We all like our own ideas best usually. If you must know my opinion on the IDEAL way to channel Corporation for National Service programs into Michigan communities I'll tell you, but I prefer to leave well enough alone. And to stop talking about changing the way it is now. If I had the power to go across the street today and start over again, I would create a different structure. The federal funding through the Corporation for National Service is for NATIONAL SERVICE, not simply community service. The programs are envisioned as nationwide in scope, nationwide in interest, and derive their participants from the nation as a whole. Not FEDERAL, necessarily, but definitely NATIONAL. There must remain a national focus and identity. Otherwise we devolve into 48,49, or 50 state service programs. The "national" in national service is best preserved through a workforce network that is state-based and nationally-connected, and is positioned to respond to and be held accountable for local and national initiatives alike. The Corporation State Offices have that workforce. In my opinion, all Corporation for National Service funding and program decisions should flow through the Corporation State Offices. For more than 20 years, federal employees in these offices have successfully balanced the rules and priorities of national program designs with specific local needs and requirements. What would happen to the Commissions in my personally-designed world across the street? I would have a Commission for all of the purposes that are currently in your OPERATING PROCEDURES. Your function as Commissioners would not change. You would be the functional and influential link between State government and federal programs. But hey we ' re not going across the street. We ' re right here. What do we do? WMtshould you~~ �I encourage you to become as involved as you can in meeting and obse~ing the participants in all kinds of community service and volunteer programs in your areas. Consider how insights from these efforts might be publicized and shared with others. Encourage a learning environment within the Commission. Encourage staff to provide you with opportunities to publicize your support for community serviceamong all ages and in all areas of the state. Continue to provide public recognition for voluntary efforts of. all kinds. Seek ways to ensure that Michigan law and policy places a value on volunteer service, in areas such as liability insurance and others. Help to bring additional partners into the community service arena. Play an active and assertive role in establishing state and statewide priorities and focus areas for community service. Seek out, analyze, and help all of us to learn from successful collaborative ventures. Keep your mission and goals as they are stated already. Nowhere do they seem to call for you to OPERATE, DIRECT or ADMINISTER community service programs; ·they call for facilitating; they call for encouraging; they call for promoting and recognizing. urge yop io stay focused on those functions . No one that I know of has proposed that State Commissions take ov~r the roles of the private Volunteer Centers; why should it seem logical to propose taking over administration of VISTA or the Senior Volunteer programs? No one would seriously entertain the Commissions taking control of civic and service clubs and sororities; why would the Commission envision taking control of VISTA and the Senior Volunteer programs? Obviously the lines of control will be drawn somewhere; I suggest you leave them where they are .. and work toward a COORDINATED PLURALITY of organizations in this field . And lastly, continue to propose Michigan ideas for Michigan people. The federal government should not be the only or even the largest player in community service in Michigan. Let Michigan devise and find funding for its own community service innovations on a variety of levels and from various sources as I know you are already beginning to do . What can work for us in the way of structure is a collaborative partnership such as the one which has flourished between the Feds and the State regarding Senior Volunteer programs. This 20-year-old working relationship provides benefits to communities and seniors alike; safeguards taxpayer interest; maintains the integrity of programmatic intent; results in a balanced response to local needs within a framework of STATE and National priorities. This partnership has simplified life for grantees and project staff, and provided coherent direction and support. It didn 't start out that way, however. No one would guess from observing our two organizations today that the relationship actually began in hostility, suspicion, acrimony, and a power struggle for control. The partnership is under considerablestrain these days but the difficulties for us are not "made in Michigan." They come from outside Michigan, and we are doing everything we can to prevent those influences from destroying what has been built over 20 years. I direct your attention at length to this example as I think it gives us hope that we could get beyond the current acrimony and suspicion in the community service arena and begin to work toward a new era of close cooperation. If we do care about providing good programs to the people of Michigan, and if we care about the longterm survival of the current program designs and funding , then we had better get to work and put an end to this power struggle. The damage of the last 2 years---- most especially the damage of the last few months --- cannot be undone, but it can perhaps be overcome. �MCSC TESTIMONY .... MARCH 25, 1997 HEARING TESTIMONY OF LINDA LARK, RSVP DIRECTOR (Note: Topics in italics are those Frank Dirks stated I should address in his letter to me of March 20, 1997.) 1. Name, Position, & Program Description: I am Linda Lark, Director of the Retired & Senior Volunteer Program of Kent County. First, I thank the First Lady and Commission for the opportunity to address the actions of the Community Services Commission and the older American programs. RSVP was authorized by Congress 25 years ago under the Older Americans Volunteer Act. Our purpose is to provide challenging and meaningful volunteer opportunities for residents aged 55 and over. These opportunities give them a chance to serve their communities, explore new interests, remain active, & avoid isolation so common with older Americans. With the help of RSVP, non-profit organizations are able to enhance and expand the services they provide. RSVP volunteers serve without compensation. Those who would find volunteering a financial hardship can request assistance with transportation and meals. Volunteers also receive training and insurance protection while volunteering. During 1996, 1,036 RSVP volunteers of Kent County provided 252,000 hours of their expertise, skill, and time to private and public non-profits or proprietary health care organizations. About 50% of Michigan's RSVP volunteers serve older people in their homes & communities . They deliver meals and provide essential services such as transportation, shopping assistance, respite care, friendly visiting, telephone reassurance, home repair, tax preparation, You Are Not Alone reassurance visits and more. Many congregate nutrition programs, senior centers and nursing homes would find it difficult to operate without RSVP. Our volunteers are found in a multitude of programs developed to benefit the environment, local neighborhoods, children, low-income, homeless or disabled persons. We actively support collaborative initiatives such as Strong Families/Safe Children and Systems Reform by promoting the services of older volunteers as a resource in meeting the needs of families and developing programs which support childhood immunization initiatives and relative caregivers. 2. Strengths and weaknesses of the way CNS programs are supported in Michigan: We are, and have been since our conception, an older American program. We are here to benefit the senior and as a second benefit, we benefit the community. We are not about service. We are about seniors. Since we were put under the Corporation for National Service, we find ourselves being �the National Senior Service Corps. Our senior programs ar~, .~tilized to validate new volunteer initiatives and then efforts are put in place to change us · into a service organization; deemphasizing the senior's needs, talents, and contributions. Studies have proven that older people who volunteer have more positive attitudes, higher self-esteem, better health and live longer lives. Healthy. active older people cost society less than frail, sick older persons. Clearly, it is a weakness of the Corporation and consequently the Commission to change us into yet another "SERVICE" Corps. We provide service to our communities now. They recognize that service with their dollars. My project's budget is over $174,000 a year. $56,000 comes from the Corporation. Over $100,000 comes from the community because they know we get the job done. get it done well and cost-effectively. Incidentally, my annual salary as Director of the RSVP Project is less than the cost of one AmeriCorps Volunteer. The Ideal, What is the best way that National and Community Service and Volunteerism should be supported in Michigan? Stop trying to change the Older American Programs. We aren't broke. Please stop trying to "fix" us. We are not service-first programs. We are senior-first programs . This single comment addresses all of the questions in your letter regarding today's hearing. I would like to give you an example of what I am talking about by telling you about one of the over 1,000 volunteers in my project: Volunteer's Story here .... Jim Muir's Stozy. Jim 's contribution to his community will benefit future generations and communities beyond this state. Talk about Impact!! Jim gave me permission to share his story today and stated, "You have to leave the freedom of choice in RSVP. Without it I won't stay there and neither will other seniors . Emphasizing service could be the end of the program. " RSVP's focus on the senior helped Jim Muir "handle living" and as a result look what we have gained! Can this country afford to lose even one caring, talented senior? What arrogance to assume a Corporation or Commission knows best what the communities ' needs are or what gifts we will allow the seniors to share! �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICECOMMISSION PUBLIC INFORMATION GATHERING' MEETING ON SERVICE AND VOLUNTEERISM IN MICHIGAN Presented by: Bradley J. Johnson, Executive Director Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan Thank you for the opportunity to share my organizations views of service and volunteerism in Michigan. The Volunteer Center of Mid-Michigan, formerly known as the Voluntary Action Center has a long 45 year history of connecting people and resources in the Capitol Community. The Volunteer Center is aligned and affiliated with the Capital Area United Way, Volunteer Centers of Michigan (VCM is the state association representing over 27 volunteer centers), Michigan Nonprofit Association, and the Points of Light Foundation (supporting over 500 national volunteer centers). It is through these connections that we, as community practitioners ofvolunteerism, are able to forge ahead in an ever changing nonprofit dynamic . Much like that of our statewide network of Volunteer Centers, the Volunteer Center of MidMichigan is positioned within the greater Lansing community to respond quickly to community needs. To accomplish this we are tasked as the community volunteer clearinghouse to over 300 nonprofit organizations. In addition, our mission is to promote and develop volunteerism, match volunteers with nonprofit organizations, and address select unmet community needs . It is only by following our vision of "mobilizing people and resources to deliver creative solutions to community problems " that we are able to accomplish our mission. The Volunteer Center has had the opportunity to become involved with the Michigan Community Service Commission on a number of levels: As an VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps grant recipient, through community outreach during the numerous volunteer mobilizations (ie: Day of Caring) where staff joined in the celebration of volunteerism, as a judge for the Governors Service Award, and though the use of the numerous publications produced through the Commission. During the Volunteer Centers 45 year history we have had the opportunity to observe numerous national and community service initiatives. As an organization typically outside the normal realm of these programs, the Volunteer Center has had the occasional opportunity to observe, and in other cases became intimately involved within, the operations of those national and community service programs. The Volunteer Center's experience with the operations, efficiency and overall impact in community by these national and community service initiatives or programs unfortunately range from poor to excellent. I believe that many of the problems that our organization faced were a direct result of national level involvement in program management and the inherent flaw in program organization. However, in contrast, our experience with the Michigan Community Service Commission and the national service programs that they oversee have been superior to those programs implemented from the national level organization. �I believe that President Clinton stated it clearly when he said "much of the work of America cannot be done by government, much other work cannot be · don~ by government alone. The solution must be the American people through voluntary service to others." We often hear of collaboration. It is truly an impressive buzz-word. Collaboration. Just the sound of it impresses me. It must impress a lot of others as well. Because nearly every nonprofit and governmental organization is claiming to be collaborator. Too often we are positioning our organization to be the power broker, instead of working together for a common good. A recent example of a statewide collaboration worth mentioning is that of the Presidents' Summit. The Michigan Community Service Commission, Volunteer Centers of Michigan, Council ofMichigan Foundations and United Way of Michigan came together, took off their institutional hats and said "lets work together for the children of Michigan." Get this .. .it's working! But, we must remember that we need to work with the existing state organizations, not reinvent or absorb them. True collaboration will benefit the citizens of Michigan. We would encourage the continued exploration and growth of the VCM AmeriCorps/Michigan AmeriCorps youth volunteerism initiative. This type of collaboration not only strengthens local nonprofit infrastructure, but it also addresses a serious social problem -- declining youth volunteerism. The Michigan Community Servic~ Commission and the Volunteer Centers of Michigan are pioneers in this statewide approach to engage youth in service. This innovative model of youth service will no doubt lead to its duplication across the country as a national model. The reason for success? Governmental guidance and organizational management. The Michigan Community Service Commission will serve the citizens of Michigan best as they continue to enable all citizens, including youth, to engage in public problem solving through service and volunteerism. It is through this open exchange of information and dialogue that our Commission is most successful. Governor George Romney said "The magnitude of our social problems will require that all citizens and institutions make a commitment to volunteering as a way of life and as a primary opportunity to create needed change." The State of Michigan has already distinguished itself as a leader in volunteerism across the country through the establishment of a Community Service Commission. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to the people of Michigan by listening to what the people really want and need. Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to community by becoming the catalyst for positive community change, by stimulating innovative programs that meet real community needs through service. By becoming the convener of diverse individuals and groups, building community through shared efforts towards common goals. Now is the time to become that broker of ideas and resources and to encourage collaboration; not just talk about collaboration, but become the leader and follow your vision to engage entrepreneurial approaches to service and volunteer program development. In closing, the Michigan Community Service Commission will best serve the citizens of the State of Michigan by continuing their fine work in support national level opportunities, by acting as a facilitator and a collaborator, in support of statewide opportunities, and by supporting and enhancing statewide nonprofit initiatives. It is also critical that the Michigan Community Service Commission work diligently to recognize, support, and work with existing networks in Michigan. �11r-1a L~IJ MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY MARCH 25, 1997 ARIA LARSEN, DIRECTOR SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM FAMILY SERVICE AGENCY 202 E. BOULEVARD DRIVE STE. II 0 FLINT, MI 48503 810-257-3769 I have been asked to represent our Senior Companion Program in Lapeer and Genesee Counties as well as the eight other Senior Companion Programs in Michigan. I have been the Director of our Senior Companion Prot,rram since it was started 13 years ago. Prior to the creation of our Senior Companion Prot,rram, I was the Director ofthe Foster Grandparent Program in our area for two years and then assigned joint directorships of both Programs for two years for a total of 15 years as a Director of National Senior Service Corps Programs in Michigan. The Senior Companion Prot,rram recruits, trains, assigns and supervises seniors who wish to be a volunteer in their community and are 60 years of age and older and meet income guidelines ( 125°·o of poverty) Staff of the Senior Companion Program support the senior volunteer in their volunteer efforts and provide advocacy for their volunteers in needs they may have outside of their volunteering experience. An annual physical is provided for the senior as well as a daily meal allowance and travel reimbursement. An hourly stipend of S2.45 for a maximum of 20 hours \\eek of volunteering in the community is also provided for the senior volunteer. These benefits help support the effort and costs of volunteering for the volunteer and improves their quality of life. Our Senior Companion volunteers visit and help special needs adults, 21 years of age and older in Lapeer and Genesee Counties who are living independently or with their families or in foster care homes. group homes. adult day care centers, adult education programs, day treatment programs and nursing homes. These special needs adults are referred by community agencies who have \'vTitten agreements with the SCP to be matched with senior volunteers by the Prof:,rram stall The community referral agencies are there for the needs of their adult clients and the Senior Companion Prot,rram is there for their Senior volunteer. By \vorking together the Prot,rram and the referral agencies work together to meet the needs of the volunteers and the clients. The special needs these adults may have are: developmental disabilities, mental illness, frail health, dementia and physical handicaps. The goal of the senior volunteers· efforts with their assigned clients is to allow the clients to live as independently as possible by providing companionship. advocacy. respite. and social activities to their assigned clients and their families . �The senior volunteer is served by enabling them to remain independent and active in their community by being part of the Senior Companion Program.-The relationships they build with their assigned clients benefits both the Senior volunteers and the referred adults . Two special !,'TOups of individuals, the low income senior volunteer and the special needs adult, are served for the cost of one, making the SCP very cost efficient In Lapeer and Genesee Counties we have 45 volunteers actively serving 248 clients in the community through 21 community referral sources. The State of Michigan began funding National Senior Service Corps Programs (NSSC) 20 years ago. The funds came from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Office on Aging (OSA) through OSA to local sponsor agencies across the State. When the State began funding NSSC Programs there was only one Senior Companion Pro!:,rram . Now there are nine Programs with only two of the SCP funded primarily by the Corporation for National Service (CNS) . The State of Michigan has funding in all the SCP, FGP and RSVP in Michigan except one Senior Companion Program. There are more state funds in the NSSC Programs in Michigan than federal funds . Our Program is a state funded program with a small federal PNS grant that supports three additional Senior Companion volunteers. Our Programs are very fortunate in Michigan to have the state funds and the full support of OSA in administering them . OSA ·s priority is the well being of seniors in Michigan. It understands the needs of seniors and the problems that confront them. The extra bonus is that OSA recobrnizes the NSSC Probrrams as volunteer programs for seniors and promotes them as a service to senior volunteers as well as the volunteers· community. This was the purpose of the NSSC Programs when they began thirty years ago through the federal agency (ACTION) under the Domestic Volunteer Service Act. Before the Corporation was formed and our name \vas changed to the NSSC our Pro!:,rrams were knov.rn as the Older American Volunteer Programs (0/\ VP) . The name supported the original purpose of the Pro!:,rrams ofthe emphasis being placed on the senior volunteer over any community service they provided. The Corporation is changing the purpose of the NSSC Probrrams to have the emphasis on the service the senior volunteers provide the community over the service to the senior volunteer to tit in with the service orientation of the Corporation and its other Programs such as AMERICORPS and LEARN AND SERVE. In Michigan the Corporation ·s State office is required to adopt this same emphasis. However, the state office has monitored and funded the NSSC Pro!:,rrams , tirst as the ACTION state oftice and no\v as the Corporation state office since these Probrrams began thirty years ago. The Programs are comfortable with the state oftice as a known entity and the Corporation State Office works well with OSA giving a solid base to all the NSSC Programs in Michigan. Unfortunately, not all the states which have NSSC Programs across the country have state offices on agi ng or even Community Service Commissions like v.•e have in Michigan. What the NSSC Programs nationally do have in common is the Corporation State Offices. What has made the �NSSC Programs successful and so long-standing with bipartis~_n.support is the consistent fiscal and programmatic oversight and structure nationally with the ·col-poration State Offices_ The fiscal and pro!,rrammatic structure for the NSSC Programs in Michigan currently meets the needs of the Programs through the oversight of OSA and the Corporation State Office. It is a . system that has worked for over twenty years and has made the Michigan NSSC Programs some of the best in the country. Our Programs have been able to meet the needs of our senior volunteers and enable them to be part of the their local community support systems that works toward meeting the needs identified by their own local community. The Michigan Community Service Commission can support our NSSC Programs by facilitating information about the NSSC Programs in Michigan to their AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve Programs in the state. The Commission also needs to promote older adult service as part of AmeriCorps . Individuals who attend college later in life would appreciate an opportunity to get tuition assistance by providing community service. I have not seen or heard of any older adults being AmeriCorps service providers in Michigan and it is my understanding AmeriCorps was open to all ages of qualified Americans. Because the Michigan NSSC Pro!,rrams promote the senior over service, we feel we are not a good fit with the service oriented and youth oriented AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve pro!,rrams nationall y and in Michigan. �MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED AND SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM DIRECfORS 9851 Hamilton, Detroit, Michigan 48202 Joy Graves President Wayne County Linda Lark Vice President Kent County Gloria Sanderson Secretary Crawford and Roscommon Counties Kathy Herrala Treasurer Marquette County CarlaBufe Charlevoix and Emmet Counties Janet Clark Ingham, Eaton and Clinton Counties Sandra Dalrymple ecosta and .:>ceola Lake Counties BethDebano Macomb County Wilma Kahn Kalamazoo County Jill Kind Washtenaw County RSVP Director Grand Traverse Bay Area Hershell Masten Oakland County Pam McCrum Jackson County Theresa Nelson Delta, Menominee & Schoolcraft Counties Karen Reid Genesee and Shiawassee Counties Susan Smethurst Otsego County Meg Smith onroe County + (313)883-7764 + FAX 883-3957 March 17, 1997- Michigan Community Service Commission Public Hearing Mrs. Engler, Mr. Dirks, members of the Community Service Commission. Thank you for providing the opportunity to speak with you today. It is very important that we can meet together to discuss these very important issues. My name is Joy Graves. I have been the Director of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program of Wayne County for nine years. Two of our RSVP volunteers, Warren Black and Ann Evans, serve on the Senior Advisory Council for the Commission. I am also President of the Michigan Association of RSVP Directors. It is in that capacity that I come before you today. Let me briefly tell you about RSVP. RSVP is the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. Please note the words "senior volunteer" in our designation. Each year in Michigan, nearly 10,000 volunteers, ages 55 and older, spend 18 hundred thousand. .. .nearly two million hours.... meeting a variety ofhuman and community needs which touch all generations. We are not a service program. We are a senior volunteer program which enriches the lives of seniors by enabling them as volunteers to provide service. The legisl ated purpose of our program is to "empower older individuals to contribute to their communities through volunteer service, enhance the lives of the volunteers and those whom they serve .... " Notice that the person comes first, their service second. When we received funding for our programs from the Michigan Office of Services to the Aging, they also emphasized the importance of the benefit to the seniors by saying that these programs are "designed to address the needs of the older volunteer, first, and then to serve the needs .... " What are the strengths and weaknesses of the way national and community sen 1ice programs are supported in Michigan? We look to our state office and to OSA for our support. The Corporation for National Service in Washington has been, and continues to be, primarily interested in Arnericorp and Arnericorp ' s survival. We are deeply concerned that the support that we once received from Washington, befo re coming to the Corporation has, indeed, been eroded. The Commission' s fo cus primarily involves youth in the field of service both as participants and as recipients . For 26 years, our state office, however, has been readily available to answer our questions and to help us find new and creative solutions to our community' s problems. They support the mission ofbeing senior programs, first, service programs second. The state office understands that, by supporting and encouraging seniors, the community will also be served. The state director and staff are the experts that guide our programs. They also work in partnership with OSA staff; our local sponsors ; �•' \1ARSVPD Testimony- page 2 community nonprofits ; and other organizations to suppon senior volunteers while they meet community needs . r7-The ideal, what is the best H·ay That national and community service and rolunteerism should be supported in _\fichigan? Our mission is senior volunteerism, so I will address that issue. Ideally, our state office will continue to be a viable and reliable source of support. The partnerships formed, and the 26 years of experience in administering our programs should continue. The current system allows for flexibility in identifying the needs of the indi\'idual communities, as well as, addressing the needs designated by the Corporation in Washington. There have been proposals to eliminate our state offices. We question the wisdom of such a decision. 'Why change a system that so ideally meets the needs of our programs, our volunteers and our communities? \Vhat efficiency can be gained by stripping our programs and the communities they serve of experienced, dedicated support and damaging effecti\'e partnerships that make our programs the low cost, creative solutions to many of our communities' problems? If the determined anempts to eliminate our state offices do ultimately succeed, then there is only one clear choi ce for the administrative and funding control of our programs. The Michigan Offices of Services to the Aging has provided firm leadership and support for our programs and oversight for our state funding for 14 years. They are already part of the partnership, I speak of, and are experienced and creative in recommending appropriate ways for senior \'Olunteers to aid in solving community problems. Because they already provide suppon and administer funding for programs for seniors throughout the state, including all of the senior volunteer programs, OSA has the knowledge needed to carry out our stated purpose. What should the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in Michigan? Again, vill address senior volunteerism because ours is a senior volunteer program. We appreciate the Commission's uecision to establish a Senior Advisory Council. This demonstrated an appreciation for the expertise and value of the seniors in our state. We hope that they will continue to look upon the seniors in Michigan as a source of wisdom, experience and an example of productive aging. We would hope that the Commission could be more creative in the membership of the Council by including a broader cross-section of senior representation such as AARP, reli gious leaders, and collaborations with retired professionals, i.e., retired nurses and teachers. The Advisory Council needs to become a more functioning body with goals and objectives. The momentum of the Council seems to be waning. What can the Commission do To support national and community service and volunteerism in .Michigan ? We hope that the Commission will, basically, leave the senior volunteer programs alone. We provide seniors v;ith the framework to improve their ovm lives while serving others. The Commission should recognize the strength of senior \'Olunteers without exploiting seniors as cheap labor. To try to dictate what a volunteer will choose to do is an ox:ymoron. Senior volunteers, actually volunteers of any age, carmot be forced to provide service for free. Sen·ice and volunteerism are not synonymous. To be an effective RSVP volunteer, there must be benefit to the senior first, and service to the community, second. Othenvise, volunteerism becomes exploitative. The Commission must recognize this subtle, yet vital, difference between service and volunteerism. The Commission's programs are predominately service programs for youth. We are volunteer programs for seniors. There is a vast difference. Again, thank you very much for providing this opportunity to express our views. We look fonvard to working llaboratively with the Commission on projects in the future thus puning to good use the strengths of each entity. �A part ofyour l~fo.. :all yo ur l{ti·. MARCH 25, 1997 PRESENTATION TO MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION RE THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES AND OTHER CYO/CO&T DEPARTMENT PROJECTS EFFECTED BY FUNDING THROUGH THE COMMISSION. BY: SHARON CAMPBELL, PROGRAM MANAGER GOOD AFTERNOON , LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I AM SHARON CAMPBELL. I AM EMPLOYED BY THE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION OF DETROIT , AND I ADD , PARENTHETICALLY , WE ARE NOT PART OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT. I AM HONORED TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY GOOD THAT'S HAPPENING WITH AND FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA. I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO BE A PART OF THIS EFFORT. THE CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION HAS A LONG STANDING HISTORY OF "GETTING KIDS AND COMMUNITIES INTO SOMETHING GOOD", AS A MATTER OF FACT THE IMPACT THIS AGENCY HAS MADE ON THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN CYO ACTIVITIES IS OFTEN SO STRONG THAT OUR MOTTO IS "CYO ... A PART OF YOUR LIFE, ALL OF YOUR LIFE. - - - - - " .- - . �IN ADDITION TO THE COMMONLY KNO W N CYO ATHLETICS AND YOUTH TRAINING DEPARTMENT P~QGRAMS SUCH AS , CAMPS , LEADERSHIP , THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND HAS BEEN WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOODS , CHURCHES , PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS , SCHOOLS , GOVERNMENT AGENC IES , HUMAN AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES , AND BUSINESSES TO CREATE HEAL THY ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH YOUNG PEOPLE IN SIX COUNTIES OF SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN , CAN LIVE, LEARN, AND PROSPER. THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND TRAINING DEPARTMENT STAFF SERVES TO STRENGTHEN AND REVITALIZE COMMUNITIES BY GETTING PEOPLE TO IDENTIFY THEIR OWN NEEDS AND TRAINING THEM TO REACH THEIR COMMON GOALS THROUGH GROUP ACTION AND SELF - HELP EFFORTS. THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION HAS SUPPORTED THE MISSION OF THE CYO COMMUNITY ORGANIZING & TRAINING DEPARTMENT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS BY GRANT ING FUNDS AND ACCESS TO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE . AS A RESULT , THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES OF THE DETROIT METROPOLITAN AREA EXISTS TO ADDRESS THE CRITICAL NEEDS OF YOUTH THROUGH ADVOCACY, COLLABORATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ; TO MOBILIZE HUMAN AND ALL OTHER AVAILABLE RESOURCES IN SUPPORT OF THIS 2 �MISSION ; AND TO SERVE AS A PRIMAR Y COMMUNITY RESOURCE FOR Y OUTH . . SERVICES AND INFORMATION . JUST WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?? FOR MANY YEARS, THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES WAS A GROUP OF EXECUTIVES WHO MET AMONG THEMSELVES , WITHOUT A SPECIFIC MISSION , TO SHARE RESOURCES AND INFORMATION. BECAUSE THE MCSC AND CYO JOINED FORCES, THROUGH A MYSAM GRANT, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THAT GROUP OF EXECUTIVES TO RE-ORGANIZE , RE - STRUCTURE , AND RE -BUILD THE COALITION. GOALS WERE ESTABLISHED WHICH INCLUDE COLLABORATING WITH ESTABLISHED AND EMERGING ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE NETW ORKING OPPORTUNITIES , EXPLORE COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM AND FUNDING POSSIBILITIES , AND SHARE RESOURCES. MEMBERSHIP WAS EX PANDED TO INCLUDE ORGAN IZATIONS , CHURCHES , COALIT IONS , NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND OTHERS WHOSE PURPOSE INCLUDES PROVIDING SERVICES TO YOUTH . THE COALITION OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES , NOW , AS A RESULT OF THE MCSC / CY O COLLABORATION , PROVIDES INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO APPROXIMATELY 250 YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS . THESE ORGANIZATIONS VARY IN SIZE , STRENGTH , BUDGET AND ARENA. THEY INCLUDE NOT ONLY LONG 3 �STANDING , FAMILIAR ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE GIRLS SCOUTS , BOYS SCOUTS , Y'S , BUT ALSO, SCHOOLS , CHURCHES , COMMUNITY GROUPS , THE CITY OF DETROIT, AGENCIES , NATIONALLY HEALTH NEIGHBORHOOD AFFILIATED AGENCIES , GROUPS, LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS, SERVICES AND -BUSINESSES. HUMAN AGENCIES , MANY SERVICE EMERGING PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATIONS HAVE BEGUN TO GEL AS A RESUL TOF THE INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SHARING AVAILABLE TO CYSA MEMBERS . LETS TAKE A LOOK AT THE FIRST QUARTER ACTIVITY . A TWO-DAY CONFERENCE WAS SPONSORED BY THE COALITION , FOR ADULTS WHO WORK CONFERENCE WITH WAS YOUTH. THE ATTENDED BY "NURTURING ALMOST 200 FUTURE ADULTS GENERATIONS" WHO RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; PARTICIPATED IN NETWORKING ACTIVITIES ; HEARD F~OM SPEAKERS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD , WHO WORK IN THE TRENCHES TO IDENTIFY AND PROVIDE STATE-OF- THE-ART INFORMATION AND RESOURCES FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS. FOR ABOUT 50 OF THE PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE , IT WAS THEIR FIRST TIME PARTICIPATING IN A CYSA ACTIVITY. TWENTY-EIGHT AGENCIES ENROLLED AS PAID MEMBERS OF THE COALITION AS A RESULT OF THE CONFERENCE. 4 �THE CONFERENCE WAS PLANNED AND IMPLEMENTED AS A COMMUNITY -BASED SERVICE LEARNING PROJECT . TWENTY -FIVE YOUTH, AGES 14-21 , REPRESENTING A VARIETY OF YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA PARTICIPATED BY OFFERING INVOCATIONS, INTRODUCING EACH KEYNOTE AND WORKSHOP PRESENTERS, FACILITATING WORKSHOP AND OVERALL CONFERENCE EVALUATION-PROCESSES, AND PARTICIPATING IN ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTION EXERCISES AT THE END OF EACH DAY . IN ADDITION TO DEVELOPING AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, A COMMITTEE WAS ESTABLISHED TO DEFINE AND DEVE-LOP A "PILOT" COMPREHENSIVE YOUTH SERVICES PROJECT. AT THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ABOUT AN INITIATIVE TO MOBILIZE AND TRAIN YOUTH IN LEADERSHIP SKILLS. THIS WILL BE DONE THROUGH A COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DETROIT URBAN LEAGUE . PRESENTATIONS WERE ALSO MADE BY THE MICHIGAN LEAGUE FOR HUMAN SERVICES ABOUT THE 1996 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK AND THE CHILDREN'S AGENDA AND HOW GROUPS CAN USE THOSE DOCUMENTS AS A TOOL TO INCREASE THEIR SERVICE CAPACITY. 5 �• I THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OTHER B.ENEF ITS TO YOUTH SERVING AGENCIES IN THE DETROIT AREA , THROUGH THE CYSA , AND I DON ' T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO D ISCUSS THEM ALL. I DO , HOWEVER , WANT TO TELL YOU BRIEFLY ABOUT THE PLANS DEVELOPING FOR THE SUMMER . THE COALITION IS GEARING UP FOR A COLLABORATIVE SERVICE-LEARNING ACTIVITY FOR YOUTH . THROUGH THE YOUTHMAPPING PROJECT, YOUNG PEOPLE WILL CANVASS NEIGHBORHOODS , BLOCK - BY-BLOCK , GATHERING INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN THEIR COMMUNITY FOR THEM AND THEIR PEERS . ONE OF THE PREMISES OF THE YOUTHMAPPING APPROACH IS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE BEST QUALIFIED TO IDENTIFY RESOURCES THAT ARE USEFUL TO THEM . RESOURCES , NOT ONLY INCLUDE SERVICES , THE Y ALSO INVOLVE OPPORTUNITIES , PLACES TO GO , AND CARING ADULTS. THIS PROJECT W ILL NOT ONLY PROVIDE LEADERSHIP , LIFE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYMENT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES , A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT IS UNDERWA Y TO SEEK A GRANT TO STIPEND THE Y OUTH. AS YOU CAN TELL I AM VERY EXC ITED BY THIS WORK . I WOULD ALSO LI KE TO TELL Y OU A BIT ABOUT THE WORK OTHER CO& T DEPARTMENT STAFF HAVE BEEN AND ARE ENGAGED IN . 6 �THROUGH A M ICHIGAN CARES GRANT THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COLLABORATIVE WAS DEVELOPED. THIS IS A COMMUNITY-DRIVEN , YOUTH CENTERED COLLABORATIVE THAT PROVIDES SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO RESIDENTS OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT TO BUILD A SAFE AND HEAL TH Y ENVIRONMENT WHERE COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY AND VOLUNTEERISM ARE PRESENT, WHILE CELEBRATING THE STRENGTHS AND MUL TI -CUL TURISM OF SOUTHWEST DETROIT . YOUTH AND ADULTS CAME TOGETHER TO TRAIN THE YOUTH TO PLAN AND FACILITATE A WEEKEND CONFERENCE. TWO ADOPT-A - STREET PROJECTS WERE ORGANIZED ON A STREET IN THE COMMUNITY . OVER 35 YOUTH AND 1 5 ADULTS WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH LOCAL INDUSTRIES TO CLEAR AWAY 200 TONS OF GARBAGE , 700 TIRES AND 90 GAS TANKS . TWENTY -FIVE JUNIOR HIGH AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YOUTH PARTICIPATE IN A TUTORING AND MENTORING PROGRAM . YOUTH FROM MIDDLE SCHOOL VOLUNTEER TO BE A PART OF THE GROUP WHO DESIGN THE "LESSON" FOR THE KINDERGARTNERS , AND ACTUALLY FACILITATE THE TEACHING OF THE LESSON , GUIDED BY A TEACHER. 7 �A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY BASED RECREATION LEAGUE WAS FUNDED . BUILDING UPON THE DEVELOPMENT THE OF MICARES BASE COMMUNITY IN THE RECREATION COMMUNITY , THE LEAGUE HAS BEEN FACILITATED BY RECRUITING AND TRAINING VOLUNTEERS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY , COACHES, REFEREES, AND PLAYERS. THE COMMUNITY RECREATION lEAGUE INCREASES COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERISM : MORE PARENTS, MORE LOCAL BUSINESSES , MORE CHURCHES, MORE AGENCIES , MORE SCHOOLS ARE INVOLVED . THE LEAGUE WILL IMPROVE AND PUT TO USE UNDERUTILIZED AND POORLY MAINTAINED FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY . WHEN A COMMUNITY'S PHYSICAL CONDITION IS IMPROVED THERE IS AN INCREASE OF PRIDE AND SENSE OF OWNERSHIP , WHICH RESULTS IN A REDUCTION OF CRIME. EACH OF THE FINANCIALLY PROGRAMS AND / OR WITH I HAVE MENTIONED TECHNICAL HAVE ASSISTANCE BEEN BY THE SUPPORTED MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION . THAT SUPPORT HAS NOT BEEN WITHOUT ITS PROBLEMS. MOST OF WHICH ARE THOSE GROWING PA INS OF ANY NEW INITIATIVE , SUCH AS , ON-GOING EVALUATION AND PROGRAM CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION AS NEW IDEAS ARE FORMULATED. THE COMMUNICATION OF PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND REPORTING PROCEDURES HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF SOME CONSTERNATION . 8 �DESPITE THE LOGISTICAL CHALLENGES , THE BENEFITS FAR OUTWEIGH THE PROBLEMS. ONE OF THE GREATEST BENEFITS TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTHWEST DETROIT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THE UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PLANNING GRANT WHERE THEY IDENTIFY THEIR OWN ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THOSE ISSUES. THIS HAS BEEN A REMARKABLE EXPERIENCE . IT EXEMPLIFIES THE ESSENCE OF COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT AND SELF -HELP. THE MYSAM GRANT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ORGANIZATION , THEREBY INCREASING THE VOLUNTEERISM OF MEMBER AGENCIES . THE VISTA PROGRAM HAS PROVIDED ADDITIONAL RESOURCE TO CYO AND ITS CLIENT GROUPS . THE REG IONAL AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES , WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES , NETW ORKING ACTIVITIES COORDINATED AND FACILITATED BY THE MCSC HAS SERVED TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF OUR CLIENT GROUPS , BY FOSTERING COLLABORATION, SHARING RESOURCES , AND PROMOTING REPLICATION AND CROSS-FERTILIZATION OF PROGRAMS , NOT DUPLICATION . 9 �WHAT CAN THE MCSC DO TO SUPPORT THE WORK THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDERWAY? PRESENT GRANTEES OF THE MCSC CAN CONTINUE TO GRO W IN SIZE AND CAPACITY IF MCSC CONTINUES TO OFFER REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE TRAINING AND NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES , WHILE MAKING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO EMERGING GROUPS, IN ORDER TO QUALIFY THEM FOR FUTURE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES. CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE EMERGING GROUPS TO NETWORK WITH CURRENT GRANTEES WILL ALSO FOSTER CROSSFERTILIZATION AND REPLICATION INSTEAD OF DUPLICATION . FOR EXAMPLE: A THREE TIERED STRUCTURE CAN BE DEVELOPED , AKIN TO THE LOCAL- , COUNTY-, STATE - GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, WHERE NETWORKING CAN OCCUR IN A LOCAL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS , REGIONALLY , AND STATEWIDE . THE MCSC IS IN A POSITION TO ENSURE THAT PRESENT AND FUTURE GRANTEES HAVE CUTTING-EDGE INFORMATION AND RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFECTIVENESS . A CONSORTIUM OF ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITH FUNDS AND / OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EFFECTIVELY BE ESTABLISHED AND FAC ILITATED BY THE MCSC . 10 CAN �IN CONCLUSION, OUR RELATIONSHIP W ITH THE MCSC, THROUGH THE MYSAM GRANT, Ml CARES FUNDING , AND WITH THE VISTA VOLUNTEERS PROGRAM HAS INCREASED OUR CAPACITY TO SERVE THE EMPOWERMENT OF YOUTH AND ADULTS , ENABLED US TO FOSTER INCREASING CAPACITY OF YOUTH SERVING ORGANIZATIONS, AND OVERALL, TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE SERVICE PROVIDERS . WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUED OPPORTUNITES TO MAINTAIN A PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION . THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY . 11 �'• MCSC PUBLIC HEARING Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I'm Bob Parks. I am the Program Director of the Family Independence Agency's Americorps program: the Citizens' Health Service Corps. I come here with less experience with Americorps and the Commission than any other presenter speaking here today. I've been with the program since January 2nd of this year. This is a very sophisticated audience and I don't come with any great insights that are going to be new to you . But I bring what I hope is a balanced perspective to the issues. Where my perspective maybe different is that for 7 years I was responsible for the contract management and oversight of36 non-profit agencies providing Runaway and Homeless Youth services in Mic~igan. The total annual dollar amount of those contracts was about $ 6 million dollars. Many of my responsibilities were similar to those of the Commission. I bring an understanding and appreciation of the needs ofthe Commission in relationship to the programs being funded . A couple of examples: There are differences in the way data collection is perceived. Programs want to use data to make their programs look good and to be refunded . Data collection is seen as hard work and a burden. Unmet program goals are perceived as threatening the continuation ofthe program. While everyone recognizes that data is useful and can be used for continuous improvement; most of the time it is seen as an obligation required by the funding source. The Commission wants data to determine whether their money is being spent well and wisely. The Commission needs to ensure that programs are achieving their mission and to know whether programs are meeting their obligations that are included in the grant. The Commission and the Grantees have different customers, stakeholders and interest groups. As a result, there may be competing priorities and objectives. Often, there is a lack of appreciation of each other' s priorities and objectives Prior to becoming the Americorps Program Director, the office where I worked for two and a half years was involved, as an Internal Consultant to FIA, in areas of Total Quality Management, Teamwork and Customer Service. My comments will lean on my background as an Internal Consultant. �•• In the time that I have I would like to focus on what can be__ done to create a sense ofPartnership and Collaboration between the Comrriission and the programs under the aegis of the Commission. Discussing in a public forum what can be improved isn' t easy. All ofus were taught by our parents not to raise concerns that may appear critical of others. Nobody wants to criticize anyone in front of their bosses. And raising concerns that may appear to be critical of a funding source is seldom a good idea. But I have an advantage. Last week, I discussed these themes with Frank Dirks and, afterwards, he still invited me to speak at this public hearing. The major perception that I have is that the Commission sees its role primarily in terms of management and oversight and not from a customer-service focus. In my judgment, this mindset affects the way the Commission communicates and relates with programs. It hinders an openness which is so necessary for Partnership _and Collaboration. The examples that I will use do not occur all the time. In some cases, the examples, by themselves, mean very little. But collectively, these examples foster an attitude that is, in my view, counter-productive. Information is not always shared in a timely way . I received a call on March 7, 1997 inviting Arnericorps Members and staff to be a part of Emergency Based Response Team. An organizational meeting was scheduled for March 20, 1997. But the information regarding the meeting was not faxed to me until March 13 , 1997. Telephone calls are not always returned in a timely manner. It is at the point where I don 't expect to have my calls returned promptly. There are times when the Commission does not create an atmosphere of partnership. As an example: It was announced at the last Commission meeting that there may be $ 1 million dollars available in the FY -98 Appropriation Bill to help local communities to raise endowment funds . It was suggested that FIA Volunteer Coordinators may have a role in this effort. But this issue was never discussed with FIA prior to the announcement at the Commission meeting. Meetings are called without clear or complete agendas . Often, there is a notation in the notice that the meeting is "mandatory" . The Commission has a paternalistic attitude toward programs. In the registration materials to Arnericorps programs for the SuperConference there was a notation that said, "Two persons to a room Same sex roommates only!" I found this to be condescending If the target audience for the registration materials had been the this Board of Commissioners, would that language have been the same? �<. Requests for information often come with very abbrevi~t~d deadlines. As an example, the request to submit names for the Americorps*Vista "National Service Hero" award allowed very little time to pull the information together; particularly when our site supervisors have many other Volunteer Service responsibilities. This may not be a good example because the short timeframes probably came from the Corporation for National Service and not the Commission. There is a sense that the Commission does not want programs to call the Corporation for National Service in Washington. In truth, I'm not sure why I have this perception. The Corporation for National Service has a poor track record for returning calls promptly. Frequently what I end up doing is call both the Commission and CNS when I am requesting information. To add balance, let me give a couple of examples of outstanding customer service. Just prior to the SuperConference one of the workshop presenters wanted to have an Americorps Member make a presentation at her workshop . The site supervisor called me to ask if the registration for the Americorps Member could be paid by the Commission. I called Lindy Reurink. Within 5 minutes she called me back to tell me everything was all set. One week after I became the Americorps Program Director I found out I was responsible to write the Year Two Renewal Application; which was due in Washington, DC on February 11th. I submitted my draft to Frank Dirks. On three occasions, he thoroughly reviewed the drafts, met with me to discuss the drafts, and made specific and important recommendations to improve the application. The result was that a quality Renewal Application was submitted. We were one of only eleven programs, out of the 28 original grants, that was approved for renewal. In closing, it is sometimes true that perception becomes reality. If my perceptions are shared by others they can have a stifling impact on communication and collaboration. �1787 Manchester Dr. Ypsilanti, MI 48198 313-487-0717 smsdas@ aol.com March 23, 1997 One Project: One Reason Not to Merge I take this opportunity to share my concerns in writing about the transference of CNS programs to the state commissions. I served as the state director for CNS and its predecessor agency ACTION for 23 years in Michigan. In addition, I served as a VISTA volunteer for two years from 1967 to 1969. I have a long history of involvement with poverty programs as well as senior programs. During the period of 1984 to 1986. I was detailed to the Michigan Department of Social Services to serve as a special assistant to the director. My experiences are many and varied relative to project development and social programming. It is based on that background that leads me to vigorously object to the merger of CNS and the state commission in Michigan. I have included the position paper of the National Senior Service Corps Directors Associations stating their objections to senior programs being transferred to commissions. This paper gives my objections to the transference of the V 1ST A sponsor approval process to the state commission. The state commissions· emphasis is on service and volunteerism. VISTA ·s mission is on poverty related issues. There is a major difference between the two. V 1ST A was created in 1964 as part of the War on Poverty effort. The emphasis for VISTA has been and still is the eradication and/or amelioration of poverty. Recruiting volunteers for community agencies is not necessarily a poverty related activity and is a function that is most often done by a volunteer action type agency, whose mission is the promotion of vo lunteerism. In my 23 years in Michigan. I did not, nor would I have. approved a project like the one that was approved for 18 VISTA volunteers in Michigan this past year by the Michigan CNS office in conjunction with the state commission. The sponsor of that project is the Michigan Nonprofit Association. The project was submitted to the Michigan CNS office by Frank Dirks. Executive Director of the Michigan Community Service Commission. on �" . •. behalf of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative and its collaborating partners, the Council of Michigan Foundations and the Michigan Nonprofit Association. All fine organizations, but none that have a history in Michigan of working on poverty related issues. "The principle purpose of this project is to support the continuation of the New Partnerships for Michigan initiative to facilitate communication, Citizen action, community problem solving through service and volunteerism." That is a direct quote from the application. Absent is any mention of poverty, disadvantaged , handicapped or any other word that might describe some of our more vulnerable individuals. The goals of this project are an example of what will happen to VISTA if the state commission has a role in determining emphasis areas and project sponsors. Some of the goals of this project are: I. Link organizations 2. Promote new collaborative partnerships 3. Recruit volunteers 4. Gather community agency information 5. Support collaborative service projects 6. Promote "one stop shopping'' models There are seven other goals that are all volunteer coordinator functions that are to be assumed --by the VISTAs. No where in the goals is poverty. lmv income. children or the elderly mentioned. This project is totally out of compliance with the intent of VISTA. It is a project that more likely should be a function of the state commission and not CNS. Having a state entity whose purpose is the promotion of volunteerism as the developer of VISTA projects will be disastrous for low income communities in· this state. There are six sub-grantees in this project that have significantly different miSSIOnS. The Jackson County Community Transformation Projects mission is to create a community where citizens individually and collectively increase their desire and ability to meet their own needs. the needs of the community. and the needs of the larger environment. The Catholic Youth Organization strives to respond to the current and changing needs of the youth community of Metropolitan Detroit. They seek to enable volunteers to meet expressed needs through recreationaL spirituaL and leadership programs. I never considered CYO a possible entity for VISTA resources in Detroit. Their mission was too religious for VISTA. �.. The mission of the Kirkland Community College Volunteer Center is to serve as a clearinghouse and to operate as part of a local , state, and national network which encourages and enables persons from all walks of life and age groups to perform constructive community service. I am glad that they are not promoting destructive community service. Kirkland was a horrible RSVP sponsor. We removed the program from them. The purpose of the Muskegon County Community Foundation is to assist worthwhile projects for the betterment of Muskegon County, with some emphasis on the arts, education , youth, human services , and community development. At least they are addressing some of the areas that VISTAs should be working in. TO BE DETERMINED is a project that will operate in Marquette. Never did I approve a ghost sponsor. Saginaw Bay Watershed Council serves as an advocate for local communities on water quality issues and initiates proactive educational and hands-on activities within a 22 county area of the watershed. It is interesting that, even though they have significantly different missions. the goals and objectives are the same for all the projects. Those of us in the trade call that procedure Xerox programming: write one goal, copy it for all components. New specific objectives were to be determined by each by September 15, 1996. I can find no record that they have done so. In addition to CNS approving this ghost project, they gave Michigan Nonprofit Association $26,000 to supervise it. I guess that if you have the right friends in the right places one can do most anything without anyone challenging those outlandish actions. I know that there are a lot of VISTA sponsors that would love a little money for supervision or that the VISTAs would love a little help with transportation; I bet they didn't get any. I have been unable to find any resources that the state or Michigan Nonprofit contributed to this project. One would think that a project of this size would require some contribution from the sponsor or the state. I heard that the supervision grant was amended to include $17,000 for in-se rvice training. What a sham. A reverse Robin Hood seems to be the operative methodology that created this project: take resources from those s mall agencies working with the poor and give them to state coordinating bodies who are promoting a thing called service. The collusion between the state CNS office and the state commission is not good for the poor and disadvantaged in Michigan. A preoccupation with process over results is a major flavv in the merger plan presented by Frank Dirks. One of the challenges that I had when I worked in Lansing for MOSS was convincing them that not all knowledge resided there. I had to �.. fight many battles to get funding for community .based organizations. It appears that with the proposed merger plan that small agencies need not apply for resources. In another, separate piece, I will comment on the awarding of VISTAs to the state welfare agency. Suffice it to say that CNS giving VISTAs to FIA is like me giving money to Bill Gates. It just doesn't make sense no matter how worthy the project. If FIA wants VISTAs, then let them buy them. Over 30 per cent of the state allocation for VISTA is now committed to two projects. The state commission is better suited for a role as a promoter of volunteerism and not as a grantor. I am still amazed that it takes a staff of ten to monitor fewer than twenty projects. The staffing and the budget for the commission are obscene. It is one of the reasons that the cost for an AmeriCorps member exceeds $20,000 per year. The state commission needs to be rerationalized. It will not always have a first lady as the chair and there will be a change in governors if not in 1998, then in 2002 because of term limits. With a new governor there will be new staff for the commission. It is important that there be a permanent entity in Michigan that will monitor and support programs for those who have been left out and left behind. The commission is not set up to fulfill that function. It is important to remember that a former state volunteer commission (VIM) was closed because of state budget problems. A viable state CNS office is the answer and one that is not a puppet of the state. Finally, I would like to ask commission members what value do they think is added to the delivery of service by the existence of a state commission. I believe that there are cheaper and more efficient ways to administer AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve. This proposed merger plan is not one of them. I hope that in the near future that we are able to sit down and develop a more suitable plan. Respectfully submitted: Stanley M. Stewart �Michigan Community Service Commission Public Information Gathering Meet~g: 3/25/97 - Michigan Communities In Schools, Inc. (MCIS) is our state's affiliate of Communities In Schools, Inc. As you may know, Communities In Schools, Inc., formerly Cities In Schools (CIS), is the nation's largest stayin-school network with programs operating in over 200 urban and rural communities in 28 states. Formerly incorporated in 1977, CIS pioneered the concept of coordinating and delivering existing, already funded health and human services, and other resources, at public school sites. Today, CIS, at the national level, exists to help local communities establish and maintain a formal process for pooling their resources and delive.ring these resources to children and families in need at the central location of the school. For the tremendous number of students and families who are living life on the edge, having better access to services which are delivered in a caring, accountable, and coordinated fashion, is often the first step towards ending their cycle of failure. Over the years, this approach has proven to be cost-effective and successful in helping to "tum around" the Iives of young people who were considered on the brink of dropping out of school or having the risk factors that would eventually lead to dropping out. In community after community, evaluations and outside studies are consistently showing that this approach not only produces cost savings in the criminal justice system, school district, and social welfare system, but also leads to higher attendance, improved academic performance, and reduced behavioral problems and criminal activity. At the core of this innovative movement are the four CIS basics, recently adopted as values for the upcoming Presidents' S ummit: • • • All children need and deserve: a personal, one-on-one relationship with a caring adult; a safe place to learn and grow; a marketable skill to use upon graduation; and a chance to give back to peers and community . The Michigan Communities In Schools (MCIS ) office, located in Grand Rapids, was established in early 1994 and works with as a public/private partnership to champion the connection of needed community resources, parent and schools to help young people succes~fully learn. stay in school arzd prepare for Iife. The primary function of MCIS is to develop and support local CIS initiatives across the state, as accomplished through the following activities: * assisting new communities adopt the CIS process, * arranging and/or delivering training and technical assistance for new and existing CIS communities, * linking local CIS communities with state, regional and national resources, and * advocating for children and their families through statewide partnerships. In Michigan, we are presently working with 20 communities at varying levels of interested , implementing and operatwnal status. Operational CIS programs currently serve youth and families in Tecumseh, Detroit, Branch, Ottawa, Calhoun and Lenawee Counties representing daily service coordination in 48 schools, and growing rapidly. My experience with community service programs includes working with a variety of Learn & Serve initiatives, school based Service-Learning efforts, Youth Engaged in Service and Youth Initiative prO!:,'Tams over the past ten years. While vice president for Heart of West Michigan United Way, I supervised the �Volunteer Center, Project Blueprint, and other youth and adult volunteer efforts, in addition to my other responsibilities. I have also administered a VISTA grant for the l~ttwo and a half years through MCIS, and have recently applied for an AmeriCorps grant that could benefit our programs statewide. I have been honored to participate in the varied initiatives granted, and still maintain that the opportunity to 'give back' is as beneficial to the provider as to the recipient. As MCIS is both a provider and recipient itself when it comes to community service programs, I am glad to be able to respond to the Commission's questions. 1) The value of service programs for our community based organizations, and the individuals they serve, is irrefutable, and likewise their strengths are many. They supply direct and quality staffing resources for many worthy programs, while providing real-life experience and skill-building for the individuals that volunteer. They also provide meaningful positive interaction, engender strong citizenship, and assist in often dramatic and measurable outcomes. Strengths (of Michigan's system of support) : -the open, competitive nature of application process; -support and encouragement for high standards of accountability & impact; -inclusive recruiting and placement efforts: Weaknesses -lack of coordination of efforts; -need for clear and consistent (yet comprehensive) communications; -complexity of application process and staff time required. 2) Depending on the variety of offerings planned for the future, and their complimentary or supporting natures, one central coordinating agency (or one central, with sub-sites) may be more useful and efficient. Reporting, monitoring, training, and communications could be more effectively coordinated and disseminated; while maximizing staffing and fiscal responsibilities. Similarly, all proposal timelines and processes could be streamlined and coordinated to provide less burden on the granting agency, as well as the grantees. 3) The Commission should continue advocating for: -sufficient resources to provide community service options warranted; to include staffing, training, and supplemental budgets; -increased technology to enhance efficiency (wherever appropriate), as well as the training, equipment, and expertise to facilitate such activities; and -setting, and demonstrating, a high standard of quality, accountability, and outcomes; while providing the technical expertise to make it happen! I thank you again for this opportunity to share my views and experience, and look forward to many years of continued collaboration for the benefit of organizations, communities, and the individuals involved in both. son State Director/President attachment � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Mary-Pfeiler-Testimony-to-MCSC Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Mary Pfeiler's testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting Mary Pfeiler's testimony to the Michigan Community Service Commission. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49886 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/871bd2a0d728da83f61fc070601767be.pdf 921faa4501d0cddccc077812da795163 PDF Text Text STATE SERVICE COMMISSION NETWORK I MEMBERS OF THE STATE SERVICE CoMMISSION STEERING GROUP COMMISSIONERS w. HERSHEL LAMIRAND, III, CHAIR OKLAHOMA SuE DoNALDSON WASHINGTON Lucv LEE GEORG/II Ros1EMAUK TatS EuEN EDWARDS MusHINSKI MEMORANDUM NEW JERSEY TERRY SHUMAKER NEW HAMPSHIRE TO: State Commission Chairs and Directors FROM: Hershel Lamirand Chair, State Service Commission Network 2.5 RE: Follow up to Midland , DATE: June 2, 1997 GARY SMITH ARfZONA FRED W ALDSTEIN I OWA ABBY WALTERS FLORIDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS FRA NK DIRKS MICHIGAN LINDA FoRSYTH CAUFORNIII PAT KELLS J0.NSAS MARLIS MILLER OREGON SARA SIMS LOUISIANA LYNN THORNTON GEORGIA JANE WILLIAMS VERMONT George W. Romney Bldg. 4th Floor Ill S. Capitol Avenue Lansing. Michigan 48913 Phone (5 17) 335-4295 Fax (517) 373-4977 The Midland meeting proved to be an excellent occasion to unify and crystalize the developing efforts of state commission members and staff to organize a more formalized national network. I am honored to have been asked to chair the steering group for this emerging network. For your information I have included copies of a follow up memo from my steering group colleague, Sue Donaldson, reporting out from the meeting, a summary report from the meeting, and the agreed upon network framework document. As you can see, we have also adopted letterhead for our network. We will continue to work through the remaining resources of the Ford Foundation grant to move us forward. The Michigan Commission has agreed to provide staff in cooperation with Deb Jospin, from the Corporation, who will continue her efforts in support of our network. Deb will concentrate on reauthorization and the Michigan Commission will work on network development. If yo.u have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me, Deb, or Frank Dirks of the Michigan Commission. I look forward to our new joint endeavor. �MAY 27 ' 97 05:02PM SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL Seattle City Council May 27, 1997 To: State Commissions & Executive Directors From! Re: SCN2.S* This is a quick memo to thank those ofyou who participated at Midlands, Michigan in designing and validating a State Commission Network. Immediate priorities are: 1) obtaining a funding source for operations; and 2) estabHshin& a SOl(c)3 entity. The target date for these activities is mid-June. As ratified at Midlands, Hershel Lamirand, Oklahoma State Chair, will serve as chair. The attached list reflects the executive committee. Additionally, Frank Dirks has agreed to senre as the interim sta1f coordinator. Please let Frank know, as soon as possible, your best address, including e-mail, for correspondence. It was a great meeting and we look forward to working together to strengthen national and oomnnmity ar:rvioe at the local. state, and federall~els. A special thank you to Hanis Wofford and Deb Jospin for their support and encouragemmt. o Stafe for Commission for National and Community Service *SCN • Stat• Commission N•twork • 2. 5 - 2. S on the organizational scale dwelop1d by Steven Schad 1100 Municipal Building, 600 Fourth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-1876 (206) 684-8888, Fa:~t: (206) 684-8587, TIY: (206) 233-0025, E-Mail Address: counciiOcl.eeattle.wa.us An EEO/AA employ~r. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. . ·• .~ P.nnted on Recycled Paper $. �May-18-01 03:54A P.02 KEEPING THE. PROMISE: MOVIN{; SERVICE FOR\VARD IN THE STATES l\1idland, Michigan MAY 16-17,1997 Conference Not.es Forty-two (42) stat.::s were reprc~~nt.ed by the 85 c e nfe.n:oce partidpants. Conference Attendees: Th~ pan kipaots includt:;d 35 C omnu~sion Exc~.:utiv~: Din:~:.tors (EDs) and 50 c,)JI1!Hi:o.si(mers <Chairs and members). 11tc fni :owin g st:uc.s wa c r~ pres e nted: Alaska Iowa Nebraska Rh(Kie Island Arizona Kamas Nevada Ark.ans<is Kentucky New Hampshire Tennessee Texas c~li(omia Maine Maryla.n.d l\'lassach usctl<> Mich ig;m Minnesota Mississippi N~w J~rsey r ~ wh C nioru J o Ct:mncc·ci.;u t De laware Honda Georgia Jdahn Jndiana ~hssmu·i ~·tontana New York 1'\orth Carolina Washinglnn Ohiu Oldahoma Wc:SL Wisconsin Oregon Wyoming Virgini<;~ Penn.'\ylvania Puerto Rico Conferi•nce Sponson:. The Ford h:)Undation Aguirre lntcmationa1 The Stale Com1r.1~siun Coordinating Group The Comm.tssion Chairs Steering Committcc The Michigan Cnmmunity Service Commission Publii.:/Pri vute V cmun.·s (PPV) Dow Coming Ameri~as Charles Stewan Mot! Founda1jon Conference Planning: The meeting wa.«> organi zed and plamted hy the Stare Ct1mm:ssion Ci.1<1nhaming group made up ef State C ommi.ssjon executivl! direL·tors. the St(itC Comm]ssi on Chairs Steering Cummittee. Aguirre International. the. technical assL:.;tanc.e provider to state c.:ommi.....,1ons hmdt>ci hy \he C orpor<Hion fnr National Sc.rvice. and PPV . Confen:nc.c..Qbjt~cth~: The conference was the. culminating event of ~n Jg momh grant by the ForJ �May-18-01 03:54A P.03 Founda[ion to foster the dewlopment of state c;m1missions on national and <.:ornmunity· ~rvi<:c. G\>~ls \·,f the ford r~oundation gn.nt includec.! : o Cstahlish a self- ~>uppo11ing peer ted'J1ical assistanl~e network ; o Devdup poli~ y re~o'._; mmcndations that s:r~ngthe.n .state level inl'ra.'\ tructure (or sen.- il~ t' and voiuntcerism: and, l1 Assess t11i.' feasibility and mciil~ or estahlishing a formal naritmal as:>lli.:iatiun of st2.tc r.:ommissions. tl!. 11etwork The planning commitrce a.:knowicdgcJ lha1 commissions are at very different p!a~cit in thc.i r devrlopmt'rtr : that commission chairs are on a steep k.aming c.;urve a.-. they have hegun to <.:nme tug~thL' r as:!. :;roup :'o r the first time over the~ past fiv(~ months; and Lhat. exc<.:utive directors and commt..;sioners nce.d time hoth w work toge.th,~r and time. to work arart as groups. The committee also tr1l'd to hal:lnc:.:· the ag~nJa Ill provide tim~ for parucipams to hotr. assess d1e feasibility of ar.d plan the funu·e dirc<.:tinn for an ongoing sm.tc l~Ommb>si(.ID a~-;,0\.· iaLion and to participate i11 practical hands-em \VOrkshops a..-ui plenary scsinn." tbat will help meet needs the commissions aw curremly trying to athJn:s~ . Welcome and Overview: Mil:nelc Engler, First Lady and Chair of the Michigan Commission w~lcmm~d the participants ro \1ichigan ,md highlighted the unjquc. rnle State Commissions can play to facilitat~: ~h~ expansinu and coordination of service and voluntccrism in th~ states. Frank Dirk.'\, Executh·e Director (1f th(! 1\·1ichig:m Ct)mtnission and Chair of rhe Sl.CG. reviewed the history of the Ford grant. progress to date. and discussed the a.gcnda for the meeting. He stressed the need to make u decision abmn the t'mmc of lh(.; s ~ ate Cmnm lssion network. Fred Wa.ldstcin. Chair of the Iowa Comrnis~ion and representing th<· Chair Steering Committee:. cautioned all tu rel:\>gnizc thdt <til State Commission~ arc in Jiffercnt pl:.tl.'.c.-. in tc:-m:- of their development. He urged p:i.rtkipants to he respccu~ul and inclusiv-:: of a.B participants prc.scm ir. hui !ding a (.'Ommun agenda fo:- ho\\1 State C )mmissions can work together w move natitma l :-.t n. i~o·c forwurd in the i'tates. l)yoesidents Summit: Follow-up Strategies: A panel r: t" Commission Chairs and Executive Dire<.' to~ shared stratc.gies and <;oncem~ for ~:ap.itali :dng nn tch Presidents' Summit to promote service and ·•oluntccrism in their states. Abby \Vulters of FloriJa shared a new media campaign and offered to ~xpon !he rnutcrials to any state. imcre~tcd . The Floriua 0 Jtmnissi.m has partnered with volunteer centers to <.:harutcl calls through an ROO numhcr to the: appropriate kx:al agcm:y. In California. Linda Forsyth shared ways the Commission is n>nnccting AmeriCcnjlS programs to summit communiLies to support commitments made at tbe summit. Judy Stcbhins of Maine diS~.:us.sed the Governor's Community for Children Initiative and Gary Smith of Arizona di.;;cus.r.;ed the fonnation of a 501 (c)3 to organi1.e resources and scn:i<.:cs generated by Lhe summit.. Other panicipa.nl<; shared a number of ()Lf}er strategies tha.t are being implem.enred. including: Mi(: hi~::tn's effort to reach small business network:.; L'lroughout the state; many $t<ltcs dL~c.~ ss~d plans fur ho:.;ting sL.tl~;wide :-.ummiL-. in tbe: Fall; fo1u· states in ihe fnK·ific fi(Jl1hwc.st :.tre coonli.nat.ing a l~ •t.ll h l a.c.' tiful with their Gtwemors and First Ladies in preparaLiun of their respc~:dve summi~. �May-18-01 03:56A P.04 Finally. u n:.1mber of punicipams raised (;On;.:,~n>s :.thnm chc role or commissions lo .;nsu!'C' t!lat the inf!'a~lnK'.. UrC ne.ccssary to cffe~;j\'d)' lL'-:e additional volunteer.- g·~ncratCd hy the !>llmmit i;.. pttl in rla::t' anJ ensuring [hat 1mini11~ ~nd :.tandard ..; for mcr.toring ar~ 1kvelop:.:d. The Challenge To Conm1issions: This pand of Commi.-;sion Chairs and Executive Directors focused attenuon .m;:. number •Jl ..-halkng~s thac need t;) h~ :.tdd:'C~ssed in their states for the Commission to reach its full potl'nti aJ . The is.-.,uc <.; raiscJ included amf'l1g others: building a octr.er relationship with the Govem,Jr's office; strcngthenmg tiC's wtth the CNS Sutc Otficc~ ; hroadcning :.he mission of the <.:ommission to include all -;trcam~ tlf &~rviL:~; Pi 1 ~;itiont Dg AmeriC c~rps as a ''tool in a 1oolhnx nfscrvi~.:e" options rather ch.an '' the end alL ~call of what <'lUi' Cummissiun.:.; are about ". Other pmkipants added ihat Ctnnmi.ssions need to do "·n invcmul)' and recognize. ·w·hal is already g1 ;in;; on u1 the C(lmmu.nity. Commtlisions need h.i link-up with and create pa11nerships with ong~)ing statewide in itiatives sut:h as vicllencc preYcmion, mentoring and welfare rcfonn. Commiss10ns should be ahout "cooperation, collaboration and communi~..~ation." Commissicners were challenged w be aware and scn.s itivt Lo rcligwus h1)lidays when planning events. Stability, Autonomy, J.nnovation and SmtainahiJity C.aucust!s: These :~mall group sessions provided a. forum fnr Comrnissiont:Tl\ and Eds from -:omparahle small . medium and lari!c states to di,;;cus;; priorities that :1e~d w be :1ddres.\ed to l't!rther Jevclop t~ omruission.s anti to suggest strategies hy whkh states might work together to acWn.'ss the a.reas idemit-icJ. Commi~siun rn:;mhcrs and ED~ initially mer with thej r peers and then came tngeth-::r to share idi!JS thm~ :heir variou:; pcrspccti,·es. The following swnmari.zes some key priorities idcnlificd hy the groups: Caucus l ·Small States Commj;-.sioncrs' Priorities: R~(.~ogni:t..cd th~t rhcy are opef".J.ting in a very changcah~c environment They idCJ!tiiicd fe ur key pri11ti1ics that commi&.~ionets need to take greater r..;..o,;pon.iihility for: o Sustainahiliiy- getting lhe n:soun;(;S i:l Buiidi..ng the erganizatiun o Developing imcrnal and cxt.ema! ~.::ommunicatwn systems o Moving the se.rvice. movement forward They saw commitment, L~apacity and communication as the ~onnertions EDs' Pril)J'itics: Meeting 50~ Match o Limi t~d staff capacity: staff maxed out o Staying fot:used - halu.n~i..ng CNS and sta~ priont0.s 1. 1 o La(:k of infrast.ru~ture in the states for servkc o Building connections heyond CNS to link the& prioriti~s . �May-18-01 P . 05 03:57A Common Strategic.s: <: S hanng best practices and lesse-ns learned n Continue u N~eJ tn create in-pcr~;on and electron:ic forunls for commun~cation lu haiance Lht EDs 1:\mc.em 11hout "basic stuft'' with hr<..•ader visi(m of Commissioner~ Caucus II - Medium-size States Commissioners· Priori.ties: o To learn best pr.;ctice~'i from each other o To understand and .ipproa;;.-h common challenges and oppMtunitie.-. in a com.-ertcd efton. o Broadening the mandate to includ~' lcx.·ul and federal volunteer and .:ommunity Si.!Jvicc programs. o Leam from each other about alternative funding strategies. o lncrease t.."Ie strength and di vcr~ity of Commis.o;ioners. ,....,'.1"" '1 . .. ED s' PnlWJtles: Caucus lll - Large Stares C:ommi.l\si <)11ers ' Primities: o Callahoration and .shrui.ng best practices o Mo hili.:r..c Commission member~; 0 Increase ihc huy-in or the G\iVcmor's Ofticc- Generate imllleverage resources o ~aUonal association of Com.missioners 0 EDs' Pti~)ntie$ : \) Organizational Development: stafting, resource.:;, staying uue to mission and program development o La!..'k of a national strutegic plan o Creating slability 111 ~ political environment: insulating Commjssion~ tr.)m clc.clton:.. o Stabiliz.tng and pmv-iding securi ty LO organization o Sust.ainability; building a sustainable constituency. o Member development and support Common Strategic~ : o o o o Sharing infmmation; meetings and electronically Ci.)ntinuity - support systems to su~tain good intentions genl.!rated at these meetings. Encourage CNS to provide opportunities Generate more staff resources to meet the cii~mands Luncheon Sponsored by Dow Corning Michael Lip ..;ky reiterated the C\llrunitm,;:nt of th~ Ford Foundation lo suppon. the devclopmcm of niiti(mal St;rvi~e anJ the sLalt':; wh.:. He Jcs..:ribeu how ~rvicc is u. naLural fit Lo the missicrn of the Ford �May-18-01 03:5SA P . 06 Foundarinn F1ml stes the pmentia] leverage state commission can have to hrokcr and facilitate rbe expan.siLm of service and vnlunreeri.sm w meet community nc~ds. Govt:rii\Jr Engler shared ...( what were the key points from his comments'!?] ... kl lhc ;i,l.ates dcvdop what works for them .. ... connect to tmponant is1)ues of Utt: state ... ' )') The Governor was acknowledged by participants for hlS lead~rship in promoting a scrvke. agenda among his colleagues opening the door in other stat.cs for ccmrnissions to more effc<.~tively ,,.·ork with their gt.wt:mors. How do we get to th~ future together? Building oonsensu.41 on the direction of a state Commi~sion network Prm.:css: Hershel Lamirand (OK- Chair) and David Karoff (RI-ED) introduced tl-,c quc.<it1on of the merit:> a:1d fcasihility or developing :m ongoing, fonnaJ association of State Commissions. Citing mo:.ny of the h:::nefits that were raised in the morning ses.;;ion about learning from one and other and the imporwn~.:c of having a powcti'ul voice to support reauthorization and other important i.ssues. they t.:hallcngcd the: group to (Onsidcr what will best support continued development of commissions. Steve Sch:1d rcview(':d hi" "options paper" that described the pros and cons nf four options from a \er~ fonnal, staffed association to an 1nforma.1 network . .He nx·ommended something :n the middle wi1h a mvr~: formali.z~d decred leadership and hy-laws. re.•wurce deve-lopment that combina;~s a dtle.<; structurewith outside cievclopmcnt, and open to wrnmissiom:rs and EDs. with a 501 (1..:)3 ann conne-cted aJmini.:.m.l.Li vely to an cx1sting commission or another national nonprofit. Participants then slit into small groups by state size and discussed the merit.~ of a r·onnal or informal association , Groups then reconvened as a whole lO share recornmenda\Jons. The following summarizes the k.cy issues discussed by the groups in the repon. out session : o There was general agrec~ment on Lhe part of each group that an ongoing a.~;sociation wa!> important and ~;upponable. o There was not agreement on the issue. of a formal vs informal :.tssodation. o There was general agrt:erm:nt Jtat there should be one association involving CommissiDm·,r~ and EDs together. o It was generally agreed that the purposes of su<:h an asstx~iation were well-mtiL:ulated in Steve Schad's options paper and those purpo.~s should he adopted with minor ml>difications. o There was littlt.: agreement on how it should he funded. the issue of dues raisl.!d many questions. n There wa..,;; discussion v.:ithout agreement about how often it would meet and whether it should have a national or regional srn.K'tllre. tl It wa.<: agreed that a working group would convene in the evening to develop a 1:rarnework of pr:in<.:iplcs that ull fk1rticipa.nt> could endorse on Saturday . �May-18-01 04:00A P . 07 Ccn cl usi~m : At the \:ln.,ing session on Saturday a.fternoun there was a near unanimous vote to flllm J.n na~ior.al nciW\.' rk of State C n mmiss1ons. The working group proposed the iullowing framewt}rk h .• guide lh~ dt~ vclo pmc nt of the national network o r State Co:nmis!.ion.s which was afftrmt:d hy the vast maj(1rity of panicipanL-.: 0 o o (1 Su·utmre : Less Fonnal (Strategy ":!.5'') !·undin§: Raise funus fm in fl'astructur~ as an initiul fo(;uS Meeting Structure: At least one, preft.!.rably l.\Vo, uational m.(;'.!:lings anmtJ Jly ( money issue). Membership : Commissioners and srnll. Effective cornmunic.~ation , interaction, !nfonnatinn exchange, and cdu~ation . o o o PUJTIOSe: o Support r.!gic nal '-~ollaboration . Ma.'-lmum inclusion and buy ·in: possible dues structure, hut n•.)t derailing o ~ati o na1 ~rspe.ctivc Partnership-orit~nted wirh issnc-hased task forces. to CNS and other stream,_, of service. St.~ rvicc or ma(.(h d11l i.ars. A steering group of up to 18 people comprised of half Commissioners and half EDs was una.n i rnou.sl~ endorsed hy m::: group to develop a proposal :.u1d plan for putting the network m mmi.on. It wa.s ag rc:l~d iliat the steering i.:Ommiti:CC be rcpres~ntativc C•f larg~, medium and .small states as well has have geographic diversity. The following individuals were nominated and endorsed at the meeting \Vi!.h potemi~ f()r naming an addition:1l 3 EDs if needed : C unuu i.'s i onc:r.s l. H~rshd Lamirand (OK) - Chair ~ . Abby Walters CFL) 3. Su~ Donaldson (W A J 4. Gary Smith (AZ) 5. Rosie Mauk (TX) ft. Fred Wal<lst.cin 7 . Terr-; Shumaker (NH ) R. Ellen Mu.shinski (N.J_) 9. Lucy Lee (GA) Executive Directors 1. Frank Dirb ( Ml) 2. Lynn Thornton (GA ) 3. Sam Sims (LA) 4. Li.nda Forsyth (CA) 5. Jane Williams (VT) ~ · Pat Kdls (J?.S) . i.~~Arl.$ ty],/Jer 8 . tha 9. tba It was agreed that a feedback process would be incorporated to ensure that ail EDs <.~.nd Com:nissioners would he kept apprised of network developments and have opportunities to comment on proposals developed by the steering committee. It was agreed that Hershel La.mirand would chair the steering committee. Frank Dirks agreed to utilize the remai ning ' '1ppoc funds frnm the Ford gram to support the work o f the stecting committee during a t:-an:->ition to a ne-w structur~ of St1ppo11. and n~w funding . �May-18-01 04:01A Ot~er s~.ssio n 10 he added include: Building PubliciPriYate Partnerships For Sen·ice and Volunteerism (Foundation Panel) The Role of States in the National Sen-ice Delivery System (CNS Panel} Gaining State Support and Funding for Service (Legislative Panel) Future Relations Among the Corporation for National Service and State Servke Commissions Research: What Can We Learn From It and How Are Local Voices Being HeaTd Concurrent Workshop Sessions P . OS �Consensus on a Framework for a National Network May 16, 1997 A group of approximately 35 individuals, comprised of commissioners, executive directors, and others, met and arrived at consensus on the following framework for a national network. • Structure: Less Formal (Strategy "2.5") • Funding: Raise money for infrastructure as an initial focus. • Meeting Structure: At least one, preferably two, national meetings annually (money issue). • Membership: Commissioners and staff. • Purpose: Effective communication, interaction, information exchange, and education. • • National perspective with issue-based task forces. • Partnership-oriented to CNS and other :;treams of service. • Support regional collaboration. • Maximum inclusion and buy-in: possible dues structure, but not derailing service or match dollars. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Follow-up-to-Midland-Conference Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting follow up to Midland conference Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting follow up to Midland conference. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49885 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d4f71100c40c814f02b55c55eec21c19.pdf 03c1d03797796198fb8ce7bf9544c5c5 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: The Michigan Community Service C~ FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commi RE: Executive Director's Report DATE: June 5, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michig an 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517 ) 373-4977 on A BUSY AND PRODUCTIVE SPRING First, I would like to begin by apologizing to you for my inexcusable tardiness in presenting this report to you. You should not have to receive this on the meeting day. A thorough report from your director in sufficient time for review is the minimum that you should be able to expect. All I can do is promise that I will not disserve you in this manner again . Let me also take a moment to recognize the extraordinary efforts of a number of our key staff members in this very busy and productive spring. Lindy Reurink, Paula Kaiser, Daphne Wells, and Mary Estrada have gone above and beyond in their long hours of work in support of MCSC' s activities this spring. In a staff of hard working spirits, these four have shined. This spring, MCSC was typically busy and productive. Not including our standard reporting and administrative duties, since our February meeting we have: • reviewed, refined, and finalized a package of 28 AmeriCorps program grant applications for CNS ; • prepared MCSC' s new Learn and Serve America Community-based program grant proposal to CNS; • assisted MDE in preparing and writing a new collaborative Learn and Serve America School-based proposal that enhances MCSC's role in these programs (CNS has just announced its award to both of these proposals); • established an operational partnership with MDE to monitor and provide technical assistance to its 28 Learn and Serve programs-- MCSC has onducted 8 site visits to school-based programs, which for most sites has proven to be a first-time site visit; • conducted 3 communitybased Learn and Serve America program site visits; • finalized and printed the college volunteer recruitment poster; • assisted in the coordination and implementation of Michigan' s first ever Volunteer Superconference; • facilitated a statewide meeting of AmeriCorps program members; • facilitated four statewide AmeriCorps program director meetings; • conducted a meeting of the senior advisory council; • solicited Michigan CARES communities Phase II-Year 2 community proposals; organized and facilitated the Presidents' Summit community planning and communication; • developed a comprehensive guidebook for Michigan' s Summit delegation; • coordinated briefings, press releases, and speeches with the Governor's office for his participation A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission a. ~~ ~·- �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Two in the Summit; • coordinated the selection of the Governor's Summit delegation; • coordinated travel for Summit communities with Northwest Airlines through a reduces rate secured by MCSC' s chair; • assisted in staffing the Governor and First Lady at the Summit; • conducted a statewide follow up meeting with Summit communities; • coordinated with Connect Michigan Partners post Summit follow up; printed and disseminated new Reach for the Promise Corporate Outreach brochures for Summit follow up; • established five corporate contacts for post Summit follow up; • prepared five speeches for the First Lady on topics related to service and volunteerism; • prepared an article for the First Lady on service for inclusion in the Michigan Chamber of Commerce magazine; • coordinated a post Summit mailing from the First Lady to members of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce; • facilitated the selection of Governor's Service Award winners; • planned, printed programs, and coordinated events and press outreach related to the Governor' s Service Awards Dinner; • planned, coordinated, and staffed the national meeting of state service commission in Midland; • coordinated information dissemination for the legislative progress of MCSC' s proposed Volunteer Investment Grants program; • conducted a statewide meeting of the Service Learning Leadership Council; • Compiled a statewide service learning survey of Michigan's schools; • conducted a Michigan CARES community planning retreat; and supported and participated in ten regional trainings conducted by Michigan 4-H. So far, since April, the Governor's and First Lady's support of service and MCSC have generated more than 40 recorded print press hits. This enumeration of activities has not been exhaustive, but it is intended to strongly challenge the scurrilous assertions of the bureaucratic defenders of the status quo that MCSC has a staff of ten to administer 20 programs. Our work has indeed drawn attention, and as a result criticism. Yet, you can be proud of what we have accomplished and rest assured that MCSC is recognized as the state commission leader for service in the United States. UPDATES Michigan's AmeriCorps We completed our analysis of retention and attrition rates for all of our first year AmeriCorps programs. While the rates were higher than we expect, we were pleased to find that the final, actual FfE rate for programs in year one was $12,272. This figure is below the current, reduced CNS cap, and only $700 more than out third year budgeted rate. While attrition is a concern, this low FfE rate answers the critics concerns about cost. We have also established, in cooperation with the program directors, a work group to develop recommendations to operationalize attrition control policies for next year's programs. Learn & Serve Michigan CNS has announced its award to MCSC for a new three-year grant with a first year figure of $150,000. In addition, MCSC's collaborative proposal with MDE was awarded $815,000. MCSC, working in partnership with MDE and the Service Learning Leadership Council also just secured a $15,000 grant from Quest International for outreach and training activities for supporting service learning. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Three Michigan CARES MCSC has been working with consultant, Frank Slobig, to develop a community resource guide that will be used for broader dissemination. The strongest communities a currently Muskegon, Grand Rapids, and Flint. In Muskegon and Flint CARES has helped to develop newly constituted Volunteer Centers. MCSC will disseminate through the Presidents' Summit community network, a 'Lessons Learned' pamphlet on the CARES experience in Michigan for the purpose in sharing ideas about effective collaboration. MCSC and CMF have held meeting with Chris Kwak, our WK Kellogg Foundation program officer, on state and national dissemination plans. Chris remains and enthusiastic advocate for the CARES approach. MCSC's Relationship with CNS-Michigan's Office and the Unified State Plan Until CNS clarifies the extent of its commitment to real operation change in its administrative policies, MCSC will postpone work on the unified plan. Volunteer Investment Grants The VIG program has been mentioned by the Governor at the Summit in Philadelphia, the Governor's Awards Dinner, and the Midland state service commission meeting. The Senate passed its Appropriations Bill containing the program. The House Appropriations Committee has zeroed it out of the House Bill. We are working energetically to have it reinstated and will need the active support of all Commission members in order to succeed. Terry Pruitt and Mike Tate have been the Commission leaders in this effort, and I would like to thank them for their extraordinary effort and commitment on behalf of this important program. Connect Michigan Connect Michigan is both a statewide public awareness campaign for volunteerism that will support post Summit follow up efforts as well as a collaborative networking partnership among MNA. VCM, CMF, UWM, and MCSC that will be a coordinating umbrella for public/private collaborative activities for service and volunteerism in Michigan. Connect Michigan is connected to the Points of Light Foundation's Connect America Campaign. The First Lady will be participating in a PoLF conference workshop on Connect Michigan in New York next month. Joel Orosz, has expressed his interest in Kellogg entertaining a proposal from MCSC on behalf of the Connect Michigan campaign. This grant would enable us to dovetail post Summit activities with broader outreach and public/private/nonprofit partnership building across Michigan, including those that were launched by the Michigan New Partnerships Initiative. Governor's Community Service Awards Five hundred people attended this year's Governor's Community Service Awards dinner. Each year we have succeeded in improving the program. Robert Cooper, President of Ameritech has �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Four already committed to underwriting next year's dinner, which will be, by far, the earliest we have ever secured such a commitment. We have also been successful in increasing public exposure of the dinner. We have already counted more than 21 newspaper articles. MGTV covered this year's dinner and broadcast it twice. By including a media category, we generated, and will continue to generate more coverage. Unfortunately, the total number of nomination applications have been relatively constant. This year's number of a little more than 200 is roughly the same as last year. We will continue to work to increase the number of applications by improving the visual quality of the application form and running PSA's during the Holiday Season when volunteering is more on people's minds. Finally, given the increased exposure we will begin a process of vetting all finalists after the peer review. We will ask nominators for, and check, additional references. This will help us avoid any potential embarrassment with inflated or even false nominee credentials or activities. Ford Foundation Funded National Meeting of State Service Commission Chairs and Directors We were pleased with the turn out of Commission members at the Midland meeting. Terry Pruitt deserves great thanks for securing Dow Coming sponsorship. Karen Aldridge deserves great thanks for securing the Mott Foundation's sponsorship and leading a very well received seminar on commission partnerships with grant makers. Joel Orosz also deserves thanks for his participation in the seminar, and Rob Collier was kind enough to participate for Dottie Johnson. The Governor and First Lady were wonderfully supportive. Our state partners were kind enough to provide display materials. Most importantly, the commissions agreed to form a national network at the meeting. MCSC and Michigan demonstrated their great leadership in the field. Based on the evaluations, the meeting was extremely well received. PROGRESS REPORT ON THIRD YEAR OBJECTIVES In the three-year State Plan that we submitted to CNS in 1994 we enumerated our annual objectives. This summary of Year Three objectives reflects our year-to-date accomplishments. In partnership with the Steering Committee and drawing on the results of the Year Two develop, with private sector support, a catalog of model programs and practitioners for public dissemination. MCSC has printed and disseminated the second edition of Profiles in Service. MCSC will revise and expand Profiles this summer. MCSC worked in partnership with CMF to produce Investments in Volunteerism, in which various grant makers described examples of model service �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Five and volunteer programs. In addition, this summer MCSC will complete its database development. MCSC will have more than 8,000 organization names on its mailing list. Reconvene the participants of the Year One grant makers meeting to assess progress and revise recommendations. During the week of February 10, MCSC conducted a series of conference calls with grantmakers to inform them of the new Michigan's AmeriCorps program application process. Grantmakers also received a list of the applicants that submitted AmeriCorps grant concept papers. MCSC will combine a grantmakers meeting with the state Volunteer Summit meeting in the fall. Continue in cooperation with MYPAC and the Michigan Campaign for Volunteerism, the state recruitment campaign for AmeriCorps and youth service volunteers. MCSC's work with MNANCM on Connect Michigan will achieve this objective. The Connect Michigan promotion campaign is scheduled to be launched this summer. Facilitate the development of at least four quality AmeriCorps proposals from neighborhood and community-based organizations. MCSC's final proposed AmeriCorps package contains six formula program renewals, six new formula programs, one competitive program renewal, one Governor's Innovative program renewal, twelve new competitive programs, and two education award only programs. MCSC ' s proposed AmeriCorps application package contains six new proposals from community-based organizations. Increase circulation of MCSC state service newsletter. MCSC has agreed to make the Commission newsletter the principal newsletter for Connect Michigan. This will expand outreach and coverage of service and volunteer programs across the state. MCSC has also dedicated a section to VISTA and Senior Corps programs in Michigan. MCSC' s next newsletter edition will use the new Connect Michigan masthead. Take action on the recommendations of the Task Force on intergenerational service. MCSC will continue to work with the Senior Advisory Council and MYP AC to promote the development of intergenerational service. Take action on the recommendations of the Task Force on developing model service programs that link Headstart, school-readiness, and school-to-work transition. This Task Force has not been organized. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Six Conduct regional community service collaboration training using the seven CARES communities as training centers. CARES has been a noteworthy element of the Presidents' Summit communities. The Governor referred to CARES in his remarks in Philadelphia. Of the six Summit communities, five are CARES communities. Also, as previously reported, the 4-H regional trainings have highlighted examples of program collaboration drawn from CARES communities. Based on practitioner critique, revise the state AmeriCorps training and technical assistance. In response to requests from practitioners, MCSC will conduct another statewide signature service project. MCSC will conduct this in partnership with Michigan Habitat for Humanity's Summer Housing Blitz. The project will take place in Detroit on June 27-28. Rev. Millard Fuller, founder of Habitat for Humanity, will address the members and other volunteers present. We expect members from each of Michigan's AmeriCorps programs to participate. Increase by 50% the number of citizen respondents to the Community Service Awards. The objective has not been achieved. See narrative text above. In partnership with MDE, leverage at least one AmeriCorps/schoollcommunity partnership by targeting AmeriCorps, school and Community-Based Learn and Serve grants. Among the current AmeriCorps concept paper applicants are a number of school/community partnerships. Integrate AmeriCorps peer technical assistance consultants intto the Michigan Service-Learning Leandership Council and revise common training elements as needed. The Muskegon CARES/Learn and Serve/AmeriCorps program partnership is the best example of this collaborative program development. Conduct a statewide conference on national and community service to enable practitioners to assess the state's progress in establishing a sustainable infrastructure. The very successful state wide SuperConference provided a forum for this discussion. More than 500 people attended. MCSC subsidized the conference with an $8,000 dissemination contract, as well as supported the participation of more than 150 MCSC program participants. MCSC also worked with the CNS state office to secure additional conference planning support and program member participation. The SuperConference was a wonderfully successful example of statewide, public/private collaboration. �MCSC June 5, 1997 Page Seven Launch a fundraising campaign for MCSC' s anticipated public/private authority. While MCSC is no longer pursuing the creation of a public/private authority, MCSC is pursuing an increase of state support for programs and operations. The Governor's FY98 budget contained the $1 million Volunteer Investment Grant program and $274,000 for operations. Ensure that no less than 80% of the Year One AmeriCorps programs that have demonstrated quality and measurable success are funded for continuation beyond federal funding support. This objective was unrealistic from the start. MCSC will work with first year programs to help them sustain their activities beyond federal AmeriCorps support. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Executive-Directors-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting executive director's report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting executive director's report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49884 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/6af689b35f3eb0bf85bf060d38f96d99.pdf 1dbf7d5b154c95cd088baa3a65f05ca9 PDF Text Text June 6, 1997 Commission Report Angelia Salas III. Program Updates d. Learn and Serve Michigan On March 14th the we submitted our three year application for Learn and Serve funds from the Corporation. We worked jointly with the Michigan Department of Education to develop applications that reflect the common goals for service-learning in Michigan. The applications reflect the need to create school/community partnerships around the need to make a positive impact on the community and to provide quality educational experience which focus on the necessity to develop civically responsible citizens. • Worked with members of the SLLC to insure the highest quality application possible. The Michigan Department of Education is eligible to receive $815,563 for one year. MCSC is eligible to receive up to $500,000 over the course of three years. • RFP's would be distributed in the early fall (August). • A portion of my time is covered by MDE so that I may continue to provide program monitoring and help fashion training and technical assistance. Because the school-based grant coordinator has retired from the MDE we will be working with her unit to help transition the Learn and Serve program into another unit in the Department of Education. To help provide some amount of continuity to the program, an increased portion of my salary is being covered by the MDE. In the past year, MDE covered 1/4 of my salary. During the new program grant cycle the Department will cover 112. I have spent this spring doing site visits to the school-based Learn and Serve program sites. Many of the other school-based programs had not received formal site visits in the past. I have been using this opportunity to work with the programs to develop strategies for improvement as they move into the fall term. Over the course of the last month and a half I have completed a total of 11 full day SB and CBO site visits. More visits are scheduled throughout the summer. In May a meeting was held to introduce our new grantee to our grant policies and procedures. We used the day as a time to also introduce them to the service-learning resources in the state and to address perceived challenges as they got started. The feedback from the meeting was extremely positive. The new grantees were interested in doing this type of event again right away. I will probably be scheduling a conference call with them in the next month. Currently working to develop the RFP and RFP process for both the sb and CB programs. V. Commission Initiatives d. New Quest Grant We were just approved by Quest International to receive a $15,000 training and technical assistance grant. We proposed a series of regional trainings on various service-learning topics which will be identified according to school-based and community-based grantees. We proposed that the regions be arranged according to Michigan -CARES sites. At Tuesday's CARES retreat, several sites showed real interest in hosting the trainings. It is expected that the trainings will be organized to generate networking among school and CBO staff. We also hope that regional service-learning network will develop as a result of these trainings. We will be working to keep the regions networked between trainings. The dates for these events will be selected according to the needs of the individual sites. However it is anticipated that the first event will take place in time to provide a good outreach opportunity for the Learn and SERVE- Michigan grant program. �Michigan Community Service Commission meeting June 6,1997 Kalamazoo, Michigan 12 noon - 4:00 pm Michigan's AmeriCorps Emergency Based Response Team • MCSC has been working with the Emergency Management Division (EMD) of the State Police to develop a Michigan's AmeriCorps Emergency Based Response Team. The team would respond to natural disasters in Michigan. • In March, the team, comprised of 19 AmeriCorps members, received an introduction to Emergency Management in Michigan and participated in an abbreviated Damage Assessment workshop. • The member are now enrolled through the Emergency Management Division of the state police to receive EMD training. In July, the team will participate in a 2-3 day training that will include a Rapid Impact Assessment training followed by a Disaster Recovery Operations and/ or a Damage Assessment Workshop. • The training is free and will prepare the members for their volunteer service. • Once the members complete their training, the team will be placed on a volunteer roster and will be called upon during natural disasters. • Typically, they will receive a call to respond from the EMD and have 24 hour notice to respond to the natural disaster site. They will volunteer for 4 to 10 days. Housing and meals will be arranged through the local Emergency Operation Center or the Red Cross. • In return for their service, the team will receive a Michigan's AmeriCorps EBRT t-shirt, a write up in the MCSC newsletter, and a certificate of completion. Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project • June 28 is the date of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. • This year we are piggy-backing on Habitat for Humanity's Housing Blitz. We will be landscaping, planting trees, shrubs, flowers, painting, putting in electrical fixtures, and cleaning the build areas to help in renovating 20 substandard homes in northwest Detroit. �• The project will involve approximately 300 AmeriCorps members and staff. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Commission-Report Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting commission report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting commission report. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49883 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5a21d34c6dd743fe493269ed66d32b0c.pdf 400f7f82217d69a9bd1acb270124b0c8 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission Agenda June 6,1997 Michigan Community Service Commission Senior Services, Inc. 918 Jasper Street Kalamazoo, Michigan 1:00 p.m.-4:00p.m. uufe/' I. Welcome and Introductions- Terry Pruitt II. Review of February 14, 1997 and April10, 1997 Minutes -Terry Pruitt III. Program Updates a. b. c. d. e. Michigan CARES - Paula Kaiser Michigan's AmeriCorps- Daphne Wells Governor's Community Service Awards- Lindy Reurink Learn & Serve Michigan - Angelia Salas Budget and Administration - Garry Gross IV. Executive Director's Report- Frank Dirks v. Commission Initiatives (Status) t:tlr~adv ~/ft,. __ L a. b. c. d. VI. National State Service Commission Meeting- Frank Dirks President's Summit Planning - Frank Dirks ~ t"A I r-<:qct y ---b. It Volunteer Investment Grant Proposal -Terry Pruitt/Frank Dirks New Quest Grant- Angelia Salas 6. P~- ~(/v\,\ ay- Mv 1'sovl..(, ~t,.VV\C. t, f New Business (Action Items) a. b. VII. ?<-b ~. Michigan's AmeriCorps Application- Daphne Wells Review of Hearing Reports - Frank Dirks Public Comment Next Commission meeting will be September 12, 1997 hosted by Commissioner Orosz in Battle Creek. Gmun issJ.cmf/r ()Y()S:? ( omm,ss;(;rr;er- We~w_ fUm~ : 3: 5o pffl a --.-vr � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Agenda Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting agenda Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting agenda. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49882 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/5deb2541203c63921c0da8b720cc12f0.pdf 9515eef2f2a7270799380873f166c1de PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir..,.........._,.., Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave. Bldg., 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan' s AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner: Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Department of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps Mll..ES _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission i! �SERVICE COMMISSION MICHIGAN COMMUNITY Mrs. Michelle Engler, Chair Frank Dirks, Ex. Director Mr. Terry Pruitt, Jr. 517-496-8827 If"''"'""""" Ms. Meg Smith (313)847-0582 Mr. Michael Tate 517-355-6580 Ext. Mr. MatthewWesaw nYe~ (517)484-6772 y Mr. RaymondWest «?v't~ (313)226-9215 \' Ms. Geneva Jones Williams ~ iN' 313-226-9444 Ms. Nancy Lenz ClJ 0..;-~f: (616)349-0549 ' I Mr. Doug Stites (MJC) 517-373-6227 Kathleen Keen McCarthy (313)453-3840 Sit-. Ms. Bonnie Graham(OA) 517-373-9360 web Jim Muir (616)243-3555 1 Sam Singh(MNA) (517)353-5038 Lisa McGettigan(MCC) Don Newport (517)356-9021 Ext . . 276 (517)353-9393 /)~_,A . .J... n ~· Mary Pheiler-Detroit Corporation (313)-226-7848 Dr. Joel Orosz 616-969-2308 Staff (F. Dirks, M. Estrada, L.Reurink:, G. Gross, P. Kaiser, D. Wells, A. Salas, J. Epps, T. McCloskey) Ms. Amber Pritchard (616)796-3214 (Work) 1 �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir........~­ Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX S. Capitol Ave. Bldg. , 4th Floor Michigan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner: Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Department of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps Mll...ES _ _ Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questiop.s, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan . Jobs Commission 01. ~·~ NC'I'CLI'OI>~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chalrparson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir,_~ Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 S. Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing, Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative recommendations of the Michigan·s AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name Qf Commissioner: Eclucation Award Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth !)?artment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Approve -~ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan .A!neriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorp.s MILES _.2S.. Approve __ Disapprove Couunents: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335·4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)3354295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission c. · -=,~ T.C:Vl ~~6v £~£ ~~s ~ lDDHDS H~IH sn1nwo~ �MI c:tl1'WITY SERV ([}1 Jun 2S '97 Fax:517-373-4977 9:20 ?.02 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN eNGLER, Governor MICHIGAN CoMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Cftairperson M'JChelle Engler execu1ive otrecuw MEMORANDUM Frank OiJ1<s TO: MCSC Conmri~~onexs FROM: Fnmk~~nn · ~~,~~~~­ RE: June 6, 1997 Commi!Sion ~g DATE: lane 1~ 1997 Midli&an eommuM:),-scmoe CoJJDDM!~ Please complete and . fu. this form to the MCSC (.517~335-4295) by dose of business on "1.'11.nnday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials tbat were bauded out at the June 6 Commissioo meeting. If you have any questions. please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the M.iQhigan.Jobs Commission -At (';/('; 3!J'dd tt..ttE:SSS08 t • a i ~N30N3~N I ~3d05 ' W0~d 80 ' 80 1..8- SCI- NOC �jlfN 25 .. 1cJr- i12i: 32~fMAOONNA STATE OF MICHIGAN ..•.. ... .. P. IXP. 2/ 2 Jun 25 '97 UN1vE:RsrtY77 ''' . • ! .· ·. •• • ' . .. . JOHN ENGL!JI\, Govemcr MICHIQAN COMMUNITY S~AVICE COMMISSION 1 11 Chairpareon s. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Bid;., 4th Flcor Michelli Engler - Executhlt Director l.an•ln;, Michisa" 4891S Teler>hone (517) 3S5-429! · · F/JJ< (517) 373·4Sin MEMORANDUM Frank Olrkl TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks. Exeeutive Dir·~II/~r~;:r­ RE: Iune 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June: 12, 1997 Michigan Community Service Co At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Micb.tgan Community Service CommiisfOn (MCSC) staff's a.dministrative recommendations of the Michi,an'a AmcriCotps Education Award Only and Renewal packqes. The committee voted unanimously to support the paebges. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meetin1 packet (that wu mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommenclations of the packages. ~ ~ ~ ~ Nam• ofColnQIIufoner: 2 E4ucat1on Award Only Px:ogosah; •Alma College: Poousing on Children and Youth · nt of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps rove _ O.i.capprove ~ . . Renewal Progo••Js •American Youth Foundation: Rural Stratclic Action Initiative tCarinJ Toaetber Elderserve •family Independence Agenc}': Citizen's Health Service Corps •FiU:J~rald :Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · •Michiae Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michi1an .A.merlCorps •LutheraD Social Services: Ame.riCorps Mn.ES ___i( Anprove _Disapprove ~ts: :Please complete and tax thfs form to the MCSC (517·~·4295) by close ot business on Thursday• June 19.' Also enclosed are meeting materials tbrt1.ere handed out at the June 6 Commission moetinc. U you have any questio~St please call m.e at (S 17)335-4295. A. OiViaicn cf the Mlchlgan.Jobs Oommiealol'l il �. JUN:25-97 WED 8:40 LITTLE CAESAR ENT, INC. FAX NO. 3139836049 P. 02 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Executive Director MEMORANDUM Franl< Dirks ro. FROM: Lansing, M!chigan 489'13 Telephone (517) 335-4296 FAX (517) 373-4977 MCSC Commissioners Frank Dirks, Executive Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. 11Je committee has asked you to review the proposal review foi1115 that were enclosed in your meeting packe.t (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commiuloner: Dw'lc.c J:\'\tt b Wb~ · Education Award Oply PrQposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth D artment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps Approve . __ Disapprove mcnts: Renewal Proposal~ •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen 9 s Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald PUblic Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES _Disapprove ..;¥..-Approve "mments: Please complete and fax tbis form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were banded out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan. Jobs Commission ~ -=-~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler 111 S. Capitol Avt George W. Romney Bldg. , 4th Floc Lansing. Michigan 4891 Executive Director MEMORANDUM Frank Dirks TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir...-...Michigan Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 Telephone (51 7) 335·429: FAX (51 7) 373-49T. At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative recommendations of the Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review fonns that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. Name of Commissioner; Eu.nj (,:~ Education Award Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth •Df;.partment of Natural Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps __ •r Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES ~Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission cr.· ---~ �STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler S. Capitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Mich igan 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 rank Dirks, Executive Dir..,..... Michigan Community Service Co J.l,l.....,. RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 Renewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve •Family Independence Agency: Citizen's Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lutheran Social Services: AmeriCorps MILES _1(Approve __ Disapprove Comments: Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission a. · ~1CIOH IIEC'I'a.101'.o..ot:,. �MAR-21- ' 80 WED 08:02 ID: TEL NJ : MI COvlMUNITY SERV COI1 Fax: 51 7- 373-4977 1:!938 P01 Jun 24 '97 P.Ol 15:41 STATE OF MICHICiAN .. . JOHN ENGL.~A , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chelrpe,..on ~corgo Michelle Engler - Eneutlve Dlreotor FranK Dirks MEMORANDUM 11 1 S. Cap!tot Ave. Bldg., -+th F l o~r t.ansins , Michigan 4e;13 T&lep h~;~n• {51 '7) 335-42QS W. ~ornney FAX (517) 373•49n ~- . TO: MCSC Comm.issioners FROMt Frank DirkJ, Executive D~ Michigan Community Service Co RE~ June 6, 1997 Commtsslon meeting DATEI 1une 12, 1997 ' ion At the Commission meetin~ on.Iune 6, we discussed the Michigan Cou'Uilunity Service Commission (MCSC) staff's adm.Wisrrauve recommendations of the Michigan's AmerlCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted un.ously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review ~ proposal reYiew forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your views on t h : r·nistrativc recommendations of the packages. ~ ~ Naw• of Commlllllmer• ~}U.i)Y U /),_ ,j Renewal Proposals •American YQ'\ltQ ;Fo'Wldation: RI.Ual Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Tosether Elderserve •Family In4cpe.nd~ Agency: Citizeo's Health Servic:c Corps •Fitzgerald PUblic Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Miclii: an Nonprofit Association, Volunteer Centers of Michigan AmeriCo:rps an Social Services: Ame.riCorps Mn..BS _ _ Disappro\'C WQV£ Comments: · · Please complete and fax thi5 form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by close or business on Thl;l~day, June 19. Also enclosed are .meeting materials ~~!(em hW~t at the June 6 Comrruss1on meeti1lg.Ifyou have any questions, please r:alJ me a&!7)3354~ . a r~--------- A Division of the Michlgan .Jobs Comm ission Wl!lll'. . . . . �Jun-a0-97 12:10P 1;(:48 P . Ol P.02 STATE OF M ICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER. Govemor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperaon Miet'telle Engler t.xec:utlve DJrector Frank Oirb MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dirl~u:.,.... Michigan ColllUlumty S~ce Co RE: 1Wle 6, 1rJ97 Commis~ion meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 1, 1 S. Capitol Ave. George W. Romney Sldg., 4th Floor l.ansing, Michigan 48913 Telephol'le (517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commissio!l meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) staff's administrative m;ommcndations of the Micbigan•s Anleri.Corps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously ro suppon the packages. The committee has aske(i you w review the Foposal review forms that were cnclosed in your meeting packet (tbat was IJlailcd to you) azld indicate your views on the administrative recommenda.rioiU of the j \,_~ LA F_:.~.· packages. Name of ..Co_mmj+,loner: Ednr.auon Award O•b r···'. l.J..._1 M M r 0G·<; {}' ' PropmaJs •Ahna College; Focusing on ChildreD and Youth · nt of Natural Reso~ Michigan Civilian Conservation Cotps pprove · . __ Disapprove Repewal Proposals •American Youth Foundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative .Caring Together Eldcr-.ve "family lndepeDdence Agency: Cirtz.en•s Health Service Corps •fjtzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps · ·Michiaao Nonprofit Association. Volunteer CentErs of Michigan AmeriCoif's ·~~ Social Services: ~~rove A.meriCorps MlLES ~-Disapprove Comments: Please complet£ and fax this form to the MC5C (517-335-4295) by dose or busiaess on Th\ll'Sday, JUDe 19. AJso enclosed are meeting materials that Wf)te handed out at the June 6 CommisSiott meeting. Hyou bavc any guestio~, please call me at (517)335429.5. A o;v;sion Of the Michigoai'I.Jobs Commission 0. ..==:... �se ne by: Academic Affairs 06 / 20/97 19:50 517 774 1408 Page 111 J ob 173 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Mic helle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Commissioners FROM: Frank Dirks. Executive Dir...-~­ Mkhignn Community Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 S. Cap itol Ave . Geo rge W Romney Bldg., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone (517) 335 ·4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 /?) Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335·4295) by close of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the M ic h igan Jobs Comm ission i! ' �JUN~17-97 TUE 8:31 COUNCIL OF MI FOUNDATION FAX NO. 6168421 760 P. 01 STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER, Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks MEMORANDUM TO: MCSC Conunissioners FROM: Frank Dirks, Executive Dir~­ Michigan Collllllunity Service Co RE: June 6, 1997 Commission meeting DATE: June 12, 1997 111 $ . Capitol Ave . George W. Romney Bldg ., 4th Floor Lansing , Michigan 48913 Telephone {517) 335-4295 FAX (517) 373-4977 At the Commission meeting on June 6, we discussed the Michigan Community Service Conunission (MCSC) staffs administrative recommendations of t]:le Michigan's AmeriCorps Education Award Only and Renewal packages. The committee voted unanimously to support the packages. The committee has asked you to review the proposal review forms that were enclosed in your meeting packet (that was mailed to you) and indicate your ·views on the administrative recommendations of the packages. · - ~N~~==~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~ Education A ward Only Proposals •Alma College: Focusing on Children and Youth · De nt of Naturdl Resources: Michigan Civilian Conservation Corps rove ,. _ Disapprove onune ts: . Renewal Prof1sals •American YouFoundation: Rural Strategic Action Initiative •Caring Together Elderserve · •Family Independence Agency: Citizen,' s Health Service Corps •Fitzgerald Public Schools: FOCUS AmeriCorps •Michigan Nonprofit Association, Vol~teer Centers of Michigan AmeriCorps •Lut_boiaff"Social Setvices: AmeriCorps Mll...ES .X:: Approve · . . ~Disapprove Comments! Please complete and fax this form to the MCSC (517-335-4295) by dose of business on Thursday, June 19. Also enclosed are meeting materials that were handed out at the June 6 Commission meeting. If you have any questions. please call me at (517)335-4295. A Division of the MJchigan. Jobs Commission ~ -=:-.::... � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Administrative-Recommendations-Results Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative recommendations results Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative recommendations results. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49881 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/c7d6f685065e7f9ec53fcf55b13a423b.pdf 2bd3c9d0eb7eb5da102a95079897cdf1 PDF Text Text STATE OF MICHIGAN JOHN ENGLER , Governor MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION 111 George W. Romney Lansing , Telephone FAX Chairperson Michelle Engler Executive Director Frank Dirks S. Ca pitol Ave . Bldg ., 4th Floor Michig an 48913 (517) 335-4295 (517) 373-4977 MEMORANDUM TO: Michigan Community Service Commission FROM: Garry Gross, Director of Administration Michigan Community Service Commission RE: Administrative Issues DATE: June 3, 1997 /)h>"\ .t'P/ Attached is the Commission's Comparative Financial Statement for the quarter ending March 31 , 1996. We have recently received our award letters for the Operational and Program Development and Training grant (P-DAT). There are some major changes in this quarter's financial statement. Under the federal Operational and P-DAT grants, almost all the line items have been adjusted to account for the new award budget and also to account for a large increase in administration costs to the Michigan Jobs Commission (MJC) and Department of Management and Budget (DMB). I have increased the admin line in the Operational grant to account for the increased rates. We had originally allocated $54,197 for MJC administrative overhead. At the end of this quarter, we were informed that the Cost Allocation Plan for MJC worked out to a share of approximately $26,000 per quarter for a yearly total of $104,000. Also included in this line is a increase of our indirect rate to $30,000 for the year. This change can be directly attributed to the increase in personnel costs for the Commission. The indirect rate is figured on salary and benefits for the quarter. The commission will incur heavy training and conference charges in the quarter ending June 30, 1997, with the Super Conference and the May meeting of the State Executive Directors Group. We will also have the Michigan's AmeriCorps Signature Service project in late June. Based upon the comparative financial statement and our current spending pace, the only concern that we are currently working on is the expiration date of our operational grant. Depending on how the State's budget process works out, we may need to request an earlier end date for this grant. We will be able to further determine the possibility of the request late this summer. A Division of the Michigan Jobs Commission ~~ �Michigan Community Service Commission Comparative Financial Statement/FY 97 As of March 31, 1997 STATE FUNDS Learn & Serve Budaet YTD Actual Michigan CARES Budget YTD Ac1ual 3 ,386 , 4 2 8 107 .676 160 ,000 0 160,000 2 74 ,000 152 306 274,000 152 306 116929 0 116929 8,250 8 ,250 85 790 3 494 104 3 494 104 160 000 160 000 426 306 426 306 116929 n6929 8 ,250 8 ,25 0 85 790 3,494 , 1 0 4 3 ,49 4 , 104 1 29 ,642 129 ,642 0 187,000 0 187 ,000 0 9 1 000 91 000 129 642 187 000 187 000 91 000 9 1 000 50,762 30,726 9 ,9 2 9 41 ,262 5 ,000 3 4 ,9 13 0 5,038 0 6,879 7' 160 0 1 ,83 4 0 2,122 0 Volunteer Awareness Current Year Income Prior Year Ca rryover 175,700 175,700 100 , 000 100 , 000 0 0 0 0 2 84 , 586 90 000 284,586 90 000 100,795 20 000 1 00,795 20 000 3,386,428 107 .676 Total Revenues 175700 175700 100 000 100 000 374 586 374 586 120 795 120 795 Budget YTD Actual Operational Budget YID Actual P-DA T Budget YTD Actual TOTALS PRIVATE & FOUNDATION FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS GFIGP Budget YTD Actual AmeriCorps Budget YID Actual Michigan CARES-2 Budget YTD Actual l egi slativ e Bkfasl Budget YTD Actual State ED grant Budget YID Actual Budoet YTDActuals 85 790 4 ,481,509 580 9 51 4 ,481, 5 09 580 95 1 85 790 5 062 460 5 062 460 3,810,746 91 000 3 ,810,746 91 000 3 901 746 3 90 1 7 46 366 ,217 147,000 164,541 24 ,000 103,753 81 ,8 46 25,520 84 ,85 5 22,658 35,9 13 10 4411 1 90 , 974 70 ,956 14 ,349 253 8 , 727 19,000 1 9,528 8 , 086 4 , 4 93 2,247 20 1 02 REVE!'L£S SUB-GRANTS Program Sub-G rants Operations Sub-Grant s 0 0 0 Total Sub-Grants 0 0 0 0 3 494 1 0 4 3 49 4 104 1 29 642 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ,000 0 8,000 0 7 , 800 0 0 0 0 0 34,679 0 6,7 41 0 46 , 1 1 1 1 '129 ADMIN. EXPENSES Salaries & Benefits Admin Consultants Evaluation/ Survey 1 60 ,526 3,000 15 0 20 ,0 0 0 16,000 Training Travel Computer/Off Eq uip. Meetings Wkshps/Conferences 79 ,344 5, 1 74 5,000 0 0 563 0 1 ,408 0 18 , 120 18 , 120 0 8 , 000 145 ,000 140 ,000 2 , 500 0 2 , 000 1 7,300 0 7 , 500 7 , 500 80 , 9 0 4 70 , 94 1 326 0 0 6 , 863 0 4 , 555 3, 1 2 9 Materials/Guides P rinting/Mai ling 0 0 6 1 '1 00 0 48 , 180 7' 1 1 5 2 ,400 1 ,000 0 1 ,000 2 , 244 0 1 , 848 3, 846 0 168 0 125 0 37 . 880 8.543 52 786 11 080 Total Admin Expenses 175 .700 81 . 330 100 000 26 663 37 4 586 177 798 120 .795 8 , 231 TOTAL EXPENDrTURES 175.700 81 .330 100 000 26 663 374 586 177 798 1 20.795 8.2 3 1 REMAINING RJNDS 2 .000 94,370 73 ,3 37 196 , 788 112,564 0 3 494 104 3 4 9 4 10 4 253 53 ,573 36 ,457 0 22,339 8 , 000 900 7' 158 0 2.500 568 0 400 1 ,36 4 0 479 30 . 358 3.06 4 239 306 53 759 25 , 929 160 000 132 706 4 26 306 2 40 759 11 6 929 27,294 1 85 , 547 0 0 0 0 0 7 , 00 5 3,000 0 0 0 9 1 000 25 , 929 0 0 0 1 .245 5 .000 0 8 , 250 85.790 7 .8 70 1 160 7 14 358 715 8.250 85 , 790 7 . 870 5 062 460 4 260 4 61 8 ,25 0 M.C.S.C., in cooperation with the Capital Area Community Foundation, also receives additional support from pri vate sources to help offset the cost of the Governor's Community Service Awards Program and the AmeriCorps Signature Service Project. 7 7 ,920 801 ,999 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-06-06_Administrative-Issues Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative Issues Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-06-06 commission meeting administrative Issues. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49880 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-06-06 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/84c3eec38087354039d9af55f104006c.pdf a2407f115cf99275389380c2bc0999c6 PDF Text Text April8, 1997 <Field:1 > Dear <Field:2> : Thank you for participating in the Michigan Community Service Commission' s public information gathering meeting on March 25, 1997. The meeting provided the Commission with important views from the field. Your insights and comments were very helpful. You provided a valuable perspective that will help us in our future considerations. We hope that you will remain involved in the work of the Commission and we look forward to hearing about your continued efforts in support of service and volunteerism in Michigan. Please don't hesitate to contact our staff with other comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your time and ideas. Sincerely, Michelle Engler �April 8, 1997 Ms. Aria Larsen, Director Lapeer and Genesee Counties Senior Companion Program 202 East Boulevard Drive Flint, Michigan 48503-1891 Dear Ms. Larsen: Thank you for participating in the Michigan Community Service Commission's public information gathering meeting on March 25. The meeting provided the Commission with important views from the field. Your insights and comments were very helpful. You provided a valuable perspective that will help us in our future considerations. We hope that you will remain involved in the work of the Commission and we look forward to hearing about your continued efforts in support of service and volunteerism in Michigan. Please don't hesitate to contact our staff with other comments and suggestions. Thank you again for your time and ideas. Sincerely, Michelle Engler �March 20, 1997 <Field:1> Dear <Field:2>: Thank you for agreeing to share your views with the Michigan Community Service Commission at a public information gathering meeting on March 25, 1997. The hearing is scheduled for 1:00 p.m. to 4:30p.m. at the Kellogg Center, Room 105 A&B Michigan State University, Harrison Road, East Lansing. The meeting is intended to provide the Commission with views from the field in order to help it determine the best way to support and develop national and community service and volunteer programs in Michigan. Your program work and leadership will bring an important perspective to the Commission. We ask that you prepare a five to seven minute oral presentation. You may also wish to submit it in writing as well. After your presentation there will be up to eight minutes of questions and answers with members of the Commission. The total time allotted to your session will be fifteen minutes. After providing a brief introduction to your program and how it works in your community, we ask that you frame your presentation around the following questions: 1) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the way national and community service programs are supported in Michigan? 2) In the ideal, what is the best way that national and community service and volunteerism should be supported in Michigan? 3) What should the Commission do to support national and community service and volunteerism in Michigan? Enclosed, you will find information on the meeting location and directions. We are delighted that you will be able to join us to share your views. Thank you for your time and interest. Sincerely, Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Public-Information-Meeting-Thank-You-Letters Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting public information meeting thank you letters Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting public information meeting thank you letters. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49879 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/eef821066727bf26acd0029b810d83b7.pdf a4eaf61901ccb1ee542661b28ba4de18 PDF Text Text MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's ArneriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way of Genesee and Lapeer Counties NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 26 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Genesee County ArneriCorps Program's (GCAP) ArneriCorps members will serve youth and children who are at-risk by working with them to improve academic outcomes and to address health care concerns. Specific objectives of the program include: improving math and reading scores through tutoring; improving social skills, self-esteem, and community involvement through rnentoring and service-learning opportunities; and improving the health through referrals of children, horne visits, immunization reviews, and transportation to medical visits. STRENGTHS The Urban League is well established within the community, their staff are credentialed and experienced, and they have shown the capacity to run a program of this size. The program has access to a large number of local partners. It is clear how GCAP will address the education needs and the human needs of the community. Each partner agency provides match money for each full-time member. There is a concentrated effort on generating additional non-stipended volunteers. However, if members are specifically serving as volunteer generators at a site (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) the program needs to be able to report on the increase in service delivered as a result of the new volunteers. The program's philosophy is solid (i.e. registering to vote, uniforms, transition-out-of-the-program system). The post-service program will benefit members. Across the board this is something most members need, however it' s not always provided by other programs. The relationship with Mott Community College and U-M Flint will provide educational opportunities for the ArneriCorps members. There is the possibility for academic credit for participation in the program. ~ \t, WEAKNESSES )f ~ The program intends to use non-stipended Education Award Only members serving 900 hours in one /\' '\1 ~..0 f! year. The program needs to address whether this is a realistic goal. The program needs to indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation. GCAP needs to address how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. £Z...eoL.~ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $305,792 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The PTE rate of $9,266 is well below the CNS and MCSC PTE average. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 14 Name of Applicant: United Way of Genesee and Lapeer County Strengths: Getting Things Done: • • • • • .. . The program will generate addttlon~ non-stlpend~d voh~nt~ers. The organizations involved have a history of ru~mng a strrular program. The paper used statistics to support the needlra~wnale of the program. The readers liked how the writer broke down, m separate para~aphs, ho~ the program will address the education needs and the human needs. It made 1t a lot easter to read and easier to understand how these two areas will be addressed. . The proposal discussed the success/ accomplishments of the current AmenCorps program and lessons learned. Strengthening Community: • • . There is a concentrated effort on generating additional volunteers. However, 1f members are specifically serving as volunteer generators at a site (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) the program needs to be able to show/report on the increase in service delivered as a result of the new volunteers. The program has access to a large number of local partners. Developing Members: • • • • • • The program intends to use non-stipended Education Award Only members. Indoctrination into AmeriCorps philosophy is solid (i.e. registering to vote, uniforms, transition-out-of-the-program system.) Post-service program will benefit members. Across the board this is something most members need, however it's not always provided. The relationship with Mott and U-M Flint will provide educational opportunities for the AmeriCorps members. There is the possibility for academic credit for participation in the program. Candidates for the program will undergo a criminal records check as part of the screening process. The proposal discussed the lessons learned from the current AmeriCorps program . Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • • Mea~uring I_Uembers' effe~tiveness/impact early-on in the program is beneficial to the contmuous Improvement tlmeline. The ~~~strati:ve pr~gram st~f will do on-site monitoring . Th_e m?tvtdual_sttes will ~ubrrut ~onthly and quarterly reports. This will provide good ongomg mformat~on and will provide for a good tracking system. !he proposal discussed lessons learned from the current AmeriCorps program in terms of 1mpact. �Organizational Capacity: • The paper shows evidence that the Urban League is well established within the community. • The credentials of the Urban League program staff are detailed and support the mission of the program. • The organization has shown their capacity to run a program this large. • Experienced principle program staff. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Each partner provides match money for each full-time member. FfE $9,266 is well below the CNS and MCSC FfE average. Each site will provide match funds for the FfEs placed at their site. • • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Indicate which partners and host sites are new versus continuing. Indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation, ie, the number of members focusing primarily on volunteer generation and at which sites. • Describe how the numbers and percentages for the health care objectives were reached. Is this based upon baseline data from the current AmeriCorps program, other information? • It would be helpful if the applicant were to group the distribution of AmeriCorps service activities according to priority area (pgs. 6,7). • Describe the differences between the VISTA program and the proposed AmeriCorps program. How do they complement one another. • Describe how host sites are supported. • • Strengthening Community: • Indicate the specific sites and placements which will focus on volunteer generation, ie, the number of members focusing primarily on volunteer generation and at which sites. • Clarify the difference between program goals as listed at the top of pg. 9. Provide rationale for the numbers and percentages listed. Is this based on the current AmeriCorps program? Developing Members: • The proposal did not address how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Provide rationale/ justification for the numbers and percentages in the annual objectives and how they build upon the current AmeriCorps program (p.15, 16). Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: In the budget narrative, please provide clarification as to the classification of AmeriCorps members as Sales. It would be beneficial to provide an overall statement that indicates the number of AmeriCorps members at each site according to service activities at those sites. • Remove clerical language from budget narrative. • Clarify who the principle staff is as listed in the budget narrative (see staff line item). • Overall Comments: The proposal fully addressed the weaknesses/ continuous improvement items in each section as raised in the Concept Paper feedback document. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: The University of Michigan NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 20 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program aims to strengthen the social development of children and families in Detroit neighborhoods through: direct services, such as violence prevention workshops and community service projects, provided to at least 500 youth in after-school and summer programs; increasing access to health education and health promotion services for at least 300 children and family members; and enabling 100 residents to gain access to jobs and start new businesses. STRENGTHS The university's demonstration of commitment, resources, and an existing AmeriCorps program identity are strong. Staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program, program partnerships are established, and an evaluation system is in place. Member pre-service training is also well developed. There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The University of Michigan needs to address the preparation of host sites, specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members, and how the proposed program builds upon the current Q f/ AmeriCorps program. This project needs to clarify its intervention with at-risk youth in community-based organizations with low organizational capacity. Cl~-0 The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however the proposal needs to provide further information about the implementation of the system. How will it actually work for AmeriCorps? The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program should connect with Michigan CARES and its initiatives. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $402,798 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. Including the education award only component, the FfE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS (11,750) and MCSC target (11,300). Cash match for the member support category is 29%. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: The University of Michigan NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 50 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program aims to strengthen the social development of children and families in Detroit neighborhoods through: direct services, such as violence prevention workshops and community service projects, provided to at least 500 youth in after-school and summer programs; increasing access to health education and health promotion services for at least 300 children and family members; and enabling 100 residents to gain access to jobs and start new businesses. STRENGTHS . The university's demonstration of commitment, resources, and an existing AmeriCorps program identity are strong. Staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program, program partnerships are established, and an evaluation system is in place. Member pre-service training is also well developed. There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The University of Michigan needs to address the preparation of host sites, specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members, and how the proposed program builds upon the current AmeriCorps program. This project needs to clarify its intervention with at-risk youth in community-based organizations with low organizational capacity. The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however the proposal needs to provide further information about the implementation of the system. How will it actually work for AmeriCorps? The Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps program should connect with Michigan CARES and its initiatives. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $402,798 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this propo~al be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. Including the education award only component, the FTE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS (11 ,750) and MCSC target (11,300). Cash match for the member support category is 29%. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 7 Name of Applicant: The Regents of Michigan Stren~ths: Getting Things Done: • The administrative structure is comprehensive and well developed. • The university commitment and resources were viewed as a strength. • The education award only component is a nice compliment to the overall program. Strengthening Community: • The program recognized the cultural diversity issues and developed a plan to address them. • The proposal identified the program's partners. • The partnerships have already been established. • The program developed a strong volunteer integration piece. Developing Members: • Michigan's AmeriCorps program identity is strong. • Member pre-service training is well developed. • The types of skills necessary to perform the tasks were well thought out. • The education award only component focuses on very specific tasks. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The program has a variety of feedback techniques. • The proposal mentioned a continuous improvement system, however they need to elaborate on the system. • The evaluation system is already established. Organizational Capacity: The two lead organizations are strong and viewed as leading organizations in the community. • The staff has previous experience operating an AmeriCorps program. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is a good balance between match dollars and the federal funds requested. Including the education award only component, the FfE rate is $8,951 which is lower than the CNS and MCSC target. • Cash match for member support category is 29%. • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • Provide greater justification for objective #lc. Readers are not clear on how the proposed activities relate to strengthening youth or families with youth. • The organization chart needs to include the number of full-time, part-time, and education award only members assigned to each site. • The proposal needs to include more detail as to the members activities and tasks and the �• overall impact. It would help to list the organization under the objective and a brief description of the members' activities. The proposal does not make a strong correlation between the needs of at-risk youth in the community-based organizations with low organizational capacity with regard to objective 1c. (Access to jobs and new businesses and its connection to families and youth). Overall, the needs and the method for assessing those needs are weakly described. Strengthening Community: • Clarify how many volunteers will be generated: 100 or 1,500? How does objective 2b differ from objective 1b.? • • Please describe how the program will connect with Michigan CARES? • It is not clear how the community's assets will be used to address the identified community needs. Developing Members: • The proposal does not address the preparation of host sites. • The proposal lacks the specific training related to the individual tasks performed by members. • Describe the different roles for full- and part-time members. • Describe the number of host sites. How many members will be placed per site? Who will provide direct supervision? • Even if the proposal answered the above points of this section in other sections of the narrative, the points should be fully addressed in the Developing Members section of the program narrative. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Describe the accomplishments of the current AmeriCorps program and how the proposed program builds upon the current program. Incorporate any lessons learned. • How will the program ensure that the evaluation system will collect outcome-based information? Organizational Capacity: • The proposal should include the host sites ability to manage the program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Include in the proposal what will be sustained from your current AmeriCorps program. Identify the sources of match funding under training line item. • • Overall Comments: • The proposal needs more detail on the specific activities of the members, on a per site basis. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Eastern Michigan University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 3 FT 46 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Eastern Michigan University (EMU) aims to improve the reading and writing performance of children kindergarten through fifth grade through a tutoring and mentoring program which utilizes parent and community-based volunteers. The program plans to increase volunteer and parent participation in the literacy of children, establish partnerships between institutes of higher education and the community, and promote civic-rnindedness and community service among those involved in the program. Forty-nine AmeriCorps members will be placed at 14 elementary school sites, five members per site, to provide: reading and writing tutoring, incentives for reading, and parent workshops. STRENGTHS Eastern Michigan University has previously operated an AmeriCorps program. The proposed program builds on an existing multi-cultural literacy effort to meet well-documented community needs. Its focus is not only on the children's literacy and tutoring needs, but also on the parents' . EMU is making connections between community-based organizations, the university, and the area schools. The proposal suggested a very detailed evaluation plan which incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative and quantitative. EMU has a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the number of hours volunteered. _,0 &JY-. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned with how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? How will personnel and graduate assistants (the supervisors) be prepared for their roles in the program? Another area of concern is the service-learning component of the program. It is unclear how servicelearning relates to the overall goals. Clarification is necessary. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $285,060 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. This program has a $10,558 FTE. This is below the MCSC and CNS average cost per member. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Eastern Michigan University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: -""'""3_FT 46 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Eastern Michigan University (EMU) aims to improve the reading and writing performance of children kindergarten through fifth grade through a tutoring and mentoring program which utilizes parent and community-based volunteers. The program plans to increase volunteer and parent participation in the literacy of children, establish partnerships between institutes of higher education and the community, and promote civic-mindedness and community service among those involved in the program. Forty-nine AmeriCorps members will be placed at 14 elementary school sites, five members per site, to provide: reading and writing tutoring, incentives for reading, and parent workshops. STRENGTHS Eastern Michigan University has previously operated an AmeriCorps program. The proposed program builds on an existing multi-cultural literacy effort to meet well-documented community needs. Its focus is not only on the children's literacy and tutoring needs, but also on the parents'. EMU is making connections between community-based organizations, the university, and the area schools. The proposal suggested a very detailed evaluation plan which incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative and quantitative. EMU has a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the m,J.mbei of hours volunteered. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned with how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? How will personnel and graduate assistants (the supervisors) be prepared for their roles in the program? Another area of concern is the service-learning component of the program. It is unclear how servicelearning relates to the overall goals. Clarification is necessary. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 274,502 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. This program has a $10,558 FTE. This is below the MCSC and CNS average cost per member. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 10 Name of Applicant: Eastern Michigan University Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • The program builds on multi-cultural literacy program. • The community's needs are well documented. • The program focuses on not only the children's literacy/tutoring needs, but also the parent's. • The paper specifies the specific age group of the young students involved in the program. Strengthening Community: • The paper did a good job detailing member responsibilities. • The program is making connections between CBOs, the university, and the area schools. Developing Members: • Member training is well detailed. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Keeping records on databases at each site should make it easy to problem solve and implement continuous improvement. The paper suggested a very detailed evaluation plan . • The evaluation plan incorporates a number of measurement tools that are both qualitative • and quantitative. There is a system in place to track volunteers, volunteer recruitment efforts, and the number • of hours volunteered. The paper specifically stated the frequency of site visits to the host sites . • Organizational Capacity: The applicant has past experience administering a federal grant. The applicant (EMU) has operated an AmeriCorps program. However, different staff will be assigned to administer/operate this new program (see weakness stated below.) • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program exceeds the minimum match required. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • Please clarify the service-learning component as stated on page #4. Please describe how it relates to overall program goals. Who is involved? This component might be better in Strengthening Communities as it relates to the involvement of community volunteers. �• • • • The proposal should quantify the program's impact (as in the objectives) in the narrative . This should include the number of children, by how much improvement, etc. The proposal should include the distinction between the members serving 900 hours and 450 hours per site. The proposal did not address how the sites will be prepared for the placement of the AmeriCorps members. In particular, what expectations are placed on the schools and how will the program ensure that they meet those expectations? The proposal needs to provide additional detail on the summer component of the program. Strengthening Community: • Please clarify: Is it "Chamber of Congress" or "Chamber of Commerce"? Developing Members: • Please describe how host sites will be prepared for the placement of AmeriCorps members, particularly school personnel. • How will the Graduate Assistants, as supervisors, be prepared for their role in the program? • The proposal should include information on the weekly team meetings that will occur at each site and across sites. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: Please include the credentials of key program staff and graduate assistants, i.e., the literacy coordinator and the Graduate Assistants. • This paper lists a very large number of staff to run this program. It is unclear as to the portion of key staff time being spent on the project. Please clarify. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There was no mention of how successful the applicant has been in sustaining the current AmeriCorps program. What will be sustained from the current AmeriCorps program? • $14,838 FTE. This is exceptionally higher than the MCSC or CNS average cost per member. • Budget form and budget narrative should reflect 16 one-year part-time members instead of 46. Also, two-year part-time members should be 30. There is a high number of program staff and a high staff cost of $114, 832. This alone is • $6,207 per FfE. The proposed program budget is very staff intensive. • Cost of uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member instead of $33 . • The proposed technical consultant position should be included in the staff line item. • The cost associated with the training consultant equates to $461 per day using federal funds. Provide justification. • The budget should include health care for the full-time members. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Oakland University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: _ _ FT 37 PT 3 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION AmeriCorps Oakland will enroll40 AmeriCorps members to provide reading/literacy and life skills training for youth and families in Pontiac. The program will provide year-round support for the youth through learning and educational programs. The program will also teach Character Education that focuses on respect, caring, trustworthiness, fairness, responsibility, and citizenship. AmeriCorps Oakland corpsmembers will also conduct workshops for parents to encourage parents to read with their children at home. STRENGTHS AmeriCorps Oakland is an existing Michigan's AmeriCorps program in their third year. The program staff has managed the program for the past three years and will continue to administer the new program at Oakland University. The proposed program is meeting an important need within the Pontiac community, the need for tutoring and literacy improvem~nt. The parent workshops and the inclusion of parents as volunteers will support the efforts of the program and increase the students' chances of improving academically. By bringing the AmeriCorps members, who are college students, into the schools, they will serve as role models and may demonstrate to youth the value of education. In addition, generating additional volunteers helps provide an overall cost effectiveness to this program. WEAKNESSES As an existing Michigan's AmeriCorps program, it is unclear as to what will be sustained from the current program. With regard to the proposed program for 1997-98, the program's plans for sustainability will need to describe the role of schools and other community partners and ~ f 5 Oat.)ON'C! t..._,'f-va ct/ community volunteers. <.-p4~ .. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $222,879 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided that the program fully addresses the issues as outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The program's FTE is $11,578, which is slightly higher than the MCSC target but below the CNS figure of $11 ,750. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 6 Name of Applicant: Oakland University Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The paper stated, statistically, the need for tutoring and literacy improvement. The parent workshops and the inclusion of parents as volunteers increases the students' chances of improving academically. • The proposal discussed the current Michigan's AmeriCorps program and how this proposed program will build upon it. • • Strengthening Community: • Bringing college students into the city may show students how valuable their education is. It may also possibly show them how their education may be used differently than they had originally anticipated (i.e.working in the city with the kids who are in need). • Program provides young students with good role models. Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The site supervisors will meet monthly. • The program plans to hire an outside evaluator. This is good so that the staff are not overburdened with this additional task. • The paper states that each host site will track their own members. Organizational Capacity: • The paper provided thorough details on the individuals responsible for running the program at the college. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Generating additional volunteers helps provide an overall cost effectiveness to this program. • Applicant reduced FfE to $11,578, which is slightly higher than MCSC target. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • List the number of members assigned to each component of the program, ie, how many will work in the after school component, the in-school component, etc. Also, please identify the age range of the population to be served in the after school and summer component. • Clearly describe what services the AmeriCorps members will provide during the summer component of the program. • Clarify the number of sites for the summer versus in-school. • Indicate the number of sites the program will operate out of and identify what agencies and �• service sites are new versus continuing partners. The proposal should discuss how the members will be involved in recruiting community volunteers. Strengthening Community: • It would be helpful to have an introductory paragraph that discussed how the program's structure and involvement of the variety of community organizations will build community. • What assets and resources would each community partner bring to the program? Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The proposal did not incorporate regular stakeholder feedback and continuous improvement as components in the evaluation plan. • Describe how the program will ensure that like objectives are measured consistently across sites. Organizational Capacity: • The proposal should state Joyce Esterberg's experience and role in the current AmeriCorps program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: What will be sustained from the current program? The paper should speak to the sustainability of the past program/efforts. • The plan for sustainability should include the role of schools and other community partners. • Cost for uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member instead of $33. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Olivet College NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: -""'""'10"----- FT 20 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County (TEECCC) AmeriCorps Program will strengthen the connections between students, schools, and the community to address teen drop-out rates and develop positive alternatives for youth to raise the level of interest in their education, career, and community. The program will prepare youth for the workplace by developing mentoring and job shadowing experiences. The program will also conduct tutoring sessions, study skill development training, and summer school classes for youth ages kindergarten to third grade. STRENGTHS The program will work with the Calhoun Intermediate School District to form connections with the schools and upon reviewing the Comprehensive Proposal for the program it appears that there is a good collaborative effort between Olivet College, the Calhoun Intermediate School District, and other community partners. The program has good support from the college. The college will provide opportunities for members to attain educational and career goals. Olivet College has redesigned its scholarship program to recognize the service and volunteer efforts of potential students. Part of that re-organization is the Community Responsibility Scholarships which are offered to students who have demonstrated significant service to the community. With respect to this AmeriCorps program, the college will offer up to $6,000 to any full- or part-time AmeriCorps member who completes their term of service and enrolls at Olivet. MCSC feels that this demonstrates Olivet's commitment to recognizing and facilitating service and volunteer initiatives. WEAKNESSES With regard to objectives and proposed impact, the number of students involved in the program appears to be low. The program will need to revisit this component of their objectives. The program needs to describe the role that the schools will take in developing the plans for sustaining the program. Additionally, MCSC is requesting that the program provide information concerning other grants that Olivet College has received. This should include the size of the grant and how those grants are '~ comparable to this proposed program. , -' o~ I h fA:)~.Q- ()..,cL~~ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $273,290 v- ~ Joel ;s I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 07\ ...-rk ' MCSC staff recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided that they fully address the issues as outlined in the staff review feedback. The FfE for the program is $13,665. This is considerably higher then the MCSC or CNS FfE average cost. The program will need to reduce the FTE below $12,000. L~sfh\.. "l ? �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 26 Name of Applicant: Olivet College Strengths: Getting Things Done: Indication of good support for the project at the college level. Good idea of creating volunteer projects that involve students, teachers, and parents. • • Strengthening Community: • Paper details a good collaborative effort, including the TECC team advisory board. • By engaging students in after-school and summer programs this shows "at-risk" students that someone cares and is showing an interest in them. • The program will use the CISD to form connections with the schools. Developing Members: • Thorough training plan which includes members as well as teachers and other relevant staff. Through this everyone involved should hear the same message as to the goals of the program. • There is a long-range plan to develop curriculum that can be used long-term . • The paper presents good topics for relevant trainings (i.e. public speaking, dealing with difficult student populations, etc.) Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper has an overall evaluation plan laid out, however the paper needs to identify the • qualities of the potential host sites and then detail how the evaluation plan fits in with any existing evaluation tools that the sites ( schools/CBOs) may have in place for measuring impact (on students.) The TECC staff will provide bi-weekly/monthly monitoring. In the Comprehensive Proposal please detail how this information will be used in the continuous improvement of the program. Organizational Capacity: The paper provided a good thorough description of the college. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The paper shows that a large amount of in-kind match will be provided. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • Need to describe the difference in tasks between full-time and part-time members. With regard to objectives, the number of students involved appears to be low across all three objectives. For example, objective 1 states that 20 FfE will be at 10 sites-- this works out to members interacting with only 10 students per site. Strengthening Community: • • • Teachers and students should be on the TECC board. Building support for the program should be included in this section, in addition to the Getting Things Done section. The second objective in this section does not seem consistent with the information on the objectives worksheet. It is not clear whether the objective is a fund development goal or an opportunity for AmeriCorps members to network with community organizations. Developing Members: • • • • • What are the different roles of the full-time members? Part-time members? The proposal did not include how the program would create and maintain an AmeriCorps identity among the members and at each site. Specify any on-going training for members that will occur, including training that local school sites will provide. It is unclear as to how often will members come together for training and teambuilding, and networking activities. Bullet point #1 (on-site supervision in the schools) was fully addressed, however, it was addressed in Getting Things Done. This information should be addressed or re-stated in this section. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • The first two bullet points ( ... provide clear anticipated outcomes ... intended outcomes/impacts of the program ... ) were addressed in the Getting Things Done section instead of this section. The evaluation plan did not incorporate regular stakeholder feedback or continuous improvement activities. Organizational Capacity: • • Again, responses for the first two bullet points (... details on Olivet staff responsible for running the program .. .information on schools and CBOs that will serve as host sites .. .) were included in the Getting Things Done section instead of this section. Provide information concerning other grants that Olivet College has received. This should include the grant size and how those grants are comparable to this proposed program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • The FfE increased to $13,665 which is considerably higher then the MCSC or CNS FfE average cost. The FfE should be reduced. The proposal should identify potential future funding sources. What role will the schools take in sustaining this program or aspects of it? Overall Comments: • • The paper used a lot of acronyms, thereby making it difficult to read. Limit the number used. The proposal should use the words "AmeriCorps member", not AmeriCorps participant, student, etc. �• • The application did not include the Primary Annual Objectives forms! The Getting Things Done section is very informative and detailed; however, the writer needs to ensure that questions asked in other sections are answered in that section. Do not rely on answers provided in the Getting Things Done section. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Young Detroit Builders NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: _ _ FT ----"'3=5_ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps project will involve low-income, disadvantaged young adults in the rehabilitation and construction of 24 public housing units located in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. STRENGTHS _ The program will engage low-income, disadvantaged young adults as AmeriCorps members in the revitalization of public housing for homeless and low-income residents in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. The program involves former and current Empowerment Zone residents and businesses in the design and building process of the program. The program supports and complements current revitalization and rejuvenation activities with the Empowerment Zone. By involving disadvantaged youth in housing rehabilitation and providing them with practical experience, the program takes an innovative, integrated approach in meeting the need for lowincome housing and the educational/training needs of low-income youth while facilitating the youth's participation in community service. The applicant organization has previously administered federal grants and currently has a HUD grant. The program provides a strong, stable member support system by providing opportunities for members to obtain their GED and providing vocational and life skills training. The organization also has a high placement rate for "graduates" from the national YouthBuild program. WEAKNESSES The primary concern for this program is that the focus of their existing program, Y outhBuild USA, is on job training while the major focus of Michigan's AmeriCorps is providing direct service to the community. Therefore, the program focus should be on the need for housing renovation, the renovation that will be accomplished, and the impact of the service on the community as a result of those renovations; member development, while important, is secondary. Also, the program will need to describe how this program differs from or complements the existing program and how it will ·_G-ttpon the successes and accom lishments of the existing program. In addition, the admi ·strative struc r- the...Q\1 rsight and management o t e mem ers IS unc ear. J ..fvJ 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS $ 232 578 ' (he I l- s e" 15f (/Y\.5 W'Me c;;..c.~• ~1rt"< e.Jt • ~ tA lt ~ '4-q J' "' s. " , I~~ ~ .1- T j) c« ' j f MCSC staff recommends that this proposal e included in the competitive package for submission 'rD rife( to CNS, provided that they clearly articulat the focus on direct community service and fully ~ c/a; r:. address the issues as outlined to them from he staff review. 1h~ The FTE for this program is $13,290. Th" is considerably higher than the CNS average of $11,750 and the MCSC target FTE of $1 300. The program will have to reduce its FTE below $12,000. ~t, ' v->'' l\ ~"ret\' '5 ' If"'~ 'DW' seJV to ' ' I �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 18 Name of Applicant: Young Detroit Builders Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The paper fits a critical need - getting minorities trained and working in construction within Detroit. • The need to bring the underdeveloped work force into the work force is greater than ever. • There must be an extraordinary impact on the members in this program. They participate in a strong well-rounded curriculum that offers necessary support services. • Innovative idea and concept. • There is a strong connection with the Empowerment Zone. • The program involves former and current Empowerment Zone residents and businesses in the program. • The proposal described current activities within the Empowerment Zone and how the program connects to these activities. • Strengthening Community: • By teaching kids who drop out of school to care for and provide for themselves and by providing housing to those in need the paper addresses two critical issues. • The proposed program is connected to the Youth Build USA program. • There is collaboration or interaction with MCSC programs (Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program). Developing Members: • This is a very focused program that teaches vocational skills and life skills to youth to ensure that they have skills to use to obtain employment. • The paper provides a good description of on-site supervision. • The program provides an opportunity for GED completion by members. • There is a stable, strong support system for the AmeriCorps members. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is an evaluation tool already in place to evaluate member development, track the completion of corpsmembers' hours. The existing system can be used to track the educational attainment of members, skills mastery, job placement, etc. • The quality of the housing is checked by MSHDA and HUD . • The AmeriCorps members will keep a daily log of their service activities and progress toward goals. Organizational Capacity: • The organization has administered large amounts of federal grants. • There is an existing administrative system for the program. • The program has a grant from HUD. This is seen as a strength as these grants are difficult to obtain. • The key staff are well established within the program. • The organization has a high placement rate for "graduates" from the program. �Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • There is an FTE cost of $13,290. This is considerably higher than the CNS or MCSC average FfE cost. The program should aim to reduce FfE to under $12,500. • AmeriCorps members may not participate in any fundraising activities (p.20). • Costs for uniforms should be calculated at $32 per member. • AmeriCorps members may not receive bonuses. Please remove this language (and associated costs) from the budget and budget narrative. Overall Comments: • Michigan's AmeriCorps focuses on providing direct service to the community. Therefore the program focus should be on the need for housing renovation, the renovation that will be accomplished, and the impact of the service on the community as a result of those renovations. AmeriCorps members may not provide a direct service to other AmeriCorps members. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Michigan Communities in Schools NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 6 FT 4 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Michigan Communities in Schools (MCIS) aims to bring together community resources, parents, and schools in order to help young people successfully learn, stay in school, and prepare for life. MCIS helps local communities to coordinate existing resources and reposition needed services into the schools to best meet the needs of youth. STRENGTHS The proposed program's strengths are in its intentions and its capacity. It focuses on keeping children in school and appropriately utilizes existing resources to solve community problems. MCIS has strong connections to other local initiatives and to both the public and private sectors at the state and local levels. MCIS's host sites are well-prepared. They have a history of conducting outcome-based evaluations. They offer a balance between match funds and federal funds requested. WEAKNESSES The program needs to provide justification for the seemingly low number of stated beneficiaries and develop overall project goals to which all sites will be connected. MCIS also should describe how it will have an impact on the capacity of local sites to expand or enhance current activities. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $95,820 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The comprehensive proposal showed an increase in the FTE rate to $11,978, which is slightly over the MCSC target rate. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 3 Name of Applicant: Michigan Cities in Schools Stren2ths: Getting Things Done: • • Good needs assessment-- statistical support. Good concept-- proposed program focuses on keeping children in schools. Strengthening Community: • • • • The connection to other local initiatives is strong. The connection to both the public and private sector is good. The use of existing resources to solve community problems. The objectives for this section are clearer than those in Getting Things Done. Developing Members: • Strong preparation of host sites. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Applicant has a history of previous outcome-based evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • • Program will have a full-time program director. Applicant organization has good capacity at both the local and state level. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Exceeded minimum match requirements. Good balance between match funds and federal funds requested. Specified source(s) of match funds. Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • The number of beneficiaries seems low. Please provide justification. The proposal does not explain how the 10 members will be placed across the six host sites. List the number of members to be placed at each site. The proposal needs to develop overall project goals that all sites will be connected to. These goals should be listed as the primary objectives for the program. The words "members" and "volunteers" are interchanged throughout the program narrative; this is confusing. The proposal should refer to members of this program only as AmeriCorps members. Describe how the proposed program impacts the capacity of local sites to expand or enhance current activities. In quantifiable terms, describe how the proposed program will increase the capacity of the existing organizations. �• Describe how the members will be placed at the host sites and describe supervision of the members at the sites. Strengthening Community: Developing Members: • • • The proposal needs to provide more detail as to how the training for specific activities, ie, tutoring, youth services, etc. Although the proposal addressed how often members will come together, it should occur more frequently. The entire corps could come together monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly. At least quarterly. With regard to each of the objectives in this section, the beneficiaries should be all 10 corpsmembers. All 10 corpsmembers should participate in the stated activities. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • FfE increased to $11,978 which is sightly over MCSC target. Budget item: parking costs cannot be included in the staff line item. Overall Comments: • The criteria/ goals for impact are not stated. Although individual sites deal with different age groups of children, there should be some standards consistent across all sites. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's ArneriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 15 FT 5 PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services (WCNLS) ArneriCorps Community Service Program (ACSP) will assist the homeless in Detroit's Empowerment Zone to obtain permanent housing. The ArneriCorps members in this program will conduct community education seminars to inform homeless individuals about the availability of housing placement; provide life skills training, housing education, counseling and post-placement services that will enable homeless individuals to maintain their homes and become self-sufficient. The ArneriCorps Community Service Program will utilize a combination of ten full-time and five part-time stipended members along with five full-time non-stipend, education award only members. STRENGTHS The program will serve in Detroit's Empowerment Zone and has the potential to make a significant impact on the residents in the Empowerment Zone by providing affordable outreach and much needed support services. Having provided housing assistance to Wayne County for nearly 10 years, WCNLS pas a strong organizational capacity to operate the program and has prior experience in administering federal grants, ie, HUD's Supportive Housing Program. Additionally, there is a natural fit between the program and the mission of WCNLS. WEAKNESSES The program needs to clearly define intended outcomes and impacts within the community and on the service recipients. Additionally, the program needs to clearly state how the members' service activities support or enhance the current activities/projects at WCNLS and whether there are other WCNLS staff doing the same tasks as the AmeriCorps members. Although the program plans to generate additional volunteers, it is unclear as to how the volunteers will be integrated into WCNLS and how the volunteers' service will be coordinated across the program. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $179,266 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them in the staff review. The program's FTE is $10,244, which is below the CNS and MCSC average FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's Ameri Corps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 19 Name of Applicant: Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: Program design is very detailed. The paper shows evidence of significant impact on the members and community recipients (i.e. affordable outreach, members get career skills, service recipients get quality services.) • • Strengthening Community: • There is a large number of collaborators. Developing Members: • The paper did a good job of describing member qualifications. • The paper did a good job of describing the member recruitment strategy. • Members will wear AmeriCorps identification and attend statewide meetings. This all helps to maintain an AmeriCorps identity. • The member training component involved skills that are specific to the members' service activities, volunteer management, and post-AmeriCorps as well. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper states a good evaluation mechanism, however intended impacts/outcomes need to be clearly defined to establish if the evaluation mechanism is adequate. Organizational Capacity: There is evidence of good organizational capacity. The organization has experience with government funding sources. The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. WCNLS is a large organization and it appears that the proposed program fits within the organizations's mission. • • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $10,244 per FTE (including Education Award Only members). This is well below the CNS or MCSC average per FTE. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • The program design and structure is vague. Please describe a typical week, clarifying when the members would work with the program's service partners and when they would work with WCNLS and the activities/ tasks to be performed at each site. Please clarify how service sponsors and host sites will be prepared for the placement of the members. �Strengthening Community: • The paper details services that the partner organizations will provide, but not the administrative support to be provided by the partner organizations. Developing Members: • There was no mention of the Education Award Only members. Please define/ clarify their roles and responsibilities with regard to the other members. Describe the differences, if any. • Are there other WCNLS staff doing the same tasks as the AmeriCorps members? If so, describe the differences between staff responsibilities and AmeriCorps member responsibilities. Also, please provide a statement ensuring that AmeriCorps members will not displace an employee or duplicate services that are available in the locality of the proposed program. On page 15, the proposal states that partners will train the AmeriCorps members. Please • provide an outline of when the training would occur and clarify whether the training is for the entire corps, teams, or on an individual basis. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Although regular feedback will be obtained from client surveys, this should be expanded to include other primary stakeholders such as: partners/ the community, program staff, the AmeriCorps members. • Opportunities for continuous improvement should be incorporated into the overall evaluation plan. What role will partners program staff and other primary stakeholders take in the development and implementation of this? • It is unclear how often the partners will come together. • It is unclear as to how the service activities will be coordinated across all sites and how the program will ensure that the service is consistent with overall program goals and objectives. Organizational Capacity: • The program plans to generate additional volunteers. Please describe how the volunteers will be incorporated into WCNLS . Describe how the volunteers' services will be coordinated and managed across the program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The living allowance (category A) figures do not match between the budget form and the budget narrative. • Uniform costs should be included in the Uniform line item. • The administrative cost (category F) is not calculated correctly. The cost is still within requirements, however. • Need to add an additional $2,000 in the Travel line item for MCSC travel costs. • Overall Comments: Getting Things Done objective #1 and Strengthening Communities objective #2 are exactly the same. This particular objective should be under Getting Things Done, the Strengthening Communities objective needs to be revised to emphasize how this strengthens the community. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: American Red Cross NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 5 FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The primary focus of the AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) Program is the promotion of volunteerism among youth and generating youth to participate in community problem-solving. The program will identify and develop volunteer opportunities for 500 at-risk youth in Highland Park. AmeriCorps members will work with community agencies to get youth involved in tutoring and mentoring, homework and reading projects, latchkey programs, HIV/AIDS education and outreach. The corpsmembers will also support and recognize youth volunteer efforts. STRENGTHS As a volunteer generator, the AmeriCorps YES program enrolls only five AmeriCorps members to leverage 500 at-risk youth volunteers. Through the program, these youth will address community issues and engage in community problem-solving by serving on the program's Advisory Committee. AmeriCorps YES works in collaboration with the Highland Park Public Schools, the Highland Park Communities First Program, and the United Way Community Services "Volunteer Connect" program. With regard to organizational capacity, the American Red Cross has a history of operating a variety of volunteer programs, several comparable to the AmeriCorps YES program in size and scope. The American Red Cross also has past experience in working with other federal programs. The members and program will be supported by qualified staff, of whom the program director has had previous experience in volunteer administration. Their previous experience and strong organizational capacity will provide them with a good foundation for operating an effective Michigan's AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES At this time, it is unclear as to how the proposed program will enhance or complement the already existing projects within the American Red Cross. The program needs to strengthen the correlation between the identified community needs and how the service activities of the corpsmembers will directly achieve the overall goals and objectives of the program. The needs identified should be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the members' service activities and the goals and objectives of the program. The program proposes to engage 500 volunteers, who will, in turn, provide 5,000 hours of service. This equates to only ten hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer and questions arise with respect to the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement in the program. The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Also, the program will need to provide more details on the plan for sustaining the program and how this involves the volunteers that will be generated and the community partners. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 58,469 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive funding package for submission to CNS , provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them during the staff review. The FTE is $11,694, which is slightly above the MCSC average, but below the CNS target. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: American Red Cross NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 5 FT PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The primary focus of the AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES) Program is the promotion of volunteerism among youth and generating youth to participate in community problem-solving. The program will identify and develop volunteer opportunities for 500 at-risk youth in Highland Park. AmeriCorps members will work with community agencies to get youth involved in tutoring and mentoring, homework and reading projects, latchkey programs, HIV/AIDS education and outreach. The corpsmembers will also support and recognize youth volunteer efforts. STRENGTHS As a volunteer generator, the AmeriCorps YES program enrolls only five AmeriCorps members to leverage 500 at-risk youth volunteers. Through the program, these youth will address community issues and engage in community problem-solving by serving on the program's Advisory Committee. AmeriCorps YES works in collaboration with the Highland Park Public Schools, the Highland Park Communities First Program, and the United Way Community Services "Volunteer Connect" program. With regard to organizational capacity, the American Red Cross has a history of operating a variety of volunteer programs, several comparable to the AmeriCorps YES program in size and scope. The American Red Cross also has past experience in working with other federal programs. The members and program will be supported by qualified staff, of whom the program director has had previous experience in volunteer administration. Their previous experience and strong organizational capacity will provide them with a good foundation for operating an effective Michigan's AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES At this time, it is unclear as to how the proposed program will enhance or complement the already existing projects within the American Red Cross. The program needs to strengthen the correlation between the identified community needs and how the service activities of the corpsmembers will directly achieve the overall goals and objectives of the program. The needs identified should be addressed in a manner that is consistent with the members' service activities and the goals and objectives of the program. The program proposes to engage 500 volunteers, who will, in tum, provide 5,000 hours of service. This equates to only ten hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer and questions arise with respect to the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement in the program. The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Also, the program will need to provide more details on the plan for sustaining the program and how this involves the volunteers that will be generated and the (Yl£ _ hou y S community partners. -7 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $ 58,469 0{ i& o...&cfl.t<..::. ~ I STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive funding package for submission to CNS, provided the program adequately resolve the issues as outlined to them during the staff review. The program FTE is $11,294, which is below the MCSC and CNS target FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 15 Name of Applicant: American Red Cross Stren~;:ths: Getting Things Done: • Concept Paper is very detailed. • Shows evidence of existing collaborative relationships. • Concept paper takes the work of a few (five members) to leverage 500 volunteers. • Paper provides a strong rational of the need in the community. • Paper addresses youth as a community asset. • Paper provides a clearly defined timeline. Strengthening Community: • There is a double benefit of the program as it impacts youth volunteers and the community. • There is a good identification of assets, inclusive of community youth. • The program proposes using existing resources. • The roles of the three primary partners are well defined. • This paper uses an asset based approach. • The program aims to create new, previously non-existent partnerships. Developing Members: • The training offered to members is well defined. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There appears to be a good commitment to member development/placement beyond their AmeriCorps term of service. • Stakeholders are involved in feedback to the program. The mechanisms for feedback are already in place. • There is a Program Advisory Committee that will provide a monitoring function. • There are youth on the Program Advisory Committee. Organizational Capacity: The organization has an excellent capacity to administer the program. There is evidence of highly qualified key personnel. The organization has past experience with a variety of volunteer programs. Program director has previous experience in volunteer administration. • The organization has experience working with other federal programs/grants. • The organization has past experience running a program of this size. • Service partners /host sites will sign a written agreement to confirm their commitment to the program. • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $11,294 FfE below MCSC target. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • • • Comprehensive proposal needs to clarify how host sites will be prepared for member placement. Including how members will be supervised and by whom. Although this has been clarified somewhat. the proposal stated that the Highland Park school district will provide space and support to three AmeriCorps s members. Where will the remaining two members be placed? Please clarify how this program enhances/complements the already existing program. The needs, as identified in the needs statement (page 4, balded paragraph), should be consistent with the "standard" component of the Getting Things Done objectives (see worksheets) . Therefore, if the program hopes to impact attendance, academic achievement, and self-esteem, this should be clearly articulated. AmeriCorps members are not employees. (p.7) Please remove language referring to them as such. Please describe the various projects within the overall program, i.e. , the focus of the projects, duration of service projects. (p.l 0) With regard to program design, as participants are teens and are enrolled in middle and high school, when will the program provide services to these youth? In-school, after school, weekends, etc.? GETTING THINGS DONE OBJECTIVES: The program may omit the third objective since the primary focus is covered in the first two objectives. Strengthening Community: • The proposal does not describe plan to link the proposed program with or to interact with other MCSC, CNS programs. Developing Members: • • • • • It is unclear if the members will be placed individually or in pairs/teams. AmeriCorps members must undergo criminal records check as part of the screening process. Although this was mentioned in the budget, it should be noted in the proposal narrative. Please provide a statement ensuring that members will not participate in prohibited member activities. How does the child care training provided to the members relate to the program? (p.ll) MEMBER DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES: If objective #3 is a one-time occurrence, it must be revised or replaced. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • Need to clarify how members will be provided with the skills and tools to develop their own evaluation strategies. This is a difficult and important process. If the program is engaging 500 volunteers and expecting 5,000 hours of service, this equates to 10 hours per volunteer. This appears to be a low number of hours per volunteer. What is the potential impact on the volunteers based on their involvement? The program may consider an alternative that would allow the volunteers to engage in more intensive volunteer service opportunities. Organizational Capacity: Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Please provide more detail on the plan for sustainability of the program. Provide justification for budgeting for three replacements (out of five members). Secretarial support (in staff line item) should be included under Administration category. �• • In "Other" line item, please provide explanation for Teachers 30@ $75. Explain this cost and its benefit to the program. Agency staff time for administration should be included in the Administration category. Overall Comments: • The Annual Accomplishment Objectives should reflect those formulated on the objectives worksheets. All five components (activity, result, measure, standard, beneficiaries) should be included. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: New Detroit, Inc. NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Nonviolence Kids, Organizations, Parents, and Schools (Nonviolence KOPS) is a collaborative which enhances the existing New Detroit Coalition's Youth Nonviolence Training Program which is designed to reduce the level of crime, violence, and fear in 10 of Detroit's elementary and middle schools by making those schools safe havens and involving youth in conflict resolution and prevention efforts. Nonviolence KOPS will facilitate human and community development by providing opportunities for conflict management, conflict resolution, reconciliation, intercultural approaches, and cross-community efforts. The program will have an impact on the lives of 5,000 Detroit Public School students and 3,000 other individuals. STRENGTHS Nonviolence KOPS has a strong capacity to coordinate such an effort. The program is an extension of an existing and on-going nonviolence initiative, it has an established training structure, and an advisory board that is already operating. The program will create peer safe havens for youth, develop strong mentoring relationships, and reduce fear among elementary school youth. The program will offer college credit for members through Wayne County Community C9llege. WEAKNESSES MCSC is concerned about the development of specific activities at the schools. Nonviolence KOPS needs to clarify the activities that will take place at each school and describe tthe schools' level of support for the program, define the role of peace centers, and specify where, when, and what service activities will occur. It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. Nonviolence KOPS should address member diversity issues and related recruitment activities. The program's impact on the community is not clear. Since it builds on an existing initiative, it is important to identify how Nonviolence KOPS contributes to the current effort and describe how it is different from or similar to that effort. This is an expensive program. There are problems with match funds and the training and education costs seem inflated. Justification for these costs and an explanation as to who will provide services, donations, and match funds are needed. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $259,226 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTEfor the program is $12,961. This exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: New Detroit, Inc. NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Nonviolence Kids, Organizations, Parents, and Schools (Nonviolence KOPS) is a collaborative which enhances the existing New Detroit Coalition's Youth Nonviolence Training Program which is designed to reduce the level of crime, violence, and fear in 10 of Detroit's elementary and middle schools by making those schools safe havens and involving youth in conflict resolution and prevention efforts. Nonviolence KOPS will facilitate human and community development by providing opportunities for conflict management, conflict resolution, reconciliation, intercultural approaches, and cross-community efforts. The program will have an impact on the lives of 5,000 Detroit Public School students and 3,000 other individuals. STRENGTHS Nonviolence KOPS has a strong capacity to coordinate such an effort. The program is an extension of an existing and on-going nonviolence initiative, it has an established training structure, and an advisory board that is already operating. The program will create peer safe havens for youth, develop strong mentoring relationships, and reduce fear among elementary school youth. The program will offer college credit for members through Wayne County Community College. WEAKNESSES MCSC is concerned about the development of specific activities at the schools. Nonviolence KOPS needs to clarify the activities that will take place at each school and describe tthe schools' level of support for the program, define the role of peace centers, and specify where, when, and what service activities will occur. It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. Nonviolence KOPS should address member diversity issues and related recruitment activities. The program's impact on the community is not clear. Since it builds on an existing initiative, it is important to identify how Nonviolence KOPS contributes to the current effort and describe how it is different from or similar to that effort. This is an expensive program. There are problems with match funds and the training and education costs seem inflated. Justification for these costs and an explanation as to who will provide services, donations, and match funds are needed. ~ _:) ex 1s.-1"5 , 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $259,226 J\1 ~eo( -1-o !j~m/-/- /'evt's/rvtS. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. $13,826 FTE exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 5 Name of Applicant: New Detroit, Inc. Strengths: Getting Things Done: The program will create peer safe havens for youth and develop strong mentoring relationships. • The program will reduce fear among elementary school youth. • Advisory Board is already up and running. • Strengthening Community: • The program is part of an existing and on-going process to increase the nonviolence effort within the overall program. • The program will offer college credit through WCCC for members. This might be an incentive for members. Developing Members: • There is intensive member training listed. The organization has an established training structure. • The school connection to training is good. • Police checks on applicants are a good idea, especially when working with children. • The program will hold regular AmeriCorps meetings. The paper also described the goals of the meetings. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The paper refers to a process for some data collection. Organizational Capacity: There is a long organizational history. The organization has past training experience. The organization has experience administering federal grants. • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is good local in-kind match. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: It is not clear how diversity in the program extends beyond African American students. • Clarify in-school and out of school activities. When and where will the of the service occur? What types of things will members be doing? The proposal needs to provide a better sense of member daily activity. Provide an example • of a typical member day. • It is not clear how the community will be different as a result of this program. • �• • • • It is not clear what elementary schools will be involved in the program. Nor does it specify their buy-in into the program. Will each school implement a peer mediator program? What are the peace centers? While members will all play different roles, there should be some unifying goals toward which every member will work to achieve through their service. Since this program adds on to an existing program the readers would suggest creating a chart that highlights the two programs and shows their differences and similarities. Strengthening Community: • • • • • It is not clear how the partners will come together. The paper needs to better describe the partners' roles/responsibilities. The proposal does not describe how current community assets (teachers, existing afterschool clubs) will be used to the program's benefit. The program should look into which elementary schools currently host UWCS AmeriCorps members. How can they work together? Where are the gaps in service? The proposal should discuss the structure of the advisory committee. Who is on the advisory committee? Overall, community impact is very vague. It should be addressed in this section. Developing Members: • • • The paper does not mention member diversity. How member recruitment will be conducted to reflect this? Elaborate on how supervision will be provided on-site at the schools and community organizations. Further development is needed on how the host sites will be prepared to host members. What ongoing support will be provided to site supervisors? Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • Provide additional information about the evaluation plan that is in development. How long will evaluation development take? What is the cost associated with evaluation? Applicant seems to understand and value evaluation. However, in the development of the evaluation plan, please be sure to include methods to measure both impact and process evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • • • • The paper does not describe how AmeriCorps fits within the overall organizational structure. Describe the organization's ability to administer the program (payroll, reporting and etc.). Key accomplishments of the staff were not included. The paper should briefly describe the program coordinator's skills and attributes and qualifications. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • This is an expensive program. $13,826 FTE exceeds the CNS and MCSC FTE average cost. Reduce the FTE cost. The proposal does not describe plans for sustainability. Please note that member support costs cannot be matched with federal funds as it relates to NDI, CIS and collaborating partner contributions. Training and education costs seem inflated. Provide justification and an explanation as to whom will provide services, donations, match funds , etc. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Michigan Department of Agriculture NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program (MGSP) will provide information and technical assistance to homeowners, farmers, and tenants about identifying and reducing the risks to groundwater contamination. Twenty AmeriCorps members will be placed throughout the state to assist landowners with the completion of three environmental awareness tools (Farm* A *Syst, Home* A *Syst, and Field*A *Syst). The members will also allocate MGSP cost-share funds to implement agricultural stewardship practices, to train volunteers to complete the Home* A_*Syst tool, and to coordinate with local groundwater teams to develop groundwater stewardship activities based on local priorities. STRENGTHS The program is taking an innovative and proactive approach by focusing on educating the community rather than punishing the community. Through the proposed activities, the program has the potential to raise environmental awareness of residents across the state. The applicant organization has prior experience in administering federal grants and in managing the USDA AmeriCorps program, a national direct, similar in size and scope. The program collaborates with a group of agency partners that are able to provide a variety of resources to support the program. Those partners are: the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Michigan State University Extension and local Conservation Districts. In addition, the program is cost-effective in that it exceeds the minimum match requirements and the FTE rate is below both the MCSC and CNS average. WEAKNESSES Supervision of AmeriCorps members at the local sites represents a concern. The program will need to ensure that the goals of the local sites are consistent with the overall objectives of the program. Also, the program needs to strengthen how local partnerships will work together on projects. There is no clear plan detailing how the program will create a local presence within the communities that the AmeriCorps members are placed. Additionally, it is unclear how the program will strengthen the community. The administrative structure is unclear. MCSC has requested that the program provide an administrative flow chart to clarify who is accountable for what within the applicant organization and among the host sites. Although the program is capable of administering the proposed program, it is unclear at this time what the organization's capacity is to support additional volunteers and what the role of the volunteers will be. Also there is little detail on the program's plans for sustainability. ) · ~ (9 V'l e.. u 1£ a J 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $225,415 n - STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE for this program is $11 ,271, which is below MCSC and CNS average FTE costs . �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 27 Name of Applicant: Department of Agriculture Strengths: Getting Things Done: Proposed educating the community rather than serving punishments. Unique concept. Proposed program has potential to raise environmental awareness. • • • Strengthening Community: • Stewardship teams is a good idea. • Strong group of agency partners with a variety of resources available. Developing Members: • Monthly meetings for members is good. • Good member evaluation. • Kick-off training for AmeriCorps members and staff to outline duties, roles, and responsibilities is good. • Community organizing training would be very beneficial for members with a technical background. • Solid member training plan. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Applicant organization has prior experience and the capacity to administer an evaluation of the proposed program. • There is a designated person to coordinate the evaluation. Organizational Capacity: • Applicant organization has prior experience operating an AmeriCorps program. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Exceeded minimum match requirements. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Describe the supervision of AmeriCorps members at the local sites. Please provide supportive data with regard to need statement. With regard to program design, please provide the rationale for 20 members to operate out of 35 counties. • What is the role of the State Groundwater Team in the administration of the program? • Strengthen the discussion of any collaborations and/or partnerships that will work together on the projects, especially locally. • Proposal did not describe how service sponsors and host sites will be prepared and supported. • Please explain how the non-participant volunteers will be used . • Administrative structure in unclear. Provide an administrative flow chart. • • • �• program. Little detail on sustainability was provided. Overall Comments: • Ensure that goals of local sites are consistent with overall objectives. • Refer to AmeriCorps members as simply AmeriCorps members. The usage of MGSP/ AmeriCorps became confusing, especially as the proposal began to introduce the other Groundwater Stewardship team. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: United Way of Saginaw County: Saginaw AmeriCorps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Saginaw AmeriCorps program, in partnership with local schools and the community, is committed to providing educational support services that will help to meet the needs of students and embrace the ideals of volunteerism and service. AmeriCorps members will tutor third grade students who score below standard levels in math and reading, serve teens who are in their first trimester of pregnancy and are at-risk of dropping out of school, and offer prevention-of-gang-activities services for middle school students. STRENGTHS Saginaw AmeriCorps is providing increased resources to existing programs by building on previously established partnerships, bringing together schools and community-based organizations, and recruiting new volunteers. WEAKNESSES Saginaw AmeriCorps needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not clear what value the program will add to the community. MCSC staff are concerned about pre-placement preparation for the host sites. Teachers and principals should be a part of the planning in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives. Teachers should be informed as to what activities are appropriate for members. Linkages with the schools ' improvement plans and schools' administrative structures should be addressed. Evaluation is a weakness as well. Saginaw AmeriCorps does not provide an outcomes-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are placed individually, with different tasks, it seems that it will be very difficult to gauge the rogress and activities as they relate to overall program goals and impact. ~ C)t..MI ~ ~~ cc..>.....c.\cod Saginaw AmeriCorps should also clarify their plan for sustainability. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $271,691 ?e¥ fV'> 'oeer. ~tS'-e-? <J"Vo STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS cStaff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $13,585 FTE is above the CNS and MCSC target rates of $11,750 and $11,300 per FTE. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Saginaw Public School District NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 20 FT 0 PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Saginaw AmeriCorps program, in partnership with local schools and the community, is committed to providing educational support services that will help to meet the needs of students and embrace the ideals of volunteerism and service. AmeriCorps members will tutor third grade students who score below standard levels in math and reading, serve teens who are in their first trimester of pregnancy and are at-risk of dropping out of school, and offer prevention-of-gang-activities services for middle school students. STRENGTHS Saginaw AmeriCorps is providing increased resources to existing programs by building on previously established partnerships, bringing together schools and community-based organizations, and recruiting new volunteers. WEAKNESSES Saginaw AmeriCorps needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not clear what value the program will add to the community. MCSC staff are concerned about pre-placement preparation for the host sites. Teachers and principals should be a part of the planning in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives. Teachers should be informed as to what activities are appropriate for members. Linkages with the schools' improvement plans and schools' administrative structures should be addressed. Evaluation is a weakness as well. Saginaw AmeriCorps does not provide an outcomes-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are placed individually, with different tasks, it seems that it will be very difficult to gauge the progress and activities as they relate to overall program goals and impact. Saginaw AmeriCorps should also clarify their plan for sustainability. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $271,691 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the competitive package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $13,585 FTE is above the CNS and MCSC target rates of $11,750 and $11,300 per FTE. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 17 Name of Applicant: United Way of Saginaw County S tren~:ths: Getting Things Done: The program is providing increased resources to existing programs. The program connects schools and communities. The program has a multi-cultural emphasis. The program is community-based. The Girl Scout connection is good. The program plans to recruit new volunteers. The program involves tutoring in math and reading. The newsletter is a good public relations method and should help establish a community presence. • AmeriCorps members will use activity logs to document and track their progress. • Weekly AmeriCorps member meetings will be held. • • • • • • • • Strengthening Community: • The program is building on previously established partnerships. Applicant did an excellent job acquiring these partnerships and describing them here. • Accountability and support for AmeriCorps members is well detailed. • The program takes a broad look at the whole community and the community's diversity. • The school district's role provides a good connection across the community. Developing Members: • The member training component seems strong and applicable. • Excellent breakdown of the skills and attributes members will need. Skills and attributes seem very reasonable. • AmeriCorps candidates will undergo criminal records check, drug test, etc. as a part of the screening process. • Member identity plans seem adequate. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The program will have bi-monthly CTI meetings. • There will be weekly progress reports on member activities. Organizational Capacity: • The involvement and support from the school district is good. • The applicant has administered federal grants. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: Each site will provide cash and in-kind match support. • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: It was unclear what the overall impact of the program will be. The program needs to demonstrate a clear impact on the community. • The program needs to articulate why the program is important to the community. It is not • �• • • • • • • clear what value the program will add to the community. It is unclear how the service activities of the members will be coordinated across all sites . Describe how the program enhances existing youth services . Describe the rationale for focus on education, rather than continued focus on public safety . What components will be carried over into the proposed program? Pre-placement preparation for the host site does not seem adequate. Shouldn't teachers/principals be a part of the planing in order to fully support AmeriCorps objectives? How will the program ensure that AmeriCorps members are not misused within the school, i.e. considered teachers aides? Teachers should be informed as to how they can and cannot utilize members. It seems that the program might be more effective with more than one member placed per school. Please justify the rationale for placing each member at a different school. Please explain the school improvement plan and how the AmeriCorps program fits into it. use AmeriCorps members. What is the anticipated number of students to be tutored at each site? Strengthening Community: • • • The paper does not list clear impacts on the community. It is unclear how the various program components are connected. Indicate continuing and new partners and how their representation on the Advisory Council. Developing Members • It is understood that AmeriCorps members fall under the jurisdiction and policies of the district, but they should never be referred to as employees. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • • • The paper does not provide any specifics on this section. The performance assessment is based more on job function. The paper does not provide an outcome-based evaluation approach. It is not clear how the program will measure impact. Because members are all place individually, with different tasks, it seems that it would be very difficult to gauge the progress and activities as it relates to overall program goals and impact. Continuous improvement plans should include primary stakeholder feedback (members, program staff, service recipients and partners). Organizational Capacity: • • • Did not address weaknesses/ continuous improvement items from the Concept Paper feedback for this section. The paper needs to clarify what the individual schools' buy-in and teacher commitment is. There also needs to be clarification as to the administrative structure of the program within each school. An administrative flow chart should be provided. The application does not include the background, experience and relevant accomplishments of the principal staff or describe plans to recruit, select or train and support additional staff. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • The overall cost of the program is high. There is no clear plan for sustainability. $13,585 FTE cost above MCSC target. Reduce FTE costs. Members receive more than $8,340. Reduce costs accordingly. Describe what will be sustained from current AmeriCorps program. �Overall Comments: • • • • Describe site activities as they relate to overall program objectives. Incorrect budget pages used. Please use the budget pages provided in the Comprehensive Proposal guidelines packet. AmeriCorps service activities need to be directly connected to objectives. How does the Wellness Center Activity fit into overall goals and evaluation process? �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: SOS Crisis Center NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 2 FT 6 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Washtenaw Family Support Network program will provide specialized child care for more than 100 infants and toddlers from homeless families; assist more than 20 families, through child care, to increase the parents' opportunities to participate in and gain access to education, job training, or other services that would increase the parents' capacity to achieve economic self-sufficiency. The program will also engage a minimum of 35 homeless parents in programming designed to increase their competence in supporting their child's development. STRENGTHS The program is a multi-agency collaboration among homeless family service providers. The SOS Crisis Center has previous experience administering federal funds and receives funding from several sources. The organization and staff have experience with both homeless issues and volunteer management. Also, the SOS Crisis Center currently serves as a site in the Eastern Michigan University, Teams for School Success: Michigan's AmeriCorps program. The program supports local "welfare-to-work" initiatives by targeting homeless parents who are predominantly public assistance recipients. Also, the program aims to serve more than 100 families and pre-school children each year and has the potential to impact a larger population through its relationship with the partner agencies. Additionally, the program should be easily sustained due to the size and its integration into other ongoing initiatives. WEAKNESSES Although the Comprehensive Proposal provided a description of the overall structure of the program, MCSC staff has concerns regarding the on-site supervision of the members and service activities, the amount of time being spent at the partnering agencies, and the specific roles of the partner organizations. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $52,990 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The program reduced the PTE to $10,598, which is below MCSC and CNS targeted cost per PTE. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 11 Name of Applicant: SOS Crisis Center Strengths: Getting Things Done: The proposed member activities are realistic. The proposal identified the key partners of the program. The proposed program will impact a large number of families. The organization has a strong history of homelessness partnerships • • • • Strengthening Community: • The proposal has identified an area not currently being served. • The partnerships and network appears well developed. • The use of the partner agencies will increase the number of people served. • The organization is connected with other CNS/MCSC programs. Elaborate on your involvement with these programs. • The proposed program will strengthen the families ability to strengthen their own kids. Developing Members: • Strong member recruitment strategy. • Well developed plan for member training and orientation • Good use of technology • The program will be connected to other AmeriCorps programs and training and wants to take advantage of these opportunities. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Local evaluation firm expertise should ensure an outcome based evaluation. • The development of qualitative measures. • The proposal recognizes the importance of collecting data up front. • The community advisory group will review and assess the program's progress. Organizational Capacity: SOS past history and staff expertise was viewed as a strength. The organization receives funding from several sources. The organization has past experience administering federal funds. The organization has experience with both homeless issues and volunteer management. • • • • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program should be easily sustainable due to the size and its integration into other ongoing initiatives. • The program reduced the FTE to $10,598, which is below MCSC and CNS targets. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • There was no statistical data to support program rationale. • Although the proposal provided a description of the overall structure of the program, it is still not clear how much time is spent at the partnering agencies, how many members per site, how much time will be devoted to each site per week. Strengthening Community: • The proposal did not clearly articulate the specific roles of the partner organizations. Developing Members: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: Organizational Capacity: The proposal should describe how the members and the service activities will be supervised on-site. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The match funds for category A cannot be federal dollars. (p.16 ... HUD will supply match). • In budget, members do not receive hourly wages. Instead they receive a stipend that is disbursed in regular intervals (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly). Please remove $6.00 per hour from budget narrative. • Cost for uniforms should be calculated at $32 instead of $33. • The budget narrative needs to indicate which portion (per line item) is being provided by CNS and the grantee. • �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: B-H-K Child Development Board NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 18 FT 4 PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Copper Country AmeriCorps program will operate out of Baraga, Houghton, and Keweenaw counties in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The program, through its Teen Initiative, will engage area teens in educational programs, leadership training, mentoring programs, and employment opportunities. Through the Family Initiative, the program will recruit teens for Friends of the Elderly, a volunteer program that serves the elderly, and will facilitate parent education, provide child care, and introduce youth to the environmental history of the community. STRENGTHS The program is the result of a tri-county effort to address important needs within the community and seeks to strengthen the community through collaboratives with schools, local volunteer and service agencies, and community leaders. The commitment to the program from the community collaboratives and partners seems good. Additionally, the program is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, therefore, adding to the geographic diversity of Michigan's AmeriCorps. The Baraga-Houghton-Keweenaw Child Development Board has previous experience in administering federal grants and in managing volunteer programs. Also, the proposal puts forth a strong plan for member development and program administration. With regard to program cost effectiveness, local partnering agencies will provide match funds for each FTE placed at their site and the program, overall, exceeds minimum match requirements. WEAKNESSES The applicant proposes that a small number of its members provide child care for young children. However, it is not clear why providing this child care is important to the community and how the community will be strengthened or improved as a result. MCSC has requested that the program further develop this aspect of the program and provide additional information as to the needs of the parents and children and why this program is an appropriate means of meeting the proposed need. As a tri-county program, the coordination of service across all three counties is not certain. The program will need to describe how program staff will coordinate service across all sites effectively. Overall, the program proposes to provide a broad range of services. MCSC has suggested that the applicant give some thought as to how members will manage the variety of tasks and the impact they will be able to make in each area. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $226,661 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE rate for this program is $11,333, which is within the MCSC and CNS average FTE cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 1 Name of Applicant: BHK Child Development Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • • • • All sites are responsible for recruiting volunteers. Identified the number of members to be assigned to each service initiative. Commitment to the program from community collaboratives and partners seemed good. Good job of assessing overall community needs. Strengthening Community: • • • • Tri-county collaborative. Good breakdown of partner responsibilities per service initiative. Program is linked to Strong Families/Safe Children initiative. Teen representation on the AmeriCorps Council is a good idea. Developing Members: • The AmeriCorps members meet monthly. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • The organization has the means for tracking and documenting progress and program impact. Proposed evaluation plan incorporates continuous improvement component. Organizational Capacity: • • • Program director has good credentials Previous experience in administering federal grants. Applicant has experience in managing volunteer programs. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • Local partnering agencies will provide match funds per FTE. Exceeded minimum match requirements. Proposed FTE is within MCSC and CNS FTE targeted cost. Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: • • • • • Describe plan for preparing sites for the placement of AmeriCorps members. It is not clear how the proposed activities, with regard to the senior citizen component, will impact community needs. Please clarify what "delinquency" and the reduction of this means for the program. What grade level are the members interacting with in local schools? (p.7) In terms of members providing child care for young children, the reasons for so, as �• explained in the proposal ... "space for children in registered homes ... " needs to be further developed. Who are the children? Who are the parents? Why is providing this child care to these individuals important to the community? The Getting Things Done objective #2 (see worksheet) should be broken down into three objectives with a standard for each one. Strengthening Community: • Although the program has narrowed its focus, it is still unclear how the community will benefit as a result of the proposed service initiatives. • Each member seems to have many proposed tasks that, in most cases, are far reaching over a broad spectrum. Applicant should give some thought as to how members will manage the variety of tasks and the impact they will be able to make in each area. • It is not clear how the GEM Center and the historical books relate to the identified community need. • How will the program work through the council to ensure that the program does not duplicate services? Developing Members: • The three professional positions is still unclear. Is this reasonable to expect professionals to accept these position? What is the alternative if they do not? • There should be three objectives (worksheets) for this section. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The evaluation plan should reflect each component of the program. Organizational Capacity: • Coordination of service across all counties is unclear. Describe how program staff will coordinate service across all sites effectively. • What is the role of the RN? Where does he/she fit into the program? Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: In the budget narrative, please clarify what office and educational supplies include. Provide justification for the purchase of a computer. In staff line item, clarify $22 per hour for recruitment. Who is doing this? Shouldn't the program director or assistant director do this? • $44,000 match for space fees seems high. Please clarify this. • • • Overall Comments: • Overall, what the program hopes to accomplish is still far reaching, however, the proposal puts forth a strong plan for member development and administration. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Northern Michigan Community Mental Health NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 2 FT _____,8,__ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Dreamcatcher Volunteer Program focuses on providing independent living assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities in four counties in northern Michigan (Emmet, Charlevoix, Otsego, and Cheboygan). The program aims to increase the community's knowledge and understanding of individuals with developmental disabilities by involving person with developmental disabilities more directly in community activities and by developing a circle of friends for the individual. The members will be matched with developmentally disabled individuals and will work to generate volunteers from the community to serve as activities companions for these individuals.- STRENGTHS The proposed program builds upon an existing structure to provide services that no other agency in the region is offering. Through the members' service activities, the program will establish new networks of people who may not have normally been introduced to each other. As a result of their involvement in the program, members will enhance their own self worth and respect for individuals with disabilities. The program will operate under the direction of the Volunteer Services Coordinator of Northern Michigan Community Mental Health. The staff has previous experience with other national service programs. In addition, they have developed and managed other volunteer programs. The organization has established high quality service standards. The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. The program model has the potential to be replicated in other parts of the state. WEAKNESSES With regard to collaborations and partnerships, it is unclear what support the other community-based organizations and government offices involved with the program will provide. The proposal needs to detail how these other organizations will promote this program, educate others about the need for these services, and create systems within their own organizations to support the goals of the program. The program will need to clarify how members will be involved in recruiting, training, and maintaining volunteers. In reviewing the Comprehensive Proposal, the volunteer recruitment piece was vague. This component is most critical to the overall sustainability of the program, yet it could be potentially lost within the members' other duties. The program will need to ensure that members will spend ample time J: . recruiting volunteers. fV} 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $71,194 1/o I L(..Nlf e~(" c c ~"' «-t.f~ /S ~QO t, .' t STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided that the program fully address the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTE rate for the program is 11,865 which is somewhat higher than the MCSC and CNS average FTE rate. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 2 Name of Applicant: Northern Michigan Community Mental Health Strengths: Getting Things Done: No other agency in the region is providing this service. The program would establish new networks of people who may not have normally been introduced to each other. • The impact of the proposed program would be long lasting. • The single focus was viewed as a strength. • • Strengthening Community: • Members will enhance their own self worth and respect for individuals with disabilities. • The proposed program builds upon an existing structure. • The program increases collaboration between the partnering agencies. Developing Members: All key components of developing members are covered. The member training component was well developed. Screening involves criminal record checks. Members will not displace employees. There is assurance that members will not participate in prohibited activities. The member orientation includes history and understanding of agency structure, mission, etc. • • • • • • Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is an existing evaluation system. • The plan calls for regular and frequent meetings to monitor and communicate with members. • Members complete monthly activity logs. Organizational Capacity: The staff has previous experience with other national service programs. In addition, they have developed and managed other volunteer programs. • The organization has established high quality service standards. • The organization has previous experience administering federal grants. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: Where will ArneriCorps members work out of on a daily basis (which office)? Will members come to this "home base" daily? In terms of collaborations/partnerships what does the "support" that the other community• based organizations, government offices, etc. look like. This is still unclear. The proposal should detail how these other organizations will promote this program, educate others about the need for these services, create systems within their own organizations to support the goals of the program. In terms of specific service activities to be performed by the members, it would be helpful • to describe a typical day that details the activities. Need to clarify how the program will involve members in recruiting volunteers . • As was written on the previous Strengths/Weakness Sheet.. ...The volunteer recruitment piece was vague. This component is most critical to the overall sustainability of the program, yet it could be potentially lost with the members' other duties. Ensure members will spend ample time recruiting volunteers. • Strengthening Community: • The first objective is very unclear. This will need to be rewritten. In doing so, please make sure that the activity works to strengthen the community. As it is currently written, it appears to be a Getting Things Done objective. • Please quantify the number of community volunteers that you will involve as activities companions. • On the top of page 9 you listed a very comprehensive list of partners. Please provide a clarifying statement on the "support" that they will give to the ArneriCorps program. Developing Members: • The paper did not discuss how the program will ensure that participants think of themselves as ArneriCorps members. • Please note that the member orientation should include information on MCSC, CNS, and Michigan's ArneriCorps. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Please note how effective has the evaluation plan been in the past. Organizational Capacity: • Please note that the information contained on page 16 in the first full paragraph should also be included in the Getting Things Done section. This information will provide clarity on the program' s design. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The program needs to further develop the volunteer component. As mentioned before, this directly relates to the program's plan for sustainability. • There is no plan for sustainability. • In this section of the narrative, please clarify if the program already has access to InterNet. If not, this will need to be budgeted for in the budget form and narrative. • The overall FTE rate is 11,865 which is higher than the CNS and MCSC targeted rate. • The budget narrative is done incorrectly. The narrative should follow the same format as the Budget Form. Therefore, you should start with A. Member Support Costs and detail the costs involved, who is responsible for the costs (CNS or grantee), etc. Each line item must be covered/described in the budget narrative. • �• • Please note that in D. Operational under the Travel line item that there must be $2,000 budgeted to attend CNS meetings as well as $2,000 budgeted to attend MCSC meetings. These costs need to be fully detailed in the budget narrative. Please clarify advertising cost of $1,000 (as noted in the budget narrative). Overall Comments • Please note that the correct spelling is "AmeriCorps." The letter "s" was left off in the proposal. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Van Buren Public Health Department NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 10 FT PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Health Forward Mentoring Project will enroll seven AmeriCorps members to mentor Bangor High School students and will work to develop a pool of high school mentors for middle school students. The mentors will employ strategies to build the developmental assets and characteristics of resiliency. The remaining three AmeriCorps members will volunteer with the Foster Grandparents Program, the Child and Family Program at MSU Extension, and the Family Support Program of Community Mental Health. These three members will work with at-risk and/or developmentally disabled youth and their families to develop plans for personal, family, and school goals. The program will also develop a network of community volunteers and emphasize the value of community service. STRENGTHS The Van Buren Public Health Department has previous experience in administering federal grants and will partner with a variety of community-based organizations, government agencies, and businesses and schools. Also, accountability for the programmatic and financial administration of the program within the applicant organization was clearly identified. AmeriCorps members serving in this program will be placed with organizations that are members of the Strong Families/Safe Children Coordinating Council and will support existing efforts for that initiative. The program seems to understand the importance of having citizens connected and involved, as they aim to use community volunteers as mentors for youth. WEAKNESSES In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support family community services are currently being provided through Health Forward. MCSC staff has requested that the program clarify this and ensure that the program does not/will not duplicate services that are available in the locality of the program. MCSC staff has also requested that the applicant provide information as to the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department and the relationship of the proposed program within that structure. This should also include the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. Also, the plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. The program should discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will use volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. ta t E r 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $113 ,091 f 9 w-~ct..J o... i (: ol.;v~ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS ~ r ~)---~eel-./' Q~.;> MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issue outlined to them in the staff review feedback. rc The FTE for this program is $10,077. This is below the MCSC and CNS FTE targeted average cost. ~V{., ~ )~ ,-f:j +i' e--\'L, L 1'--«--~ ? �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Van Buren Public Health Department NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 10 FT _ _ PT _ _ 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Health Forward Mentoring Project will enroll seven AmeriCorps members to mentor Bangor High School students and will work to develop a pool of high school mentors for middle school students. The mentors will employ strategies to build the developmental assets and characteristics of resiliency. The remaining three AmeriCorps members will volunteer with the Foster Grandparents Program, the Child and Family Program at MSU Extension, and the Family Support Program of Community Mental Health. These three members will work with at-risk and/or developmentally disabled youth and their families to develop plans for personal, family, and school goals. The program will also develop a network of community volunteers and emphasize the value of community service. STRENGTHS The Van Buren Public Health Department has previous experience in administering federal grants and will partner with a variety of community-based organizations, government agencies, and businesses and schools. Also, accountability for the programmatic and financial administration of the program within the applicant organization was clearly identified. AmeriCorps members serving in this program will be placed with organizations that are members of the Strong Families/Safe Children Coordinating Council and will support existing efforts for that initiative. The program seems to understand the importance of having citizens connected and involved, as they aim to use community volunteers as mentors for youth. WEAKNESSES In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support family community services are currently being provided through Health Forward. MCSC staff has requested that the program clarify this and ensure that the program does not/will not duplicate services that are available in the locality of the program. MCSC staff has also requested that the applicant provide information as to the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department and the relationship of the proposed program within that structure. This should also include the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. Also, the plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. The program should discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will use volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $113,091 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package for submission to CNS, provided they fully address the issue outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The FTEfor this program is $11 ,309. This is within the MCSC and CNS FTE average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 8 Name of Applicant: Van Buren Public Health Department Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: Needs assessment supported with statistical information/data. Clearly stated program objectives and how those objectives would be accomplished. Good communication between sites, members, and partners. Applicant has a good relationship with community partners. Good host site preparation. Program is utilizing the Search Institute's Youth Asset Model. • • • • • • Strengthening Community: • Applicant understands how important it is to have citizens connected and involved as shown through the use of community members as mentors. • Program is linked to existing efforts, i.e., Strong Families/Safe Children. • Provided a description of program director responsibilities. • Identified who will be accountable for programmatic and financial administration of the program. Developing Members: • Good host site preparation-- prior to arrival of members. • Identified member training elements. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • Evaluation plan and feedback plan involves partner agencies that have prior experience. • Host sites will receive instructions and materials necessary to monitor member activities. • Members have an opportunity to evaluate and provide feedback on their training, placement, and support received from host sites. Organizational Capacity: • Applicant organization has prior experience in administering federal grants. • Program director has good credentials. • Identified primary program staff experience and education. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: $10,077 FfE cost is below MCSC and CNS PTE average cost. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The objectives do not seem consistent with the proposed outcomes. (Teen drop out rate, teen pregnancy, school success). • Need to quantify how many teens will be engaged at each site . • Please provide examples of member activities that will teach skill development and decision-making skills. • Strengthening Community: • It is unclear how the proposed program will strengthen the community. • In reviewing the proposal, it seems as if the collaboration to support pro-family community services are being provided through Health Forward. • The paper does not describe how community resources will be used to address the identified need. Developing Members: • The proposal does not mention how the host sites will be prepared for the placement of AmeriCorps members. • The proposal stated that the members will come together regularly. Please clarify. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The stakeholders will be updated as to the program's progress toward objectives, but do not seem to be part of the feedback beyond determining satisfaction. Please list the stakeholders and how they may participate in the overall evaluation process. Organizational Capacity: • Please describe the size and structure of the Van Buren Health Department. What is the annual budget? • Please describe the health department's previous experience, if any, in administering programs of comparable size and scope to the proposed program. • What amount of time will host sites provide in the supervision of the AmeriCorps members? Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The plan for sustainability needs to be strengthened. Discuss the role that partner agencies and potential funding sources will take in sustaining the program or aspects of the program. Also, discuss how the program will utilize volunteers and members to build an infrastructure to sustain the mentoring project beyond AmeriCorps. • Overall Comments: • The Strengthening Community objectives are weak and will need revisions. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Youth Volunteer Corps: Volunteer Muskegon! NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 8 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Volunteer Muskegon! aims to promote, support, and recognize volunteerism among people with diverse talents and link them to efforts that enrich the county's residents. The program will create and increase volunteer opportunities to address community needs, enrich youth, and develop lifetime commitments to service. STRENGTHS The strengths of the Volunteer Muskegon! program lie in its collaborative partnerships and administrative capacity. While being linked to other Michigan Community Service Commission and Corporation for National Service programs, the program also exhibits a unique partnership between the communities of Alpena and Muskegon. This partnership involves a large number of nonprofit organizations and draws upon an existing administrative structure to serve identified community needs. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned about the lack of clarity as it relates to the program's focus and overall design. Volunteer Muskegon! needs to have over-arching goals that span across all sites and communities. The primary impact of the program should be positive youth development. The secondary impact should be on the service delivered. Outcomes· should relate to the identified community needs. Evaluation is also a concern. Volunteer Muskegon! needs to strengthen its evaluation plan and specify how it will incorporate stakeholder feedback. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $95,835 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $11,979 FfE rate is slightly above the MCSC and CNS targeted FfE rates. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 4 Name of Applicant: Volunteer Muskegon! Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: • The proposal had a well developed rationale that was supported by the identified community needs. • The proposed program draws upon an existing administrative structure. • The program is a unique partnership between Alpena and Muskegon. Strengthening Community: • The organization is linked to other MCSC/CNS programs. • The partners were identified. • Past accomplishments were included in the proposal. Developing Members: • The members will keep journals of lessons learned. • The members will develop leadership skills. • The program will host weekly member meetings. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • The use of pre- and post- tests is a strength. • The program identified specific outcomes for the community and corpsmembers. • The program will use a self development tool. Organizational Capacity: • Previous AmeriCorps members will be supervising the members. • There is a large number of nonprofits involved in the program. • The organization's past accomplishments and grants received were viewed as strengths. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: The FfE rate is lower than the CNS and MCSC target. There is a good balance between the match and the federal funds requested. • • Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The program needs to have overarching goals that span across all sites and communities. The primary impact of the program should be positive youth development. The secondary impact should be on the service delivered (ie. meals served, trails built, elders visited, etc.) • Describe how the program will ensure that program quality is consistent across both communities. • Describe the difference between the school year component and the summer component. Describe the role of the members in each component. • There was no evidence of what the past program has accomplished. • �• • • • • • • The proposal needs to clearly identify the host sites in both communities for the school year and summer component. Describe how members will be involved in recruiting non-stipended volunteers . The paper did not provide a clearly developed rationale for the program. The paper listed several community needs and statistics, but it is not clear as to how the proposed activities will address the identified needs. Following the needs statement, the proposal should clearly outline the overall program design. This should include the number of members (in Alpena, Muskegon), how the members will be placed, the number of sites the program will operate out of, what the specific member service activities are, the number of youth involved, and the intended impact of those services on the youth. It is unclear as to the local collaborations/ partnerships that will work together on the project. The paper does not describe how and why the community will be improved because of the program. The proposal does state several outcomes, however, it is not clear how these address the identified community needs. Essentially, the proposal did not address the weaknesses/ continuous improvement items as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback for this section. Also, it is important that the proposal address the questions/ feedback in the appropriate section of the narrative. Strengthening Community: • • • • • • Describe the organizational design of the program. Ultimately, who is accountable for what? How will the program draw upon service-learning resources from around the state? How will the proposed program link to Michigan CARES and Learn and Serve? The paper does not identify the assets and resources within the community and how those resources will be utilized to address the identified needs. It is not clear how support for the program will be built among the various community sectors. It is unclear what role partner organizations will play in the administration of the program Developing Members: • • It is clear that the AmeriCorps members will meeting on a weekly basis with the program director, but how often will the entire corps come together? Although the proposal describes the key elements of member training, the paper should discuss any on-going training that will take place throughout the year. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • • • The proposal listed very specific evaluation activities however they need to be included in · an overall evaluation plan. The proposal did not mention how it will incorporate stakeholder feedback to continually improve the program. The proposal did not address the above points as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. Organizational Capacity: • • • • Describe the accomplishments of your current AmeriCorps program. Describe the lessons learned from the current program and how the proposed program incorporates them. Please clarify the Intermediate School District office and its relationship to the program. Page 14 does not relate to organizational capacity. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • Remove $1.00 per hour supplement from the budget. $11,979 FTE is above MCSC and CNS target FTE rate. �Overall Comments: • • • The paper contained several misspelled words and grammatical errors. AmeriCorps should be spelled correctly! The title page should be typed. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April2, 1997 PROPOSAL: Grand Rapids Service Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Grand Rapids Service Corps (GRSC) brings together young adults, ages 17-24, from diverse backgrounds for a challenging year of full-time community service. The GRSC, in cooperation with community and neighborhood organizations, will develop and implement service projects in order to build a stronger community and tap into the idealism and energy of corpsmembers to develop leadership skills, meet community needs, and generate a strong sense of civic responsibility. The GRSC is committed to having an impact on children in neighborhoods with disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates. The teams will organize and facilitate homework and recreation clubs for school children, an Adopt-A-Senior project for 30 elderly neighborhood residents who wish to continue living in their own homes, a violence-prevention program at Buchanan Elementary School, which has been plagued by playground and neighborhood conflicts, and neighborhood clean-up and restoration programs. STRENGTHS GRSC has attained a strong commitment of involvement from schools and the community which includes an extensive and varied list of partner agencies and organizations and support from the Mayor of Grand Rapids. --- n !l, 1 Regular training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review days (Fridays) provide an overall benefit to the member development portion of the program. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned that the program has not clearly defined its focus nor the specific service activities which the members will participate in order to meet the program's objectives. GRSC needs to strengthen its rationale, projected outcomes, projected impact on the community, and evaluation system. Cj t '- ~ S:l ~ ~ ~ GRSC also needs to provide specifics regarding host sites, selection of neighborhoods, recruitment of additional volunteers, and training for members as it relates to the various focus areas. ~ fl'\ E v ( ~ d.. /l. -~ d , (1 ' \ Q 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $371,352 1 ' 1 - t:-~ -...) ~ Xp~e-t.~ (.,. -· ~ 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS [ rl ,( ~ Staff recommends that this proposal, funded at $232,095, be included in the formula package submitted ) ~ to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them ~ in the staff review feedback. \i The $9,256 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE targeted average cost. &.-Jet ~.,,bl~ bJ Ti 1-1~ C - ,;, veJ~J �bJ- ~ if'/\ fr~ bovh'o- j_f-rd-~c__ ~ I (! Ufl\JL ~ &x o p +~.,_) J �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) PROPOSAL: Grand Rapids Service Corps NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _O_PT 0 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Grand Rapids Service Corps (GRSC) brings together young adults, ages 17-24, from diverse backgrounds for a challenging year of full-time community service. The GRSC, ·in cooperation with community and neighborhood organizations, will develop and implement service projects in order to build a stronger community and tap into the idealism and energy of corpsmembers to develop leadership skills, meet community needs, and generate a strong sense of civic responsibility. The GRSC is committed to having an impact on children in neighborhoods ·with disproportionate poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates. The teams will organize and facilitate homework and recreation clubs for school children, an Adopt-A-Senior project for 30 elderly neighborhood residents who wish to continue living in their own homes, a violence-prevention program at Buchanan Elementary School, which has been plagued by playground and neighborhood conflicts, and neighborhood clean-up and restoration programs. "-- STRENGTHS GRSC has attained a strong commitment of involvement from schools and the community which includes an extensive and varied list of partner agencies and organizations and support from the Mayor of Grand Rapids. · Regular training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review days (Fridays) provide an overall benefit to the member development portion of the program. WEAKNESSES MCSC staff are concerned that the program has not clearly defined its focus nor the specific service activities which the members will participate in order to meet the program's objectives. GRSC needs to strengthen its rationale, projected outcomes, projected impact on the community, and evaluation system. GRSC also needs to provide specifics regarding host sites, selection of neighborhoods, recruitment of additional volunteers, and training for members as it relates to the various focus areas. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $371,352 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that this proposal, funded at $232,095, be included in the formula package submitted to the Corporation for National Service, provided the program fully addresses the issues outlined to them in the staff review feedback. The $9,284 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE targeted average cost. �Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan's AmeriCorps Staff Review Feedback (3/31/97) Proposal # 25 Name of Applicant: Grand Rapids Service Corps Stren~:ths: Getting Things Done: There is strong involvement from schools and the community. The program uses asset mapping. Combining with the YVC program is a potentially good connection. The list of partners appears extensive and well-rounded, however it would benefit to write what each partner brings to the program. • A team leader on each team provides leadership and direction to each team. • • • • Strengthening Community: • The paper references that they have written partner agreements. • The program has support from the City' s mayor. • There are good plans for member evaluation, especially after the program. However this information should go in the Member Development section. • Good idea for bringing community members together through clean-ups and restoration projects. It would be beneficial to elaborate on the program's philosophy of including community members in the program. Developing Members: • The use of Friday as a training, teambuilding, evaluation, and review day is good for the members and the program. • The program has an Advisory Committee. • The program has a commitment to diversity. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • There is a good use of member self-evaluations. Organizational Capacity: There is community support for the program. • Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: There is community support for the program. In the past there has been a large amount of cash match provided by community organizations. • $9,256 per FTE is lower than the CNS or MCSC FTE average. • �Weaknesses/Continuous Improvement Items: Getting Things Done: The paper does not support an asset-based approach. The paper does not describe outcomes and impact. It only reports on activities. It is not clear how the need in the community has been defined or how it will be met. It only describes activities. • Overall, the paper needs to develop a clear rationale for the program. • The paper needs to support the rationale with statistics on the community. • There is no mention/information on the host sites and their roles and responsibilities. • The paper does not describe the plan they have for recruiting additional volunteers. • The proposal identified the neighborhoods that the program will operate out of, however, it is not clear how those neighborhoods were selected. Indicate whether they are new or continuing neighborhood sites. If the "sites" are continuing, the proposal should discuss the progress the program has made within those communities. • An increased minority population does not imply a deficiency or need within a community (see pg. 2). What is the relevance of the statement? • Please clarify the priority area the proposed program will focus in. The title page states education, public safety, and human needs; yet, the narrative only discusses education. • Define the age range of the service recipients of the program. • Overall, the paper speaks of past service done. Need to detail what they plan to do (be specific) with this new grant. • Overall, this paper did not respond to the questions posed in this section nor did the paper address the weaknesses as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. • • • Strengthening Community: • It is not clear what the program is doing for the community. Clearly state how the program will strengthen the community. • It is not clear how the neighborhoods will be strengthened. • There is no description of the role of the partner organizations. • There is no mention of how the program is linked to other MCSC/CNS programs, especially Michigan CARES. • The paper should elaborate on how support for Michigan's AmeriCorps is built among partners listed in Section 1. • The Strengthening Community objectives are weak. • The proposal did not address the questions/ weaknesses as outlined in the Concept Paper feedback. Developing Members: • The proposal does not detail pre-service orientation and training that members will receive; especially as that training relates to the teams' focus area, ie, Adopt-A-Senior, Violence prevention, etc. The pap~r does not discuss the host sites' roles, especially as they pertain to member • supervisiOn. • In the budget there is money budgeted for team leader training, however, this section does not mention what the training is or how it will prepare those members for their specific roles as team leaders. Monitoring, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement: • With the reports from past activities there is no report on the impacts to-date. • The evaluation approach does not appear to be well conceived. The program has no measure for their impact. • The program needs to clarify what impacts the program intends to make. For a program with three different focuses these intended impacts need to be clear. What are the goals for �• the Adopt-A-Senior component, Neighborhood Clean-up, Violence Prevention, etc.? The Violence Prevention, Neighborhood Clean-up, and Adopt-A-Senior aspects of the program should have been addressed in the Getting Things Done section. Organizational Capacity: • • The paper needs to provide additional information on the staff. It is unclear what the executive director's role is, how much time he/she spends on program. Describe the responsibilities for the executive director. The paper needs to detail the role of the team leader, especially their commitment to the program and their anticipated program/leader abilities as it relates to the organization's capacity. Cost Effectiveness and Sustainability: • • • • • • The proposal did not discuss the program's plans for sustainability (programmatic). In the budget, the ArneriCorps members living allowance is reflective of $8,272 rather than $8,340. Provide rationale/ justification for team leaders being provided a considerably larger living allowance than the rest of the corps. In the budget under the Operational category in the Travel line item, MCSC travel cost should be $2,000. Please specify in the budget narrative what supplies includes. Health care costs should be included for each full-time member. Overall Comments: • MCSC is not recommending that this program expand to the Holland area. It is unclear that the program has the capacity to expand. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 2, 1997 PROPOSAL: United Way Community Services NUMBER OF 1996-97 AMERICORPS MEMBERS: 25 FT _ _ PT _ _ 2 Yr. PT DESCRIPTION In Year Three, the Detroit Academic Success Program will continue to provide in school tutoring to 250 low achieving elementary school students in five elementary schools in the Empowerment Zone to increase academic achievement and reading comprehension. The members will also develop after-school tutoring labs for 200 neighborhood youth. In addition, the program will develop community-wide service-learning projects to promote civic responsibility. STRENGTHS To date, the Detroit's Academic Success Program: Michigan's AmeriCorps has increased the reading and math skills in five schools by five percent; raised student attendance rates at the five schools; and provided direct and group tutoring services to more than 1,000 students in four communities in Detroit's Empowerment Zone. The program has developed and participated in more than 15 community-wide service events, developed four advisory boards, and developed a video on best practices for tutoring. Additionally, the program supports the America Reads Initiative. The program provides tutoring activities and after school learning projects to assist students in successfully completing homework tasks. WEAKNESS The primary concern for the program is insufficient reporting. Several progress reports submitted by the program do not contain adequate information as to the program's progress toward objectives, the delivery of service, and the impact of those services within the program. This issue was raised to the program in a feedback document following a recent site visit. In reviewing the renewal application, however, there appears to have been some improvement in this area. FUNDING REQUEST: $318,521 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff is satisfied with the overall quality and accomplishments of the program and recommends that the proposal be included in the competitive package for submission to CNS . The program will need to demonstrate continued improvement in reporting on progress toward objectives. The FTE rate for this program is $12,740. This is higher than the MCSC and CNS average FTE. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April 2, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Family Independence Agency NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 25 FT _ _,_,0"---1 PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION The Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps will enroll 30 AmeriCorps members to serve in four FIA county offices of Berrien, Wayne, Mackinac, and Kalamazoo. The corpsmembers will continue to work to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. The members facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, pro~ide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves face-to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks . STRENGTHS Please see the attached memo. WEAKNESSES Please see the attached memo. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $287,189 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CNS has requested that this recently awarded Year 2 Subtitle H Governor's Innovative grant be submitted under national competitive. This will not count against MCSC's competitive application total. The FTE for this program is $9,573 which is well below the MCSC and CNS average FTE cost. �OPTIONAl. FORM 99 (7 -90) Frank Dirks, Executive Director Michigan Community Service Commission 111 So. Capitol Ave. Olds Plaza Bldg., 4 11; Floor Lansing, MI 48913 GeNERAL SERVICES Dear Frank: I am pleased to inform you that the Michigan Subtitle H Governor's Innovative Program has been approved for a renewal grant of up to $287,189 for 30 AmeriCorps Members pending grant negotiations. This letter describes any recommendations or suggestions we have for program devdupment and any information we need before we can issue the grant award. In general, the program appears to be progressing well and is addressing start-up problems the staff encountered. We s1J..are the concern expressed by the program staff in the application about the irill.bility to documeni impact because of the lack of hase1ine data on health screenings. It will be important in the second year to find ways to collect this data. In the application, the program staff mention that the Departnlent of CommUPJty Health is working to develop better data collection instruments and a central registry. Can they provide some additional information about that effort? What systems v.ill be used? Will the systems be in place before the new program year in the affected counties? Will the program be able to determine the percentage increase in health screenings and immunizations as a result of AmeriCorps in the coming year? We would also like some additional information concerning how the program staff plans to implement the recommendations from the report on Member retention that the application mentioned would be completed in February. As you know, Member attrition is a concern and we are interested in learning more about how to retain Members. One of the criteria we \\<ill use for determining program quality in the coming year \Vill be a low rate of attrition. We encourage the program to continue the emphasis on supervision and Member development and implement the recommendations mentioned in the application to increase the supervisory responsibilities of the Volunteer Coordinator for the Members. It is very important that Members who have not had regular work or service experiences in the past be given opportunities to learn the skills and habits they need to be successful as AmeriCorps Members. The staff may need to provide some additional training for the Volunteer Coordinators if they are to take on this expanded role. We are somewhat concerned about the pl&'l to enroll the Members a.s needed instead of through regularly scheduled orientations. However, we du want to provide flexibility for different program models and want to learn mon: about the advantages and disadvuntages .\OMI~liSTRATION �of this approach . . \Vill it be possible to evaluate this in the coming year to help us learn more about the pros and cons? The objectives for the program are designed to be measurable, but it is difficult to understand impact with just the raw figures listed. The collection of the baseline data will be a critical element in demonstrating percentage increases and impact. For example, Objective #4 states that 70% of all low income mothers and children \vill receive \VIC and MISS services. What percentage currently receives these services and what is the increase? Could the program staff review the objectives and identify any in which the raw numbers given can be placed in context nO\\' in terms of impact and percentage increases? Finally, since this program will be renewed through the Subtitle C state competitive process, you will need to prepare new title and budget forms using the Subtitle C formats and resubmit the renewal request with your Apri115 compt:liliv~ submission to the Corporation. The budget does not r~quin: revision, but you may want to review it to determine lhal il meets the Subtitle C guidelines. The program staff can include the addilional information we have requested here with the April 15 submission. During the corning year, we are planning a "formative" evaluation process \-Vith some of the Governor's Innovative programs. We are interested in working with you to document the successes of this Micf.igan welfare reform effort and i:1cluding it in our evaluation project. Linda Camino and David Rymph will be in contact with you soon to discuss this further. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Vle are pleased to be supporting the program again and look forward to wmking \-Vith you in the coming year. Sincerely, Margaret Rosenberry, Director Planning and Program Development �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Comprehensive Proposal Review Form DATE: April9, 1997 (revised) GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Family Independence Agency NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: 30 FT _ _ PT 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION The Citizen's Health Service Corps: Michigan's AmeriCorps will enroll 30 AmeriCorps members to serve in four FIA county offices of Berrien, Wayne, Mackinac, and Kalamazoo. The corpsmembers will continue to work to support Michigan's Welfare Reform efforts by serving to improve children and family health. The members facilitate client participation in early and periodic health screenings, coordinate child immunization outreach, provide outreach on the WIC program, and inform clients about Managed Care options. The corpsmembers service involves face-to-face contacts, follow-up visits, transportation to medical appointments, and additional tasks . STRENGTHS Please see the attached memo. WEAKNESSES Please see the attached memo. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $287,189 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS CNS has requested that this recently awarded Year 2 Subtitle H Governor's Innovative grant be submitted under national competitive. This will not count against MCSC's competitive application total. The FTE for this program is $9,573 which is well below the MCSC and CNS average PTE cost. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: April 10, 1997 GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps PROPOSAL: Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: ------"'1~0_FT _ _ PT 2YR. PT DESCRIPTION Karbalaa Education and Cultural Center "Volunteers Promoting Opportunity and Responsibility" serves to mobilize the strengths and skills of its constituency. Simultaneously, it demonstrates and models the principle that citizenship obligates us to assist others so as to strengthen the ethical foundation of our democratic society. An AmeriCorps team of 10 members will focus on three issues surrounding current refugees who have been evicted from Iraq. The members will provide services that will assist the refugees with securing housing, health care, resource identification, and language translation. The members will work to improve public safety within the community. The members will also assist individuals who are seeking employment, especially as it relates to identifying barriers to employment. Additionally, the members will establish a volunteer recruitment program within the community. STRENGTHS • • • • • • • • The needs of refugees are genuine and important. There are few groups or individuals who are more at risk than newly arrived-to-the-country refugees. The program reinforces the value of service in this community and culture. The program will work to recruit and train volunteers to help address the need. This lends itself to the overall sustainability of the program. The program uses the assets of the service recipient to reduce the charity case effect. There is a plan in placy to ease and assist cultural transition. There is a strong process for obtaining stakeholder feedback. There is a good commitment to increasing the number of volunteers for the program. The staff seems very dedicated and has the capacity to organize large events, however it sounds like the organization is already stretched to oversee the existing program. The applicant will need to describe how the organization will effectively manage the program, not to mention the additional responsibilities of the AmeriCorps program. WEAKNESSES • • • • • The paper does not succinctly describe the measurable impact of the program. In particular, there is no indication of the number of individuals/clients the program will impact as a result of the members' service. For example, how many individuals will obtain housing, obtain employment, etc. Additionally, with the broad range of proposed services, it may not be realistic for the ten members to make a significant impact in each of these areas. The paper does not address collaborations and/or partnerships that will work together on the project. The paper does not address what impact the program will have on the variety of social service agencies that are currently a part of the refugees' daily life. The paper does not address how the proposed program will enhance or complement the existing services provided by the social service agencies or how the proposed program will increase the capacity of the agencies to serve the refugees. The roles of four of the AmeriCorps members were not clearly described. It is not clear what their specific tasks or duties will be and how they relate to the overall goals of the program. The paper needs to provide details on collaborations and partnerships that will work with this program. The paper needs to provide details as to the roles and responsibilities of partners. There is no evidence of coordination with other community-based organizations and government agencies. This needs to be discussed, especially as it relates to referrals, resources that they provide, and how they support the members' activities. �• • • • • • The paper did not provide a comprehensive explanation of how the members' training will prepare them for their term of service, specifically, how it relates to the programs' objectives (i.e. housing, employment, public safety.) The comprehensive proposal did not adequately detail the anticipated outcomes of the members' service activities. The program mentions recruiting 264 volunteers, however, the staffs capacity to oversee and manage the volunteers is not discussed in the proposal. Although the applicant mentions that they currently receive a federal grant for a senior program, they do not mention how the grant is administered, the program's focus nor how this program is comparable to the proposed AmeriCorps program. There is no plan for sustainability of the program. There is no money in the staff category to support staff activity. There is very little money included in the staff category to support the program. As stated at the technical assistance meeting in February, a program of this size, with this many members will require a full-time program director. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $109,920 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff does not recommend that this proposal be included in any funding package to the Corporation for National Service. �MICHIGAN COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION Proposal Review Form DATE: GRANT CATEGORY: Michigan's AmeriCorps April 10, 1997 PROPOSAL: Wayne State University NUMBER OF 1997-98 AMERICORPS STATE MEMBERS: ---=2=-0- FT ---"'6=0_ PT _ _ 2YR.PT DESCRIPTION STRENGTHS • The program will increase the number of teen parents who obtain their GED. The program also plans to reduce the number of new teenage pregnancies. • Good advisory board which includes teen parents. • The training that is being scheduled appears to be strong. • The applicant has good organizational capacity. WEAKNESSES • The rationale for the program is weak. It is unclear how the local need had been identified. • The impact of the program is limited. AmeriCorps members will only assist teen parents who are already engaged in pursuing a high school diploma or GED. The applicant should consider taking preventive actions to incorporate teens that may not be actively pursuing a high school diploma or GED. The paper does not provide a rationale for members working with only two teen parents. It • is not clear what other service activities the members will perform. The impact on the larger community is minor especially as it relates to the number of teen parents impacted on by the program. The paper does not clearly describe the members' daily tasks/activities . • The paper does not discuss how the proposed program will increase the success rate of teen • parents obtaining a high school diploma or GED. • The paper did not describe how the AmeriCorps members will generate additional volunteers within the community. • The community strengthening objectives appear to be unrealistic. The applicant makes the assumption that once teens obtain a high school diploma or GED, they will become gainfully employed. A very important component of the program could be the inclusion of a support system for the teen parents that would include career and personal development opportunities. The paper does not discuss how the proposed program will enhance or complement • existing services and organizations that serve the same population. • The paper does not discuss the role of partner agencies in the administration of the program or the resources that each partner will provide to support the program. The program is proposing a large number of AmeriCorps members (four times the original • amount requested.) The paper does not describe the daily management and coordination of services for such a large number of members. Nor does it describe the administrative structure of the overall program. • In general the evaluation plan was unclear and does not reflect the stated program objectives. • It is not clear what role the Dean will take in the administration and oversight of the program. �• • • • • The paper does not address the roles of the six student helpers as mentioned in the budget. There was no mention of these staff members in the program narrative. The paper did not clearly describe the roles of the program director, program assistant, or secretary. There is no plan for sustainability for the program. There is limited in-kind and cash match support . Overall, several required objectives were missing and the application was incomplete. 1997-98 FUNDING REQUEST: $225,820 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS MCSC staff does not recommend that this proposal be included in any funding package for submission to the Corporation for National Service. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Proposal-Review-Forms Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting proposal review forms Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting proposal review forms. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49878 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/afb9a1bb7742b60e24bad9aecaa5b833.pdf 7acaec798690bc10e52758c3b796f105 PDF Text Text Michigan Community Service Commission April 10, 1997 Lansing, Michigan 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Engler, Chair Karen Aldridge VictorBegg Mary Ellen Brandell Julie Cummings Judy Dunn Dorothy Johnson Randy Neelis Joel Orosz Terry Pruitt Michael Tate Matthew Wesaw Ray West Geneva Williams Frank Dirks, Ex Officio MEMBERS ABSENT: Arthur Ellis NancyLenz Denise llitch Lites Kathleen Keen McCarthy Sister Mary Martinez Jim Muir Eunice Myles Don Newport Amber Pritchard Meg Smith Scott Smith OTHERS: Jennifer Dick, Michigan Community Service Commission Mary Estrada, Michigan Community Service Commission Lindy Reurink, Michigan Community Service Commission Daphne Wells, Michigan Community Service Commission �I. Welcome and Introduction - Chairperson Michelle Engler The meeting was called to order at 11:25 p.m. by Chairperson Engler. Chairperson Engler welcomed everyone and thanked everyone for attending. II. Action Items a. State Service Commission Meeting Reception - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an overview of the State Service Commission meeting and proposed to the commissioners that the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) sponsor a reception on Friday, May 16, 1997. The Commissioners all agreed that it would be an excellent idea to sponsor a reception and also asked if they could attend the two-day meeting. Mr. Dirks invited commissioners to attend whatever portion of the meeting they could fit into their schedule. b. Volunteer Investment Grants - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that Commissioner Pruitt and Commissioner Tate are taking the lead on building support for MCSC' s work, but reminded everyone that they cannot do it alone. Mr. Dirks asked everyone to be prepared to step forward if we are to succeed in advancing this mission. c. Commission Information Gathering Meeting Materials - Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that in the commission packet were copies of the written testimonies that were giving at the March 25, 1997, meeting. Mr. Dirks informed the Commission of the commissioners who were at the meeting and suggested that we schedule time at the June meeting to discuss it in detail. d. Michigan's AmeriCorps Retention- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks gave an update on the continued efforts by MCSC to understand the problems of Michigan's Ameri Corps member attrition and its impact on the programs. Mr. Dirks explained the enclosed analysis of the actual cost of the Year 1 program with attrition rates factored in. Mr. Dirks explained that the actual average FTE rates are higher than budgeted, but they are not above the Corporation's Year 1 average. Mr. Dirks asked that if anyone needs more information or has concerns that we could discuss it in more detail at the June meeting. e. Michigan's AmeriCorps New Program Application Package- Frank Dirks Mr. Dirks explained that the package being presented for approval included 18 new Michigan's AmeriCorps programs, one competitive renewal program, and one innovative grant reassigned to competitive. Mr. Dirks explained the enclosed items: (!)individual program recommendation sheets; (2) a chart presenting the current and proposed Michigan's Americorps program portfolio; (3) a breakdown of the proposal package by program applicant, funding request, and FTE rate; and (4) the application process time-line. Mr. Dirks gave a detailed description of the whole Michigan's AmeriCorps review process and explained that during the process Project Star will help with technical assistance supportto programs on writing their objectives. Garry Gross assisted them on creating their budgets, and gave them some insight as to what the Corporation for National Service would expect regarding the budget. 2 �Chairperson Engler went through all the proposals one by one to give commissioners a chance to ask questions regarding funding, the application process, the review process, and whether each proposal had corrected their weaknesses. Mr. Dirks and Daphne Wells answered all questions to the commissioners' satisfaction. Commissioner Pruitt suggested that we vote individually on each proposal. All commissioners agreed because some commissioners had a conflict of interest and would not be voting on those proposals. Chairperson Engler started the approval process with the understanding that each approved proposal would meet the recommendations of the MCSC staff and would have corrected the weaknesses in order to qualify for funding. Competitive application for Genesee County AmeriCorps Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Pruitt to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Commissioner Aldridge abstained from voting. Competitive application for Michigan Neighborhood AmeriCorps Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Wesaw to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for CLASS: Coordinating Literacy for America's Students' Success, a motion was made by commissioner Aldridge to approve. All Commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for AmeriCorps Oakland, a motion was made by Chairperson Engler to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Teachers Encouraging Educational Connections in Calhoun County, a motion was made by Chairperson Engler to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Detroit YouthBuild AmeriCorps, a motion was made by Commissioner Pruitt to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Michigan Communities in Schools, a motion was made by Commissioner Tate to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Chairperson Engler abstained from voting. Competitive application for Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Services AmeriCorps Community Service Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Williams to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for AmeriCorps Youth Excellence in Service (YES), a motion was made by Commissioner Brandell to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Nonviolence KOPS, a motion was made by Commissioner Aldridge to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Competitive application for Michigan Groundwater Stewardship Program, a motion was made by Commissioner Orosz to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. 3 �Competitive application for Saginaw AmeriCorps, a motion was made by Commissioner Brandell to approve. All commissioners approved unanimously. Commissioner Pruitt abstained from voting. A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve formula applications for Washtenaw Family Support Network, Cooper Country AmeriCorps, Van Buren Public Health Department, Northern Michigan Community Mental Health, Volunteer Muskegon!, and Grand Rapids Service Corps. Commissioner Neelis seconded the motion and the applications were unanimously approved. Commissioners Tate and Wesaw abstained from voting on the application from Van Buren Public Health Department. Chairperson Engler announced to the Commission that at the request of Corporation for National Service, MCSC is resubmitting the recently approved second year innovative grant for the FIA Citizen' s Health Service Corps as a national competitive program grant. Commissioner Orosz made a motion to approve the grant. All commissioners approved unanimously. Chairperson Engler accepted a motion by Commission Pruitt to approve the United Way Community Service competitive renewal grant application. All commissioners approved unanimously. VII. Public Comment Commissioner Williams announced that in a few days we will be celebrating National Volunteer Week and on Sunday, United Way Community Services will be releasing their Volunteer Coalition Award which is funded by theW. K. Kellogg Foundation. Commissioner Williams also mentioned that the mayor of Detroit would be announcing the delegation from the Detroit area that would be attending the Presidents Summit in Philadelphia. Commissioner Neelis made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Williams seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. The next meeting will be June 6, 1997, in Kalamazoo, hosted by Commissioner Lenz and Commissioner Pritchard. 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_Minutes Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting minutes Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting minutes. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49877 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10 https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e4b28306469d9b9feffa8cdada26eb5c.pdf 2fad95040a2e36f4738d63a3ce724bfd PDF Text Text I I MICHIGAN'S AMERICORPS YEAR 1 FOR CAUSE - ' No Education Award ~ E o ;: ltl u Cl) c: - c. 0 > 0 "C "ii c: 0 Cl) f/1 > 0 ::E 3 c:ircleNet ~ Cl) a. J: :I "i ~ Cl) ... f/1 0 ::t J: Cl :I 0 c: w ... 0 z 1 f/1 Cl) .a "C ..,0 ;;:: ltl Cl) ... f/1 ltl f/1 f/1 ~ ....0 ....... Cl) c: Cl f/1 :r:0 a: 0 ... ...J ...J ......: f/1 0 CIS Cl) J: Cl) "ii Cl) 0 ...J ...J ::t 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 G~rand Rapids Service 7 8 M ~ichigan Neighborhood 3 siaginaw 9 T earns for School Success 6 1 37 11 1 ct 0 LL LL f/1 f/1 E CIS Cl) ;: - 0 11 1 c: ~ 1 1 4 ~ 0 CDLL J: ... 0 ~ .a ..,0 Oz 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 8 2 0 ...0ct ... 3 2 6 1 1 1 8 10 4 19 23 7 34 20 10 2 > ::E ...J 4 1 1 7 2 Cl) 1 1 3 1 0 "C 2 14 4 ::E 0 Ill u ...ct 0 ... 2 71 245 TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS WHO DID NOT COMPLETE THEIR TERM 116 TOTAL "FOR CAUSE" ATTRITION RATE w a. CIS a: 'TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS ENROLLED 'TOTAL OVERALL ATTRITION RATE z ...J ...J > E 6 G~enesee Co. I TOTALS I ~ ltl ::E en ;:::) "C CIS ~ ... Cl) -w a.~ Ill E Cl) ~ Cl 0 ... 0 1 f/1 ~ .: 0 akland Compelling Personal Reasons Prorated Education Awards 47% 28% I I 1 1 45 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Our State of Generosity Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Grand Valley State University. Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Description An account of the resource Collection contains the records of four Michigan nonprofit organizations: Council of Michigan Foundations, Michigan Nonprofit Association, Michigan Community Service Commission, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy at GVSU. The documents are compiled by the Johnson Center for Philanthropy, and records document the history of the organizations from the 1960s to the 2010s. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant 1968-2014 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Council of Michigan Foundations Michigan Nonprofit Association Michigan Community Service Commission Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49401 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Council of Michigan Foundations; Michigan Nonprofit Association; Michigan Community Service Commission Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04 Language A language of the resource eng Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context JCPA-04_MCSC_1997-04-10_MI-AmeriCorps-Prorated-Education-Awards Title A name given to the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps prorated education awards Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Michigan Community Service Commission Description An account of the resource Michigan Community Service Commission 1997-04-10 commission meeting Michigan's AmeriCorps prorated education awards. Records are compiled in the Our State of Generosity collection by the Johnson Center, along with the files of the Michigan Nonprofit Association (MNA), the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC) and the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy. Originals are at the Michigan Community Service Commission. Subject The topic of the resource Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy Charities Philanthropy and Society Fundraising Records Michigan Community Service Commission Michigan Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Language A language of the resource eng Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Grand Valley State University Libraries, Special Collections and University Archives, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, MI, 49876 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a> Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/515">Our State of Generosity collection, JCPA-04</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1997-04-10